DOCSLIB.ORG

Town of Philipstown Groundwater Report and Planning Resource

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Town of Philipstown Groundwater Report and Planning Resource Groundwater Report Town of Philipstown Groundwater Report and Planning Resource Town of Philipstown Putnam County, New York June 2007 Prepared for: Town of Philipstown 238 Main Street P.O. Box 155 Cold Spring, NY 10516 ©2007 The Chazen Companies Groundwater Report Town of Philipstown Groundwater Report and Planning Resource Town of Philipstown Putnam County, New York June 2007 Prepared by: The Dutchess County Office The Chazen Companies 21 Fox Street Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 (845) 454-3980 Orange County Capital District North Country (845) 567-1133 (518) 273-0055 (518) 812-0513 Philipstown Groundwater Report TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................. 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 4 2.0 PHILIPSTOWN HYDRO-GEOGRAPHY.......................................................... 5 2.1 Setting, Population, Water & Sewer Service................................................... 5 2.2 Topography......................................................................................................... 5 2.3 Geology ............................................................................................................... 6 2.4 Land Uses......................................................................................................... 10 2.5 Water Requirements, Consumption, and Wastewater Generation ............... 11 2.6 Climate, Vegetation and Imprevious Surfaces............................................... 12 3.0 PHILIPSTOWN GROUNDWATER RESOURCES........................................... 14 3.1 Bedrock Aquifers.............................................................................................. 14 3.2 Surficial Aquifers............................................................................................. 15 3.3 Soils and Aquifer Recharge ............................................................................. 16 3.4 Groundwater Flow ........................................................................................... 19 3.5 Groundwater Quality....................................................................................... 19 3.5.1 Natural Groundwater Quality .................................................................. 20 3.5.2 Introduced Contaminants.......................................................................... 22 3.6 Future Water Supplies .................................................................................... 26 4.0 GROUNDWATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT............................................ 28 4.1 Groundwater Summary................................................................................ 28 The Chazen Companies June 2007 Philipstown Groundwater Report Page ii 4.2 Minimum Parcel Sizes..................................................................................... 28 4.3 Aquifer Protection............................................................................................ 33 4.4 Pumping Test Protocols................................................................................... 35 4.5 Road De-Icing................................................................................................... 35 4.6 Wastewater Management................................................................................ 36 5.0 REFERENCES.................................................................................................... 37 TABLES Table 1 –Depth & Yield Statistics for Bedrock Formations Table 2 – Well Depth Trends Table 3 - Natural Groundwater Quality in Aquifer Formations FIGURES Figure 1 – Hillshade Site Reference Map Figure 2 – Bedrock Geologic Map Figure 3 – Linear Features (Fracture) Map Figure 4 – Soil Survey and NYS Museum Surficial Geology Maps Figure 5– Hydrologic Soil Groups Figure 6 - TMA and State Aquifer Maps Figure 7 – Septic System Density Analysis Figure 8 – Groundwater Sampling Locations PLATES Plate 1 – Aquifer Map Plate 2 – Draft Zoning Overlay Map APPENDICES Appendix A - Groundwater Quality Data Appendix B - Wastewater Treatment Options Analysis Appendix C - Model Aquifer Protection Ordinance The Chazen Companies June 2007 Philipstown Groundwater Report Page 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Town Board of the Town of Philipstown retained The Chazen Companies (TCC) to review groundwater relationships in the Town. The work scope for this study was defined during meetings held in early 2006 by a project team consisting of community residents and Town Board liaisons. Development of aquifer planning recommendations was a recommendation of the Town’s Comprehensive Plan, and justified since a majority of Philipstown residents and many businesses use groundwater as their primary water source. Only residents in Cold Spring and residents in parts of Nelsonville and Continental Village use water from surface water reservoirs. Various reference groundwater maps are provided in this report. Plate 1 shows aquifer boundaries, watershed boundaries, estimated watertable contours, and groundwater flow arrows identifying directions of groundwater migration. Plate 1 is designed to help visualize aquifer conditions throughout the town. Figure 5 shows areas with different aquifer recharge rates throughout the Town. Over 90 percent of the town has either silty soil which allows annual infiltration of 7.6 inches of aquifer recharge or sandy soils which allow 14.7 inches of annual aquifer recharge. Plate 2 is a draft aquifer boundary map showing the extent of the bedrock aquifer under all of Philipstown, Cold Spring and Nelsonville. Plate 2 also identifies the boundaries of a sand and gravel aquifer near the Clove Creek. Plate 2 may be used as an overlay layer map in town zoning. Minimum lot size recommendations are provided for areas where individual septic systems and individual wells will continue to be used. For 90 percent of the Town, the recommended minimum average parcel sizes are between 1.6 and 3.0 acres. Figure 7 identifies areas where existing parcels may already be undersized. Conceptual approaches for improving wastewater treatment in such areas or in other areas with high concentrations of septic systems are reviewed in Appendix B. The report includes recommended levels of aquifer protection for different aquifer areas in Philipstown. These are generally consistent with groundwater management recommendations provided in Putnam County’s 2004 groundwater planning study, also prepared by the Chazen Companies. Hydrogeologic factors governing groundwater availability in Philipstown are summarized here: • Aquifers underlie all parts of Philipstown. These include a sand and gravel aquifer extending under the northern portion of Route 9 near the Clove Creek, and a bedrock aquifer underlying the entire town. These aquifers offer the only ready source of water to many residents and so warrant protection and/or planning management. The Chazen Companies June 2007 Philipstown Groundwater Report Page 2 • In general, adequate groundwater is available in Philipstown to support most present and future water requirements. However, groundwater resources can be locally overtapped, either by over-extraction from wells, or by overloading local aquifer areas with septic system discharges or road salt residues. • The varied topography in Philipstown isolates segments of the bedrock aquifer into discrete subwatershed areas, such as those around the Indian Brook, Philipse Brook, Arden Brook, Clove Creek and Canopus Creek. Although a generally common bedrock aquifer extends across the entire Town, groundwater in these separate watersheds does not mix and cannot be readily moved from one watershed to another, allowing the possibility of local over use or local contamination which cannot be relieved by, or will not cross-contaminate, groundwater in adjacent watersheds. • Expanded future water demand can be readily accommodated in Philipstown, but wells may need to be spread over wider areas to ensure that sufficient aquifer recharge areas are available to support each new well. Site specific well testing is warranted for higher water use wells. • Groundwater quality degradation from septic systems is a form of groundwater over-use if waste constituent concentrations impair drinking water quality. • Philipstown has higher density areas, including commercial and residential centers, and both moderate and low-density areas. Where groundwater is the principal source of water supply, different groundwater management strategies are recommended for the high and the lower density areas. • Federal and State environmental regulations passed since the 1970s, as well as growing availability of improved remediation techniques, have significantly reduced groundwater threats from point sources such as gas stations, dry cleaners, and heavy industry activities. Although the enforcement of groundwater protection regulations applicable to such uses continue to be a concern, outright prohibition of such land uses may be warranted only in highest-risk aquifer areas. Such highest-risk areas could be defined on the basis of aquifer capacity, highly settled areas, or in recharge areas for central water supply wells. • Septic systems represent a wide-spread and potentially-significant source of non- point aquifer contamination. Contaminants from septic systems include not only compounds with existing regulatory standards such as for nitrate or e-coli, but also include more recently recognized constituents such as
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Connecticut Watersheds
    Percent Impervious Surface Summaries for Watersheds CONNECTICUT WATERSHEDS Name Number Acres 1985 %IS 1990 %IS 1995 %IS 2002 %IS ABBEY BROOK 4204 4,927.62 2.32 2.64 2.76 3.02 ALLYN BROOK 4605 3,506.46 2.99 3.30 3.50 3.96 ANDRUS BROOK 6003 1,373.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.09 ANGUILLA BROOK 2101 7,891.33 3.13 3.50 3.78 4.29 ASH CREEK 7106 9,813.00 34.15 35.49 36.34 37.47 ASHAWAY RIVER 1003 3,283.88 3.89 4.17 4.41 4.96 ASPETUCK RIVER 7202 14,754.18 2.97 3.17 3.31 3.61 BALL POND BROOK 6402 4,850.50 3.98 4.67 4.87 5.10 BANTAM RIVER 6705 25,732.28 2.22 2.40 2.46 2.55 BARTLETT BROOK 3902 5,956.12 1.31 1.41 1.45 1.49 BASS BROOK 4401 6,659.35 19.10 20.97 21.72 22.77 BEACON HILL BROOK 6918 6,537.60 4.24 5.18 5.46 6.14 BEAVER BROOK 3802 5,008.24 1.13 1.22 1.24 1.27 BEAVER BROOK 3804 7,252.67 2.18 2.38 2.52 2.67 BEAVER BROOK 4803 5,343.77 0.88 0.93 0.94 0.95 BEAVER POND BROOK 6913 3,572.59 16.11 19.23 20.76 21.79 BELCHER BROOK 4601 5,305.22 6.74 8.05 8.39 9.36 BIGELOW BROOK 3203 18,734.99 1.40 1.46 1.51 1.54 BILLINGS BROOK 3605 3,790.12 1.33 1.48 1.51 1.56 BLACK HALL RIVER 4021 3,532.28 3.47 3.82 4.04 4.26 BLACKBERRY RIVER 6100 17,341.03 2.51 2.73 2.83 3.00 BLACKLEDGE RIVER 4707 16,680.11 2.82 3.02 3.16 3.34 BLACKWELL BROOK 3711 18,011.26 1.53 1.65 1.70 1.77 BLADENS RIVER 6919 6,874.43 4.70 5.57 5.79 6.32 BOG HOLLOW BROOK 6014 4,189.36 0.46 0.49 0.50 0.51 BOGGS POND BROOK 6602 4,184.91 7.22 7.78 8.41 8.89 BOOTH HILL BROOK 7104 3,257.81 8.54 9.36 10.02 10.55 BRANCH BROOK 6910 14,494.87 2.05 2.34 2.39 2.48 BRANFORD RIVER 5111 15,586.31 8.03 8.94 9.33 9.74
    [Show full text]
  • Water Resources
    WATER RESOURCES A tributary of Black Rock Brook, a DEC-classified Class A trout spawning stream, flowing from the Upper Reservoir in Black Rock Forest. This Brook flows into Idlewild Creek, locally known as Canterbury Brook. CHAPTERS, MAPS, AND RELATED CONTENT Watersheds Watersheds & Sub-basins Map Groundwater & Aquifers Public Wells, Aquifers, & Risk Sites Map Floodplains Flood Zones & Flooded Roads Map Wetlands Wetlands & Hydric Soils Map Appendix C: Summary of Municipal Wetland and Watercourse Protection Techniques Appendix D: National Wetland Inventory Wetland Classes Streams & Water Quality Stream Classification Map Stream Biomonitoring & Priority Waterbodies Map Cornwall Natural Resources Inventory 2019 | 49 WATERSHEDS Map(s) referenced: Watersheds & Sub-basins Why You Need This Map When we view our communities using satellite imagery, we see the developed areas, green space – in the form of woodlands, farmland, and meadows – and waterbodies, such as streams, river, lakes, and wetlands. In a two-dimensional viewing, it is difficult to visualize the direction in which water naturally flows. A watershed map serves the purpose of identifying the direction in which all surface waters flow within a specific land area to a waterbody. Highpoints, such as ridges, mountains, and hills, form the typical dividing lines of watersheds and represent the point from which all water flows downward. Watersheds may be further divided into the smaller drainage areas, known as subwatersheds. Because municipal boundaries rarely follow watersheds, working in a watershed context requires communication and coordination between multiple municipalities. Maintaining healthy watersheds is important because they provide critical natural services that sustain and enrich our daily lives, such as plentiful and safe drinking water.
    [Show full text]
  • Greenway Grant Feasibility Study
    TOWN OF PHILIPSTOWN PUTNAM COUNTY NEW YORK GREENWAY GRANT FEASIBILITY STUDY SEPTEMBER 2007 J. Robert Folchetti and Associates, L.L.C. Civil/Environmental Engineers 247 Route 100 Pinewood Business Center Somers, New York 10589 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND -1­ 2.0 COMMUNITY INPUT AND SUPPORT -3­ 3.0 MANAGEMENT AND MAINTENANCE PLANNING -3­ 4.0 CONNECTIONS -4­ 5.0 CULTURAL AND HERITAGE CONSIDERATIONS -4­ 6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION -7­ 7.0 TRAIL ACCESS AND TRAIL SHARING OPPORTUNITIES -7­ 8.0 CONCEPT DESIGN -7­ 1. Existing "Hudson Fjord Bikffrail" Characteristics and Featurs -7­ 2. Altenatives -11­ 9.0 CROSSING AT BROOK TRAILHEAD AND WASHBURN TRAILHEAD....-19­ 10.0 AUTOMOBILE PARKING -19­ 11.0 SIGNAGE -20­ 12.0 TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES -22­ 13.0 WHEELCHAIR ACCESS -24­ 14.0 CAPITAL COSTS -25­ 15.0 CONCLUSION -26­ List of Figures Figure 1 Alternative A Figure 2 Alternative A Figure 3 Alternative B Figure 4 Alterntive B HUDSON FJORD HIKEIBIKE TRAIL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FEASIBILITY STUDY :-,1 AddH'SS: SR-9D and Hudson Highlands State Park INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND The Town of Philipstown proposes the construction of an intermuniciapl multi-use recreational path system on the shoulders of a 2.0-mile segment of New York State Route 9D (SR-9D), comprising the existing 1.57-mileOlong Hudson Fjord BikelHike Trail established by the Philipstown Town Board within the Town of Philipstown together with a 0.43-mile-Iong northward extension in the Town of Fishkill. The proposed multi-use recreational path system that
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis of Route Alternatives (Pdf)
    Analysis of Route Alternatives Assessing Feasibility - Planning Methodology Community Outreach and the Planning Process Public and stakeholder engagement was a critical part of the master planning process. Four public meetings were held (see photos at right) at key intervals during the planning process. Each of the meetings had strong participation, with over 100 people attending each event. Online outreach included direct emails to several local email lists and meeting notifications on the project’s website and Facebook page. Public comments were also solicited using a dedicated e-mail address as well as an online survey that received more than 450 responses. The Steering Committee helped raise awareness of the planning process and opportunities for public and stakeholder input by compiling a list of, and notifying, public agencies and local organizations that focused on topics such as recreational activities, preservation, and economic development. Many of these organizations distributed meeting announcements to their own lists of constituents, which increased awareness of this project and helped attract public participation. Public Meetings Meeting 1: February 17, 2014 Introduced the project and master planning process, along with trail types that might comprise the different alignment possibilities. edL a table mapping exercise in which participants provided detailed input on the route in three sections. Each section was discussed at three or more tables, after which each group presented their discussion to the larger group. Meeting 2: July 9, 2014 Provided updates on the route analysis, including Breakneck Connector funding application (see page 34 for more info on this project component). Fielded public comments and then responded to open questions, with the design team utilizing display boards and maps.
    [Show full text]
  • Block Reports
    MATRIX SITE: 1 RANK: MY NAME: Kezar River SUBSECTION: 221Al Sebago-Ossipee Hills and Plains STATE/S: ME collected during potential matrix site meetings, Summer 1999 COMMENTS: Aquatic features: kezar river watershed and gorgeassumption is good quality Old growth: unknown General comments/rank: maybe-yes, maybe (because of lack of eo’s) Logging history: yes, 3rd growth Landscape assessment: white mountian national forest bordering on north. East looks Other comments: seasonal roads and homes, good. Ownership/ management: 900 state land, small private holdings Road density: low, dirt with trees creating canopy Boundary: Unique features: gorge, Cover class review: 94% natural cover Ecological features, floating keetle hole bog.northern hard wood EO's, Expected Communities: SIZE: Total acreage of the matrix site: 35,645 LANDCOVER SUMMARY: 94 % Core acreage of the matrix site: 27,552 Natural Cover: Percent Total acreage of the matrix site: 35,645 Open Water: 2 Core acreage of the matrix site: 27,552 Transitional Barren: 0 % Core acreage of the matrix site: 77 Deciduous Forest: 41 % Core acreage in natural cover: 96 Evergreen Forest: 18 % Core acreage in non- natural cover: 4 Mixed Forest: 31 Forested Wetland: 1 (Core acreage = > 200m from major road or airport and >100m from local Emergent Herbaceous Wetland: 2 roads, railroads and utility lines) Deciduous shrubland: 0 Bare rock sand: 0 TOTAL: 94 INTERNAL LAND BLOCKS OVER 5k: 37 %Non-Natural Cover: 6 % Average acreage of land blocks within the matrix site: 1,024 Percent Maximum acreage of any
    [Show full text]
  • Open PDF File, 742.26 KB, for 2019 DWM Environmental Monitoring
    2019 DWM ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING OVERVIEW (CN 518.0) A brief overview of the surface water monitoring performed in 2019 by personnel of the MassDEP’s Division of Watershed Management (DWM) is presented here. Information pertaining to the individual components of DWM’s Surface Water Monitoring Program is presented at http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/massdep/water/watersheds/water-quality- monitoring-program.html#1. The main programmatic objectives of the DWM related to surface water quality monitoring are to: . Collect chemical, physical and biological data to assess the degree to which designated uses, such as aquatic life, primary and secondary contact recreation, fish consumption and aesthetics, are supported in the waters of the Commonwealth; . Collect chemical, physical and biological data to support analysis and development of TMDLs and implementation plans to reduce pollutant loads to waters of the Commonwealth; . Screen fish in selected waterbodies for fish tissue contaminants (metals, PCBs and organochlorine pesticides) to provide for public health risk assessment; . To the extent feasible, locate pollution sources and promote and facilitate timely correction; . Identify and assess new and emerging water contaminants of concern; . Collect water quality data to enable the determination of trends in parameter concentrations and/or loads; . Collect data to support the establishment or revision of water quality standards and policies; and to . Measure the effectiveness of water quality management projects or programs such as the effectiveness of implementing TMDLs or watershed-based plans. Quality assurance is maintained for DWM’s watershed monitoring program to ensure implementation of an effective and efficient sampling design, to meet programmatic goals and to provide data meeting specific data quality objectives.
    [Show full text]
  • Ulster Orange Greene Dutchess Albany Columbia Schoharie
    Barriers to Migratory Fish in the Hudson River Estuary Watershed, New York State Minden Glen Hoosick Florida Canajoharie Glenville Halfmoon Pittstown S a r a t o g a Schaghticoke Clifton Park Root Charleston S c h e n e c t a d y Rotterdam Frost Pond Dam Waterford Schenectady Zeno Farm Pond Dam Niskayuna Cherry Valley M o n t g o m e r y Duanesburg Reservoir Dam Princetown Fessenden Pond Dam Long Pond Dam Shaver Pond Dam Mill Pond Dam Petersburgh Duanesburg Hudson Wildlife Marsh DamSecond Pond Dam Cohoes Lake Elizabeth Dam Sharon Quacken Kill Reservoir DamUnnamed Lent Wildlife Pond Dam Delanson Reservoir Dam Masick Dam Grafton Lee Wildlife Marsh Dam Brunswick Martin Dunham Reservoir Dam Collins Pond Dam Troy Lock & Dam #1 Duane Lake Dam Green Island Cranberry Pond Dam Carlisle Esperance Watervliet Middle DamWatervliet Upper Dam Colonie Watervliet Lower Dam Forest Lake Dam Troy Morris Bardack Dam Wager Dam Schuyler Meadows Club Dam Lake Ridge Dam Beresford Pond Dam Watervliet rapids Ida Lake Dam 8-A Dyken Pond Dam Schuyler Meadows Dam Mt Ida Falls Dam Altamont Metal Dam Roseboom Watervliet Reservoir Dam Smarts Pond Dam dam Camp Fire Girls DamUnnamed dam Albia Dam Guilderland Glass Pond Dam spillway Wynants Kill Walter Kersch Dam Seward Rensselaer Lake Dam Harris Dam Albia Ice Pond Dam Altamont Main Reservoir Dam West Albany Storm Retention Dam & Dike 7-E 7-F Altamont Reservoir Dam I-90 Dam Sage Estates Dam Poestenkill Knox Waldens Pond DamBecker Lake Dam Pollard Pond Dam Loudonville Reservoir Dam John Finn Pond Dam Cobleskill Albany Country Club Pond Dam O t s e g o Schoharie Tivoli Lake Dam 7-A .
    [Show full text]
  • Northern Highlands: Trail Map North Breakneck Ridg
    Consider these park-approved hiking suggestions for your next outing! ● Northern Highlands: Trail Map North ○ Breakneck Ridge: A difficult climb over some of the steepest, most exposed terrain in the Hudson Highlands, with dramatic views. Wear sturdy shoes and have hands free for rock scrambling necessary to ascend. Not recommended for pets, beginners, or during stormy weather or after precipitation. ■ Breakneck Ridge (Short Loop): 2.5 mi. (White Yellow Green Red) From the Breakneck Ridge Trailhead on Route 9D, follow the Breakneck Ridge trail (White) up a steep rock scramble passing three overlooks. Continue along the Breakneck Ridge trail (White), then turn right at the junction with Undercliff (Yellow). Bear right onto the Green trail, then make a right onto the Brook Trail (Red) to return to 9D. Once on 9D, walk north through the tunnel back to the Breakneck Ridge Trailhead. ■ Breakneck Ridge (Full Loop): 3.25 mi. (White Red Yellow) From the Breakneck Ridge Trailhead on Route 9D, follow the Breakneck Ridge trail (White) up a steep rock scramble passing four overlooks. Continue along until the junction with the Breakneck Bypass trail (Red). Turn left and continue to the Wilkinson Trail (Yellow). Turn left to return to 9D and the Breakneck Ridge Trailhead. ■ Breakneck to Cold Spring: 4.5 mi. plus a 1 mi. walk to Cold Spring (White Blue Red Blue) Please note that this hike is not a loop and you will end up at a different location from where you begin. Start from the Breakneck Ridge Trailhead on Route 9D. Follow the Breakneck Ridge trail (White) up a steep rock scramble, passing four overlooks.
    [Show full text]
  • Preliminary Scoping Statement
    PRELIMINARY SCOPING STATEMENT Danskammer Energy Center Town of Newburgh Orange County, New York Case No.: 18-F-0325 Prepared for: Danskammer Energy, LLC 181 South Plank Road Newburgh, New York 12550 Contact: Mr. William Reid [email protected], (646) 783-3717 Prepared by: TRC 1200 Wall Street West, 5th Floor Lyndhurst, NJ 07071 February 2019 Danskammer Energy Center Preliminary Scoping Statement TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ........................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Introduction of Applicant and Their Property Rights and Interests ..................... 1-1 1.2 Brief Description of the Proposed Project ........................................................... 1-6 1.3 Project Purpose and Benefits ............................................................................. 1-10 1.4 Consistency with Energy Planning Objectives .................................................. 1-11 1.4.1 New York State Energy Plan ................................................................. 1-11 1.5 Project Location and Site History ...................................................................... 1-12 1.6 Overview of Environmental Setting .................................................................. 1-13 1.7 Public Involvement Program ............................................................................. 1-15 1.7.1 Planning and Pre-Application Phase ...................................................... 1-15 1.7.2 Study and Application Phase ................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Clarence Fahnestock & Hudson Highlands
    Final Master Plan/ Final Environmental Impact Statement For Clarence Fahnestock Memorial State Park and Hudson Highlands State Park Preserve December 15, 2010 David A. Paterson Governor Andy Beers Acting Commissioner Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation SEQR NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Date of Notice: December 15, 2010 Lead Agency: New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) Title of Action: Adoption and Implementation of a Master Plan for Clarence Fahnestock Memorial State Park and Hudson Highlands State Park Preserve SEQR Status: Type I Location of Action: Clarence Fahnestock Memorial State Park is located in the Towns of Carmel, Kent, Philipstown and Putnam Valley in Putnam County. Hudson Highlands State Park Preserve is located in the Towns of Fishkill, Philipstown, and Cortlandt, the Villages of Cold Spring and Nelsonville and the City of Beacon within Dutchess, Putnam and Westchester Counties. This Notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review) of the Environmental Conservation Law. A Final Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) on the proposed action has been prepared and accepted by OPRHP. The Executive Summary of the Master Plan/FEIS describes the proposed action, the environmental setting, alternatives and potential environmental impacts and mitigation. Agencies and the public are afforded the opportunity to consider the FEIS; this consideration period ends on December 24, 2010. Copies of the Final Plan/FEIS are available for review at the Park Office; at the offices of the agency contacts and at the Butterfield Memorial Library, 10 Morris Ave.
    [Show full text]
  • Iii-E. Bicycle and Pedestrian Network System
    III-E. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN NETWORK SYSTEM A. INTRODUCTION While recreation has been the primary use for bicycling and walking modes in the past, transportation officials are increasingly recognizing bicyclists and pedestrians as primary transportation modes for everyday activities. Since the early 1970s, bicycling and walking for commuting and travel purposes has been increasing and with recent pushes in combating climate change and promoting energy efficiency, cost effectiveness and health benefits, both of these modes are maintaining, and growing, their foothold as recognized daily transportation modes. Within the CMMPO region, the existing bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure network can be classified as two types: (1) On-road Accommodations and (2) Long-Distance Bikeways/Trails/ Paths. B. ON-ROAD ACCOMMODATIONS Much more common than “off-road” accommodations, “on-road” accommodations for bicyclists and pedestrians can be found in all of the 40 communities in the region. Because all of the communities in the region were established prior to the development of motorized vehicles, almost all of the have a Central Business District, town center or downtown that was developed around high-density land uses with a multi-purpose street network. In addition, many neighborhoods outside of the downtown or town centers were built with pedestrian accommodations that connected to other neighborhoods. B.1 Types of Facilities Within any given corridor, bicyclists and pedestrians might ideally be provided with more than one option to meet their travel and access. Below are common “on-road” bicycle and pedestrian facilities and accommodations that are typically found in urban and suburban areas: B.1.1 Shared Lanes Shared lanes are streets and highways with no special provision for bicyclists.
    [Show full text]
  • 90 Dams Removed in 2019 to Restore Rivers
    90 Dams Removed in 2019 to Restore Rivers American Rivers releases annual list including dams in Alabama, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin for a total of 26 states. Nationwide, 1,722 dams have been removed from 1912 through 2019. Dam removal brings a variety of benefits to local communities, including restoring river health and clean water, revitalizing fish and wildlife, improving public safety and recreation, and enhancing local economies. Working in a variety of functions with partner organizations throughout the country, American Rivers contributed financial and technical support in many of the removals. Contact information is provided for dam removals, if available. For further information about the list, please contact Jessie Thomas-Blate, American Rivers, Director of River Restoration at 202.347.7550 or [email protected]. This list includes all dam removals reported to American Rivers (as of February 6, 2020) that occurred in 2019, regardless of the level of American Rivers’ involvement. Inclusion on this list does not indicate endorsement by American Rivers. Dams are categorized alphabetically by state. Howle and Turner Dam, Tallapoosa River, Alabama The removal of Howle and Turner Dam was in the works for over four years. This project was the result of a great partnership between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife program and the Alabama Rivers and Streams Network. The Service coordinated the pre-restoration planning and worked with their Fisheries and Aquatic Conservation Aquatic Habitat Restoration Team to carry out the demolition and restoration of the river channel.
    [Show full text]