DOCSLIB.ORG

Saco River Operation and Maintenance Dredging

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Saco River Operation and Maintenance Dredging CAMP ELLIS BEACH, SACO, MAINE SHORE DAMAGE MITIGATION PROJECT PUBLIC DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CLEAN WATER ACT SECTION 404 ( B ) (1) ANALYSIS APRIL 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 PROJECT HISTORY AND BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................ 1 1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT ......................................................................................................... 6 1.3 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ......................................................... 6 1.4 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT ........................................................................................................................ 6 1.5 AUTHORITY ................................................................................................................................................................... 7 1.5.1 Continuing Authorities Program, Section 111, Shoreline Damage Attributable to Federal Navigation Works ................................................................................................................................................................. 7 1.5.2 Water Resources Development Act 2007 ................................................................................................ 8 1.6 PERMITS, APPROVALS, AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS ................................................................ 8 2.0 ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................................................................. 12 2.1 GENERAL ..................................................................................................................................................................... 12 2.2 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE .................................................................................................................................. 15 2.3 FINAL ALTERNATIVES........................................................................................................................................... 15 2.3.1 Beach Nourishment Only Alternative .................................................................................................... 16 2.3.2. Alternative 6: 750-foot Spur Jetty ............................................................................................................ 18 2.3.3 Alternative 25a: 500-foot Spur Jetty and Two Nearshore Breakwaters ................................. 19 2.3.4 Buyout Alternative ......................................................................................................................................... 21 2.3.5 Transport of Beach Material ...................................................................................................................... 21 2.4 SCREENING OF FINAL ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................................................... 23 2.5 SELECTION OF RECOMMENDED PLAN .......................................................................................................... 25 3.0 THE FEDERALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE – ALTERNATIVE 6 ............................................... 26 4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ....................................................................................................................... 29 4.1 GEOLOGY ..................................................................................................................................................................... 29 4.1.1 Physiography .................................................................................................................................................... 29 4.1.2 Marine Geology and Geophysics ............................................................................................................... 29 4.2 SOILS AND SEDIMENTS ......................................................................................................................................... 30 4.2.1 Onshore (Upland) Soils ................................................................................................................................ 30 4.2.2 Marine Sediments ........................................................................................................................................... 31 4.3 WATER RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................................... 32 4.3.1 General ................................................................................................................................................................ 32 Camp Ellis Beach, Saco, Maine Draft Environmental Assessment Continuing Authorities Program, Section 111 EA-i 4.3.2 Oceanography and Marine Water Quality ............................................................................................ 32 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................................................................... 34 4.4.1 General ................................................................................................................................................................ 34 4.4.2 Eelgrass ............................................................................................................................................................... 34 4.4.3 Benthic Resources .......................................................................................................................................... 35 4.4.4 Shellfish .............................................................................................................................................................. 39 4.4.5 Fisheries Resources ....................................................................................................................................... 43 4.4.6 Essential Fish Habitat ................................................................................................................................... 45 4.4.7 Wildlife Resources.......................................................................................................................................... 46 4.5 ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES................................................................................................ 47 4.5.1 Federally Listed or Proposed Endangered or Threatened Species............................................ 47 4.5.2 Other Special Status Species ...................................................................................................................... 51 4.6 LAND USE, RECREATION, AND PUBLIC INTEREST AREAS .................................................................... 51 4.7 AIR QUALITY .............................................................................................................................................................. 52 4.8 CULTURAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................................................................ 52 4.8.1 Pre-Contact (Native American) Archaeology ...................................................................................... 52 4.8.2 History and Historical Archaeology ........................................................................................................ 53 4.9 SOCIOECONOMICS ................................................................................................................................................... 55 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ....................................................................................................... 57 5.1 GEOLOGY ..................................................................................................................................................................... 57 5.2 SOILS AND SEDIMENT ........................................................................................................................................... 57 5.3 WATER RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................................... 58 5.3.1 Water Circulation and Littoral Process ................................................................................................. 58 5.3.2 Water Quality ................................................................................................................................................... 59 5.3.3 Beach Nourishment Material Transport ............................................................................................... 60 5.3.4 Sea Level Rise ................................................................................................................................................... 60 5.4 PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL SEDIMENT CHARACTERISITICS ................................................................ 61 5.5 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................................................................... 61 5.5.1 General ................................................................................................................................................................ 61 5.5.2 Benthic Resources
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Part II Specialized Studies Chapter Vi
    Part II Specialized Studies chapter vi New Sites and Lingering Questions at the Debert and Belmont Sites, Nova Scotia Leah Morine Rosenmeier, Scott Buchanan, Ralph Stea, and Gordon Brewster ore than forty years ago the Debert site exca- presents a model for the depositional history of the site vations signaled a new standard for interdisci- area, including two divergent scenarios for the origins of the Mplinary approaches to the investigation of late cultural materials at the sites. We believe the expanded areal Pleistocene archaeological sites. The resulting excavations extent of the complex, the nature of past excavations, and produced a record that continues to anchor northeastern the degree of site preservation place the Debert- Belmont Paleoindian sites (MacDonald 1968). The Confederacy of complex among the largest, best- documented, and most Mainland Mi’kmaq (the Confederacy) has been increasingly intact Paleoindian sites in North America. involved with the protection and management of the site The new fi nds and recent research have resolved some complex since the discovery of the Belmont I and II sites in long- standing issues, but they have also created new debates. the late 1980s (Bernard et al. 2011; Julien et al. 2008). The Understanding the relative chronologies of the numerous data reported here are the result of archaeological testing site areas and the consequent relationship among the sites associated with these protection eff orts, the development of requires not only understanding depositional contexts for the Mi’kmawey Debert Cultural Centre (MDCC), and the single occupations but tying together varied contexts (rede- passage of new provincial regulations solely dedicated to pro- posited, disturbed, glaciofl uvial, glaciolacustrine, Holocene tecting archaeological sites in the Debert and Belmont area.
    [Show full text]
  • Saco River Saco & Biddeford, Maine
    Environmental Assessment Finding of No Significant Impact, and Section 404(b)(1) Evaluation for Maintenance Dredging DRAFT Saco River Saco & Biddeford, Maine US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS New England District March 2016 Draft Environmental Assessment: Saco River FNP DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Section 404(b)(1) Evaluation Saco River Saco & Biddeford, Maine FEDERAL NAVIGATION PROJECT MAINTENANCE DREDGING March 2016 New England District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 696 Virginia Rd Concord, Massachusetts 01742-2751 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 2.0 PROJECT HISTORY, NEED, AND AUTHORITY .......................................... 1 3.0 PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................................... 3 4.0 ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................ 6 4.1 No Action Alternative ..................................................................................... 6 4.2 Maintaining Channel at Authorized Dimensions............................................. 6 4.3 Alternative Dredging Methods ........................................................................ 6 4.3.1 Hydraulic Cutterhead Dredge....................................................................... 7 4.3.2 Hopper Dredge ........................................................................................... 7 4.3.3 Mechanical Dredge ....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Section 5-2 Androscoggin River (Friends of Merrymeeting Bay)
    Maine Department of Environmental Protection Androscoggin River (FOMB) 2018 Summary Data Report Section 5-2 Androscoggin River (Friends of Merrymeeting Bay) Androscoggin River The Androscoggin River is the third largest river in the state of Maine. It has a length of 177 miles and drainage area of 3,450 square miles (2,730 sq. mi. in Maine).1 The Androscoggin River’s headwaters are Umbagog Lake in Maine/New Hampshire. From there it flows into New Hampshire and then back into Maine through the towns of Gilead and Bethel. It continues flowing through the towns and cities of Rumford, Mexico, Dixfield, Jay, Livermore Falls, Lewiston, Auburn, Lisbon, Lisbon Falls, Durham, Brunswick, and Topsham where it joins the Kennebec River at Merrymeeting Bay. The Androscoggin River has a long history of industrial and municipal use over the last 200 years.1 Beginning in the early 1800s, many dams were constructed for mills, primarily in the lower part of the river. By the late 1800s, many textile and lumber mills were in operation, mostly from Lewiston to Brunswick. Pulp and paper mills that are still in operation today were established in the late 1800s in New Hampshire, Rumford, and Jay. Beginning in the late 1920s, Central Maine Power built hydroelectric dams that impounded much of the river from Lewiston to Livermore Falls. Some of these uses continue today. “Along its course to the sea, the river is repeatedly dammed. It receives discharges from industrial and municipal sources, as well as polluted runoff from a variety of sources.”2 Specific problems include mill discharges, combined sewer overflows (CSOs), dam impacts (28 dams exist), and historical sediment toxins.
    [Show full text]
  • Kennebec Estuary Focus Areas of Statewide Ecological Significance Kennebec Estuary
    Focus Areas of Statewide Ecological Significance: Kennebec Estuary Focus Areas of Statewide Ecological Significance Kennebec Estuary WHY IS THIS AREA SIGNIFICANT? The Kennebec Estuary Focus Area contains more than 20 percent of Maine’s tidal marshes, a significant percentage of Maine’s sandy beach and associated dune Biophysical Region habitats, and globally rare pitch pine • Central Maine Embayment woodland communities. More than two • Cacso Bay Coast dozen rare plant species inhabit the area’s diverse natural communities. Numerous imperiled species of animals have been documented in the Focus Area, and it contains some of the state’s best habitat for bald eagles. OPPORTUNITIES FOR CONSERVATION » Work with willing landowners to permanently protect remaining undeveloped areas. » Encourage town planners to improve approaches to development that may impact Focus Area functions. » Educate recreational users about the ecological and economic benefits provided by the Focus Area. » Monitor invasive plants to detect problems early. » Find ways to mitigate past and future contamination of the watershed. For more conservation opportunities, visit the Beginning with Habitat Online Toolbox: www.beginningwithhabitat.org/ toolbox/about_toolbox.html. Rare Animals Rare Plants Natural Communities Bald Eagle Lilaeopsis Estuary Bur-marigold Coastal Dune-marsh Ecosystem Spotted Turtle Mudwort Long-leaved Bluet Maritime Spruce–Fir Forest Harlequin Duck Dwarf Bulrush Estuary Monkeyflower Pitch Pine Dune Woodland Tidewater Mucket Marsh Bulrush Smooth Sandwort
    [Show full text]
  • American Eel Distribution and Dam Locations in the Merrymeeting Bay
    Seboomook Lake American Eel Distribution and Dam Ripogenus Lake Locations in the Merrymeeting Bay Pittston Farm North East Carry Lobster Lake Watershed (Androscoggin and Canada Falls Lake Rainbow Lake Kennebec River Watersheds) Ragged Lake a d a n Androscoggin River Watershed (3,526 sq. miles) a C Upper section (1,363 sq. miles) South Twin Lake Rockwood Lower section (2,162 sq. miles) Kokadjo Turkey Tail Lake Kennebec River Watershed (6,001 sq. miles) Moosehead Lake Wood Pond Long Pond Long Pond Dead River (879 sq. miles) Upper Jo-Mary Lake Upper Section (1,586 sq. miles) Attean Pond Lower Section (3,446 sq. miles) Number Five Bog Lowelltown Lake Parlin Estuary (90 sq. miles) Round Pond Hydrology; 1:100,000 National Upper Wilson Pond Hydrography Dataset Greenville ! American eel locations from MDIFW electrofishing surveys Spencer Lake " Dams (US Army Corps and ME DEP) Johnson Bog Shirley Mills Brownville Junction Brownville " Monson Sebec Lake Milo Caratunk Eustis Flagstaff Lake Dover-Foxcroft Guilford Stratton Kennebago Lake Wyman Lake Carrabassett Aziscohos Lake Bingham Wellington " Dexter Exeter Corners Oquossoc Rangeley Harmony Kingfield Wilsons Mills Rangeley Lake Solon Embden Pond Lower Richardson Lake Corinna Salem Hartland Sebasticook Lake Newport Phillips Etna " Errol New Vineyard " Madison Umbagog Lake Pittsfield Skowhegan Byron Carlton Bog Upton Norridgewock Webb Lake Burnham e Hinckley Mercer r Farmington Dixmont i h s " Andover e p Clinton Unity Pond n i m a a Unity M H East Pond Wilton Fairfield w e Fowler Bog Mexico N Rumford
    [Show full text]
  • Designation of Critical Habitat for the Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, And
    Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2016 / Proposed Rules 35701 the Act, including the factors identified Recovery and State Grants, Ecological Public hearings and public in this finding and explanation (see Services Program, U.S. Fish and information meetings: We will hold two Request for Information, above). Wildlife Service. public hearings and two public informational meetings on this proposed Conclusion Authority rule. We will hold a public On the basis of our evaluation of the The authority for these actions is the informational meeting from 2 to 4 p.m., information presented under section Endangered Species Act of 1973, as in Annapolis, Maryland on Wednesday, 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we have amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). July 13 (see ADDRESSES). A second determined that the petition to remove Dated: May 25, 2016. public informational meeting will be the golden-cheeked warbler from the Stephen Guertin, held from 3 to 5 p.m., in Portland, List of Endangered and Threatened Maine on Monday, July 18 (see Wildlife does not present substantial Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. ADDRESSES). We will hold two public scientific or commercial information [FR Doc. 2016–13120 Filed 6–2–16; 8:45 am] hearings, from 3 to 5 p.m. and 6 to 8 indicating that the requested action may p.m., in Gloucester, Massachusetts on BILLING CODE 4333–15–P be warranted. Therefore, we are not Thursday, July 21 (see ADDRESSES). initiating a status review for this ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, species. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE identified by the NOAA–NMFS–2015– We have further determined that the 0107, by either of the following petition to list the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Shorey's Brook Dam to Be Removed in York County
    FALL 2011/ WINTER 2012 THE NEWSLETTER OF MAINE RIVERS Shorey’s Brook Dam to be Removed in York County Much of the 4.3-mile Shorey’s in August 2010. Led by project Brook in South Berwick has manager and stewardship not actually looked like a coordinator Darrell DeTour, typical brook for many years. GWRLT has gathered many !e culprit is a dam perched partners, including the Wells several hundred yards below National Estuarine Research Route 101. Built as early as Reserve, the National the 1630s, it has morphed over Oceanic and Atmospheric the centuries into a decrepit Administration, Conservation hodgepodge of industrial Decrepit and inconspicuous, the Shorey’s Brook dam Law Foundation, the US Fish material, impenetrable by is di!cult to capture in a picture. Right, Tin Smith and Wildlife Service, and anadromous "sh including leads a tour of the restoration site. others, to plan, permit, and alewives, smelt, and Atlantic fund the removal. salmon. A dam removal is currently on track to take place !is project promises to be a success in Maine both for in November to restore the brook. In early October we reconnecting long-fragmented habitat and as a model to toured the dam removal site with members of Great Works inspire other entities—land trusts, municipalities, and Regional Land Trust and other project partners. others—who may be considering a dam removal project !e Great Works Regional Land Trust (GWRLT) acquired but are daunted by the perceived complexity and cost. To the 27-acre Raymond & Simone Savage Wildlife Preserve date this project has drawn little controversy and is on that surrounds Shorey’s Brook in 2008.
    [Show full text]
  • Sprague's Journal of Maine History (Vol.XIV, No.1)
    University of Southern Maine USM Digital Commons Maine Collection 1926 Sprague's Journal of Maine History (Vol.XIV, No.1) John Francis Sprague (Ed.) Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usm.maine.edu/me_collection Part of the Genealogy Commons, Other American Studies Commons, Other History Commons, and the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Sprague, John Francis (Ed.), "Sprague's Journal of Maine History (Vol.XIV, No.1)" (1926). Maine Collection. 29. https://digitalcommons.usm.maine.edu/me_collection/29 This Book is brought to you for free and open access by USM Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maine Collection by an authorized administrator of USM Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Sprague's Journal of Maine· History Vol. XIV January--February--~arch No.1 LONGFELLOW'S ENGLISH ANCESTORS (By G. T. Ridlon, Sr.) ENRY WADSWORTH LONGFELLOW was so ten­ derly and universally beloved, that everything per­ taining to his personal or family history will be highly appreciated by his numerous admirers wherever his fame has reached and the productions of his poetic pen have. been read and mmnorized. Until quite re­ cently investigation of the ancestral history of the American family of Longfellow has borne but Ineagre fruit, but per­ sistent research instituted and carried forward by genealogists in England during the last few years has disclosed and made available much desirable information touching this subject. 'There were found some clues and documentary data among old letters, diaries, etc., on the American side of the ocean which were used by the searchers in England for the purpose of identification of the ancestry if such could be traced; but such evidence was fragmentary, detached, and quite uncer­ tain.
    [Show full text]
  • Saco River and Camp Ellis Beach Saco, Maine
    Shore Damage Mitigation Project Final Decision Document & Final Environmental Assessment Including Finding of No Significant Impact and Section 404(b)(1) Evaluation Saco River and Camp Ellis Beach Saco, Maine Beachfill Stone Spur Jetty Saco River DRAFT September 2017 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Back of Front Cover DRAFT SACO RIVER AND CAMP ELLIS BEACH SACO, MAINE SECTION 111 SHORE DAMAGE MITIGATION PROJECT FINAL DECISION DOCUMENT DRAFT SEPTEMBER 2017 This Page Intentionally Left Blank DRAFT SACO RIVER AND CAMP ELLIS BEACH SHORE DAMAGE MITIGATION PROJECT SACO, MAINE DECISION DOCUMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Study Authority 1 1.2 Purpose and Scope 4 1.3 Study Area 4 1.4 Existing Federal Navigation Project 4 1.4.1 Construction History of the Navigation Project 6 1.4.2 Navigation Uses of the Federal Project 6 1.5 Feasibility Study Process 7 1.6 Environmental Operating Principles 8 1.7 USACE Campaign Plan 9 2.0 PLANNING SETTING AND PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION 10 2.1 General Setting 10 2.2 Topography and Geology 10 2.2.1 Physiography 10 2.2.2 Marine Geology and Geophysics 10 2.3 Soils and Sediments 11 2.3.1 Onshore (Upland) Soils 11 2.3.2 Marine Sediments 12 2.4 Water Resources 12 2.4.1 Saco River 12 2.4.2 Coastal Processes (Erosion History and Coastal Modeling) 13 2.4.3 Marine Water Quality 15 2.5 Biological Resources 15 2.5.1 General 15 2.5.2 Eelgrass DRAFT 15 2.5.3 Benthic Resources 16 2.5.4 Shellfish 16 2.5.5 Fisheries Resources 17 2.5.6 Essential Fish Habitat 18 2.6 Wildlife Resources 18 2.6.1 General Wildlife Species
    [Show full text]
  • Friends of Merrymeeting Bay P.O
    Friends of Merrymeeting Bay P.O. Box 233 Richmond, ME 04357 www.fomb.org To: Susanne Meidel, Water Quality Standards Coordinator Maine Department of Environmental Protection SHS 17 Augusta, ME 04333 207-441-3612 [email protected] From: Jennifer Brockway, Executive Director Friends of Merrymeeting Bay 207-666-1118 [email protected] E-Filed Subject: Water Re-Classification Proposal River/Sections: Androscoggin from Worumbo Dam to Merrymeeting Bay Proposed Upgrade: C to B Basis for Proposal: Actual conditions exceed those of present classification Documentation: Supporting data from FOMB monitoring program approved by Maine DEP and USEPA Data Collection Periods: DO-1999 to present; Coliform Bacteria-2006 to present Sampling Intervals: Monthly: April-October Proposal Date: November 29, 2017 Dear Ms. Meidel: Please consider this our formal upgrade proposal for the lower section of the Androscoggin River between Merrymeeting Bay at the line from Pleasant Point in Topsham to North Bath extending upriver to Worumbo Dam in Lisbon Falls. As our data show, while classified as C, this section has long been on the cusp of and now is actually meeting, Class B standards. We therefore propose it be upgraded from C to B. FOMB has the most complete set of classification data for the reaches in this proposal. We began our monitoring program in 1999 and continue to this day with over twenty sampling sites on the Androscoggin, Kennebec and around Merrymeeting Bay. FOMB joined the VRMP in 2009 to further support and substantiate water classification upgrades. Because the actual water quality of the lower Androscoggin sections described here exceeds that of their current classification, our request for a reclassification from C to B is supported by the State antidegradation policy as quoted below: 38 M.R.S.A.
    [Show full text]
  • Coastal Flooding and Erosion from Severe Storms in a Changing Climate Qingping Zou and Dongmei Xie, University of Maine John Cannon, National Weather Service
    Coastal Flooding and Erosion from Severe Storms in a Changing Climate Qingping Zou and Dongmei Xie, University of Maine John Cannon, National Weather Service Coastal flooding at Saco, ME Coastal Erosion Saco, ME during Patriot's Patriot's Day Storm in April 2007 Day Storm in April 2007 ----- $ 20 Million Damage Partners: Stephen Dickson (MGS), Will Perrie (BIO),Vijay Panchang (TX) Outreach Climate Change-Sea Level Rise -2 feet of sea level rise over the next 100 years for Maine By Stephan Dickson and Peter Slovinsky (Maine Geological Survey) Climate Change -Larger and more frequent storm Old Orchard Beach Maine York Beach MaineYork Beach Maine Objective I To improve the real-time wave and coastal flooding and erosion forecast at the coast of Maine during extreme storms: ! Early warning and evacuation to save lives and property ! Protect coastal infrastructure ! Safe and efficient marine operations and maritime activities Objective II To produce “dynamic” coastal inundation maps with and without sea level rise that include wave set-up, run-up and overtopping/splash-over : ! Identify areas threatened by coastal flooding risks ! Plan strategies to adapt to future coastal hazard in a changing climate To Build Resilient Coastal Community ! Inundation Map By Peter Slovinsky (MGS) “Clouds-to-coast” Modelling Framework of Coastal Flood Risk 1. Weather forecasting model 2. Tide, surge & wave models 3. Surf zone models “Clouds-to-coast” Modelling Framework of Coastal Flood Risk Atmospheric Wave, Surge, Tide Nearshore Surf Zone Models Models wave
    [Show full text]
  • Notice to Flood Insurance Study Users
    LINCOLN COUNTY, MAINE (ALL JURISDICTIONS) Lincoln County COMMUNITY NAME COMMUNITY NUMBER COMMUNITY NAME COMMUNITY NUMBER Alna, Town of 230083 Monhegan Plantation 230511 Bar Island 230916 Newcastle, Town of 230218 Boothbay, Town of 230212 Nobleboro, Town of 230219 Boothbay Harbor, Town of 230213 Polins Ledges Island 230929 Bremen, Town of 230214 Ross Island 230922 Bristol, Town of 230215 Somerville, Town of 230512 Damariscotta, Town of 230216 South Bristol, Town of 230220 Dresden, Town of 230084 Southport, Town of 230221 Edgecomb, Town of 230217 Thief Island 230920 Haddock Island 230918 Thrumcap Island 230928 Hibberts Gore, Township of 230712 Waldoboro, Town of 230086 Hungry Island 230917 Webber Dry Ledge Island 230930 Indian Island 230919 Western Egg Rock Island 230926 Jefferson, Town of 230085 Westport, Town of 230222 Jones Garden Island 230925 Whitefield, Town of 230087 Killick Stone Island 230927 Wiscasset, Town of 230223 Louds Island 230915 Wreck Island 230924 Marsh Island 230921 Wreck Island Ledge 230923 PRELIMINARY DATE: February 7, 2014 Federal Emergency Management Agency FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 23015CV001A NOTICE TO FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY USERS Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program have established repositories of flood hazard data for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes. This Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report may not contain all data available within the Community Map Repository. Please contact the Community Map Repository for any additional data. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) may revise and republish part or all of this FIS report at any time. In addition, FEMA may revise part of this FIS report by the Letter of Map Revision process, which does not involve republication or redistribution of the FIS report.
    [Show full text]