DOCSLIB.ORG

2010 5-Year Review Monitoring Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2010 5-Year Review Monitoring Report United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service 5-year Review of the 2005 Forest Plan Ouachita National Forest Arkansas and Oklahoma The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Five Year Review iii TABLE OF CONTENTS FINDINGS OF THE 5-YEAR REVIEW .................................................................................................. 3 EMERGING ISSUES AND EMERGING NATIONAL/REGIONAL POLICY/DIRECTION ................................... 6 THE OUACHITA NATIONAL FOREST ................................................................................................. 1 THE 2005 FOREST PLAN ................................................................................................................ 2 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 2005 PLAN ............................................................................................. 2 MONITORING ................................................................................................................................. 3 PURPOSE OF THE 5-YEAR REVIEW .................................................................................................. 3 IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING REVIEWS ........................................................................................ 4 CONTRIBUTION OF THE OUACHITA NATIONAL FOREST TO SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY .... 4 DESIRED CONDITIONS .................................................................................................................... 7 COMPARISON OF EXISTING CONDITIONS TO DESIRED CONDITIONS................................................... 7 Air Quality .................................................................................................................................... 7 Soils ............................................................................................................................................11 Terrestrial Ecosystems ...............................................................................................................12 Terrestrial Habitats and Elements ...............................................................................................31 Management Indicator Species and Wildlife Habitat Management .............................................40 Terrestrial Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Species Habitat .........................................55 R8 Sensitive Species and Terrestrial Species of Viability Concern.............................................63 Other Wildlife Considerations......................................................................................................69 Vegetation Management .............................................................................................................70 Watershed Function ....................................................................................................................84 Riparian and Aquatic Ecosystems ..............................................................................................89 Aquatic Communities/Fisheries Habitat ......................................................................................95 Heritage Resources ..................................................................................................................128 Recreation and Scenery Management ......................................................................................129 Conservation Education and Stewardship ................................................................................138 Transportation ...........................................................................................................................139 Facility Operation and Maintenance ..........................................................................................143 Law Enforcement - Public and Agency Safety ..........................................................................148 Commodity, Commercial, and Special Uses .............................................................................150 Collaboration .............................................................................................................................153 APPENDIX A – AMENDMENTS TO THE 2005 FOREST PLAN ........................................................... 159 APPENDIX B - PROJECTS UNDER 2005 PLAN ............................................................................... 160 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 161 5-year Review i Findings of the 5-year Review Based on information gained through 5 years of Forest Plan monitoring, summarized in this report, the Forest Plan Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) made findings and developed recommendations for possible changes to the Plan and Forest Plan implementation. The IDT recommended consideration of Forest Plan amendments to address: Adjusting Management Area 22 boundaries to better reflect Red-cockaded Woodpecker habitat management needs Leasing decisions (and/or stipulations) for minerals and energy development Allowing prescribed fire during county burn bans Updating conservation provisions for the American Burying Beetle (through a Conservation Plan completed after the 2005 Revised Forest Plan went into effect) Updating some statements of desired conditions and certain design criteria for soil and water, transportation, and lands The IDT also recommended revising or deleting several Forest Plan monitoring questions. Finally, the IDT identified several categories of emerging issues and policies that may affect forest management in the future: Smoke Management Soils White-nosed Syndrome (bats) Biomass Utilization Climate Change Watershed Function Watershed Health Lake Level Management Heritage Resources Measurement Flooding in Developed Recreation Areas Land Administration Special Use Permits Early Seral Stage Creation Stewardship Contracts Collaboration and Partnerships Determination Based on monitoring of Forest Plan implementation from December 2005 through September 2010 and the 5-year Review, I have determined that neither conditions on the land nor the demands of the public have changed significantly since 2005. However, the 5-Year Review did identify concerns that could lead to amendments to the Forest Plan and changes in the ways the Plan is implemented over the next 5 years. These “needs for change” will be addressed in Fiscal Years 2012-2014. /s/ Bill Pell (for) September 30, 2011 Norman L. Wagoner Date Forest Supervisor, Ouachita National Forest Forest Supervisor Determination Executive Summary of the 5-year Review The 5-year Review summarizes results and identifies trends from the past 5 years of monitoring the implementation of the Forest Land and Resource Management Plan for the Ouachita National Forest. The 5-year Review helps determine if there are significant trends or new information that would indicate a need to change the Forest Plan or adjust implementation activities. The findings of the 5-year Review are grouped under two headings: Changes to the Forest Plan that may require one or more plan amendments Emerging issues and emerging national/regional policy/direction Changes to the Forest Plan to Consider Management Area 22/RCW: To accommodate the probable near term expansion of Red-cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) clusters northward into nearby high quality habitat in Scott, County, Arkansas, the boundaries of the Arkansas Habitat Management Area (HMA) and Management Area 22 may need to be adjusted. A Forest Plan amendment would be needed. Minerals and Energy Development: Interest in gas exploration is increasing, mainly on the Poteau and Cold Springs Ranger Districts where coal-bed methane reserves exist. Inquiries and past actions have also occurred on the Oklahoma Ranger Districts and the Mena-Oden Ranger Districts. It is recommended that the Forest request a new Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario (RFDS) from the Bureau of Land Management to update the RFDS used for the 2005 Forest Plan. After the RFDS is updated, the Forest should perform a Changed Conditions Analysis. Such an analysis may require an amendment to the Forest Plan if any changes are needed in the leasing decisions and/or stipulations. Prescribed Fire Use during County Burn Bans: A forest-wide design criterion in the 2005 Forest Plan (AQ004, p. 73) prohibits the Forest from conducting prescribed burns when county “Burn Bans” are in effect. Experience since 2005 has shown that county burn bans have often been put into force under conditions that are still well within parameters for safe and effective controlled burns conducted on the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Flood-Frequency Comparison from 1995 to 2016 and Trends in Peak Streamflow in Arkansas, Water Years 1930–2016
    Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood-Frequency Comparison from 1995 to 2016 and Trends in Peak Streamflow in Arkansas, Water Years 1930–2016 MISSOURI Eleven Point River S p r i n White River g Strawberry River R iv Black River Illinois River er North Sylamore Creek White River Black River Little Red River TENNESSEE OKLAHOMA Arkansas River ARKANSAS James Fork River Poteau White River Dutch Creek Bayou Meto South Fourche LaFave River Fourche LaFave River Arkansas River A Cossatot River nto in e R Saline River i v e Saline River r Little Missouri River B a MISSISSIPPI y o Mississippi River u Little River B a r t Ouachita River h o l o m e Red River S w m a c Bayou Macon kover Creek TEXAS Ouachita River LOUISIANA Scientific Investigations Report 2019–5131 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover. Physiographic sections in Arkansas and surrounding States (modified from figure 1). Flood-Frequency Comparison from 1995 to 2016 and Trends in Peak Streamflow in Arkansas, Water Years 1930–2016 By Paul A. Ensminger and Brian K. Breaker Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Federal Emergency Management Agency Scientific Investigations Report 2019–5131 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior DAVID BERNHARDT, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey James F. Reilly II, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2019 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit https://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS.
    [Show full text]
  • Floods of May 1968 in South Arkansas
    Floods of May 1968 in South Arkansas GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1970-A Prepared in cooperation with the Arkansas State Highway Commission Floods of May 1968 in South Arkansas By R. C. GILSTRAP FLOODS OF 1968 IN THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1970-A Prepared in cooperation with the Arkansas State Highway Commission u. s. s. s. WATER RESOURCES DIVISION ROLL A, MO. RECEIVED APR 101972 AM PM 7|8|9|10|ll|12[li2i3i4i5|6 UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1972 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ROGERS C. B. MORTON, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY V. E. McKelvey, Director Library of Congress catalog-card No. GS 76-185107 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $1 (paper cover) Stock Number 2401-1214 CONTENTS Page Abstract................................................................................................................................... Al Introduction.................................................................. ....................................................... 1 Acknowledgments................................................................................................................ 3 Definitions of terms and abbreviations...... .......... ........................................................... 3 Precipitation.................. .................................................................................................... 4 Floods..............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Archaeology, Bioarchaeology, Ethnography, Ethnohistory, and History Bibliography of the Caddo Indian Peoples of Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas
    Volume 2021 Article 1 2021 The Archaeology, Bioarchaeology, Ethnography, Ethnohistory, and History Bibliography of the Caddo Indian Peoples of Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas Timothy K. Perttula None Duncan McKinnon Scott Hammerstedt University of Oklahoma Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/ita Part of the American Material Culture Commons, Archaeological Anthropology Commons, Environmental Studies Commons, Other American Studies Commons, Other Arts and Humanities Commons, Other History of Art, Architecture, and Archaeology Commons, and the United States History Commons Tell us how this article helped you. Cite this Record Perttula, Timothy K.; McKinnon, Duncan; and Hammerstedt, Scott (2021) "The Archaeology, Bioarchaeology, Ethnography, Ethnohistory, and History Bibliography of the Caddo Indian Peoples of Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas," Index of Texas Archaeology: Open Access Gray Literature from the Lone Star State: Vol. 2021, Article 1. ISSN: 2475-9333 Available at: https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/ita/vol2021/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Center for Regional Heritage Research at SFA ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Index of Texas Archaeology: Open Access Gray Literature from the Lone Star State by an authorized editor of SFA ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Archaeology, Bioarchaeology, Ethnography, Ethnohistory, and History Bibliography of the Caddo Indian Peoples of Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. This article is available in Index of Texas Archaeology: Open Access Gray Literature from the Lone Star State: https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/ita/vol2021/iss1/1 1 The Archaeology, Bioarchaeology, Ethnography, Ethnohistory, and History Bibliography of the Caddo Indian Peoples of Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas Compiled by Timothy K.
    [Show full text]
  • Leflore County, Oklahoma
    Leflore County, Oklahoma Lowell Caneday, Ph.D. With Kaowen (Grace) Chang, Ph.D., Debra Jordan, Re.D., Tyler Tapps, Ph.D., Kevin Fink, Michael J. Bradley, and Diane S. Hassell This page intentionally left blank. 2 Acknowledgements The authors acknowledge the assistance of numerous individuals in the preparation of this Resource Management Plan. On behalf of the Oklahoma Tourism and Recreation Department’s Division of State Parks, staff members were extremely helpful in providing access to information and in sharing of their time. The essential staff providing assistance for the development of the RMP included Rodger Cunningham, the manager of Lake Wister State Park who also has responsibility for Talimena State Park. In addition, Mandee Hafer provided assistance for numerous details related to Talimena State Park. Assistance was also provided by Hardy Watkins, Kris Marek, and Doug Hawthorne – all from the Oklahoma City office of the Oklahoma Tourism and Recreation Department. Bryce Todd, southeast regional manager for Oklahoma State Parks, also assisted throughout the project. It is the purpose of the Resource Management Plan to be a living document to assist with decisions related to the resources within the park and the management of those resources. The authors’ desire is to assist decision-makers in providing high quality outdoor recreation experiences and resources for current visitors, while protecting the experiences and the resources for future generations. Lowell Caneday, Ph.D., Professor Leisure Studies Oklahoma State University
    [Show full text]
  • Human Adaptation in the Ozark and Ouachita Mountains by George Sabo III, Ann M
    Human Adaptation in the Ozark and Ouachita Mountains by George Sabo III, Ann M. Early, Jerome C. Rose, Barbara A. Burnett, Louis Vogele, Jr., and James P. Harcourt Prepared by the Arkansas Archeological Survey Fayetteville, Arkansas 1990 Arkansas Archeological Survey Fayetteville, Arkansas 72702 First Printing, 1988; Second Printing, 1990, by the Arkansas Department of Corrections, Wrightsville Third Printing, 1998, by University of Arkansas Printing Services Forth Printing, 2003, by University of Arkansas Printing Services Printed in the United States of America Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 90-80912 ii ABSTRACT This overview provides a synthesis of the current state of knowledge concerning archeological resources in the Ozark Mountain—Arkansas River—Ouachita Mountain subregion of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Southwest Division. Basic information on the environment of the study area is provided, followed by a review of the history of archeological research in the region. Prehistoric culture history is then reviewed according to the conventional framework of Paleo-Indian, Archaic, Woodland, and Mississippi time periods. Historic Na- tive American, European, and American settlement history is also considered. The history of bioarcheological research in the region is summarized, and a suggested framework for future bioarcheological investigations is provided. Bioarcheological data pertaining to the Archaic, Woodland, and Mississippi periods are then reviewed and several interpretations are made. The overview concludes with a synthesis of the archeological and bioarcheological data and interpretations in terms of four prehistoric and five historic period adaptation types. The basic features of each adaptation are identified, along with specification of important data gaps and signifi- cant research questions.
    [Show full text]
  • 2008 Integrated Report
    WATER QUALITY IN OKLAHOMA 2008 INTEGRATED REPORT PREPARED PURSUANT TO SECTION 303(D) AND SECTION 305(B) OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT BY OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Table of Contents Acronyms and Definitions .................................................................................................................................................. 1 Agencies ......................................................................................................................................................... 1 Terminologies ................................................................................................................................................ 1 Executive Summary/Overview ......................................................................................................................................... 5 Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 303(d) Requirements ....................................................................... 5 CWA Section 305(b) Requirements .......................................................................................................... 5 Integrated List Guidance ............................................................................................................................ 5 Category 1 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Category 2 ..............................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix a Summary of the Excess Water Calculation Method and Relevant Assumptions
    Appendix A Summary of the Excess Water Calculation Method and Relevant Assumptions Appendix A Arkansas State Water Plan Calculation Method Summary for Surface Water Availability Arkansas State Water Plan Calculation Method Summary for Surface Water Availability Appendix A TABLE OF CONTENTS A1. ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN ......................................................................................... A-1 1.1 Arkansas River: ................................................................................................... A-1 1.2 Baron Fork: ......................................................................................................... A-1 1.3 Big Piney Creek: ................................................................................................. A-1 1.4 Cadron Creek: ..................................................................................................... A-2 1.5 Fourche La Fave River........................................................................................ A-2 1.6 Illinois Bayou ...................................................................................................... A-2 1.7 Illinois River ....................................................................................................... A-3 1.8 Lee Creek ............................................................................................................ A-4 1.9 Mulberry River.................................................................................................... A-4 1.10 Petit Jean River ..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Revised Forest Plan
    United States Department of Revised Agriculture Land and Resource Forest Management Plan Service September 2005 Ouachita National Forest Arkansas and Oklahoma The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. TABLE OF CONTENTS PART 1 – VISION ........................................................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................................. 1 ORGANIZATION OF THE REVISED FOREST PLAN...............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Poteau River TMDL for Turbidity
    TMDL FOR TURBIDITY FOR THE POTEAU RIVER NEAR FORT SMITH, AR FINAL December 29, 2005 TMDL FOR TURBIDITY FOR THE POTEAU RIVER NEAR FORT SMITH, AR Prepared for EPA Region VI Water Quality Protection Division Permits, Oversight, and TMDL Team Dallas, TX 75202 Contract No. 68-C-02-108 Task Order #99 Prepared by FTN Associates, Ltd. 3 Innwood Circle, Suite 220 Little Rock, AR 72211 FINAL December 29, 2005 FINAL Turbidity TMDL for Poteau River December 29, 2005 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Section 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act requires states to identify waterbodies that are not meeting water quality standards and to develop total maximum daily pollutant loads for those waterbodies. A total maximum daily load (TMDL) is the amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can assimilate without exceeding the established water quality standards for that pollutant. Through a TMDL, pollutant loads can be allocated to point sources and nonpoint sources discharging to the waterbody. The study area for this project is part of the Poteau River watershed near Fort Smith in western Arkansas. The study area is part of the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) Planning Segment 3I and is located within the Arkansas River Valley ecoregion. Land use in the study area is about 49% pasture and 28% forest. Reach 11110105-001 of the Poteau River was included on the draft 2004 Arkansas 303(d) list as not supporting the aquatic life use due to exceedances of numeric criteria for turbidity. The applicable numeric criteria for turbidity for this reach are 21 NTU (“primary” value) and 40 NTU (“storm-flow” value).
    [Show full text]
  • Report Includes 11 Plates]
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Text to Accompany: OPEN-FILE REPORT 79-497 1985 FEDERAL COAL RESOURCE OCCURRENCE AND FEDERAL COAL DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL MAPS OF THE HACKETT 7.5-MINUTE QUADRANGLE LE FLORE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA, AND SEBASTIAN COUNTY, ARKANSAS [Report includes 11 plates] Prepared by Geological Services of Tulsa, Inc. Tulsa, Oklahoma B. T. Brady U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado and J. L. Querry Bureau of Land Management, Tulsa, Oklahoma This report was prepared under contract to the U.S. Geological Survey, and has not been edited for conformity with Geological Survey editorial standards or stratigraphlc nomenclature. Opinions expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of the Geolgical Survey. CONTENTS Page Introduction ....................................................... 1 Purpose ......................................................... 1 Location ........................................................ 1 Accessibililty .................................................. 1 Physiography .................................................... 2 Climate and vegetation .......................................... 2 Land status ..................................................... 2 General geology..................................................... - 2 Previous work ................................................... 2 Stratigraphy .................................................... 3 Structure ....................................................... 5 Coal geology .......................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Arkansas Watershed Planning Region Contents
    The objective of the Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan is to ensure a dependable water supply for all Oklahomans through integrated and coordinated water resources planning by providing the information necessary for water providers, policy-makers, and end users to make informed decisions concerning the use and management of Oklahoma’s water resources. This study, managed and executed by the Oklahoma Water Resources Board under its authority to update the Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan, was funded jointly through monies generously provided by the Oklahoma State Legislature and the federal government through cooperative agreements with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation. The online version of this 2012 OCWP Watershed Planning Region Report (Version 1.1) includes figures that have been updated since distribution of the original printed version. Revisions herein primarily pertain to the seasonality (i.e., the percent of total annual demand distributed by month) of Crop Irrigation demand. While the annual water demand remains unchanged, the timing and magnitude of projected gaps and depletions have been modified in some basins. The online version may also include other additional or updated data and information since the original version was printed. Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Lower Arkansas Watershed Planning Region Contents Introduction . 1 Water Supply Options . 40 Basin Data & Analysis . 45 Regional Overview . 1 Limitations Analysis . 40 Basin 44 . 45 Lower Arkansas Regional Summary . 2 Primary Options . 40 Basin 45 . 55 Synopsis . 2 Demand Management . 40 Basin 46 . 65 Water Resources & Limitations . 2 Out-of-Basin Supplies . 40 Basin 47 . 75 Water Supply Options . 4 Reservoir Use .
    [Show full text]
  • Sebastian County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update FMA FEMA Awarded
    Sebastian County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update FMA FEMA Awarded Table of Contents Adoption Resolution Participating Jurisdictions and School Districts Sample Resolutions Section 1 Planning Process 1.1 Plan Introduction 1.1.1 Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 1.1.2 Parts of the Plan 1.1.3 Involvement for Local Governments 1.1.4 Neighboring Community Involvement 1.1.5 Public Review 1.1.6 Plan Developers 1.2 Plan Maintenance Process 1.2.1 Monitoring, Evaluation, and Updating the Plan 1.2.2 Incorporating into Existing Mechanicals 1.2.3 Continuous Public Involvement Section 2 Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment 2.1 Hazard Identification and Prioritization 2.2 Vulnerable Structures/Facilities 2.3 Vulnerability and Risk Assessment by Hazard 2.4 Methodology Estimating Potential Loss 2.5 Natural Hazard Affecting Sebastian County 2.5.1 Dam Failure 2.5.1.1 Description of Dam Failure 2.5.1.2 Location of Dams 2.5.1.3 Fdfdfdfs Extent, Magnitude or Severity of Dam Failure 2.5.1.4 Multi-Jurisdictional Risk Assessment 2.5.2 Drought 2.5.2.1 Description of Drought 2.5.2.2 Location of Drought Events 2.5.2.3 Extent, Magnitude or Severity of Drought 2.5.2.4 Previous Occurrences 2.5.2.5 Probability of Future Drought Events 2.5.2.6 Impact of Drought 2.5.2.7 Vulnerability and Estimating Potential Loss 2.5.2.8 Multi-Jurisdictional Risk Assessment 2.5.3 Extreme Heat 2.5.3.1 Description of Extreme Heat 2.5.3.2 Location Affected by Extreme Heat Sebastian County Draft Hazard Mitigation Plan 1 2.5.3.3 Extent, Magnitude or Severity of Extreme Heat Events 2.5.3.4
    [Show full text]