DOCSLIB.ORG

Grantham Hazard Mitigation Plan-2008

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Grantham Hazard Mitigation Plan-2008 TOWN OF GRANTHAM HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN FEMA Approved July 2008 Prepared by the: Town of Grantham Hazard Mitigation Committee & Upper Valley Lake Sunapee Regional Planning Commission Executive Summary The Grantham Hazard Mitigation Plan serves as a means to reduce future losses from natural or human-made hazard events before they occur. The Town of Grantham Hazard Mitigation Committee developed the Plan. The natural addressed in this plan are as follows: Hazards • Flooding • Wildfire • Dam Failure • Earthquakes • Hurricanes/High Wind Storms • Drought • Tornados/Downbursts • Hazardous Materials • Severe Winter Weather The Grantham Hazard Mitigation Committee identified “Critical Facilities” and “Facilities/Populations to Protect” as follows and as identified in Section V: Critical Facilities • Grantham Fire Department • Transfer Station • Town Hall • Eastman Community Association Building • Grantham Highway Garage • The Center at Eastman • Eastman Maintenance • Historical Society Building • Grantham Methodist Church • South Cove Activity Center • Dunbar Free Library • The Well Field • Grantham Village School Facilities & Populations to Protect • 27 Residences along Stocker Pond Road • 14 Structures along Route 10 South • 33 Residences along Miller Pond Road • 13 Structures along Springfield Road • 339 Eastman Condominiums The Grantham Hazard Mitigation Committee identified existing hazard mitigation strategies as follows and as identified in Section VII: Existing Hazard Mitigation Strategies • Reverse 911 Notification System • Subdivision Regulations/Steep Slopes Ordinance • Eastman Dam Emergency Action Plan • Building Codes • Eastman Health & Safety Committee • Culvert Maintenance by Highway Department • Class VI Road Ordinance • NH Shoreland Protection Act • Zoning Ordinance & Floodplain Regulations • NH Wetland Permit Requirements • Conservation Commission The Grantham Hazard Mitigation Committee developed a prioritized implementation schedule for newly identified hazard mitigation strategies as follows and as shown in Sections VIII & IX: New Hazard Mitigation Strategies • Health & Safety Memo in Eastman Newsletter • Plan for Door-to-Door Notification • Alternative Route Information • Culvert Inventory • Town-Wide Hazard Prevention Publication • Update Emergency Operations Plan • Educate Citizens about Reverse 911 • Install second bridge at school Grantham, New Hampshire July 2008 Hazard Mitigation Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1 Background................................................................................................................................. 1 Purpose........................................................................................................................................ 1 Authority..................................................................................................................................... 1 History......................................................................................................................................... 1 Scope of Plan .............................................................................................................................. 2 Methodology............................................................................................................................... 2 Hazard Mitigation Goals............................................................................................................. 5 Acknowledgements..................................................................................................................... 5 II. COMMUNITY PROFILE ...................................................................................................... 6 Location ...................................................................................................................................... 6 Climate and Hydrography........................................................................................................... 6 Floodplains.................................................................................................................................. 7 Potential Development................................................................................................................ 7 III. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION........................................................................................... 8 Introduction................................................................................................................................. 8 Descriptions of Hazards.............................................................................................................. 8 Flooding .................................................................................................................................. 8 Dam Breach/Failure.............................................................................................................. 10 Hurricanes/High Wind Storms.............................................................................................. 11 Tornados and Downbursts .................................................................................................... 14 Severe Winter Weather......................................................................................................... 15 Wildfire................................................................................................................................. 18 Earthquakes........................................................................................................................... 19 Drought ................................................................................................................................. 21 Hazardous Materials ............................................................................................................. 21 IV. HAZARD RISK ASSESSMENT ..................................................................................... 22 Assessing Probability, Vulnerability and Risk ......................................................................... 22 V. CRITICAL FACILITIES...................................................................................................... 23 VI. DETERMINING HOW MUCH WILL BE AFFECTED................................................. 25 Identifying Vulnerable Facilities .............................................................................................. 25 Potential Loss Estimates ........................................................................................................... 26 Flooding ................................................................................................................................ 26 Dam Failure .......................................................................................................................... 27 Hurricane/High Wind Storms ............................................................................................... 27 Tornado/Downburst .............................................................................................................. 27 Severe Winter Weather/Ice Storms....................................................................................... 27 Wildfire................................................................................................................................. 27 Earthquake ............................................................................................................................ 28 Drought ................................................................................................................................. 28 Hazardous Materials ............................................................................................................. 28 VII. EXISTING MITIGATION STRATEGIES ...................................................................... 29 Inventory of Existing Mitigation Strategies.............................................................................. 29 Grantham, New Hampshire July 2008 Hazard Mitigation Plan Summary of Recommended Improvements.............................................................................. 29 VIII. NEWLY IDENTIFIED MITIGATION STRATEGIES................................................... 33 Potential Mitigation Strategies.................................................................................................. 33 Summary of Critical Evaluation ............................................................................................... 33 IX. PRIORITIZED IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE ....................................................... 35 X. ADOPTION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN ................................................. 36 LIST OF TABLES III-1: Flooding – Disaster Declarations and Ice Jams .............................................................. 9 III-2: Dams ............................................................................................................................. 11 III-3: Hurricanes and High Wind Storms............................................................................... 12 III-4: Lightning Events in Sullivan County............................................................................ 13 III-5: Tornadoes...................................................................................................................... 15 III-7:
Load more

Recommended publications
  • List of Ponds Eligible for ANC Treatment Activities
    DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY WATER RESOURCES DIVISION AQUATIC NUISANCE CONTROL PROGRAM This table lists the treatment sites eligible for a Certificate of Coverage (COC) under the Aquatic Nuisance Control General Permit No. ANC9740000, "Aquatic Nuisance Control Activities for Ponds," issued pursuant to Part 33, Aquatic Nuisance Control, of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act,1994 PA 451, as amended. If the desired site is on this list, an applicant may submit an application for a COC to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Water Resources Division, Aquatic Nuisance Control. Sites on this list are subject to change. COUNTY WATERBODY NAME TOWNSHIP TOWN RANGE SEC 1 SEC 2 # ELIGIBLE PONDS ALCONA GREGORY'S POND GUSTIN 26N 08E 27 1 ALLEGAN BERENS POND SALEM 04N 13W 5 1 ALLEGAN BUHLER PONDS SALEM 04N 13W 5 2 CENTRAL WESLEYAN CHURCH 04N 15W 6 3 ALLEGAN PONDS FILLMORE CLAREWOOD CONDOMINIUM 04N 16W 1 1 ALLEGAN POND LAKETOWN CLEARBROOK GOLF COURSE 03N 16W 3 10 4 ALLEGAN PONDS SAUGATUCK ALLEGAN COLE POND WATSON 02N 12W 12 1 ALLEGAN CRESTRIDGE HOA POND LAKETOWN 04N 16W 2 1 ALLEGAN DUTCHER POND WAYLAND 03N 11W 23 1 ALLEGAN FLETCHER POND SAUGATUCK 03N 16W 20 1 ALLEGAN GOULD POND FENNVILLE 3N 16W 28 1 ALLEGAN GREEN LAKE POND LEIGHTON 4N 11W 11 1 ALLEGAN HANCOCK POND DORR 04N 12W 33 1 ALLEGAN HARMON, ED POND WAYLAND 03N 11W 2 1 HOLLAND, CITY 04N 15W 9 1 ALLEGAN HAWORTH POND OF HERITAGE MEADOW CONDO 04N 16W 1 4 ALLEGAN PONDS LAKETOWN HERMAN MILLER DESIGN YARD HOLLAND, CITY 04N 15W 6 1 ALLEGAN POND OF ALLEGAN HIDDEN HOLLOW PONDS LAKETOWN 04N 16W 3 2 ALLEGAN HIDDEN WATERS CONDO'S SAUGATUCK 03N 16W 21 1 HIGHFIELD BEACH 01N 17W 24 2 ALLEGAN CONDOMINIUMS CASCO ALLEGAN HOEZEE POND SALEM 04N 13W 15 1 HOLLAND CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS 04N 15W 6 1 ALLEGAN POND FILLMORE ALLEGAN IMCS INC.
    [Show full text]
  • Partnership Opportunities for Lake-Friendly Living Service Providers NH LAKES Lakesmart Program
    Partnership Opportunities for Lake-Friendly Living Service Providers NH LAKES LakeSmart Program Only with YOUR help will New Hampshire’s lakes remain clean and healthy, now and in the future. The health of our lakes, and our enjoyment of these irreplaceable natural resources, is at risk. Polluted runoff water from the landscape is washing into our lakes, causing toxic algal blooms that make swimming in lakes unsafe. Failing septic systems and animal waste washed off the land are contributing bacteria to our lakes that can make people and pets who swim in the water sick. Toxic products used in the home, on lawns, and on roadways and driveways are also reaching our lakes, poisoning the water in some areas to the point where fish and other aquatic life cannot survive. NH LAKES has found that most property owners don’t know how their actions affect the health of lakes. We’ve also found that property owners want to do the right thing to help keep the lakes they enjoy clean and healthy and that they often need help of professional service providers like YOU! What is LakeSmart? The LakeSmart program is an education, evaluation, and recognition program that inspires property owners to live in a lake- friendly way, keeping our lakes clean and healthy. The program is free, voluntary, and non-regulatory. Through a confidential evaluation process, property owners receive tailored recommendations about how to implement lake-friendly living practices year-round in their home, on their property, and along and on the lake. Property owners have access to a directory of lake- friendly living service providers to help them adopt lake-friendly living practices.
    [Show full text]
  • New Hampshire Fish Consumption Guidelines
    ARD-EHP-25 2020 New Hampshire Fish Consumption Guidelines Fish and shellfish are an important part of a healthy diet. They are a good source of low fat protein and contain nutrients like omega-3 fatty acids, a key nutrient for brain development. NHDES offers these fish consumption guidelines to educate the public regarding certain contaminants that have been analyzed in fish tissues. There are other contaminants that may be present in the environment that have not been analyzed, nor are they included in this advisory. Mercury analysis has been completed for a variety of the most common freshwater fish species, however not all species or waterbodies have been analyzed for mercury and the other contaminants listed in the advisory (fish sampled to date include 26 species, >230 waterbodies, ~4,000 fish). Mercury does not break down in the environment. Nearly all fish and shellfish have traces of mercury, and fish from some freshwater sources may also contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) or dioxin. Small amounts of mercury can damage a brain starting to form or grow. That is why babies and young children are at most risk. PCBs and dioxins are man-made organic chemicals which do not readily break down in the environment. They are taken up and may accumulate in fish. PCBs and dioxins have been shown to cause a variety of harmful health effects such as cancer as well as non-cancer health effects involving immune, reproductive, nervous and endocrine systems. Risks from mercury, PCBs and dioxin in fish and shellfish depend on the amount of fish and shellfish eaten and the levels of these contaminants in the fish and shellfish.
    [Show full text]
  • Health Consultation
    Health Consultation Evaluation of Mercury Concentrations in Fish Collected From Claremont Area Water Bodies CLAREMONT, SULLIVAN COUNTY, NEW HAMPSHIRE Prepared by the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services December 16, 2009 Prepared under a Cooperative Agreement with the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Division of Health Assessment and Consultation Atlanta, Georgia 30333 Health Consultation: A Note of Explanation A health consultation is a verbal or written response from ATSDR or ATSDR’s Cooperative Agreement Partners to a specific request for information about health risks related to a specific site, a chemical release, or the presence of hazardous material. In order to prevent or mitigate exposures, a consultation may lead to specific actions, such as restricting use of or replacing water supplies; intensifying environmental sampling; restricting site access; or removing the contaminated material. In addition, consultations may recommend additional public health actions, such as conducting health surveillance activities to evaluate exposure or trends in adverse health outcomes; conducting biological indicators of exposure studies to assess exposure; and providing health education for health care providers and community members. This concludes the health consultation process for this site, unless additional information is obtained by ATSDR or ATSDR’s Cooperative Agreement Partner which, in the Agency’s opinion, indicates a need to revise or append the conclusions
    [Show full text]
  • Status and Trends of Mercury in Fish Tissue in New Hampshire Waterbodies, 1992–2016
    Status and trends of mercury in fish tissue in New Hampshire waterbodies, 1992–2016 Clement Pond, Hopkinton November 2018 R-WD-17-22 Status and trends of mercury in fish tissue in New Hampshire waterbodies, 1992 – 2016 New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services PO Box 95 Concord, NH 03302-3503 (603) 271-8865 Robert R. Scott Commissioner Eugene J. Forbes, PE Water Division Director Ted Diers Watershed Management Bureau Administrator Prepared by David Neils, Chief Water Pollution Biologist and Kirsten Nelson, Biologist In conjunction with Scott Ashley and Walter Henderson November 2018 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1 Figure 1 – Anthropogenic mercury emissions in the United States, 1990 – 2010 and projected for 2016. Zheng and Jaegl (2013)................................................................................................................................. 2 Table 1 – National and State programs that regulate atmospheric mercury emissions ............................. 3 Table 2 – Primary New Hampshire atmospheric mercury emission sources, 1997 and 2016, NHDES Air Division ......................................................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 2 – Mercury deposition by precipitation in the northeastern United States, 2005-2013. ............... 5 2. METHODS ........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Charted Lakes List
    LAKE LIST United States and Canada Bull Shoals, Marion (AR), HD Powell, Coconino (AZ), HD Gull, Mono Baxter (AR), Taney (MO), Garfield (UT), Kane (UT), San H. V. Eastman, Madera Ozark (MO) Juan (UT) Harry L. Englebright, Yuba, Chanute, Sharp Saguaro, Maricopa HD Nevada Chicot, Chicot HD Soldier Annex, Coconino Havasu, Mohave (AZ), La Paz HD UNITED STATES Coronado, Saline St. Clair, Pinal (AZ), San Bernardino (CA) Cortez, Garland Sunrise, Apache Hell Hole Reservoir, Placer Cox Creek, Grant Theodore Roosevelt, Gila HD Henshaw, San Diego HD ALABAMA Crown, Izard Topock Marsh, Mohave Hensley, Madera Dardanelle, Pope HD Upper Mary, Coconino Huntington, Fresno De Gray, Clark HD Icehouse Reservior, El Dorado Bankhead, Tuscaloosa HD Indian Creek Reservoir, Barbour County, Barbour De Queen, Sevier CALIFORNIA Alpine Big Creek, Mobile HD DeSoto, Garland Diamond, Izard Indian Valley Reservoir, Lake Catoma, Cullman Isabella, Kern HD Cedar Creek, Franklin Erling, Lafayette Almaden Reservoir, Santa Jackson Meadows Reservoir, Clay County, Clay Fayetteville, Washington Clara Sierra, Nevada Demopolis, Marengo HD Gillham, Howard Almanor, Plumas HD Jenkinson, El Dorado Gantt, Covington HD Greers Ferry, Cleburne HD Amador, Amador HD Greeson, Pike HD Jennings, San Diego Guntersville, Marshall HD Antelope, Plumas Hamilton, Garland HD Kaweah, Tulare HD H. Neely Henry, Calhoun, St. HD Arrowhead, Crow Wing HD Lake of the Pines, Nevada Clair, Etowah Hinkle, Scott Barrett, San Diego Lewiston, Trinity Holt Reservoir, Tuscaloosa HD Maumelle, Pulaski HD Bear Reservoir,
    [Show full text]
  • View Our Current Map Listing
    Country (full-text) State (full-text) State Abbreviation County Lake Name Depth (X if no Depth info) Argentina Argentina (INT) Rio de la Plata (INT) Rio de la Plata (From Buenos Aires to Montevideo) Aruba Aruba (INT) Aruba (INT) Aruba Australia Australia (INT) Australia (Entire Country) (INT) Australia (Entire Country) Australia Australia (INT) Queensland (INT) Fraser Island Australia Australia (INT) Cape York Peninsula (INT) Great Barrier Reef (Cape York Peninsula) Australia Australia (INT) New South Wales (INT) Kurnell Peninsula Australia Australia (INT) Queensland (INT) Moreton Island Australia Australia (INT) Sydney Harbor (INT) Sydney Harbor (Greenwich to Point Piper) Australia Australia (INT) Sydney Harbor (INT) Sydney Harbor (Olympic Park to Watsons Bay) Australia Australia (INT) Victoria (INT) Warrnambool Australia Australia (INT) Whitsunday Islands (INT) Whitsunday Islands Austria Austria (INT) Vorarlberg (INT) Lake Constance Bahamas Bahamas (INT) Bahamas (INT) Abaco Island Bahamas Bahamas (INT) Elbow Cay (INT) Elbow Cay Bahamas Bahamas (INT) Bahamas (INT) Eleuthera Island Bahamas Bahamas (INT) Bahamas (INT) Exuma Cays (Staniel Cay with Bitter Guana Cay and Guana Cay South) Bahamas Bahamas (INT) The Exumas (INT) Great Exuma and Little Exuma Islands Bahamas Bahamas (INT) Bahamas (INT) Long Island and Ruma Cay Bahamas Bahamas (INT) New Providence (INT) New Providence Bahamas Bahamas (INT) Bahamas (INT) San Salvador Island Bahamas Bahamas (INT) Waderick Wells Cay (INT) Waderick Wells Cay Barbados Barbados (INT) Barbados (Lesser Antilles)
    [Show full text]
  • DES Watershed Management and Monitoring.Budget Information
    Impacts of Proposed Elimination of Lake and River Water Quality Management & Monitoring at New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) General Fund Staffing Analysis When NHDES was created in 1987, six general-funded positions conducted lake and river water quality management and monitoring. Since then, the legislature created 5 new programs to meet the need for increased water quality monitoring and management, yet general funding staffing has only increased by three full time positions. The N.H. House budget for 2012-2013 would reduce the number of general funded positions in the watershed management bureau from eight to two. Impact of Proposed Budget Reductions If the budget adopted by the N.H. House budget were to become law, effective July 1, 2011 the following 5 water quality management and monitoring programs would cease in addition to other DES program reductions. Volunteer Lake & River Assessment Programs (VLAP RSA 487:31-33 & VRAP RSA 487:38-42) In recent years VLAP and VRAP have supported 215 groups with a total of 1,500 lake, river and stream stations being monitored and over 24,000 individual sample results generated annually. Over 700 volunteers participate in these programs representing over 4,300 hours of volunteer time annually. In 2010 the value of the volunteer time was $86,000. Since 1985, volunteers have contributed over $900,000 in in-kind services. Support for and coordination of volunteer monitors, who rely on DES to supply equipment, training, and reporting, would cease. Over 40% of the surface water quality assessments of lakes and rivers included in the EPA required 2010 303(b) surface water quality report were provided by VRAP and VLAP volunteers.
    [Show full text]
  • BIRD OBSERVER 290 Vol. 26, No. 6, 1998 BIRDING AROUND ENFIELD, NEW HAMPSHIRE
    BIRD OBSERVER 290 Vol. 26, No. 6, 1998 BIRDING AROUND ENFIELD, NEW HAMPSHIRE by Pam Hunt Nestled near the Connecticut River, in the part of New Hampshire and Vermont known as the Upper Valley, lies the quiet town of Enfield, New Hampshire. Perhaps best known as a bedroom community of Lebanon and as the location of Mascoma Lake (the largest lake in the region), Enfield and adjacent parts of Lebanon and Springfield have some of the best birding in the state. Though perhaps best known for waterfowl migration and the northern component to its breeding avifauna, the area holds something for the visiting birder at almost any time of year. The route described below covers less than 20 miles, yet passes through habitats ranging from freshwater marsh and open lake through grassland and spruce/fir forest. We will start this tour at the southern end of the route, McDaniel’s Marsh in the town of Springfield. To reach this area, take Interstate 89 to Exit 13 and go south on Route 10 for 0.8 mile to the village of Grantham. Turn left (east) here on Route 114 (Springfield Road), and follow it for 4.9 miles to West Springfield, where George Hill Road enters on the left. If you reach a small store, you have gone too far. Turn left onto George Hill Road and follow it for 2.2 miles. At this point you will see a large wetland on the right, along with a sign and parking area. This is McDaniel’s Marsh, an extensive wetland owned and managed by the NH Fish and Game Department.
    [Show full text]
  • 2014 Lake List (For Lowrance Products)
    2014 Lake List (for Lowrance Products) New For 2014 Over 5,500 Miles Of Additional Inland Waterway Coverage • Arkansas River • Lower Mississippi • Atchafalaya River • Missouri River • Black Warrior • Monongahela River • Cumberland River • Ohio River • Green River • Ouachita River • Illinois River • Red River • Kanawha River • Tennessee River • Kaskaskia River Digital Fishing Data Inland Waterways Coverage Missouri River 600-750 Chicago 500-600 Des Moines 400-500 Illinois River (Starved 11-31 Rock to Hennepin) Illinois River Cleveland 31-86 1-11 300-400 301-322 Ohio River 86-127 Monongahela River Lincoln 256-301 1-41 200-300 127-165 Harrisburg 231-256 Ohio River 165-203 41-86 Indianapolis 438-534 100-200 137-206 203-274 86-128 534-582 82-137 274-311 1-100 582-644 391-438 21-82 644-735 Annapolis Topeka Miss. R. Pool 26 735-852 1-24 Kansas 24-49 City 852-886 St. Louis 49-65 886-981 311-331 65-91 Kaskaskia River 331-391 Kanawha Lower Green River River Mississippi Cumberland River 828-950 93-148 270-381 148-220 Fort Loudon Reservoir Arkansas River Dardanelle 716-828 Lake Watts Bar Lake 371-444 Kentucky Tennessee 600-716 Lake 133-68 River Nickajack Lake 330-371 133-214 Oklahoma City Chickamauga Lake 262-330 Little 197-262 Rock 126-197 61-127 Pickwick Lake Guntersville Lake 1-65 Lower Wheeler Lake Ouachita River Mississippi Atlanta 255-337 Black Warrior 177-255 520-600 Red River 89-177 425-520 Jackson Montgomery 5-89 166-237 325-425 Tombigbee Waterway 73-166 236-325 73-6 Baton Rouge Atchafalaya River 1-46 46-118 Army Corps of Engineers Contours, Structure & Nav.
    [Show full text]
  • GHS-Fall 2010.Indd
    Grantham Historical Society Newsletter~Fall 2010~1 Grantham Historical Society Fall 2010 www.granthamhistoricalsociety.org NEWSLETTERNEWSLETTER LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT: THE ROAD TO THE FUTURE Grantham spent the first two-hundred years of its exis- road system was integral to the commercial health and tence as a relatively insular community. Criss-crossed by prosperity of America, as well as forming the backbone a gradually growing network of modest, rustic over- of its domestic security. Interstates built in the land roads connecting it to the surrounding towns, western states were required to include one Grantham never benefitted from the construction mile-long straightaway every ten miles, solely for of a railroad like the neighboring towns of Enfield, the purpose of serving as an emergency landing Newport and Lebanon. Even after the birth of the strip for military jets. automobile in the early 20th century and the con- I-89 formed the major transportation corridor struction of State Highway 10, Grantham remained Ken Story between Concord, Manchester and points south remote. with the Upper Valley, Burlington, Vermont, and The arrival of Interstate 89 changed all that. Constructed Montreal, Canada. Exits 13 and 14 provided access to in the mid-1960s and completed by 1968, I-89 was the Route 10 in Grantham and North Grantham, effectively local manifestation of the Federal Highway Act of 1956, making the entire town accessible to the new highway. President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s dream of a network The impact of the new interstate was immediate. Previ- of uniform, paved, high-speed highways that would span ously, Grantham provided public education through the nation.
    [Show full text]
  • Dartmouth/Lake Sunapee
    !"b$ Aà Aà ?¬ ?{ ?¬ V# V# A B C D E FAê G Lake Tarleton l i 5 a 2 Mount Cushman r T H .1 Lake Armington 3 8 . .1 N 1 30 c V# )" 8 e 1 Legend 5 1 R . H W O O D S T O C K 0 N W O O D S T O C K P I E R M O N T n DARTMOUTH P I E R M O N T 1 Bike Routes e r W r Mirror Lake W H a Recommended Bicycle Routes (Paved) H I W I T Recommended Bicycle Routes (Unpaved) LAKE SUNAPEE REGION 5 E WWAA RRRREE NN !"a$ . 1 4 Indian Pond M 1 M BAKER RIVER Advanced bicycle skills recommended (Paved) O N I H U N 2 N 5 BICYCLE ROUTES T A Advanced bicycle skills recommended (Unpaved) ?Ã A I 8 Improved Rail Trail (Paved or Stone Dust) r N . ch N Foxglove Pond TTHHOO RRNNTTOO NN er .6 3 0 to 4 NH R 1 w 6 E5 0 2.5 5 10 . 25 2E Unimproved Rail Trail rough surface H n 9 A G N R H G Ij d Three Ponds N I EELLLLSS WW OORRTT HH Pemigewasset River Miles 4 C° O PassPeenagkeerd S Heirllv Picoen Advailable . N 8 OORRFF OORRDD WHITE MOUNTAIN NATIONAL FOREST Aj Lower Baker Pond ?¬ Features 1 U Heath Pond S 0 5 . 1 Exit Numbers 3 0 4 Aê d d R Airports R 1 r Ellsworth Pond e 0 e iv .
    [Show full text]