DOCSLIB.ORG

Lake Ontario Maps, Facts and Figures

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Lake Ontario maps, facts and figures A project by the FINGER LAKES-LAKE ONTARIO WATERSHED PROTECTION ALLIANCE and NEW YORK SEA GRANT 1. Origins of Lake Ontario Direct Drainage Basin 2. Population by Census Block Groups 3. Detailed Surface Water New York’s Lake Ontario . shown in maps, facts & figures Lake Ontario, the 14th largest lake in the world, is the smallest of the Great 4. Topography Lakes. Bordered to the north by Ontario, Canada, and to the south by New York State, it is the smallest in surface area, fourth among the Great Lakes in maximum depth, but second only to Lake Superior in average depth. The basin land area is largely rural with a significant forested and Lake Ontario at a glance 5. Land Use Types agricultural portion. The Lake is nestled between the mighty Niagara River Lake Ontario is the 14th largest lake in the world. to the west...and the picturesque St. Lawrence River Valley to its east. Length: 193 mi / 311 km Width: 53 mi / 85 km Almost one-third of the land area of New York State drains Published by Finger Lakes-Lake Ontario Watershed Protection Alliance (FLLOWPA) Average depth: 283 ft / 86 m 6. Wastewater Treatment Plants and New York Sea Grant. into Lake Ontario, making the wise use and management of Maximum depth: 802 ft / 244 m All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval natural resources vital to the long-term sustainability of the system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, 3 3 photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher. Lake Ontario region’s ecology, environment and economy. Volume: 393 mi / 1634 km 2 2 FLLOWPA Water surface area: 7,340 mi / 19011 km 7. Public Lands 309 Lake St. Penn Yan, NY 14527 This booklet is designed to provide those who live, work, and play Phone: (315) 536-7488 Shoreline length: 712 mi / 1146 km http://www.fllowpa.org/ along Lake Ontario with an overview of the use and management Elevation: 243 ft / 74 m New York Sea Grant that occurs within the drainage basin. We encourage you to use 62B Mackin Hall SUNY College at Oswego Oswego, NY 13126-3599 Phone: (315) 312-3042 this booklet to add to your understanding of the issues impacting Retention/Replacement time: 6 years E-mail: [email protected] 8. Status of Municipal Land Use Controls http://www.seagrant.sunysb.edu/ the Lake and your management and planning activities. Watershed includes more than 16,000 mi / 25,750 km of streams and 260 lakes. Acknowledgments Writer: Helen Bagley - FLLOWPA Designer: GARCES REID Design The Finger Lakes – Lake Ontario Watershed Protection Alliance in Photography provided by the following agencies or individuals: Great Lakes Seaway Trail partnership with New York Sea Grant developed this booklet and has made 9. Coastal Priority Waterbodies and Areas of Concern George Fischer every effort to insure that the information is accurate. The maps provided Finger Lakes Association Finger Lakes Tourism Alliance were provided by the Lake Ontario Coastal Initiative (LOCI) with permission Jack W. Miller Richard Young, Department of Geological Sciences, SUNY Geneseo for their use. This information is provided for educational purposes only. Brian P. Whattam Greater Rochester Visitors Association 10. Industrial And Municipal Permitted Discharges and New York Sea Grant Drinking Water Intake Locations Oswego County Promotion and Tourism Thousand Islands International Tourism Council David G. White Maps & Photography: LOCI (Lake Ontario Coastal Initiative) January 2006 Recreation/Tourism Specialist/Great Lakes Program Coordinator | NY Sea Grant COVER PHOTO: Dan Distler, Oswego County Tourism. BACK PHOTO: Kara Dunn, Great Lakes Seaway Trail. 11. Bedrock and Unconsolidated Aquifers FINGER LAKES - LAKE ONTARIO WATERSHED PROTECTION ALLIANCE l 2010 report l 3 Hammond 1 a Rossie ri Population (2000) d Butterfield Yellow n Origins of Lake Ontario Direct Drainage Basin a x Lake Lake [! North Coast West leMud Notable Population Centers < 10,000 A Red er Lake iv Lake e R 10,001 - 50,000 North Coast Central nc Moon re a w s Lake a e Antwerp L . er North Coast East St h 2 50,001 - 100,000 T Clayton t Orleans n e 100,001 - 350,000 Town Boundary c in Philadelphia V e p Perch County Boundary a Lyme Europeans first settled the Lake Ontario Basin in the 1600s. These settlers were fur traders, The basin includes significant urban and suburban areas. The majority of the total basin popu- LOCI Project Boundary CANADA C Lake P Le Ray fishermen, and farmers. The population of the Lake Ontario Direct Drainage Basin (LODDB) lation of 751,891 (Census 2000) is located around the larger urban centers of Rochester, a m Fort Drum Wilna e l greatly increased after 1823 when a major portion of the Erie Canal linking Rochester to Watertown, and the city of Oswego. Rochester is the most populated city in the LODDB, Brownville i 3 a Blac Albany was opened. Large bays on the Lake such as Irondequoit Bay and Sodus Bay became despite decreasing by almost 6% since the 2000 Census. Monroe County, containing the City k River prime fishing and recreational centers when easier access became available. At the turn of of Rochester, is the most heavily populated with Onondaga and Niagara Counties in second Champion eld sfi Watertown un the century, industrial development and growing urbanization increased the population of the and third place respectively. The remaining population centers within the basin are smaller Black River Ho wn d rto tlan Bay Wate Ru area, and with it, major ecological changes for the region. villages that largely support farming or suburban bedroom communities. Jefferson Denmark The LODDB spans 11 counties and 80 municipalities across upstate New York. Seven of the (! 4 [ Henderson Harbor L eleven counties have frontage on Lake Ontario. City 2000 Population 2009 Population (Estimated) % change o Henderson Adams Rodman Pinckney w Buffalo* 292,648 270,240 -7.7% Harrisburg v i l l County 2009 Estimated Population change Estimated Land Area e Rochester 219,773 207,294 -5.7% Population 2000-2009 in the LODDB Lewis Syracuse* 147,306 138,560 -5.9% M cayuga* 79,526 -2,435 15% Ellisburg a Lorraine r Worth Montague t Watertown 26,705 27,489 2.9% in s genesee 57,868 -2,502 25% North Sandy b 5 Lockport 22,279 20,563 - 8.8% u jefferson* 118,719 +6,981 54% Pond rg Oswego 17,954 17,177 -4.3% lewis 26,157 -787 10% South Sandy Boylston W Fulton 11,855 10,661 -9.0% Pond Sandy Redfield e Turin monroe* 733,703 -1,640 30% Lake Ontario Creek s t T * Outside of the Lake Ontario Direct Drainage Basin S u niagara* 214,557 -5,287 60% a r l Orwell i 8 m n 8 o n Riv Osceola orleans* 42,051 -2,122 98% er Salmon River Richland 6 Reservoir onondaga 454,753 -3,583 5% 0 5 10 20 30 40 0 5 10 20 30 40 Wi Albion Miles l Scriba l ontario 105,650 +5,426 5% Miles i New a Lewis Haven m Oswego Oswego s oswego* 121,377 -1,002 70% t o O M Mexico w s i n wayne* 91,291 -2,475 50% Little Sodus w n e Parish Florence e t lle Bay i Oswego g t Ava o o Volney Palermo v Somerset Yates Blind Sodus s * Counties that have frontage on Lake Ontario N k R n C Kendall e Bay iv Carlton Port w e 7 e Amboy An l Hamlin East r e Camden f i Maxwell o a Sodus Bay Wilson r n m Bay Fulton ! Fair Haven n Porter e Bay n Bay [ ings Gaines t o e Irondequoit Oneida Hartland S s Ridgeway M e Albion Murray c a t Sterling ! Parma Bay h t Constantia Lee Niagara H s h [ Clarkson Greece Hannibal ro e g nal e i Ca ! Albion r Wolcott Erie [ e p Lewiston Granby W E Medina it p v am son Cambria Monroe i o Willi e Vienna u Webster Huron l R Ontario Rome NYPA eq Sodus Lockport OrleansClarendon Sweden e d Ira town Reservoir Tuscarora Shelby e n Victory Lysander s o Oneida Reservation Barre Ogden Ir Butler L e o O Er 8 c ak O n Lake ie Canal rc e Rochester Rose d on k Royalton hard Creek Clay l t p Gates G Niagara Falls fie le o Penfield Marion t rt Oakfield on Walworth Cicero ea end ht P Alabama Bergen ig Cross Verona Wh al Elba Br Lenox n Wayne S Lake Van Buren Tonawanda d Cato Ca Byron r Palmyra Lyons a N v ie Riga Chili a o Macedon Conquest Sullivan r Reservation f a Salina E e s Perinton n Oneida Grand t E Onondaga w ett Lyons i t ! r na O Sherrill Clarence i ie s [ Island nr P h Lake Syracuse n Amherst t C ei e e Galen a Camillus d a Batavia H n Brutus Elbridge a Vernon Tonawanda d Wheatland Arcadia a Manlius Pembroke Victor l Mentz Lincoln S 9 Batavia Stafford t Manchester o C Le Roy De Witt c M Madison Rush S h Farmington Tyre Cayuga k e Mendon Black k S a b e Genesee Junius a Onondaga m Throop r k Lake n O r Lancaster Sennett c ith i Buffalo to e n Fenner d Caledonia a e o f g Alden C w Darien Bethany B Ontario l n Cazenovia i B te l e e Auburn u a l a Seneca d o E Phelps l g l W l a d s Alexander Pavilion o n e Lake a Erie o a Waterloo Seneca Aurelius g o a e m s s a Pompey Avon m Canandaigua C s t n York Lima f t Falls Ow f i d West a i e e a Geneva S l LaFayette z d Hopewell Skaneateles Seneca l i a Otisco d p e g Eaton r s Livingston n u i Bennington Middlebury n c Lake Lake Marilla Lake o Lackawanna Attica a gp o Elma v Nelson Covington Geneseo Fleming S i 10 G Fayette Richmond Seneca or pa Otisco a Livonia enev Wyoming Bristol Cayuga t Owasco f Erie Canandaigua Seneca for rg Conesus Lake Lake d Fabius u Orchard Hemlock Honeoye Lake Lake Niles b Wales Warsaw Perry town Lake Gorham a Tully Lebanon am Park Aurora Sheldon Leicester Varick Scipio DeRuyter Georgetown H Orangeville Lake Lake Ledyard Source: US Census Bureau, 2000.
Recommended publications
  • Chautauqua County

    Chautauqua County

    CHAUTAUQUA Greenway Plan COUNTY April 2012 A four season destination for outdoor active living, nurtured by public/private partnerships. Prepared by Pashek Associates in cooperation with Chautauqua County Department of Planning & Economic Development “It is a wholesome and necessary thing for us to turn again to the earth and in the contemplation of her beauties to know of wonder and humility. - Rachel Carson” Photo Credit: Mark Geise All of the photographs in this document were taken at various locations throughout Chautauqua County. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A special thank you goes out to the citizens and organizations of Chautauqua County for their enthusiasm and input during this study. Also, the time commitment, wealth of knowledge, decision-making ability, and dedication of the following individuals made the Chautauqua County Greenway Plan possible. Chautauqua County Gregory J. Edwards ........................................................... County Executive Chautauqua County Department of Planning & Economic Development William Daly ...................................................................................... Director Mark Geise ........................................................................... Deputy Director Christine Kinn .........................................................................Senior Planner Don McCord ............................................................................Senior Planner Jeffrey Diers .............................................................Watershed Coordinator Debbie Liliestedt
  • Low Bridge, Everybody Down' (WITH INDEX)

    Low Bridge, Everybody Down' (WITH INDEX)

    “Low Bridge; Everybody Down!” Notes & Notions on the Construction & Early Operation of the Erie Canal Chuck Friday Editor and Commentator 2005 “Low Bridge; Everybody Down!” 1 Table of Contents TOPIC PAGE Introduction ………………………………………………………………….. 3 The Erie Canal as a Federal Project………………………………………….. 3 New York State Seizes the Initiative………………………………………… 4 Biographical Sketch of Jesse Hawley - Early Erie Canal Advocate…………. 5 Western Terminus for the Erie Canal (Black Rock vs Buffalo)……………… 6 Digging the Ditch……………………………………………………………. 7 Yankee Ingenuity…………………………………………………………….. 10 Eastward to Albany…………………………………………………………… 12 Westward to Lake Erie………………………………………………………… 16 Tying Up Loose Ends………………………………………………………… 20 The Building of a Harbor at Buffalo………………………………………….. 21 Canal Workforce……………………………………………………………… 22 The Irish Worker Story……………………………………………………….. 27 Engineering Characteristics of Canals………………………………………… 29 Early Life on the Canal……………………………………………………….. 33 Winter – The Canal‘sGreatest Impediment……………………………………. 43 Canal Expansion………………………………………………………………. 45 “Low Bridge; Everybody Down!” 2 ―Low Bridge; Everybody Down!‖ Notes & Notions on the Construction & Early Operation of the Erie Canal Initial Resource Book: Dan Murphy, The Erie Canal: The Ditch That Opened A Nation, 2001 Introduction A foolhardy proposal, years of political bickering and partisan infighting, an outrageous $7.5 million price tag (an amount roughly equal to about $4 billion today) – all that for a four foot deep, 40 foot wide ditch connecting Lake Erie in western New York with the Hudson River in Albany. It took 7 years of labor, slowly clawing shovels of earth from the ground in a 363-mile trek across the wilderness of New York State. Through the use of many references, this paper attempts to describe this remarkable construction project. Additionally, it describes the early operation of the canal and its impact on the daily life on or near the canal‘s winding path across the state.
  • Awisp Program Summary 2016

    Awisp Program Summary 2016

    ADIRONDACK WATERSHED INSTITUTE YEAR IN REVIEW 1 STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM Graphic by Jake Sporn www.adkwatershed.org ADIRONDACK WATERSHED INSTITUTE TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Program Description and Methods ......................................................................................................................... 13 Summary of Results ...................................................................................................................................................... 23 Program Discussion and Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 44 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative: Lake Ontario Headwaters Watercraft Inspection Program ................... 44 2016 Adirondack AIS Spread Prevention Program ........................................................................................................ 51 Education and Outreach ............................................................................................................................................. 58 Special Project Reports ..............................................................................................................................................
  • S T a T E O F N E W Y O R K 3695--A 2009-2010

    S T a T E O F N E W Y O R K 3695--A 2009-2010

    S T A T E O F N E W Y O R K ________________________________________________________________________ 3695--A 2009-2010 Regular Sessions I N A S S E M B L Y January 28, 2009 ___________ Introduced by M. of A. ENGLEBRIGHT -- Multi-Sponsored by -- M. of A. KOON, McENENY -- read once and referred to the Committee on Tourism, Arts and Sports Development -- recommitted to the Committee on Tour- ism, Arts and Sports Development in accordance with Assembly Rule 3, sec. 2 -- committee discharged, bill amended, ordered reprinted as amended and recommitted to said committee AN ACT to amend the parks, recreation and historic preservation law, in relation to the protection and management of the state park system THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEM- BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: 1 Section 1. Legislative findings and purpose. The legislature finds the 2 New York state parks, and natural and cultural lands under state manage- 3 ment which began with the Niagara Reservation in 1885 embrace unique, 4 superlative and significant resources. They constitute a major source of 5 pride, inspiration and enjoyment of the people of the state, and have 6 gained international recognition and acclaim. 7 Establishment of the State Council of Parks by the legislature in 1924 8 was an act that created the first unified state parks system in the 9 country. By this act and other means the legislature and the people of 10 the state have repeatedly expressed their desire that the natural and 11 cultural state park resources of the state be accorded the highest 12 degree of protection.
  • Policy on the Possession of an Unloaded Firearm for the Purpose of Accessing Adjacent Lands for Lawful Hunting Purposes

    Policy on the Possession of an Unloaded Firearm for the Purpose of Accessing Adjacent Lands for Lawful Hunting Purposes

    Policy Title: Policy on the Possession of an Unloaded Firearm for the Purpose of Accessing Adjacent Lands for Lawful Hunting Purposes Directive: Section: OPR-POL-026 Operations Effective Date: 09/01/2016 Summary This Policy implements 9 NYCRR Section 375.1(p)(3), the regulation adopted by the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) that authorizes the Commissioner to establish a list a facilities where a person may possess an unloaded firearm for the purpose of accessing adjacent properties for lawful hunting purposes. (See Notice of Adoption and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published in the State Register on May 11, 2016 and January 27, 2016, respectively at http://docs.dos.ny.gov/info/register/2016/may11/pdf/rulemaking.pdf, at p.34 and http://docs.dos.ny.gov/info/register/2016/january27/pdf/rulemaking.pdf, at p.34). Policy Hunters may possess an unloaded firearm for the purpose of accessing adjacent lands for lawful hunting purposes at the following areas. Allegany Region Genesee Valley Greenway All sections of the Genesee Valley Greenway that are within Cattaraugus County. Boat Launches Chautauqua Lake (Chautauqua County) Long Point State Park, off Rte. 430 between Bemus Point and Maple Springs Allegheny Reservoir (Cattaraugus County) Allegany State Park (Quaker area) Friends Boat Launch. On Rte. 280, 2.5 miles south of Route 17 Lake Erie (Chautauqua County) Cattaraugus Creek (Sunset Bay), off Routes 5 and 20, approximately 2 miles west of Silver Creek Thruway interchange in the Hamlet of Sunset Bay Central Region Boat Launches Cazenovia Lake (Madison County) Helen L. McNItt State Park on East Lake Rd.
  • Parks Attendance Summary

    Parks Attendance Summary

    Parks Attendance 8/29/2012 3:37:13 PM Summary Search Criteria: Region: -All- From Date: 1/1/2011 To Date: 8/28/2011 Group By: None Park Name: -All- IsStatistical: No Category: -All- Reg Costcenter Attendance -ALL- Allegany Quaker Area 423,970 Allegany Red House Area 500,778 Lake Erie St Pk 75,666 Long Point Marina 56,030 Midway State Park 82,880 Battle Isl Golf Course 22,209 Betty And Wilbur Davis State Park 12,756 Bowman Lake St Pk 40,515 Canadarago Boat Lnch 18,903 Chenango Valley St Pk 124,247 Chittenango Fls St Pk 30,551 Clark Reservation 34,530 Delta Lake St Pk 158,574 Fort Ontario 96,717 Gilbert Lake St Pk 79,082 Glimmerglass State Park 98,066 Green Lakes State Park 633,669 1 of 8 Herkimer Home 10,744 Lorenzo 25,265 Mexico Point Boat Launch 14,201 Old Erie Canal 16,916 Oquaga State Park 24,292 Oriskany Battlefield 3,446 Pixley Falls State Park 24,124 Sandy Island Beach 33,793 Selkirk Shores 53,235 Steuben Memorial 438 Verona Beach State Park 153,719 Allan Treman Marina 115,237 Buttermilk Falls St Pk 116,327 Canadaigua Btlau Ontrio 37,866 Cayuga Lake St Pk 93,276 Chimney Bluffs 86,443 Deans Cove Boat Launch 11,572 Fair Haven St Pk 230,052 Fillmore Glen St Pk 92,150 Ganondagan 22,339 H H Spencer 24,907 Honeoye Bt Lau 26,879 Indian Hills Golf Course 19,908 Keuka Lake St Pk 69,388 Lodi Point Marina/Boat 23,237 Long Point St Pk 33,257 Newtown Battlefield 17,427 Robert H Treman St Pk 158,724 Sampson St Pk 111,203 Seneca Lake St Pk 116,517 2 of 8 Soaring Eagles Golf Course 18,511 Stony Brook St Pk 118,064 Taughannock Falls St Pk 328,376 Watkins Glen St Pk 381,218 Braddock Bay 28,247 Conesus Lake Boat Launch 18,912 Darien Lakes State Park 52,750 Durand Eastman 18,704 Genesee Valley Greenway 21,022 Hamlin Beach State Park 221,996 Irondquoit Bay Boat Lnch 27,035 Lakeside Beach St Pk 50,228 Letchworth State Park 407,606 Oak Orchard Boat Launch 4,954 Rattlesnake Point 1,699 Silver Lake 17,790 Bayard C.
  • Genesee Valley Greenway State Park Management Plan Existing

    Genesee Valley Greenway State Park Management Plan Existing

    Genesee Valley Greenway State Park Management Plan Part 2 – Existing Conditions and Background Information Part 2 Existing Conditions and Background Information Page 45 Genesee Valley Greenway State Park Management Plan Part 2 – Existing Conditions and Background Information Existing Conditions Physical Resources Bedrock Geology From Rochester heading south to Cuba and Hinsdale Silurian Akron Dolostone, Cobleskill Limestone and Salina Group Akron dolostone Camillus Shale Vernon Formation Devonian Onondaga Limestone and Tri-states Group Onondaga Limestone Hamilton Group Marcellus Formation Skaneatleles Formation Ludlowville Formation Sonyea Group Cashaqua Shale Genesee Group and Tully Limestone West River Shale West Falls Group Lower Beers Hill West Hill Formation Nunda Formation Java Group Hanover Shale Canadaway Group Machias Formation Conneaut Group Ellicot Formation Page 47 Genesee Valley Greenway State Park Management Plan Part 2 – Existing Conditions and Background Information Soils As much of the Greenway follows the route of the Rochester Branch of the Pennsylvania Railroad, major expanses of the Greenway Trail are covered with a layer of cinder and/or turf and other man-made fill. In general, the soils underneath the Greenway tend to be gravelly or silty clay loam. The entire trail is fairly level, with the majority of slopes being less than five percent. A complete, narrative description of the soils can be found in Appendix F Natural Resources Flora A complete biological inventory of Greenway property is not presently available (October 2013). However, SUNY Geneseo botany students began to inventory flora within sections of the corridor. The New York State Natural Heritage Program has targeted the GVG for a Natural Heritage inventory in 2014.
  • State and Local Immigration Regulation in the United States Before 1882

    State and Local Immigration Regulation in the United States Before 1882

    BENJAMIN J. KLEBANER STATE AND LOCAL IMMIGRATION REGULATION IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE 1882 The absence of significant federal regulation in the area of immigration legislation until 1882 1 no more denotes a laissez-faire approach in this area than in many other aspects of American economic life. For many generations Congress had left the task of regulating the immigrant stream to the states and localities.2 The first general federal law (1882) is best understood in the context of antecedent activity on the local level. Eventually most of the seaboard states, including many without an important passenger traffic, enacted statutes dealing with immi- gration. Table I presents a brief outline of their essential features. After a consideration of certain aspects of the provisions of these laws, their administration in the major seaports will be surveyed. It will then be shown how the increasing opposition by business inter- ests to state legislation, culminating in decisions by the Supreme Court declaring such regulation unconstitutional, eventually paved the way for the 1882 Act of Congress. I. THE STATUTORY BACKGROUND Nine of the thirteen colonies reflected in their enactments the desire to protect the community from the burden of foreigners likely to 1 Federal space and sanitation requirements, however, date back to 1819. Federal legis- lation is conveniently compiled in U.S. Immigration Commission, Reports, vol. XXXIX (Washington, 1911). Cf. John Higham, Strangers in the Land (New Brunswick, N. J.; Rutgers University Press, 1955), p. 44. This article does not discuss legislation enacted in a number of states which barred foreign convicts. - The author acknowledges with gratitude the many helpful suggestions made by Professor Carter Goodrich, who super- vised his doctoral thesis "Public Poor Relief in America, 1790-1860" (Columbia University, 1952) from which much of the material for this article is taken.
  • Genesee Valley Glacial and Postglacial Geology from 50000

    Genesee Valley Glacial and Postglacial Geology from 50000

    Genesee Valley Glacial and Postglacial Geology from 50,000 Years Ago to the Present: A Selective Annotated Review Richard A. Young, Department of Geological Sciences, SUNY, Geneseo, NY 14454 Introduction The global chronology for The Pleistocene Epoch, or “ice age,” has been significantly revised during the last three decades (Alley and Clark, 1999) as a result of the extended and more accurate data provided by deep sea drilling projects, ice core studies from Greenland and Antarctica (Andersen et al. 2006; Svensson et al. 2008), oxygen isotope studies of marine sediments, and climatic proxy data from lake cores, peat bogs, and cave stalactites. These new data have improved our ability to match the Earth’s Milankovitch orbital cycles to the improved ice core and radiometric chronologies (ages based on radiocarbon, U-Th, U-Pb). However, the Milankovitch theory has recently been the subject of renewed controversy, and not all cyclical climatic phenomena are directly reconcilable with Milankovitch’s original ideas (Ridgwell et al., 1999; Ruddiman, 2006). Overall, it is evident that there must have been as many as 20 or more glacial cycles in the last 2.5 million years, not all of which necessarily resulted in the expansion of large ice sheets as far south as the United States-Canadian border. The International Union of Geological Sciences recently adopted a change for the Pliocene-Pleistocene boundary, extending the beginning of the Pleistocene Epoch back from 1.8 to 2.588 million years Before Present (BP). The average length of the most recent glacial- interglacial cycles (also known as “Stages”) is on the order of 100,000 years, with 10,000 to 15,000 years being the approximate length of the interglacial warm episodes between the longer cold cycles (also known as cold stadials and warm interstadials).
  • Cassadaga Wind Project Identification of Visually Sensitive Resources

    Cassadaga Wind Project Identification of Visually Sensitive Resources

    April 1, 2015 MUNICPAL PLANNING REPRESENTATIVES PER ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION LIST RE: Cassadaga Wind Project Identification of Visually Sensitive Resources Dear MUNICIPAL PLANNING REPRESENTATIVE: As you may be aware, Cassadaga Wind, LLC is proposing to construct a 126 megawatt (MW) wind power project (“the Project”) in the Towns of Charlotte, Cherry Creek, Arkwright, and Stockton, in Chautauqua County, New York (Figure 1). The proposed Project is subject to the rules for siting a major electric generating facility under Article 10 of the New York State Public Service Law (“PSL”). In accordance with the Article 10 regulations, a Public Involvement Program “PIP” plan for this Project was released in January 2015 and is available on the Project’s website at http://everpower.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/2015-01-05_PIP_FINAL.pdf. Please refer to the PIP for additional details regarding the proposed Project. A number of studies are now underway to assist in evaluating the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project in support of the Article 10 application. One such study is the Visual Impact Assessment (VIA), which will be included as Exhibit 24 of the Article 10 application. The VIA must include “identification of visually sensitive resources, viewshed mapping, confirmatory visual assessment fieldwork, visual simulations (photographic overlays), cumulative visual impact analysis, and proposed visual impact mitigation” pursuant to the requirements identified in Exhibit 24 of Article 10. The purpose of this letter is to help address the requirement that “the applicant shall confer with municipal planning representatives, DPS, DEC, OPRHP, and where appropriate, APA in its selection of important or representative viewpoints” (Article 10, Exhibit 24, Part 1001.24[b][4])1.
  • Draft Port of Rochester & Genesee River Harbor Management Plan

    Draft Port of Rochester & Genesee River Harbor Management Plan

    2016 Draft Port of Rochester & Genesee River Harbor Management Plan This report was prepared with funding provided by the New York State Department of State under Title 11 of the Environmental Protection Fund. Photos provided by NYS DOS and City of Rochester Port of Rochester-Genesee River Harbor Management Plan City of Rochester, New York Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 1 1.1 PURPOSE & BENEFIT OF THE HARBOR MANAGEMENT PLAN ........................................................... 1 1.2 LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY FOR LOCAL HARBOR MANAGEMENT......................................................... 2 1.2.1 The HMP as a Component of the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program ................. 2 1.3 HARBOR MANAGEMENT AREA ................................................................................................. 3 1.3.1 Harbor Management Area ............................................................................................ 3 1.3.2 Port of Rochester and Rochester Harbor Designations ................................................. 6 1.3.3 Port Redevelopment Project .......................................................................................... 6 1.3.4 HMA Historical Context ................................................................................................. 7 1.4 PUBLIC & STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH DURING HMP PREPARATION ................................................ 15 1.4.1 Project Advisory Committee Meetings .......................................................................
  • Families Coping Without Earnings Or Government Cash Assistance

    Families Coping Without Earnings Or Government Cash Assistance

    Families Coping without Earnings or Government Cash Assistance Sheila R. Zedlewski Sandi Nelson The Urban Institute with Kathryn Edin Northwestern University Heather Koball Kate Pomper Tracy Roberts The Urban Institute Occasional Paper Number 64 Assessing the New Federalism An Urban Institute Program to Assess Changing Social Policies Families Coping without Earnings or Government Cash Assistance Sheila R. Zedlewski Sandi Nelson The Urban Institute with Kathryn Edin Northwestern University Heather Koball Kate Pomper Tracy Roberts The Urban Institute Occasional Paper Number 64 The Urban Institute 2100 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20037 Assessing Phone: 202.833.7200 the New Fax: 202.429.0687 Federalism E-mail: [email protected] An Urban Institute http://www.urban.org Program to Assess Changing Social Policies Copyright © February 2003. The Urban Institute. All rights reserved. Except for short quotes, no part of this paper may be reproduced in any form or utilized in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by information storage or retrieval system, without written permission from the Urban Institute. This report is part of the Urban Institute’s Assessing the New Federalism project, a multiyear effort to monitor and assess the devolution of social programs from the federal to the state and local levels. Alan Weil is the project director. The project analyzes changes in income support, social services, and health programs. In collaboration with Child Trends, the project studies child and family well-being. This study was funded by the Smith Richardson Foundation and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation. The Assess- ing the New Federalism project is currently supported by The Annie E.