DOCSLIB.ORG

Chapter 4.3 Vulnerability Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Chapter 4.3 Vulnerability Assessment 4.3 Vulnerability Assessment Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the jurisdiction’s vulnerability to the hazards described in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section. This description shall include an overall summary of each hazard and its impact on the community. Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(A): The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of existing and future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas. Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(B): [The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of an] estimate of the potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures identified in paragraph (c)(2)(i)(A) of this section and a description of the methodology used to prepare the estimate. Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(C): [The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of] providing a general description of land uses and development trends within the community so that mitigation options can be considered in future land use decisions. With Sacramento County’s hazards identified and profiled, the HMPC conducted a vulnerability assessment to describe the impact that each hazard would have on the Sacramento County Planning Area. The vulnerability assessment quantifies, to the extent feasible using best available data, assets at risk to natural hazards and estimates potential losses. This section focuses on the risks to the County as a whole. Data from the individual participating jurisdictions was also evaluated and is integrated here and in the jurisdictional annexes, and noted where the risk differs for a particular jurisdiction within the Planning Area. This vulnerability assessment followed the methodology described in the FEMA publication Understanding Your Risks—Identifying Hazards and Estimating Losses. The vulnerability assessment first describes the total vulnerability and values at risk and then discusses vulnerability by hazard. Data Sources Data used to support this assessment included the following: ArkStorm at Tahoe - Stakeholder Perspectives on Vulnerabilities and Preparedness for an Extreme Storm Event in the Greater Lake Tahoe, Reno and Carson City Region. 2014. birdnature.com Pacific Flyway California Adaptation Planning Guide Cal-Adapt CAL FIRE GIS datasets California Department of Finance, E-1 Report California Department of Finance, E-4 Report California Department of Finance, P-1 Report California Department of Fish and Game's Natural Diversity Database California Department of Food and Agriculture Sacramento County 4-192 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update December 2016 California Native Plant Society California Office of Historic Preservation County GIS data (hazards, base layers, and assessor’s data) Delta Risk Management Strategy. June 2011. Existing plans and studies Federal Aviation Administration National Wildlife Database FEMA’s HAZUS-MH 2.2 GIS-based inventory data FEMA Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map. June 16, 2015. FEMA Sacramento County Flood Insurance Study. June 16, 2015. Liu, J.C., Mickley, L.J., Sulprizio, M.P. et al. Climatic Change. 138: 655. doi:10.1007/s10584-016- 1762-6. 2016. Kenward, Alyson PhD, Adams-Smith, Dennis, and Raja, Urooj. Wildfires and Air Pollution – The Hidden Health Hazards of Climate Change. Climate Central. 2013. National Drought Mitigation Center – Drought Impact Reporter National Park Service – Historic American Buildings Survey and Historic American Engineering Record Personal interviews with planning team members and staff from the County and participating jurisdictions Preliminary Draft – Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for the Sacramento County Climate Adaptation Plan Sacramento County 2035 General Plan Sacramento County Department of Water Resources Sacramento County General Plan Environmental Impact Report Sacramento County General Plan Open Space Element Background Sacramento County of Governments Population Projections for 2008, 2020, and 2035 Sacramento General Plan Background Report Sacramento Municipal Utility District Dam inundation maps South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan State Department of Water Resource’s Delta Atlas Statewide GIS datasets compiled by the California Office of Emergency Services to support mitigation planning University of California – Integrated Pest Management Program US Census Bureau 2010 Household Population Estimates US Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency US Fish and Wildlife Service US Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wetlands Inventory maps Written descriptions of inventory and risks provided by participating jurisdictions 4.3.1. Sacramento County Vulnerability and Assets at Risk As a starting point for analyzing the Planning Area’s vulnerability to identified hazards, the HMPC used a variety of data to define a baseline against which all disaster impacts could be compared. If a catastrophic disaster was to occur in the Planning Area, this section describes significant assets at risk in the Planning Area. Data used in this baseline assessment included: Total assets at risk; Sacramento County 4-193 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update December 2016 Critical facility inventory; Cultural, historical, and natural resources; and Growth and development trends. Total Assets at Risk The total assets at risk for Sacramento County is intended to capture the values associated with assessed assets located within the Sacramento County Planning Area. The 2016 GIS parcel layer, obtained from Sacramento County GIS and the 2015 Sacramento County Assessor’s Data – Certified Roll obtained from the County Assessor was used for this analysis. This data provided by Sacramento County represents best available data. Understanding the total assessed value of Sacramento County is a starting point to understanding the overall value of the Planning Area. When the total assessed values are combined with potential values associated with other community assets such as natural resources, cultural and historic resources, and public and private critical infrastructure, the big picture emerges as to what is potentially at risk and vulnerable to the damaging effects of natural hazards within the County Planning Area. Data Limitations & Notations Although based on best available data, the resulting information should only be used as an initial guide to overall values in the County. The County GIS parcel data contained 445,518 records and the County Assessor data contained 474,727 records. Both tables were joined together within the GIS environment, and a total of 444,089 records were linked. In some cases, it is possible that the Assessor data may contain duplicate records under one parcel identification number (APN). For the purpose of this study, 1 Assessor record corresponds to 1 GIS parcel. In total, there were 2,429 Assessor records that are not included in the Total Assets at Risk Tables detailed below and are also excluded from further hazard analyses as these records were not matched to the GIS records. In the event of a disaster, infrastructure and improvements are at the greatest risk of damage. Depending on the type of hazard and resulting damages, the land itself may not suffer a significant loss. For that reason, the values of infrastructure and improvements are of greatest concern. As such, it is critical to note a specific limitation to the assessed values data within the County, due to Proposition 13. Instead of adjusting property values annually, no adjustments are made until a property transfer occurs. As a result, overall property value information is most likely low and may not reflect current market or true potential loss values for properties within the County. Methodology Sacramento County’s 2015 Assessor Data provided by the County Assessor’s office, were used as the basis for the inventory of assessed values for both improved and unimproved parcels within the Planning Area. The source GIS parcel data used for this analysis provides the land and improved values assessed for each parcel, along with information about property use and ownership. The jurisdiction in which the parcel resides is also indicated in the source parcel data. Sacramento County 4-194 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update December 2016 Sacramento County Use Codes provide detailed descriptive information about how each property is generally used, such as irrigated farm, apartment, restaurant, or industrial warehouse. The many use codes were logically grouped into the following simplified categories for the hazards analysis: Agricultural, Care/Health, Church/Welfare, Industrial, Miscellaneous, Office, Public/Utilities, Recreational, Residential, Retail/Commercial, Vacant, and No Data. Once Use Codes were grouped into categories, the number of total and improved parcels were inventoried by jurisdiction. Values associated with land, and improved structure values were identified and summed in order to determine total values at risk in the Sacramento County Planning Area, and specific to each jurisdiction. Together, the Land Value and Improved Structure Value make up the total value associated with each identified parcel or asset. Improved parcel counts were based on the assumption that a parcel was improved if a structure value was present. The Sacramento County Planning Area has a total land value of $38.87 billion, improved structure value of $90.9 billion, and a total value of $ $129.7 billion. Unincorporated Sacramento County has 157,818 improved parcels with a total value (both land and improvements)
Load more

Recommended publications
  • APPENDIX a Transportation Study
    APPENDIX A Transportation Study Submitted by: 2990 Lava Ridge Court Suite 200 Roseville, CA 95661 DRAFT OCTOBER 2011 Chapter 4|THE PLAN Exhibit 4-1. Preferred Alternative Plan Prepared for: Old Sacramento State Historic Park General Plan and EIR | Page 4-5 Final Transportation Study for the Old Sacramento State Historic Park and California State Railroad Museum General Plan December 2011 RS10-2810 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction .................................................................................. 1 Project Description .................................................................................................................................... 2 Study Intersections .................................................................................................................................... 3 Data Collection ......................................................................................................................................... 4 Standards of Significance ........................................................................................................................... 4 Analysis Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 6 2. Existing Conditions ........................................................................ 9 Project Area Transportation Facilities ........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural, Paleontological, and Tribal Cultural Resources
    Chapter 7—Cultural, Paleontological, and Tribal Cultural Resources 7.1 Introduction This chapter describes the existing conditions (environmental and regulatory) and assesses the potential cultural, paleontological, and tribal resources impacts of the 2020 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (proposed MTP/SCS). Where necessary and feasible, mitigation measures are identified to reduce these impacts. The information presented in this chapter is based on review of existing and available information and is regional in scope. Data, analysis, and findings provided in this chapter were considered and prepared at a programmatic level. For consistency with the 2016 MTP/SCS EIR, paleontological resources are addressed in this chapter even though these resources are grouped with geology and soils in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (SACOG 2016). Impacts to unique geologic features are addressed in Chapter 9 – Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Mineral Resources. Cultural resources include archaeological sites or districts of prehistoric or historic origin, built environment resources older than 50 years (e.g., historic buildings, structures, features, objects, districts, and landscapes), and traditional or ethnographic resources, including tribal cultural resources, which are a separate category of cultural resources under CEQA. Paleontological resources include mineralized, partially mineralized, or unmineralized bones and teeth, soft tissues, shells, wood, leaf impressions, footprints, burrows, and microscopic remains that are more than 5,000 years old and occur mainly in Pleistocene or older sedimentary rock units. In response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP), SACOG received comments related to cultural and tribal cultural resources from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria.
    [Show full text]
  • Recalling the Suburban Side of California’S Agricultural Colonization
    CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY Sacramento And UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Santa Barbara Harvesting Suburbs: Recalling the Suburban Side of California’s Agricultural Colonization A Dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Public History by Paul Jason Prescott Sandul Committee in charge: Professor Lee M. A. Simpson, Chair (CSUS) Professor Randolph Bergstrom (UCSB) Professor Christopher J. Castaneda (CSUS) Professor Mary Hancock (UCSB) June 2009 The dissertation of Paul Jason Prescott Sandul is approved. _____________________________________________ Randolph Bergstrom, UCSB _____________________________________________ Christopher J. Castaneda, CSUS _____________________________________________ Mary Hancock, UCSB _____________________________________________ Lee M. A. Simpson, Committee Chair, CSUS June 2009 iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many people helped me while I worked on my dissertation. Professors and faculty at California State University, Sacramento (CSUS) and University California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) at every point provided me with support and vital insights. Professors Mona Siegel and Harold Marcuse, for example, introduced me to memory studies while Professor Charles Postel took time to read early essays and drafts and make important suggestions. My committee members were, to be sure, especially important. Professor Christopher J. Castaneda, I swear, never leaves his office. Anytime I ever needed advice, council, or simply to talk, I could always find Professor Castaneda’s door open and, regardless of how busy he seemed, an open chair. He always provided keen insight, critical and helpful commentary, and, most important for a secluded graduate student, many lunches at a good restaurant. Professor Randolph Bergstrom first introduced me and guided my original inquires into the intersection of place, memory, and history. With the quickest and sharpest wit of any person I have ever known, his guidance was indispensable, his support unwavering, and direction always needed.
    [Show full text]
  • Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program
    - 2021-2024 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program SACOG MISSION BOARD MEMBERS AND MEMBER JURISDICTIONS Provide leadership and a Karm Bains, Sutter County dynamic, collaborative public Krista Bernasconi, City of Roseville forum for achieving an efficient regional transportation system, Gary Bradford, Yuba County innovative and integrated Chris Branscum, City of Marysville regional planning, and high quality of life within the greater Pamela Bulahan, City of Isleton Sacramento region. Trinity Burruss, City of Colfax Jan Clark-Crets, Town of Loomis Rich Desmond, Sacramento County Lucas Frerichs, City of Davis Sue Frost, Sacramento County Jill Gayaldo, City of Rocklin Lakhvir Ghag, City of Live Oak Bonnie Gore, Placer County Martha Guerrero, City of West Sacramento Shon Harris, City of Yuba City Rick Jennings, City of Sacramento Paul Joiner, City of Lincoln Patrick Kennedy, Sacramento County Mike Kozlowski, City of Folsom Rich Lozano, City of Galt Porsche Middleton, City of Citrus Heights Pierre Neu, City of Winters David Sander, City of Rancho Cordova Michael Saragosa, City of Placerville Don Saylor, Yolo County Jay Schenirer, City of Sacramento Matt Spokely, City of Auburn Tom Stallard, City of Woodland Darren Suen, City of Elk Grove Wendy Thomas, El Dorado County Rick West, City of Wheatland Amarjeet Benipal, Ex-Officio Member 2021-2024 MTIP Contents A Guide to the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program Contents Page Number Introduction .................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • GEI Report Template Feb2009 and Msword 2007
    Final American River Common Features Project General Reevaluation Report Historic Properties Management Plan Prepared for: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District July 2017 Prepared by: Consulting Engineers and Scientists Final American River Common Features Project General Reevaluation Report Historic Properties Management Plan Prepared for: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District 1325 J Street Sacramento, CA 95814-2922 Contact: Name: Melissa Montag Title: Senior Environmental Manager Phone: 916-557-7907 Prepared by: GEI Consultants, Inc. 2868 Prospect Park Drive, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95670 (916) 631-4500 Contact: Barry Scott, RPA Senior Archaeologist (916) 213.2767 July 17, 2017 Barry Scott, MA, RPA Senior Archaeologist Project No. 1602400 Table of Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations .................................................................................................................................. v Executive Summary and Content of Document .................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 1. Introduction and Description of the Undertaking ................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Purpose and Application of the Historic Properties Management Plan .......................... 1-1 1.1.1 Roles and Responsibilities ................................................................................. 1-2 1.2 Description of the Undertaking .......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 1. Name___6. Representation In
    RECEIVED FHR-&-300 (11-78) AUG 2 7 1982 United States Department of the Interior Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service National Register of Historic Places Inventory—Nomination Form See instructions in How to Complete National Register Forms Type all entries—complete applicable sections_______________ 1. Name_______________ historic Blue Anchor Building (California Fruit Exchange) and/or common Same 2. Location street & number 1400 Tenth Stj not for publication city, town Sacramento 'v "vicinity of congressional district 3rd state California code 06 county Sacramento code 067 3. Classification Category Ownership Status Present Use district X public X occupied agriculture museum _Ji_ building(s) private unoccupied commercial park structure both work in progress educational private residence site Public Acquisition Accessible entertainment religious object in process yes: restricted x government scientific being considered JL_ yes: unrestricted industrial transportation x N/A no military other? 4. Owner of Property name State of California, Department of General Services street & number 915 Capitol Mall vicinity of state California 95314 5. Location of Legal Description courthouse, registry of deeds, etc. County Recorder' S Of f i ce street & number 901 "G" Street city, town Sacramento state California 95814 6. Representation in Existing Surveys City of Sacramento title Historic Resources Inventory has this property been determined elegible? yes no date 1981 federal state county local depository for survey records Sacramento City Planning Department, 915 I Street city, town Sacramento state California 95814 7. Description Condition Check one Check one X excellent • deteriorated unaltered x original site aood ruins _JL_ altered * moved date N/A fair unexposed * interior Describe the present and original (iff known) physical appearance The Blue Anchor Building is an "L" shaped, two story structure constructed of steel and concrete, finished in stucco, and capped by a low-pitched red tile roof.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Art Implementation Budget
    CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO WASHINGTON DISTRICT PUBLIC ART IMPLEMENTATION PLAN CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . 5 SECTION 1 . BACKGROUND . 9 SECTION 2 . PROPOSED ART CONCEPTS . 25 SECTION 3 . IMPLEMENTATION . 69 APPENDICES . 79 APPENDIX A: PRELIMINARY ENGAGEMENT AND SURVEY SUMMARY APPENDIX B: COLLECTION MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES APPENDIX C: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY intentions for art investments, the WDPAIP will expand PURPOSE opportunities to integrate art into the planning, funding, Public art helps to support a vibrant urban riverfront. and design of capital improvement projects and new It encourages pedestrian, scooter, and bicycle travel private investment. The WDPAIP builds upon the by adding visual interest and wayfinding to the public interaction between the development and redevelopment streetscape and enriching the pedestrian and bicycling of new housing and commercial projects with walkability, experience. Public art is a driver of local economic transportation pathways and nodes, iconic architecture, development and has the potential to catalyze and foster the River Walk, and historical landmarks. Anselm Keifer Sculpture, London community identity. The Washington District Public Art Implementation Plan (WDPAIP) defines a distinct art POLICY CONTEXT West Sacramento, and the Crocker Art Museum, to create investment strategy to foster transit-oriented, pedestrian- a comprehensive plan for public art and arts experiences A primary impetus for the plan is Washington Realized, and bike-friendly development patterns. This Plan connecting both cities with pedestrian-friendly pathways. A Sustainable Community Strategy, which was adopted in provides guidance the City will use to develop public 2015 as a framework for updating the 1996 Washington artworks that highlight the Riverfront, gateway corridors, District Specific Plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Sacramento (Calif.) Planning Department Records
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/c8j390d9 No online items Guide to the Sacramento (Calif.) Planning Department records Sean Heyliger Center for Sacramento History 551 Sequoia Pacific Blvd. Sacramento, California 95811-0229 Phone: (916) 808-7072 Fax: (916) 264-7582 Email: [email protected] URL: http://www.centerforsacramentohistory.org/ © 2013 Center for Sacramento History. All rights reserved. Guide to the Sacramento (Calif.) CTY0008 1 Planning Department records Guide to the Sacramento (Calif.) Planning Department records Collection number: CTY0008 Center for Sacramento History Sacramento, CA Processed by: Sean Heyliger Date Completed: 2019-08-19 Encoded by: Sean Heyliger © 2013 Center for Sacramento History. All rights reserved. Descriptive Summary Title: Sacramento (Calif.) Planning Department records Dates: 1955-2008 Bulk Dates: 1976-1996 Collection number: CTY0008 Creator: Sacramento (Calif.). City Planning Department Collection Size: 16 boxes(16 linear feet) Repository: Center for Sacramento History Sacramento, California 95811-0229 Abstract: The Sacramento (Calif.). City Planning Department records consist of 16 boxes of Sacramento residential and non-residential building surveys conducted mostly between 1976-1996. Each survey consists of a historical/architectural survey form which includes information about the structure such as building type, architect, builder, date of construction, style, significant architectural features, additions/alterations, evaluation desingation and a photograph of the structure. Physical location: 7H1, 7H2, 7I1 Languages: Languages represented in the collection: English Access Collection is open for research use. Publication Rights All requests to publish or quote from private collections held by the Center for Sacramento History (CSH) must be submitted in writing to [email protected]. Permission for publication is given on behalf of CSH as the owner of the physical items and is not intended to include or imply permission of the copyright holder, which must also be obtained by the patron.
    [Show full text]
  • Jesse M. Unruh Building Renovation Project
    Draft Environmental Impact Report Jesse M. Unruh Building Renovation Project SCH#2019039120 Prepared for: California Department of General Services 707 3rd Street, MS-509 West Sacramento, CA 95605 July 16, 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Jesse M. Unruh Building Renovation Project SCH#2019039120 Prepared for: California Department of General Services 707 3rd Street, MS-509 West Sacramento, CA 95605 Contact: Jennifer Parson Senior Environmental Planner Prepared by: Ascent Environmental, Inc. 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95814 Contact: Suzanne Enslow Project Manager 18010209.01 July 16, 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................................................................................................... vi 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Project Requiring Environmental Analysis .............................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Purpose and Intended Uses of this Draft EIR ....................................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Scope of this Draft EIR ................................................................................................................................................. 1-2 1.4 Agency Roles and Responsibilities
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Assessment/Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
    Environmental Assessment/Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration Lower American River Anadromous Fish Habitat Restoration Project U.S. Department of the Interior City of Sacramento Bureau of Reclamation Mid Pacific Region June 2019 Mission Statements The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and provide access to our Nation’s natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to Indian Tribes and our commitments to island communities. The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. Table of Contents List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................................ ii Section 1. Introduction ....................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ............................................................................ 1 1.2 Project Purpose, Need, and Objectives ................................. 6 Section 2. Alternatives Including the Proposed Action .................................. 8 2.1 No Action Alternative ............................................................. 8 2.2 Proposed Action ..................................................................... 8 Section 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ........ 24 3.1 Aesthetics ............................................................................. 25 3.2 Agriculture
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix A: Agency Coordination, Public Involvement, and List of Receiving Parties
    A Agency Coordination, Public Involvement, and List of Receiving Parties Appendix A: Agency Coordination, Public Involvement, and List of Receiving Parties Table of Contents A.1 Early Notification Announcement A-1 A.1.1 Early Notification Letter, December 4, 2012 ................................................................................ A-3 A.1.2 Legal Notice Publication, December 9, 2012 ............................................................................. A-13 A.1.3 Comments .................................................................................................................................. A-19 A.2 Project Information Meetings A-35 A.2.1 Project Meeting Notification Letters, August 27, 2013 ............................................................... A-37 A.2.2 Dates, Locations and Attendance .............................................................................................. A-57 A.2.3 Comments .................................................................................................................................. A-59 A.3 Section 106 Consultation A-65 A.3.1 Section 106 Consultation Letters, November 2013 ................................................................... A-67 A.3.2 Comments from the November 2013 Letters ........................................................................... A-107 A.3.3 Section 106 Consultation Letters, April 8, 2014 ....................................................................... A-115 A.3.4 Section 106 Concurrence Letters............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Feasibility Study for a Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta National Heritage Area
    Feasibility Study for a Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta National Heritage Area Preliminary Abridged Draft Delta Protection Commission August, 2011 Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................ - 2 - Chapter 1 - Mission, Vision, Goals .............................................................................................. - 3 - Chapter 2 - Themes ..................................................................................................................... - 4 - Chapter 3 - Management Alternatives ....................................................................................... - 7 - Chapter 4 - Conceptual Boundaries .......................................................................................... - 10 - Chapter 5 - Management Entity ............................................................................................... - 13 - Chapter 6 - Local Protection Measures.................................................................................... - 15 - Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. - 16 - Appendix 1 - Organizations Which Have Received Presentations/Meetings ........................... - 17 - Appendix 2 - Historic/Cultural Resource Sites in the Proposed Boundary ............................... - 18 - - 1 - Delta Protection Commission Delta National Heritage Area Feasibility Study Preliminary
    [Show full text]