DOCSLIB.ORG

Hazard Mitigation Plan Update OXFORD, CT

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Hazard Mitigation Plan Update OXFORD, CT Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021 – 2026 Municipal Annex for OXFORD, CT 486 Oxford Road Oxford, CT 06478 MMI #3211-29 Prepared for: Prepared by: NAUGATUCK VALLEY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS SLR CONSULTING 47 Leavenworth Street, 3rd Floor 99 Realty Drive Waterbury, CT 06702 Cheshire, Connecticut 06410 (203) 489-0362 (203) 271-1773 www.nvcogct.org www.slrconsulting.com TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 PURPOSE OF ANNEX .................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 PLANNING PROCESS .................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 PHYSICAL SETTING ...................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.4 LAND COVER ............................................................................................................................................. 1-2 1.5 GEOLOGY .................................................................................................................................................. 1-2 1.6 CLIMATE AND CLIMATE CHANGE .................................................................................................................... 1-3 1.7 DEVELOPMENT TRENDS ................................................................................................................................ 1-5 1.8 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES .............................................................................................................. 1-6 1.9 SOCIAL VULNERABILITY INDEX ........................................................................................................................ 1-7 2.0 MUNICIPAL CAPABILITIES .......................................................................................................................... 2-8 2.1 GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE AND CAPABILITIES................................................................................................. 2-8 2.2 INFRASTRUCTURE ...................................................................................................................................... 2-14 2.3 CRITICAL FACILITIES AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE.............................................................................................. 2-14 3.0 FLOODING ............................................................................................................................................... 3-17 3.1 EXISTING CAPABILITIES ............................................................................................................................... 3-17 3.2 VULNERABILITIES AND RISK ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................................ 3-20 4.0 HURRICANES AND TROPICAL STORMS .................................................................................................... 4-26 4.1 EXISTING CAPABILITIES ............................................................................................................................... 4-26 4.2 VULNERABILITIES AND RISK ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................................ 4-27 5.0 SUMMER STORMS AND TORNADOES ..................................................................................................... 5-29 5.1 EXISTING CAPABILITIES ............................................................................................................................... 5-29 5.2 VULNERABILITIES AND RISK ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................................ 5-30 6.0 WINTER STORMS ..................................................................................................................................... 6-31 6.1 EXISTING CAPABILITIES ............................................................................................................................... 6-31 6.2 VULNERABILITIES AND RISK ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................................ 6-32 7.0 GEOLOGICAL HAZARDS ........................................................................................................................... 7-34 7.1 EXISTING CAPABILITIES ............................................................................................................................... 7-34 7.2 VULNERABILITIES AND RISK ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................................ 7-34 8.0 DAM FAILURE .......................................................................................................................................... 8-36 8.1 EXISTING CAPABILITIES ............................................................................................................................... 8-36 8.2 VULNERABILITIES AND RISK ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................................ 8-37 9.0 WILDFIRES ............................................................................................................................................... 9-39 9.1 EXISTING CAPABILITIES ............................................................................................................................... 9-39 9.2 VULNERABILITIES AND RISK ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................................ 9-39 10.0 MITIGATION STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS ............................................................................................... 10-42 10.1 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................................... 10-42 10.2 STATUS OF MITIGATION STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS FROM PREVIOUS HMP .......................................................... 10-42 10.3 PRIORITIZATION OF STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS ............................................................................................... 10-45 10.4 MITIGATION STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS IMPLEMENTATION TABLE ...................................................................... 10-45 Municipal Annexes: Oxford 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose of Annex This Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) annex provides a community-specific hazard risk assessment, capability analysis, and evaluation and prioritization of hazard mitigation measures and projects. Background information and the regional effects of pertinent natural hazards are discussed in the main body of the Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments (NVCOG) Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. This annex is designed to supplement the information presented in the Multi-Jurisdictional HMP with more specific local detail, and is not to be considered a standalone document. The primary goal of this HMP, including this Municipal Annex, is to identify natural hazard risks and mitigation opportunities in order to reduce the loss of or damage to life, property, infrastructure, and natural, cultural, and economic resources. This includes the reduction of public and private damage costs. Limiting losses of and damage to life and property will also reduce the social, emotional, and economic disruption associated with a natural disaster. 1.2 Planning Process A meeting was held with Oxford representatives on September 23, 2020 for the purposes of initial data collection and review of necessary updates for this document. The meeting was convened by the HMP local coordinator, Scott Pelletier. Additional input was provided at the two regional municipal staff workshops, held on November 18, 2020, and February 3, 2021. Public input collected at public workshops and through an online survey have also informed development of this HMP update. 1.3 Physical Setting The Town of Oxford was incorporated as a town in 1798. It is located in western New Haven County in southern Connecticut approximately 18 miles north of Bridgeport and 16 miles northwest of New Haven. It is bordered to the north by the Town of Middlebury, to the east by the Borough of Naugatuck and the Town of Beacon Falls, to the south by the Towns of Seymour and Monroe and the City of Shelton, and to the west by the Towns of Newtown and Southbury. The varying terrain and land uses in the community results in vulnerability to an array of natural hazards. Oxford is part of both the Naugatuck River Valley and the Housatonic River Valley. The topography of the community is characterized by higher elevations that slope towards the two river valleys. Peaks in the northern part of the community reach elevations nearing 900 feet above sea level, while the majority of the community lies at elevations between 200 and 700 feet above sea level. Oxford is characterized by several substantial north-south trending ridges including Hull’s Hill, the Mount Pisgah Ridge, Bowers Hill, Fivemile NVCOG Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 1-1 May 2021 Municipal Annexes: Oxford Hill, Jacks Hill, Towantic Hill, and Hunters Mountain along with many small parallel and orthogonally oriented valleys. 1.4 Land Cover The land area of Oxford is approximately 32.6 square miles with an additional 0.8 square miles of water. Oxford
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Park Association-Support Act Establishing a Tax Abatement
    Testimony of Eric Hammerling, Executive Director, Connecticut Forest & Park Association Public Hearing Subject Matter Position Raised Bill 5477 : AN ACT ESTABLISHING A TAX ABATEMENT FOR Support CERTAIN CONSERVATION EASEMENTS . Raised Bill 5476: AN ACT ESTABLISHING A STATE -WIDE GEOGRAPHIC Support INFORMATION SYSTEM TASK FORCE . The Connecticut Forest & Park Association (CFPA) is the first conservation organization estab lished in Connecticut in 1895. For 12 5 years, CFPA has offered testimony before the General Assembly on various State Park and Forest, trail recreation, forestry, and land conservation iss ues. I am pleased to testify today to express CFPA’s support of Raised Bill 5477 , “An Act Establishing a Tax Abatement for Certain Conservation Easements .” What would this bill do (in plain language)? This bill would enable, but not require, muni cipalitie s to pass a local ordinance to waive property taxes for landowners who place a conservation easement on a portion of their property to protect the trail corridor of a State - designated Greenway . This would be a n outstanding way to support municipalities in encourag ing landowners to protect these speci al ly designated corridors in perpetuity fo r public use and enjoyment . Why is a tax abatement for Greenways both critical and urgent ? Greenw ays are designated by the state (C.G.S. Section 23 -10 2(b) ) as noteworthy recreational resources, and an incentive is needed to keep these trails intact for future generations. State -designa ted Greenways typic ally stretch across multiple properties owned by a patchwork of private, municipal, and state landowners. The loss of just one section of trail on one property can sever corridor conti nuity along a Greenway, and trails on private lands are the most vulnerable.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 6 Bicycle and Pedestrian
    CHAPTER 6 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES This chapter is a compilation of all bicycle and pedestrian facilities in Connecticut. The maps shown in this chapter will give the reader a perspective of where Connecticut's program is today and a view of where it may go with respect to a comprehensive bicycle and pedestrian system. Trails in Connecticut are designed with connectivity in mind, and are proposed with an interconnected system as the ultimate goal. These maps are to be used, by ConnDOT, to evaluate the suitability of accommodating walkers and bicyclists and to integrate the consideration of sidewalks and multi - use paths into all planning, design, construction and maintenance activities. This chapter is divided into four parts; existing and program facilities, proposed long range plans, greenways and the existing Bike Routes on the Connecticut Bicycle Map. 107 108 EXISTING AND PROGRAMED BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES The general location of the 74 major existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities and enhancement projects described in this section are shown in Figure 49. These facilities were developed by ConnDOT, ConnDEP and local communities. While the majority of these facilities are separate multi-use paths, several are signed bike lane routes that were developed along existing roads in the 1970's. Various funding sources were used in their construction including the use of Interstate funds in conjunction with major projects, local funds, National Recreational Trails funds, enhancement funds and state bond money. The following is a description of these facilities. A series of route maps showing several of these facilities is shown in Appendix A.
    [Show full text]
  • Danielson Airport (LZD)
    DECEMBER 2017 FINAL Environmental Assessment (EA) & Environmental Impact Evaluation (EIE) for Obstruction Removal Danielson Airport (LZD) Prepared for: Prepared by: FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA) FOR OBSTRUCTION REMOVAL DANIELSON AIRPORT (LZD) FAA AIP NO. 3‐09‐0900‐010‐2014 CAA CONTRACT NO. 2014‐02 CHA CONTRACT NO. 29067 May 2017 Prepared for: Connecticut Airport Authority (CAA) Prepared BY: CHA Consulting, Inc. Danielson Airport (LZD) Obstruction Analysis ‐Tree Removal FEDERAL FINDING After careful and thorough consideration of the facts contained herein, the undersigned finds that the proposed federal action is consistent with existing national policies and objectives as set forth in Section 101 of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable environmental requirements and will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment or otherwise include any condition requiring consultation pursuant to Section 101 (2) (c) of the NEPA. Approved: 5/17/2017 Richard Doucette Date Manager, Environmental Programs RECORD OF DECISION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT EVALUATION (EIE) FOR OBSTRUCTION REMOVAL DANIELSON AIRPORT (LZD) FAA AIP NO. 3‐09‐0900‐010‐2014 CAA CONTRACT NO. 2014‐02 CHA CONTRACT NO. 29067 December 2017 Prepared for: Connecticut Airport Authority (CAA) Prepared BY: CHA Consulting, Inc. Notice: On November 11, 2017, the State of Connecticut, Office of Policy and Management (OPM) determined that the Connecticut Airport Authority (CAA) “shall not be construed to be a department, institution or agency of the state”, and that the Connecticut Environmental Policy Act (CEPA) is not applicable to CAA actions. See CT OPM notice included in Appendix B. As such, environmental review for the project is not subject to CEPA, and this ROD (prepared prior to November 2017) is not applicable.
    [Show full text]
  • Town of Oxford Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update, 2014
    TOWN OF OXFORD NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE, 2014 Original Plan Adopted October 30, 2006 Plan Update Prepared February 24, 2014 Plan Update Adopted July 2, 2014 MMI #1452-11 Prepared for the: TOWN OF OXFORD, CONNECTICUT Emergency Services Department Oxford Town Hall 486 Oxford Road Oxford, CT 06478-1298 (203) 888-9090 www.oxford-ct.gov The preparation of this report has been financed in part through funds provided by the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection under a grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The contents of this report reflect the views of the Town of Oxford and do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection. The report does not constitute a specification or regulation. Prepared by: MILONE & MACBROOM, INC. 99 Realty Drive Cheshire, Connecticut 06410 (203) 271-1773 www.miloneandmacbroom.com ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS & CONTACT INFORMATION This plan update was prepared under the direction of the Town of Oxford. The following individual should be contacted with questions or comments regarding the plan: Chief Scott Pelletier Emergency Management Director, Local Coordinator Emergency Services Department Town of Oxford 486 Oxford Road Oxford, CT 06478-1298 (203) 888-9090 Phone (203) 888-2136 Fax [email protected] This Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update could not have been completed without the time and dedication of the additional following individuals at the local level: Mr. George Temple, First Selectman Ms. Anna Rycenga, Zoning Enforcement Officer Mr. Wayne Watt, Director of Public Works Ms. Kathleen O’Neill, Grant Administrator Mr. Andrew Ferrillo, Inland Wetlands Officer Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • HVCEO Regional Bike Plan
    January 2015 PREPARED FOR: HVCEO Housatonic Valley Council of Elected O f f i c i a l s BY: HARTransit GREATER DANBURY REGIONAL BIKE PLAN FINAL REPORT January 2015 This document was prepared in cooperation with the Federal Transit Administration and the Connecticut Department of Transportation. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the Housatonic Valley Council of Elected Officials and do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Connecticut Department of Transportation or the Federal Transit Administration. Prepared for HVCEO by Eric C. Bergstraesser, Chief Executive Officer Report Staff Richard A. Schreiner, Director of Service Development Stephanie A. Scavelli, Transportation Planner Andrew C. O’Connell, Marketing and Public Relations Coordinator George Blake, HVCEO Geographic Information Systems Manager ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors acknowledge the following people for their expertise, invaluable support, and generous assistance on the development of this project. Apologies extended for any omissions: Betty Brosius Jonathan Chew Jacqui Dowd Dave and Marti Fine Sandy Fry Francisco Gomes (Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc.) Stuart Green Lukas Herbert Alex Karman Amy Mangold Tom O’Brien Sharon Okoye David Pattee John Pilner Katherine Rattan Paul Roche Cover Photo: A sharrow marking on the pavement alerts drivers to a designated shared roadway along Housatonic Avenue in New Milford, CT. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1 OVERVIEW AND POLICY OBJECTIVES …………………………… 1 1.1 Introduction ……...................................................................................... 1 1.2 Relevant Federal and State of Connecticut Programs and Policies …….. 4 1.3 Demographics …………………………………………………………... 8 1.4 Bicycle Crash Data ……………………………………………………... 10 1.5 Special Concerns in Bicycle Planning …….............................................. 15 2 INVENTORY OF ROUTES AND PLANS ……………………………..
    [Show full text]
  • AIRPORT BUSINESS PLAN Waterbury-Oxford Airport
    AIRPORT BUSINESS PLAN Waterbury-Oxford Airport Prepared for: Business Plan Executive Summary Prepared by: May 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ ES1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Business Plan Process .................................................................................................. 2 1.2 Airport Profile .............................................................................................................. 3 2.0 EXISTING AIRPORT CHARACTERISTICS............................................................................ 5 2.1 Physical Characteristics ............................................................................................... 5 2.2 Existing Airport Tenants .............................................................................................. 6 2.3 Management Structure ............................................................................................... 7 2.4 Historical Airport Data ................................................................................................. 8 2.5 Baseline Financial Data ................................................................................................ 9 3.0 AIRPORT MARKET AREA .............................................................................................. 11 4.0 SWOT ANALYSIS FOR WATERBURY-OXFORD AIRPORT
    [Show full text]
  • Greenwaysmap2019pdf.Pdf
    North Canaan 9 5 Colebrook Hartland 5 8 Suffield Somers Union Salisbury Stafford Norfolk Enfield Thompson µ y Woodstock Granby b 59 Canaan n a r 1 G 8 t 7 1 Barkhamsted s a Windsor Locks Ellington 2 Winchester E 8 or s n Putnam ind 4 Explanation o t W t 3 s 0 E Ea g a 7 n Ashford i s l l t 9 i Major Highways Tolland f Windsor 2 o n 5 Simsbury W r B 1 2 Pomfret o d t l o 3 7 Sharon n 3 Greenways o 6 0 9 a 6 1 Cornwall Goshen 1 m 2 C r 3 o 2 f ds 7 i in Existing Torrington New Hartford 2 e W Killingly l th d Sou Vernon 6 9 4 6 C 2 6 2019 Designated 1 h n a E W 4 o 5 p t a l e 6 p Avon Mansfield i Brooklyn s B n Clinton Blueway s d t Coventry m r o t r ste H e h a c l H o n 6 a t f M o a H a t 5 r r n Clinton Greenway r 5 Burlington t t a f 2 Harwinton f 7 o r o H 1 3 r e r Warren Litchfield d d v 0 Blue Blazed Hiking Trails o 7 Kent d g Farmington n S n 7 i N A c 5 3 l r Metacomet Ridge System o 2 e 8 a 4 i Windham e t n t w i b l 75 a Plainfield 0 Wethersfield S a i m n t n 6 i Glastonbury u Morris d r g l h o t Bristol B t 4 Pla o C u in v n ill w Thomaston o e e ll Canterbury 4 i M m 6 Washington N H Hebron 3 1 4 Notes: y y 4 a l ck W 5 r 4 o 5 P l R b S n p 1 Bethle a i The Blue Blazed Hiking Trail System hem o l ra t 1 g e r Lebanon k u o e 2 r n t u E and the Metacomet Ridge System o a 6 6 g n Cro r w m a S Southington w Berlin h o V 7 ell F Wolcott s n 1 b h New Milford o t are designated Greenways.
    [Show full text]
  • Real Estate Listing by County
    County Town Listing Quote Realtor Phone Email Located across the street from Wolfpit's Nature Preserve with over 40 acres of woodlands for Fairfield Bethel 76 Wolfpits Road Daniel Radmanovic (917) 257-4119 [email protected] added privacy. 8 Obtuse Road Brookfield has over 1,300 acres of Protected Open Space incl private land trusts. Just ½ mile down Fairfield Brookfield Kellie Martone (203) 948-1034 [email protected] North the rd from your new home are hiking trails, some leading to Lake Lillinonah. The house is close to three picturesque reservoirs (East Lake, Padanaram, and Marjorie), as well Fairfield Danbury 5 Dana Road Kris Lippi (860) 595-2506 as Bear Mt. Reservation, which are great places to run, walk, and hike. Magnificent custom built home on 8.74 sprawling acres private and adjacent to a nature preserve. Fairfield Danbury 113 King Street Vanessa Savio (203) 622-1100 [email protected] Enjoy the rolling mountains as the backdrop to your impeccably built 5000 sq ft plus home. NEWLY RENOVATED COLONIAL ON DESIRED CUL-DE-SAC CLOSE TO ELEMENTARY Sheree Frank & Doug Fairfield Darien 4 Heather Lane (203) 655-8238 SCHOOL AND LAND TRUST PRESERVE. Milne Fairfield Darien 123 Tokeneke Road The abutting land trust property allows you to enjoy endless privacy Lynne Somerville (508) 934-7288 Fairfield Darien 73 Locust Hill Road Sited adjacent to land trust, the lovely back yard offers privacy Hannah Driscoll (508) 934-7288 418 Morehouse Fairfield Easton Perfectly located close to the walking trails of Aspetuck Land Trust. Hannah Driscoll (508) 934-7288 Road Fairfield Easton 45 Wyldewood Road On cul-de-sac with trails through Aspetuck Land Trust.
    [Show full text]
  • Naugatuck River Greenway Routing Study: Overview
    Regional Naugatuck River Greenway Routing Study Table of Contents 1. Overview ............................................................................................... 5 2. Mission and Goals ..................................................................................... 7 3. Study Methodology .................................................................................... 8 4. Study Area .............................................................................................. 9 5. Potential Greenway Routing Analysis ............................................................ 12 6. Obstacles to Access and Connectivity (Gap Analysis) ......................................... 18 7. Affected Property Data ............................................................................ 20 8. General Construction Feasibility and Cost ...................................................... 21 9. Brownfields and Environmental Constraints .................................................... 22 10. Safety and Security ................................................................................ 23 11. Permitting Issues .................................................................................. 24 12. Coordination with Other Studies ................................................................ 27 13. Community Input .................................................................................. 30 14. Opportunities and Challenges ................................................................... 31 15. Recommended
    [Show full text]
  • Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments
    Regional Naugatuck River Greenway Routing Study Table of Contents 1. Overview ................................................................................................ 3 2. Mission and Goals ..................................................................................... 5 3. Study Methodology .................................................................................... 6 4. Study Area .............................................................................................. 7 5. Potential Greenway Routing Analysis .............................................................. 8 6. Obstacles to Access and Connectivity (Gap Analysis) ......................................... 11 7. Affected Property Data ............................................................................ 11 8. General Construction Feasibility and Cost ...................................................... 11 9. Brownfields and Environmental Constraints .................................................... 12 10. Safety and Security ................................................................................ 13 11. Permitting Issues .................................................................................. 14 12. Coordination with Other Studies ................................................................ 17 13. Community Input .................................................................................. 19 14. Opportunities and Challenges ................................................................... 20 15. Recommended
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix E.10 Visual and Aesthetic Resoruces
    Appendix E.10 Visual and Aesthetic Resources Tier 1 Final EIS Volume 2 APPENDIX E.10 VISUAL AND AESTHETIC RESOURCES – ERRATA SHEET No changes were made to the materials in this appendix. This Volume 2 file contains the same information as was presented in the Tier 1 Draft EIS published November 2015. Tier 1 Final EIS P a g e | 1 Volume 2 Visual and Aesthetic Resource Methodology February 27, 2014 Final Submitted by: Visual and Aesthetic Resource Methodology Table of Contents 1. VISUAL AND AESTHETIC RESOURCES ............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 DEFINITIONS............................................................................................................................................. 1 1.3 RELATED RESOURCES .................................................................................................................................. 1 1.4 AGENCY AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ........................................................................................................ 2 1.4.1 Regulatory Compliance ..................................................................................................................... 3 1.5 EFFECTS METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................. 3 1.5.1 Existing Conditions...........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • State Parks and Forests: Funding
    Staff Findings and Recommendations State Parks and Forests: Funding January 23, 2014 Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee Connecticut General Assembly 2013-2014 Committee Members Senate House John A. Kissel, Co-Chair Mary M. Mushinsky, Co-Chair John W. Fonfara Christie M. Carpino Steve Cassano Brian Becker Eric D. Coleman Marilyn Giuliano Anthony Guglielmo Brenda L. Kupchick Joe Markley Diana S. Urban Committee Staff on Project Brian Beisel, Principal Analyst Eric Michael Gray, Associate Legislative Analyst Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee Connecticut General Assembly State Capitol Room 506 Hartford, CT 06106 (860) 240-0300 www.cga.ct.gov/pri/index.asp [email protected] PRI Staff Findings and Recommendations Highlights January 2014 State Parks and Forests: Funding Background Main Staff Findings In June 2013, the program review The Parks Division FY 13 budget expenditure level is comparable to committee authorized a study of the level of FY 06 using constant 2013 dollars. Although several funding Connecticut’s state parks and forests. The sources exist, the system has become heavily reliant on the state’s study focuses on funding of the state park General Fund, with little directive or incentive to focus on revenue system, including a comparison of generating activities. revenues and expenditures within the park system and an assessment of the Connecticut’s state park fees are at or above other states in the adequacy of funding to support short- and region. There has been a decrease in paid attendance following fee long-term operational needs. increases in FY 10. The percentage of use by residents (~80% of day use) was not impacted by the fee increase.
    [Show full text]