DOCSLIB.ORG

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES July 14, 2008 D.P.U. 07-80 Petition of Massachusetts Electric Company, New England Power Company and PPM Energy, Inc. for a determination by the Department of Public Utilities under the provisions of G.L. c. 164, § 72 that construction and operation of an approximately 6.1 mile 34.5 kV tie line in the Towns of Florida and Monroe is necessary, will serve the public convenience and is consistent with the public interest. ______________________________________________________________________________ APPEARANCES: Paige Graening, Esq. Brooke E. Skulley NATIONAL GRID 25 Research Drive Westborough, MA 01582 And Robert L. Dewees, Jr. NIXON PEABODY LLP 100 Summer Street Boston, MA 02110 FOR: MASSACHUSETTS ELECTRIC COMPANY NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY Petitioner Jay Wickersham NOBLE & WICKERSHAM LLP 1280 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 FOR: PPM ENERGY, INC. Petitioner D.P.U. 07-80 Page i I. INTRODUCTION ....................................... Page 1 A. Project .......................................... Page 1 B. Procedural History .................................. Page 2 II. STANDARD OF REVIEW ................................. Page 3 III. DESCRIPTION ......................................... Page 4 A. Project Overview ................................... Page 4 B. Need for the Proposed Project ........................... Page 7 C. The Proposed Project and Alternatives . Page 8 D. Impacts of Proposed Project ........................... Page 13 1. Land Use and Visual Impacts . Page 13 2. Water Resources.............................. Page 14 3. Electromagnetic Fields .......................... Page 15 4. Other Impacts................................ Page 17 IV. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS .............................. Page 19 A. Need for the Proposed Project . Page 19 B. The Proposed Project and Alternatives . Page 20 C. Impacts of the Proposed Project . Page 21 D. Conclusion ...................................... Page 24 V. ORDER ............................................. Page 25 D.P.U. 07-80 Page 1 I. INTRODUCTION A. Project Overview Massachusetts Electric Company (“MECO”), New England Power Company (“NEP”) (both MECO and NEP, d/b/a National Grid) and PPM Energy, Inc.1 (“PPM”) (together, the “Petitioners”) propose to construct a new overhead 34.5 kilovolt (“kV”) tie line (the “proposed project” or “proposed tie line”) to connect the planned Hoosac Wind Project, a 30 MW project using 20 commercial scale wind turbines, with the New England Power Company transmission system (Exh. MECO/PPM-1, at 3). The proposed tie line would begin at PPM’s planned Hoosac Wind project on Tilda Hill Road in Florida (at the point where cables from the planned Hoosac Wind project intersect with Tilda Hill Road) and continue along the existing rights of way (“ROWs”) in Florida for approximately 0.44 miles (Exh. MECO/PPM-2, at 2). At the Florida/Monroe town line, Tilda Hill Road becomes Main Road and the line would follow Main Road, Kingsley Hill Road and River Road in Monroe for approximately 5.6 miles to a new substation to be located off River Road in Monroe Bridge Village in Monroe (id. at 3). At the new substation the proposed line would interconnect to the adjacent New England Independent System Operator (“ISO-NE”) transmission grid through tap lines from the new substation to the existing NEP 69 kV transmission line adjacent to the new substation (id.). The total length of the 1 PPM Energy, Inc. (“PPM”) is a developer of wind energy projects in the United States that acquired the interests of enXco, the initial developer of the Hoosac Wind Project, in February 2006 (MECO/PPM-2, at 5). PPM itself was acquired in April 2007 by Iberdrola, a Spanish utility (id. at 2). PPM plans to construct the Transmission Line, substation and tap line at its expense, and, when construction is complete, turn over ownership of the Transmission Line to MECO and the ownership of the substation and tap line to NEP (id.). D.P.U. 07-80 Page 2 tie line would be approximately 6.1 miles (Exh. MECO/PPM-3, at 4). Neither the Hoosac Wind Project nor the new substation are the subject of the petition (Exh. MECO/PPM-2, at 3). B. Procedural History On September 28, 2007 the Petitioners filed a petition with the Department of Public Utilities (“Department”) pursuant to G.L. c. 164, § 72, seeking authority from the Department to construct, maintain and operate the proposed tie line. The Petitioners seek a determination by the Department that the proposed electric transmission line is necessary and will serve the public convenience and be consistent with the public interest (id.). The petition was docketed by the Department as DPU 07-80. On November 28, 2007, after notice duly issued, the Department conducted a public hearing in Florida, Massachusetts. The Department received no petitions to intervene. The Department held an evidentiary hearing on March 7, 2008 at the Department’s Boston offices. In support of its petition, the Petitioners sponsored the testimony of seven witnesses: Thoms R. Shields, II; Robert A. Sproesser; Jason A. Krzanowski; Randall P. Christensen; Daniel L. Mahoney; Peter A. Valberg; and David C. Klinch. The Department moved 19 exhibits (including 15 information requests and pre-filed testimony of four Company witnesses) into the record. On April 2, 2008 the Petitioners filed a brief. The Petitioners explained that because the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed interconnection facilities require the cooperation and joint effort of MECO, NEP and PPM, all three parties filed a joint petition with the Department. However, the Petitioners further explained that only MECO and NEP are each an “electric company” subject to D.P.U. 07-80 Page 3 G.L. c. 164, § 72 (Petitioners’ Brief at 3). The Petitioners stated that, therefore, any order issued by the Department should only apply to MECO with respect to the 34.5 kV tie line and to NEP with respect to the 69 kV tap lines, as MECO and NEP will ultimately own, operate and maintain the 34.5 kV tie line and 69 kV tap lines (id.). The Petitioners stated that PPM would be acting as an agent of MECO and NEP for the design and construction of only the 34.5 kV tie line and the transmission line-related substation equipment (id.). II. STANDARD OF REVIEW General Laws c. 164, § 72, requires, in relevant part, that an electric company seeking approval to construct a transmission line must file with the Department a petition for: authority to construct and use … a line for the transmission of electricity for distribution in some definite area or for supplying electricity to itself or to another electric company or to a municipal lighting plant for distribution and sale … and shall represent that such line will or does serve the public convenience and is consistent with the public interest .... The [D]epartment, after notice and a public hearing in one or more of the towns affected, may determine that said line is necessary for the purpose alleged, and will serve the public convenience and is consistent with the public interest.2 The Department, in making a determination under G.L. c. 164, § 72, is to consider all aspects of the public interest. Boston Edison Company v. Town of Sudbury, 356 Mass. 406, 419 (1969). Section 72, for example, permits the Department to prescribe reasonable conditions for the protection of the public safety. Id. at 419-420. All factors affecting any phase of the public interest and public convenience must be weighed fairly by the Department in a determination 2 Pursuant to G.L. c. 164, § 72, the electric company must file with its petition a general description of the transmission line, a map or plan showing its general location, an estimate showing in reasonable detail the cost of the line, and such additional maps and information as the Department requires. D.P.U. 07-80 Page 4 under G.L. c. 164, § 72. Town of Sudbury v. Department of Public Utilities, 343 Mass. 428, 430 (1962). In evaluating petitions filed under G.L. c. 164, § 72, the Department examines: (1) the need for, or public benefits of, the present or proposed use; (2) the environmental impacts or any other impacts of the present or proposed use; and (3) the present or proposed use and any alternatives identified. New England Power Company d/b/a/ National Grid, D.T.E. 06-37, at 2-3 (2007); Boston Edison Company d/b/a NSTAR Electric, D.T.E. 04-71, at 2-4 (2005); Commonwealth Electric Company d/b/a NSTAR Electric, D.T.E. 05-1, at 2-3 (2005); Massachusetts Electric Company, D.T.E. 03-130, at 2-3 (2004). The Department then balances the interests of the general public against the local interests and determines whether the line is necessary for the purpose alleged and will serve the public convenience and is consistent with the public interest.3 III. DESCRIPTION A. Project Overview The Petitioners propose to construct, operate and maintain a 6.1 mile overhead 34.5 kV tie line connecting the Hoosac Wind Project located off Tilda Hill Road in Florida, MA to the ISO- 3 In addition, the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (“MEPA”) provides that “[a]ny determination made by an agency of the commonwealth shall include a finding describing the environmental impact, if any, of the project and a finding that all feasible measures have been taken to avoid or minimize said impact” (“Section 61 findings”). G.L. c. 30, § 61. Pursuant to 301 CMR 11.12(5), these findings are required if the Secretary of Environmental Affairs has required an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for the project. The Company informed the Department that no EIR is required for the proposed project (Tr. 1, at 122-123). Accordingly, Section 61 findings are not necessary in this case. D.P.U. 07-80 Page 5 NE bulk transmission system at a new substation to be located off River Road in Monroe Bridge Village in Monroe, MA (Petition at 2).
Recommended publications
  • Ecoregions of New England Forested Land Cover, Nutrient-Poor Frigid and Cryic Soils (Mostly Spodosols), and Numerous High-Gradient Streams and Glacial Lakes

    Ecoregions of New England Forested Land Cover, Nutrient-Poor Frigid and Cryic Soils (Mostly Spodosols), and Numerous High-Gradient Streams and Glacial Lakes

    58. Northeastern Highlands The Northeastern Highlands ecoregion covers most of the northern and mountainous parts of New England as well as the Adirondacks in New York. It is a relatively sparsely populated region compared to adjacent regions, and is characterized by hills and mountains, a mostly Ecoregions of New England forested land cover, nutrient-poor frigid and cryic soils (mostly Spodosols), and numerous high-gradient streams and glacial lakes. Forest vegetation is somewhat transitional between the boreal regions to the north in Canada and the broadleaf deciduous forests to the south. Typical forest types include northern hardwoods (maple-beech-birch), northern hardwoods/spruce, and northeastern spruce-fir forests. Recreation, tourism, and forestry are primary land uses. Farm-to-forest conversion began in the 19th century and continues today. In spite of this trend, Ecoregions denote areas of general similarity in ecosystems and in the type, quality, and 5 level III ecoregions and 40 level IV ecoregions in the New England states and many Commission for Environmental Cooperation Working Group, 1997, Ecological regions of North America – toward a common perspective: Montreal, Commission for Environmental Cooperation, 71 p. alluvial valleys, glacial lake basins, and areas of limestone-derived soils are still farmed for dairy products, forage crops, apples, and potatoes. In addition to the timber industry, recreational homes and associated lodging and services sustain the forested regions economically, but quantity of environmental resources; they are designed to serve as a spatial framework for continue into ecologically similar parts of adjacent states or provinces. they also create development pressure that threatens to change the pastoral character of the region.
  • Stol. 12 NO. 2

    Stol. 12 NO. 2

    •‘j \ " - y E ^ tf -jj ^ ^ p j | %A .~.,.. ,.<•;: ,.0v -^~., v:-,’-' ' •'... : .......... ■l:"'-"4.< «S ife.,.. .1 { ‘. , ‘ 'M* m m m m m m m ...y m ;y StoL.W 12 NO. 2 V"-' . :.... .,.■... '..'/.'iff? ' ' kC'"^ ' BIRD OBSERVER OF EASTERN MASSACHUSETTS APRIL 1984 VOL. 12 NO. 2 President Editorial Board Robert H. Stymeist H. Christian Floyd Treasurer Harriet Hoffman Theodore H. Atkinson Wayne R. Petersen Editor Leif J. Robinson Dorothy R. Arvidson Bruce A. Sorrie Martha Vaughan Production Manager Soheil Zendeh Janet L. Heywood Production Subscription Manager James Bird David E. Lange Denise Braunhardt Records Committee Herman H. D’Entremont Ruth P. Emery, Statistician Barbara Phillips Richard A. Forster, Consultant Shirley Young George W. Gove Field Studies Committee Robert H. Stymeist John W. Andrews, Chairman Lee E. Taylor Bird Observer of Eastern Massachusetts (USPS 369-850) A bi-monthly publication Volume 12, No. 2 March-April 1984 $8.50 per calendar year, January - December Articles, photographs, letters-to-the-editor and short field notes are welcomed. All material submitted will be reviewed by the editorial board. Correspondence should be sent to: Bird Observer > 462 Trapelo Road POSTMASTER: Send address changes to: Belmont, MA 02178 All field records for any given month should be sent promptly and not later than the eighth of the following month to Ruth Emery, 225 Belmont Street, Wollaston, MA 02170. Second class postage is paid at Boston, MA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Subscription to BIRD OBSERVER is based on a calendar year, from January to December, at $8.50 per year. Back issues are available at $7.50 per year or $1.50 per issue.
  • Lanesborough Report

    Lanesborough Report

    Town of Lanesborough, Massachusetts Community Resilience Building Workshop Summary of Findings JUNE 30, 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS Community Background 2 Community Resilience-Building Process Overview and Workshop 4 Top Hazards and Vulnerable Areas of Concern 5 Current Concerns and Challenges Presented by Hazards 6 Specific Categories of Concerns & Challenges 6 Current Strengths and Assets 8 Top Recommendations to Improve Resilience 8 Post-Workshop Implementation 13 Workshop Participants 14 Citation 15 Acknowledgements 15 Appendices 16 1 Town of Lanesborough Community Resilience Building Workshop Summary of Findings June 30, 2018 Community Background The need for municipalities to increase resilience and adapt to extreme weather events and natural hazards is becoming more evident among the communities of Berkshire County, Massachusetts, the western-most county in the Commonwealth. In general, the region is separated from the Pioneer Valley and the rest of the state by the Berkshire Highlands and the Hoosac Range that serve as its eastern boundary and by the Taconic Mountains that serve as its western boundary with upper New York State. Lanesborough is located in north-central Berkshire County and is bordered to north by New Ashford, to the east by Cheshire and Dalton, to the south by Pittsfield and to the west by Hancock. The town is 18,764 acres in size, which is approximately 30 square miles. Lanesborough is situated at the headwaters of the two major river watersheds in the county: the Housatonic River, which flows southward through Connecticut to Long Island Sound, and the Hoosic River, which flows northward into the Hudson River, which ultimately flows into the Atlantic Ocean.
  • 7 the Geology of the Bennington Area

    7 the Geology of the Bennington Area

    I S; 5, •-' -"•L - THE GEOLOGY OF THE BENNINGTON AREIA, VERMONT By ItV £ JOHN A MACFAD\ EN, JR t "I VERMON I GEOLOGIC \L SURVEY :• CHARLiS G. DOLL Stale Geologist Published by S S VERMON'! DEVELOPMEf\ t COMMISSION •• MONTPELIER VE! MONT S S S S S • BiLETIN NO. 7 - 1956 S ' S S - THE GEOLOGY OF THE BENNINGTON ARF A, VERMONT By JOHN A. MACFAD\ 1N, JR £ I VERMON I GEOLOGIC 'LL SURVEY CHARLCS G. DOLL State Geologist 4 / • •• • . • • Published by VERMONT DEVELOPMEr''1' COMMISSION MONTPELIER VERIONT I • .BPLLETIN NO. • • • 1956 • •• •. •• eBr.4.n TABLE OF CONI1NTS / ' I PAGE 1 / ABSTRACT ......................... 7 i oRatlsn4 1 INTRODUCTION ........................ 8 0 Location. ......................... PWtney 8 Physiogiaphy and Glaciation ................. 9 Purpose of Study ....................... 11 I / I, Method of Study ...................... 11 I 0.> Regional Geologic Setting .................. 11 Vt. ) N.H. Previous Work ....................... 13 Acknowledgments . I ( 14 I I STRATIGRAPHY ........................ 15 I oManshular 1 General Statement .................... is I' Pre-Cambrian Sequence ......... ' .....16 / Mount Holly Gneiss ..................... 16 So.s.tqa 3r- I. I I Stamford Granite Gneiss................. 17 Lower Cambrian Sequence .................. 17 41 Mendon Formation ................... 17 I • —4 ( Cheshire Quartzite ................... 20 •• #3 Dunham Dolomite ..................... 21 'S Monkton Quartzite .................. 22 ------\-------- Winooski Dolomite ................... 23
  • GEOLOGIC RADON POTENTIAL of EPA REGION 1 Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont

    GEOLOGIC RADON POTENTIAL of EPA REGION 1 Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont

    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEOLOGIC RADON POTENTIAL OF EPA REGION 1 Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont OPEN-FILE REPORT 93-292-A Prepared in Cooperation with the | U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 9'% 1993 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEOLOGIC RADON POTENTIAL OF EPA REGION 1 Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont R. Randall Schumann EDITOR OPEN-FILE REPORT 93-292-A Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1993 This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards or with the North American Stratigraphic Code. CONTENTS SECTION____________________________________PAGE 1. The USGS/EPA State Radon Potential Assessments: An Introduction 1 Linda C.S. Gundersen, R. Randall Schumann, and Sharon W. White Appendix A: Geologic Time Scale 19 Appendix B: Glossary of Terms 20 Appendix C: EPA Regional Offices, State Radon Contacts, 26 and State Geological Surveys 2. EPA Region 1 Geologic Radon Potential Summary 36 Linda C.S. Gundersen, R. Randall Schumann, and Sandra L. Szarzi 3. Preliminary Geologic Radon Potential Assessment of Connecticut 47 Linda C.S. Gundersen andR. Randall Schumann 4. Preliminary Geologic Radon Potential Assessment of Maine 83 Linda C.S. Gundersen andR. Randall Schumann 5. Preliminary Geologic Radon Potential Assessment of Massachusetts 123 R. Randall Schumann and Linda C.S. Gundersen 6. Preliminary Geologic Radon Potential Assessment of New Hampshire 157 Linda C.S. Gundersen andR. Randall Schumann 7. Preliminary Geologic Radon Potential Assessment of Rhode Island 191 Linda C.S.
  • Web Edition Part 2 Public Co

    Web Edition Part 2 Public Co

    From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 11:13 AM To: [email protected]; Launder, Kelly; [email protected]; [email protected]; Margolis, Anne; Markowitz, Deb; Governor Peter Shumlin; Darling, Scott; PSB - Clerk Subject: Lowell Mountain Reduced Production http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/53258/examples-wind-power-learnAll, I am surprised GMP did not do a timely study of Lowell's impact on the NEK grid. As a result, the $10.5 million synchronous-condenser system for power factor correction (losses of up to 3%) will not be completed until about the end of 2013. There are many factors reducing ridge line IWT CFs. Here is an excerpt from http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/169521/wind-turbine-energy-capacity-less-estimated Below are some numbers regarding the much less than expected results of the Maine ridge line IWTs for the past 12 months. http://www.coalitionforenergysolutions.org/maine_wind_thru_3q2012m1.pdf Mars Hill, 42 MW 0.353; uniquely favorable winds due to topography. Stetson I, 57 MW 0.254 Stetson II, 26 MW 0.227 Kibby Mtn 132 MW 0.238 Rollins, 60 MW 0.238 Record Hill, 50.5 MW 0.197 The Maine weighted average CF = (42 x 0.353 + 57 x 0.254 + 26 x 0.227 + 132 x 0.238 + 60 x 0.238 + 50.5 x 0.197)/(42 + 57 + 26 + 132 + 60 + 50.5) = 0.247; excluding Mars Hill, the CF would be 0.234. Note: CF reduction due to aging is not yet a major factor, as all these IWTs were installed in the past 5 years.
  • Nonpoint Source Pollution Assessment for the Deerfield River Watershed

    Nonpoint Source Pollution Assessment for the Deerfield River Watershed

    Nonpoint Source Pollution Assessment for the Deerfield River Watershed Section 604(b) Project Number 04-02/604 Prepared by the Franklin Regional Council of Governments Prepared for the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs Ian A. Bowles, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Laurie Burt, Commissioner Bureau of Resource Protection Glenn Hass, Acting Assistant Commissioner Division of Municipal Services Steven J. McCurdy, Director June 2008 This project has been financed partially with Federal Funds from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (the Department) under a s.604(b) Water Quality Management Planning Grant. The contents do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of EPA or of the Department, nor does the mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. Nonpoint Source Pollution Assessment for the Deerfield River Watershed Prepared by the Franklin Regional Council of Governments Planning Department Peggy Sloan, Director of Planning and Development Kimberly Noake MacPhee, P.G., Natural Resources Program Manager Ryan Clary, Senior GIS Specialist Whitty Sanford, Assistant Planner Franklin Regional Council of Governments 425 Main Street, Greenfield, MA 01301 413-774-3167 www.frcog.org Table of Contents Executive Summary...............................................................................................................
  • Busby Trail to Spruce Hill Savoy Mountain State Forest

    Busby Trail to Spruce Hill Savoy Mountain State Forest

    Busby Trail to Spruce Hill Savoy Mountain State Forest SELF-GUIDED HIKING TOUR WELCOME to Savoy Mountain State Forest, 10,200 acres managed by the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation, and located in the towns of Savoy, Florida, Adams and North Adams. Savoy Mountain has many miles of wooded trails offering opportunities for year-round passive recrea- tion. Much of this state forest was acquired by Massachusetts beginning in1918, assembled from aban- doned farmland. Many farming residents, tired of poor conditions, had moved into valley towns of Ad- ams and North Adams to work in the woolen mills, or headed west for better farmland. The evidence of these farms remains with old orchards and stone fences and a cellar hole found along the Busby Trail. Please remember to carrycarry----in,in, carrycarry----outout all your belongings, including trash. Please leave no trace of you visit, and leave all that you find in its natural environment for all to enjoy. Thank you. THE BUSBY TRAIL to Spruce Hill is perhaps Hoosac Range the most popular hiking trail in the state forest. It Trail offers a great panoramic view. The trailhead is lo- SPRUCE HILL cated 3 miles from MA Route 2, at the intersection (2,570 ft. elev.) of Central Shaft Road and Old Florida Road (a il Tra Bu rocky dirt road), just beyond the state forest head- sby T nd rai o l P quarters at 260 Central Shaft Road, where you t s o may also pick up a Savoy Mountain State Forest L Blackburnian Lo Trail Map .
  • The Green Mountain Anticlinorium in the Vicinity of Wilmington and Woodford Vermont

    The Green Mountain Anticlinorium in the Vicinity of Wilmington and Woodford Vermont

    THE GREEN MOUNTAIN ANTICLINORIUM IN THE VICINITY OF WILMINGTON AND WOODFORD VERMONT By JAMES WILLIAM SKEHAN, S. J. VERMONT GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CHARLES G. DOLL, Stale Geologist Published by VERMONT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MONTPELIER, VERMONT BULLETIN NO. 17 1961 = 0 0. Looking northwest from centra' \Vhitingham, from a point near C in WHITINCHAM IPlate 1 Looking across Sadawga Pond Dome to Haystack Mountain-Searsburg Ridge in the background; Stratton and Glastenburv Mountains in the far distance. Davidson Cemetery in center foreground on Route 8 serves as point of reference. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ABSTRACT 9 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Location ........................ 10 Regional Geologic Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Previous Geologic Work ................. 15 The Problem ...................... 16 Present Investigation ................... 18 Acknowledgments .................... 19 Topography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Rock Exposure ..................... 20 Culture and Accessibility ................. 20 STRATIGRAPHY AND LITHOLOGY ............... 23 General Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Stratigraphic Nomenclature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Lithologic Nomenclature ................. 26 Pre-Cambrian Rocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 General Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Mount Holly Complex ................. 28 Stamford
  • Mohawk Trail West Ch3 Natural Resources

    Mohawk Trail West Ch3 Natural Resources

    CHAPTER 3 Natural Resources long the Mohawk Trail Scenic Byway lies a wealth of important natural resources. Among these resources are: the Deerfield and Hoosic Rivers, which contain important trout habitat; the Glacial Potholes in AShelburne Falls, one of the largest collection of such potholes in the country; the Natural Bridge in North Adams, the only bridge in North America created by the erosive forces of water; and miles of northern hardwood forests along the Byway corridor, including old growth forests in the Mohawk Trail State Forest. The Byway also includes other geologic, flora and fauna, water resources that help make the Mohawk Trail Scenic Byway experience unique. The corridor’s natural resources contribute to the dramatic scenery viewed from the Byway, and attract recreational tourists seeking to experience the corridor’s wildness. This chapter of the Corridor Management Plan provides a gen- eral inventory and overview of the Byway’s natural resources, in- cluding its geology, soils, water resources, and rare species habitat areas. The purpose is to highlight the Byway’s primary natural and environmental assets. The chapter also discusses potential issues that could affect the quality of these resources over time, especially if the Byway experiences an increase in tourist and vehicle traffic. The chapter closes with a series of recommendations for protect- ing, maintaining, and enhancing the Byway’s natural resources. ago, a period of mountain building Geologic Resources (also known as an orogeny) called the Taconic Orogeny created the Taconic Geologic History Hills of western Berkshire County. During this period, bedrock and sedi- The formation of the Byway landscape ment deposits of the warm sea were began approximately six-hundred mil- pushed westward and inland.
  • North Adams Hazard Mitigation and Climate Adaptation Plan January 2021

    North Adams Hazard Mitigation and Climate Adaptation Plan January 2021

    North Adams Hazard Mitigation and Climate Adaptation Plan January 2021 Table of Contents CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..………… 2 CHAPTER 2: PLANNING PROCESS…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…........... 4 CHAPTER 3: RISK ASSESSMENT…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………….. 11 Inland Flooding……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………. 22 Severe Winter Storms …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..………………….. 37 Droughts…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..………………………. 44 Change in Average Temperatures/Extreme Temperatures…………………………………………………………………………………..…………………… 50 Tornadoes/High Wind……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……………….. 57 Landslides…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 61 Wildfires…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..………………. 69 Hurricanes/Tropical Storms………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 76 Other Severe Weather………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..………… …. 82 Invasive Species…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………………………….……………. 88 Vector-Borne Disease………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………. 97 Earthquakes………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………………………………………………………….100 Dam failure……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..………………………………………………………….…… 106 Cyber Security…………………………………………………………………………………………….……………..………………………………………………………….…
  • Annual Report of the Greylock Commission

    Annual Report of the Greylock Commission

    : Public Document No. 67 FIFTEENTH ANNUAL REPORT GRETLOCK COMMISSION, January, 1916. BOSTON WEIGHT & POTTER PRINTING CO., STATE PRINTERS^ 32 DERNE STREET. 1916. Approved by The State Boaed of Publication. ®l]e Cotnmonroealtfi of iHasBacliustttB. PiTTSFiELD, Mass., Jan. 1, 1916. To His Excellency the Governor of the Commonwealth and the Hon- orable Council. Gentlemen : — Enclosed please find the annual report of the Greylock Reservation Commission. Very respectfully yours^ FRANCIS W. ROCKWELL, Chairman. GREYLOCK RESERVATION COMMISSION. PiTTSFiELD, Mass., Jan. 1, 1916. To the Committee on Revision. Gentlemen : — The records kept by the secretaries of the Greylock Reservation Commission are very brief. In order to keep the public informed, and to make it easier for the gentlemen who may succeed the present com- mission, we place in the annual report facts and references which will give a better understanding of the work of the Commission. These references will enable all interested hereafter in the reservation to find what has been done and the methods employed in the general conduct of reservation matters. While the records in the State Auditor's, State Treasurer's and Attorney-General's offices will explain the expenditure of the funds appropriated by the Commonwealth, and while the annual reports of the treasurer of the Commis- sion to the Berkshire county commissioners will aid in the matter, it remains true that many matters of interest can be found only in the county press, — hence the references to the newspapers of Berkshire. Many inquiries pertaining to the history of the mountain and reservation are made of the Commission. These ques- tions can best be answered by the references given in the brief bibliography and references written for this report.