DOCSLIB.ORG

Triennial Review of Coliform Data Shelter Island Sound - South Shellfish Land Number 18S Towns of Southampton, East Hampton, Southold and Shelter Island 2013-2017

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Triennial Review of Coliform Data Shelter Island Sound - South Shellfish Land Number 18S Towns of Southampton, East Hampton, Southold and Shelter Island 2013-2017 TRIENNIAL REVIEW OF COLIFORM DATA SHELTER ISLAND SOUND - SOUTH SHELLFISH LAND NUMBER 18S TOWNS OF SOUTHAMPTON, EAST HAMPTON, SOUTHOLD AND SHELTER ISLAND 2013-2017 PREPARED: June 2018 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Shellfish Growing Area Classification Unit 205 N. Belle Meade Road, Suite 1 East Setauket, New York 11733 INTRODUCTION Shelter Island Sound, South (SISS), is located between the north shore of the south fork of Long Island, New York and along the entire southern shoreline of Shelter Island. It extends as far west as Jessup Neck on the south fork (SF), as north as Cedar Beach Point and Paradise Point on the north fork (NF); and as far east as Barcelona Point on the SF to Mashomack Point on Shelter Island (SI). It also runs all along the south shore of Shelter Island from Mashomack Point on the east to Crab Creek Point on the west. The area that is sampled covers portions of four towns: Southampton; East Hampton; Southold; and Shelter Island. This includes the area located north of Noyack Bay, south of Southold Bay, the area between North Haven and Shelter Island and the area south of Mashomack Point, including outer Sag Harbor. The underwater lands of Shelter Island Sound South (SISS) fall under the jurisdiction of New York State and are considered state underwater lands. This large embayment is approximately 4,725 acres. There are no areas classified as uncertified year-round or seasonally uncertified in Shelter Island Sound South. There once was a small seasonal marina closure in Smith Cove (near station 29.1). It was closed during the period from May 15 through October 31 (both dates inclusive), but it has since been reclassified as certified year-round. There is no legal description for any part of this southern section of SISS. MAP 1. In May 2002, it came to the attention of the Shellfisheries Program that the Smith Cove marina was no longer serving in that capacity. On June 25, 2003, the area was reclassified as certified, year- round. The entire area of Shelter Island Sound South has been designated as shellfish growing area (SGA) 18S and has been divided into a southeast (SE) and southwest (SW). They are not always sampled together, but this report evaluates both sides together. West Neck Harbor and Coecles Harbor are tributaries of Shelter Island Sound South, but they are their own SGA areas (20 and 25, respectively). Their water quality evaluations and shoreline surveys are completed separately. The purpose of this report is to evaluate the bacteriological water quality data collected in Shelter Island Sound South to ensure that the present growing area classification is still valid. Data have been collected during the period from February 2013 through December 2017. It is imperative that all certified shellfish lands meet the criteria of the National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP) and Model Ordinance (MO) and are properly classified for the safe harvest of shellfish. It is also important to determine whether uncertified shellfish lands have the potential to be reclassified as certified or seasonally uncertified when evaluations are complete and support such findings. V. WATER QUALITY STUDIES A. Map of Sampling Stations. There are seven stations on the west side of SISS and thirteen stations on the SE. (see Map 1 above). All 20 stations are in certified waters. B. Sampling Plan and Justification. 1. Adverse pollution conditions (APC). The conditions under which water quality data were previously analyzed (APC after rainfalls) were not used for any part of the Shelter Island Sound South evaluation. APC is a targeted wet weather condition, with rainfalls greater than or equal to 0.25 inches, during ebbing tides. As described below, Shellfisheries is using Systematic Random Sampling (SRS) to plan, collect and evaluate water quality data in all NYS SGAs. The first shoreline, pollution source survey of Shelter Island was completed in 1988. That report was a complete survey of Shelter Islands north and south shorelines, done by M. Davidson. D. Lewis took responsibility of the north fork in 1999, he completed a follow-up shoreline survey of only the northern side of Shelter Island in 2003. A follow-up shoreline survey of SISS was completed in October 2008. The next complete shoreline survey report will be due in 2020. In October 1989, the Department instituted emergency closure procedures after extraordinary rainfalls. When an area receives more than 3.0 inches of rain in any 24-36-hour period (see attached "Notice to Shellfish Harvesters", Appendix 1), it would be closed to harvesting immediately. Shellfishing would be suspended and can only be reopened after water quality has been demonstrated to meet criteria and shellfish have adequate time to naturally cleanse themselves of potential pathogens. 2. Systematic Random Sampling (SRS). Random sampling was employed in studying this area. SRS requires collecting six samples per year in certified shellfish lands. The sampling year is divided into seven segments to give us more time to accomplish projected sampling runs during the colder, windier months, and holiday seasons, ensuring that each area is sampled at least six times by the end of the year. The year-round, cold and warm weather analyses were completed using the SRS method. Sufficient SRS data, between 33 and 40 data points were used for the year-round evaluation. In January 1997, the Shellfish Growing Area Classification Unit switched over to SRS to monitor water quality in all our SGAs. With SRS, monitoring can be scheduled months ahead and sampled regardless of rainfall. As a result, water sampling runs required for the evaluation of certified and seasonally uncertified areas are planned in advance so that effects of random nonpoint pollution events can be captured if they occur. This growing area is affected by randomly occurring, intermittent events (stormwater runoff after rainfall) and is not impacted by discharges from sewage treatment facilities or combined sewer overflows. (see Appendix 2). Therefore, SRS can be used for the area. Information is available at the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference website: http://www.issc.org/client_resources/2007%20nssp%20guide/section%20ii%20chap%20iv.pdf. In 1997, the SRS sampling year was divided into eight segments. In 1998, the year was divided into seven week segments to try and ensure that each area is sampled at least six times by the end of the year. The strategy now is (3) eight week segments and (4) seven week segments. Sampling runs are scheduled by the unit’s biologists prior to the start of each calendar segment. The only environmental condition considered during sample planning is the tide cycle. Ebbing tides are still a requirement and are considered APC. Biologists target sampling to occur during the ebb tide, but must also ensure that the tidal stage is not so low in some areas that boat navigation is not possible. One day per week is also maintained for scheduling makeup runs when weather conditions or other unexpected events, such as equipment failure or staffing shortages, precluded successful completion of a planned sample run. Other limitations on sample planning include the state's current restriction on the use of overtime by Department employees, which was stringently implemented beginning in 2010 and resulted in significant impacts to the sampling program. To adhere to the current policy, sample collection efforts must occur within the normal workday, including travel time to and from the growing area. Once water samples are collected, they cannot be held for more than thirty (30) hours prior to laboratory processing, which uses a modified A-1 method to estimate the most probable number (MPN) of fecal coliform bacteria present in each sample. This method requires 24 hours from the time the procedure is initiated to obtain results. To ensure the entire process of sample collection and analysis can be concluded within the standard Monday through Friday workweek, sample collection is limited to a Monday through Thursday schedule. Trips conducted on Thursday must also be concluded, with samples returned to the laboratory by 2pm. As a result, sample scheduling is limited to approximately 3.5 days per week instead of the five previously utilized days. When compounded with the need to target the ebb tide, these restrictions severely limit sampling opportunities and hamper the unit's ability to make up sampling runs that are cancelled due to weather conditions or unforeseen events. SRS evaluations require 30 SRS data points and determine the Geometric Mean and 90th percentile (%tile), instead of the median and % > 330 (for total coliform) or 49 (for fecal) data evaluations. The tidal range for SISS is referenced with the Noyack Bay (west side) and Sag Harbor (east side) tide charts. The tidal ranges on the east and west sides is from -0.4’ to 3.5’. All water samples were collected at various stages of ebb tide and analyzed during year-round, cold and warm weather seasons. (see Tables 1, 2 and 3). Colder months bring extreme weather including heavy winds and the holiday season, sometimes making it difficult to get out on the water to sample. In addition to the SRS sampling requirements, seasonal areas require a sample for each month that the area is open during the seasonal period. This significantly increases the number of samples required from an area on a yearly basis. C. Sample Data Analysis and Presentation. Routine water samples were collected by the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). All samples were analyzed by the laboratory at DEC. In February 2003, NYSDEC management selected the modified A-1 method for enumerating fecal coliform bacteria (FC) in water samples and dropped all total coliform testing. Lab staff were responsible for too many things and something had to be cut from their program.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Plan for Springs
    Plan for Springs The population per square mile in Springs is approximately two to six times higher than any other Planning Area1 in East Hampton. Similarly, the number of housing units per square mile in Springs is 1.6 to 2 times higher than all the other Planning Areas. Springs has the lowest number of seasonal homes of all the Planning Areas. Furthermore, Springs contains the largest number of vacant single and separate lots one half acre or less in size of any East Hampton Planning Area. The total potential build-out of Springs is approximately the same as the East Hampton Planning Area, which is approximately three times the area of Springs. Except for Gardiner’s Island, there is no land zoned for A5 Residence and there is little A3 and A2 zoning compared to the other hamlets. Most of the land in Springs was divided during the time immediately following World War II or earlier, into small suburban and urban lots sizes. A few large blocks of undivided land remain today including the woodlands between Red Dirt Road and Accabonac Harbor (including the Town protected Jacob Farm property); the woodlands between Gardiner’s Bay and Springs Fireplace Road (including the Blue Bay Girl Scout Camp); the wetlands and meadows surrounding Accabonac Harbor; the woodlands between Springs Fireplace Rd., Abrahams Path and Accabonac Road.; and a few farm remnants. These areas contribute greatly to the area’s biological diversity by supporting species that would otherwise be absent from such a densely developed residential area. The smaller islands of woodland vegetation located near these large blocks also helps to protect species diversity.
    [Show full text]
  • US Naval Plans for War with the United Kingdom in the 1890S: a Compromise Between Pragmatism and Theory
    US Naval Plans for War with the United Kingdom in the 1890s: A Compromise between Pragmatism and Theory Michael J. Crawford En 1890, Alfred Thayer Mahan a élaboré un plan de guerre en cas d’hostilités envers les Britanniques; pour leur part, les classes du Naval War College des États-Unis ont mis sur pied des plans semblables en 1894 et 1895. Ces plans portaient notamment sur le nord-est des États-Unis et sa frontière avec le Canada. Faisant partie des premiers exercices formels de planification de mesures de guerre de la marine américaine, ces plans représentent un compromis entre la nouvelle vision stratégique de la profession navale américaine et une conception pragmatique des limites de la flotte américaine. In 1890, a small group of US naval professionals drew up plans for war in case of hostilities with the United Kingdom, and a few years later the Naval War College classes of 1894 and 1895, as their Problem in the Art of War, a new annual exercise, elaborated plans for war with the British.1 The plans that resulted from these efforts, 1 Versions of this essay were delivered at “From Enemies to Allies: An International Conference on the War of 1812 and Its Aftermath,” Annapolis, Maryland, 14 June 2013, and the 83rd annual meeting of the Society for Military History, in Ottawa, Ontario, 16 April 2016. The author thanks the commentators and audience at these conferences whose helpful comments contributed to revisions. Ronald Spector, Professors of War: The Naval War College and the Development of the Naval Profession (Newport, R.I.: Naval War College Press, 1977), 71-73; Alfred Thayer Mahan, Contingency Plan of Operations in Case of War with Great Britain, December 1890, in Letters and Papers of Alfred Thayer Mahan, edited by Robert Seager and Doris Maguire, 3 vols.
    [Show full text]
  • Peconic Estuary Program 2018 Long-Term Eel- Grass (Zostera Marina) Monitoring Program
    Peconic Estuary Program 2018 Long-Term Eel- grass (Zostera marina) Monitoring Program Progress Report 19 Submitted To: The Peconic Estuary Program Office The Suffolk County Department of Health Services Office of Ecology Submitted By: Christopher Pickerell and Stephen Schott Executive Summary The 2018 eelgrass monitoring season saw the Peconic Estuary Program Long-term Eelgrass Monitor- ing Program (PEP LTEMP) retire four former eelgrass meadows (Northwest Harbor, Orient Harbor, Southold Bay, and Three Mile Harbor) from annual monitoring. The program continued in 2018 with nine sites: Bullhead Bay (Southampton), Gardiners Bay (Shelter Island), Three Mile Harbor (East Hampton), Cedar Point (East Hampton), Orient Point (Southold), Coecles Harbor (Shelter Island), Fort Pond Bay (East Hampton), Napeague Harbor (East Hampton), and Sag Harbor Bay (East Hampton and Shelter Island). Monitoring surveys of all sites were completed during the period of the 6-20 September, 2018. The light availability and water temperature data collected at all sites allows for the monitoring of the two most important parameters for eelgrass health. Overall, the 2018 season provided adequate light to the meadows in the LTEMP. During July, 2018, all of the meadows, except Cedar Point (logger failure resulted in no data), exceeded their minimum daily requirements for both Hcomp and Hsat. The August logger deployment found that only Coecles Harbor and Three Mile Harbor failed to meet daily requirements for both Hcomp and Hsat. September is the month where light availability starts to decline due to the changing of the seasons. In 2018, none of the 9 monitoring sites met the 12.3-hours threshold for Hcomp, however most sites were close to this level.
    [Show full text]
  • Biodiversity and Ecological Potential of Plum Island, New York
    Biodiversity and ecological potential of Plum Island, New York New York Natural Heritage Program i New York Natural Heritage Program The New York Natural Heritage Program The NY Natural Heritage Program is a partnership NY Natural Heritage has developed two notable between the NYS Department of Environmental online resources: Conservation Guides include the Conservation (NYS DEC) and The Nature Conservancy. biology, identification, habitat, and management of many Our mission is to facilitate conservation of rare animals, of New York’s rare species and natural community rare plants, and significant ecosystems. We accomplish this types; and NY Nature Explorer lists species and mission by combining thorough field inventories, scientific communities in a specified area of interest. analyses, expert interpretation, and the most comprehensive NY Natural Heritage also houses iMapInvasives, an database on New York's distinctive biodiversity to deliver online tool for invasive species reporting and data the highest quality information for natural resource management. planning, protection, and management. In 1990, NY Natural Heritage published Ecological NY Natural Heritage was established in 1985 and is a Communities of New York State, an all inclusive contract unit housed within NYS DEC’s Division of classification of natural and human-influenced Fish, Wildlife & Marine Resources. The program is communities. From 40,000-acre beech-maple mesic staffed by more than 25 scientists and specialists with forests to 40-acre maritime beech forests, sea-level salt expertise in ecology, zoology, botany, information marshes to alpine meadows, our classification quickly management, and geographic information systems. became the primary source for natural community NY Natural Heritage maintains New York’s most classification in New York and a fundamental reference comprehensive database on the status and location of for natural community classifications in the northeastern rare species and natural communities.
    [Show full text]
  • Town of East Hampton Section VIII. Historic Resources Policy
    SECTION VIII HISTORIC RESOURCES POLICY #23 Town of East Hampton LWRP Historic Resources Policy #23 A. INTRODUCTION History shapes a community in subtle ways, colors the assumptions of community life, enriches and enlivens the sense of place for residents and visitors alike. Historic and cultural resources are the touchstones of tradition. They can be housed in museums, monuments and structures, but the real keys to continuity with the past, and the underpinnings of a viable future, are a community's awareness of its cultural history. The Inventory, Analysis and Historic Resource Policy #23 that follow are intended to promote an ethic of respect for the past, impress the need for study and quality information, and instill pride in the community's cultural and historic resources. In 1998 East Hampton Town celebrates the 350th anniversary of its founding by English settlers, the historical mainstream of present society. There have been other streams too, aboriginal settlements that date to thousands of years B.C., a heritage that left its mark in the Indian place names that abound in the community, and the wealth of archaeological sites the Town struggles to protect from pervasive development. Buildings and structures remind us of the colonial era; only the subtleties of the archaeological record and the oral history of native descendants remains to preserve aboriginal history. Since colonial times the Town has participated in several of the great tides of American history in its journey from a subsistence agricultural and fishing community to a premier coastal resort. The country's military history was acted out here beginning with the American Revolution.
    [Show full text]
  • Revised Draft Subwatersheds Wastewater Plan Executive Summary
    REVISED DRAFT SUBWATERSHEDS WASTEWATER PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY “We are in a county that will no longer allow our water quality crisis to go unaddressed, but will come together to Reclaim Our Water” Suffolk County Executive Steve Bellone 2014 State of the County Suffolk County Department of Health Services August 2019 This document was prepared with funding provided by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation as part of the Long Island Nitrogen Action Plan and by New York State Department of State under the Environmental Protection Fund. Subwatersheds Wastewater Plan • Executive Summary Table of Contents Executive Summary ......................................................................................................... 5 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................. 5 1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................................................ 5 1.2 Wastewater Management in Suffolk County ........................................................................................ 7 1.3 Innovative/Alternative Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems ................................................ 9 1.4 Sewage Treatment Plants and Sewering ............................................................................................ 13 1.4.1 Sewer Expansion Projects ..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Section 4. County Profile
    Section 4: County Profile Section 4. County Profile Profile information is presented 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., significant coastal areas or low lying areas prone to flooding or a high percentage of vulnerable persons in an area). This profile describes the general information of the County (government, physical setting, population and demographics, general building stock, and land use and population trends) and critical facilities located within Suffolk County. 4.1 General Information Suffolk County was established on November 1, 1683, as one of the ten original counties in New York State. Suffolk County was named after the county of Suffolk in England, from where many of its earliest settlers originated (Suffolk County Department of Planning, 2005). Suffolk County’s western border is approximately 15 miles from the eastern border of New York City. According to the U.S. Census data, the Suffolk County estimated population in 2012 was 1,499,273. Suffolk County is one of the 57 counties in New York State and is comprised of 10 towns and 31 incorporated villages. Within each town and village, there are incorporated and unincorporated areas (Suffolk County Department of Planning, 2007). The population of Suffolk County is larger than ten states and ranks as the 24th most populated county in the country (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). Suffolk County is bordered by Nassau County to the west and major water bodies to the north, south, and east.
    [Show full text]
  • Town of East Hampton Section IX. Scenic Resources Policies #24-25
    SECTION IX SCENIC RESOURCES POLICIES #24-25 Town of East Hampton LWRP Scenic Resources Policies #24-25 A. INTRODUCTION The Town of East Hampton has an extraordinary endowment of coastal scenery, vistas of the slender isthmus of Napeague stretching to Hither Hills, soft-edged coastal ponds, sinuous saltmarsh shorelines, puffs of spring shad bloom undulating over Montauk's moorlands, towering hoodoo ocean bluffs west of Montauk Point. The visual quality of the coast is part of the Town's natural wealth and its cultural heritage. Panoramic views of the water and esthetic issues are important not only because they deeply affect the way people feel about living in the community, but because scenic values play a vital part in attracting visitors, residents, and businesses to East Hampton. Certain esthetic values are deeply embedded in our culture and value systems, among them the passion for visual proximity to the water. Like people everywhere, East Hampton's residents have grown accustomed to their surroundings and tend to lose sight of the visual glory amidst their lives. Too often scenic resources are taken for granted and given short shrift until spectacular views have been marred by inappropriate development, dunescapes cluttered with boxy condominium rooflines, or the lines of dunes and bluffs broken by multi-storied homes thrust skyward for water views. With its untreed openness, the visual integrity of the Atlantic Ocean shore is easily disrupted and the most vulnerable to impairment from development. The scenery of the more wooded Peconic Estuary coast is more forgiving and in places can better conceal residential construction.
    [Show full text]
  • Reconnaissance Level Historic Resources Survey
    RECONNAISSANCE LEVEL HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY VILLAGE OF GREENPORT SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK 2020 Prepared for the Village of Greenport by: Preservation Studios 170 Florida Street Buffalo, New York 14208 www.preservationstudios.com Prepared for: The Honorable George W. Hubbard, Mayor The Village of Greenport Historic Preservation Commission Karen Doherty, Chair The Village of Greenport 236 Third Avenue Greenport, New York 11944 Funded by: NYS Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation Certified Local Government Program Village of Greenport Thanks to: Village of Greenport The Village of Greenport Historic Preservation Commission Karen Doherty, Chair and Stephen M. Bull, former Chair Floyd Memorial Library In conjunction with: New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (NYSHPO) Historic Preservation Field Service Bureau Dan McEneny, Certified Local Government Coordinator Jennifer Betsworth, Historic Preservation Program Analyst, Survey and National Register Unit Prepared by: Karen A. Kennedy, M.S., Director of Architectural History Katy Stuck, M.S., RPA, Architectural Historian Joseph Duggan, Assistant Architectural Historian Preservation Studios 170 Florida Street Buffalo, New York 14208 716-725-6410 www.preservationstudios.com TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1-1 Fig 1.1 Village of Greenport Reconnaissance Level Historic Resources 1-4 Survey Boundary Map Fig 1.2 Long Island, showing location of Town of Southold, Suffolk. 1-5 County Department of Economic Development & Planning, Cartography and
    [Show full text]
  • NEFMC EFH Desigations
    NEFMC EFH Desigations developed as part of Omnibus Essential Fish Habitat Amendment 2 Amendment 14 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 14 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop FMP Amendment 4 to the Monkfish FMP Amendment 3 to the Atlantic Herring FMP Amendment 2 to the Red Crab FMP Amendment 2 to the Skate FMP Amendment 3 to the Atlantic Salmon FMP New England Fishery Management Council 50 Water Street, Mill 2 Newburyport, MA 01950 (978) 465-0492 tel. Essential Fish Habitat or EFH is define as those waters necessary for spawning, breeding, feeding, and growth to maturity. Regional Fishery Management Councils are required to desginate EFH per the 1996 reauthorization of the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulatory guidance about EFH designations and EFH consultations was published in 2002 by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service (Federal Register, Vol. 67, No. 12, p 2343-2383). This guidance recommends description and identification of EFH by species and lifestage, based on the best available sources of information. Per the guidance, both text descriptions of essential habitats as well as spatial depictions of the extent of EFH should be developed. The New England Fishery Management Council developed its current EFH designations via Omnibus Habitat Amendment 2 (OHA2). OHA2 represented the first update to the NEFMC’s original EFH designations, developed in 1999 or shortly thereafter. Development of OHA2 began in 2004, and the final regulations were implemented on April 9, 2018. The EFH designations were the primary focus of the first phase of work on the amendment, from 2004- 2007, but adjustments to the desginations were made throughout the process, up until final Council action in April and June of 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Coast Guard Historian's Office
    U.S. Coast Guard Historian’s Office Preserving Our History For Future Generations Historic Light Station Information NEW YORK AMBROSE LIGHT Location: APPROACH TO NEW YORK BAY Station Established: 1823 Year Current Tower(s) First Lit: 1996 Operational: YES Automated: YES Deactivated: NO, see notes below for more detailed information Foundation Materials: STEEL PILES Construction Materials: STEEL Tower Shape: Markings/Pattern: Relationship to Other Structure Original Lens: DCB 36 Historical Information: The original Ambrose "Texas Tower" was placed in operation on 23 August 1967. The tower was automated in 1988 and was damaged beyond repair by a collision with the oil tanker Aegeo in October, 1996. The structure was then demolished and replaced with a small light tower/platform. BARBER'S POINT LIGHT (OLD) Location: Barber's Point, Lake Champlain, New York Station Authorized: 1870 Year Current Tower(s) First Lit: 1873 Operational: Automated: 1935 Deactivated: Foundation Materials: Construction Materials: Tower Shape: Markings/Pattern: Page 1 of 61 U.S. Coast Guard Historian’s Office Preserving Our History For Future Generations Relationship to Other Structure: Original Lens: Fifth-Order Fresnel Historical Information: Barber’s Point is roughly midway between Split Rock Point to the north and Crown Point to the south. This stretch of 125-mile-long Lake Champlain is quite narrow, averaging only two miles in width. Barber’s Point was thus a logical place for a ferry, and records indicate that Hezekiah Barber operated one that crossed Lake Champlain between Barber’s Point, NY and Arnold Bay (Panton), VT. The geography at Barber’s Point also made it a prime candidate for a lighthouse.
    [Show full text]
  • Hydrogeologic Data Review and Evaluation for Shelter Island, New York
    HYDROGEOLOGIC DATA REVIEW AND EVALUATION FOR SHELTER ISLAND, NEW YORK Prepared For Shelter Island Irrigation Committee June 2014 LEGGETTE, BRASHEARS & GRAHAM, INC. Professional Groundwater and Environmental Engineering Services 4 Westchester Park Drive, Suite 175 White Plains, NY 10604 (914) 694-5711 www.lbgweb.com TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 1 Background ........................................................................................... 1 Existing Studies and Data Sources ................................................................ 2 SHELTER ISLAND GEOGRAPHY ...................................................................... 2 General Setting ....................................................................................... 2 Geology/Hydrogeology ............................................................................. 3 Groundwater Levels ................................................................................. 4 Groundwater Flow ................................................................................... 6 GROUNDWATER BUDGET .............................................................................. 7 Groundwater Recharge .............................................................................. 7 Groundwater Demand ............................................................................... 9 Consumptive Use ..................................................................................
    [Show full text]