DOCSLIB.ORG

Deerfield River Watershed 2000 Water Quality Assessment Report I 33Wqar.Doc DWM CN087.0

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Deerfield River Watershed 2000 Water Quality Assessment Report I 33Wqar.Doc DWM CN087.0 33-AC-1 DEERFIELD RIVER WATERSHED 2000 WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT REPORT COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ELLEN ROY HERZFELDER, SECRETARY MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ROBERT W. GOLLEDGE JR., COMMISSIONER BUREAU OF RESOURCE PROTECTION CYNTHIA GILES, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DIVISION OF WATERSHED MANAGEMENT GLENN HAAS, DIRECTOR NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY LIMITED COPIES OF THIS REPORT ARE AVAILABLE AT NO COST BY WRITTEN REQUEST TO: MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION OF WATERSHED MANAGEMENT 627 MAIN STREET WORCESTER, MA 01608 This report is also available from MA DEP’s home page on the World Wide Web at: http://www.mass.gov/dep/brp/wm/wmpubs.htm Furthermore, at the time of first printing, eight copies of each report published by this office are submitted to the State Library at the State House in Boston; these copies are subsequently distributed as follows: · On shelf; retained at the State Library (two copies); · Microfilmed retained at the State Library; · Delivered to the Boston Public Library at Copley Square; · Delivered to the Worcester Public Library; · Delivered to the Springfield Public Library; · Delivered to the University Library at UMass, Amherst; · Delivered to the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. Moreover, this wide circulation is augmented by inter-library loans from the above-listed libraries. For example, a resident in Dudley can apply at their local library for loan of any MA DEP DWM report from the Worcester Public Library. A complete list of reports published since 1963 is updated annually and printed in July. This report, entitled “Publications of the Massachusetts Division of Watershed Management – Watershed Planning Program, 1963-(current year)”, is also available by writing to the DWM in Worcester. DISCLAIMER References to trade names, commercial products, manufacturers, or distributors in this report constituted neither endorsement nor recommendations by the Division of Watershed Management for use. DEERFIELD RIVER WATERSHED 2000 WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT REPORT Prepared by: Christine L. Duerring, Laurie E. Kennedy, and Peter Mitchell Department of Environmental Protection Division of Watershed Management Report Number: 33-AC-1 DWM Control Number: CN087.0 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Division of Watershed Management Worcester, Massachusetts October 2004 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Coordination of local, state and federal agencies and private organizations is fundamental to the success of the Massachusetts Watershed Initiative. We would like to thank Christine Duerring, MA DEP (formerly of the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs) and the Deerfield River Watershed Team for facilitating that process. Data and information used in this report were provided in part by the following agencies and organizations. Local · Deerfield River Watershed Association (DRWA) State · Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA), Deerfield Watershed Team · Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MA DEP) - Bureau of Resource Protection - Bureau of Strategic Policy and Technology’s Wall Experiment Station - Bureau of Waste Prevention - Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup · Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MA DPH) · Massachusetts Department of Fish and Game (MA DFG) (Formerly Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Environmental Law Enforcement, MA DFWELE) - Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (MassWildlife) - Riverways Program · Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation (MA DCR) (Formerly Department of Environmental Management, MA DEM) · Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (VT DEC) Federal · United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) · United States Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) · United States Geological Survey (USGS) - Water Resources Division Much appreciation is also extended to several MA DEP employees for their contributions: Richard Chase, Susan Connors, Tom Dallaire, Ken Dominick, John Fiorentino, Bob Maietta, Juliet Mathers, Katie O’Brien- Clayton, Jane Ryder, Arthur Screpetis and Stella Tamul. It is impossible to thank everyone who contributed to the assessment report process: field, laboratory, data management, writing, editing, and graphics, as well as meetings, phone calls, and many e-mails. All of these contributions are very much appreciated. Cover photo: Tannery Brook in Savoy, Massachusetts Photo credit: Alan Wynn, EOEA TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................i List of Appendices .............................................................................................................................. ii List of Tables and Figures ................................................................................................................... ii List of Units ........................................................................................................................................ ii List of Acronyms ................................................................................................................................ iii Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................ v Introduction ........................................................................................................................................1 Assessment Methodology ...................................................................................................................2 Designated Uses ................................................................................................................................6 Deerfield River Watershed Description and Classification .................................................................... 12 Summary of Existing Conditions and Perceived Problems ................................................................... 15 Sources of Information ...................................................................................................................... 17 Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)................................................................................................. 21 Objectives ........................................................................................................................................ 21 Report Format .................................................................................................................................. 22 Deerfield River Watershed River Segments........................................................................................ 23 Deerfield River (Segment MA33-01) ........................................................................................... 24 Pelham Brook (Segment MA33-12) ............................................................................................ 31 Cold River (Segment MA33-05) .................................................................................................. 33 Deerfield River (Segment MA33-02) ........................................................................................... 36 Chickley River (Segment MA33-11) ............................................................................................ 42 Bozrah Brook (Segment MA33-13) ............................................................................................. 45 Davis Mine Brook (Segment MA33-18) ....................................................................................... 47 Mill Brook (Segment MA33-14) ................................................................................................... 49 Clesson Brook (Segment MA33-15)............................................................................................ 52 Smith Brook (Segment MA33-26) ............................................................................................... 56 Clark Brook (Segment MA33-16) ................................................................................................ 58 East Branch North River (Segment MA33-19) ............................................................................. 60 Foundry Brook (Segment MA33-25)............................................................................................ 63 West Branch North River (Segment MA33-27)............................................................................. 65 Tissdell Brook (Segment MA33-24) ............................................................................................ 67 Taylor Brook (Segment MA33-31)............................................................................................... 69 North River (Segment MA33-06)................................................................................................. 72 Deerfield River (Segment MA33-03) ........................................................................................... 78 Bear River (Segment MA33-17).................................................................................................. 87 Drakes Brook (Segment MA33-23) ............................................................................................. 90 Dragon Brook (Segment MA33-20) ............................................................................................. 92 Shingle Brook (Segment MA33-22)............................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • DEERFIELD RIVER WATERSHED Assessment Report
    DEERFIELD RIVER WATERSHED Assessment Report 2004-2008 Downstream of Fife Brook Dam The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs 251 Causeway Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114-2119 Mitt Romney GOVERNOR Kerry Healey LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR Tel: (617) 626-1000 Fax: (617) 626-1181 Ellen Roy Herzfelder or (617) 626-1180 SECRETARY http://www.state.ma.us/envir November 19, 2004 Dear Friends of the Deerfield River Watershed: It is with great pleasure that I present you with the Assessment Report for the Deerfield River Watershed. The report helped formulate the 5-year watershed action plan that will guide local and state environmental efforts within the Deerfield River Watershed over the next five years. The report expresses some of the overall goals of the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, such as improving water quality, restoring natural flows to rivers, protecting and restoring biodiversity and habitats, improving public access and balanced resource use, improving local capacity, and promoting a shared responsibility for watershed protection and management. The Deerfield River Watershed Assessment Report was developed with input from the Deerfield River Watershed Team and multiple stakeholders including watershed groups, state and federal agencies, Regional Planning Agencies and, of course, the general public from across the Watershed. We appreciate the opportunity to engage such a wide group of expertise and experience as it allows the state to focus on the issues and challenges that might otherwise not be easily characterized. From your input we have identified the following priority issues: • Water Quantity • Water Quality • Fish Communities • Wildlife and Terrestrial Habitat • Open Space • Recreation I commend everyone involved in this endeavor.
    [Show full text]
  • Transcanada Hydro Northeast Inc. Deerfield River Project (Lp 2323)
    TRANSCANADA HYDRO NORTHEAST INC. DEERFIELD RIVER PROJECT (LP 2323) LOW IMPACT HYDROPOWER CERTIFICATION APPLICATION ATTACHMENT C PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Overview TransCanada Hydro Northeast, Inc. (the Company) owns and operates the Deerfield River Project (the Project) on the Deerfield River, a major tributary to the Connecticut River. The Project is located in Bennington and Windham Counties in Vermont, and in Berkshire and Franklin Counties in Massachusetts. It consists of eight developments: Somerset, Searsburg, Harriman, Sherman, Deerfield No. 5, Deerfield No. 4, Deerfield No. 3 and Deerfield No.2, having a total installed capacity of 86 megawatts (MW). All dam operations and generation operations are controlled remotely from the Deerfield River Control Center in Monroe Bridge Massachusetts, located near the Deerfield No. 5 Dam. The Project area encompasses about a 65-mile reach of the river, including reservoirs. Two other developments not owned by the company are also located within this area. They are Brookfield Renewable Power’s Bear Swamp Project located downstream of the Deerfield No. 5 development; and Consolidated Edison’s Gardner Falls Project located downstream of the Deerfield No. 3 development. Exhibit 1 depicts the general Project area. Settlement Agreement The Deerfield River Project was one of the first FERC Projects to be relicensed under a comprehensive Settlement Agreement approach executed in 1994. A five-year cooperative consultation process involving state and federal resource agencies, various non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the licensee (at that time New England Power Company) resulted in settlement by the parties. The process of reaching this agreement included examination of the power and non-power tradeoffs and effects of a wide variety of operational scenarios.
    [Show full text]
  • Deerfield and CT River Project History.Pmd
    HISTORY OF HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT ON THE CONNECTICUT AND DEERFIELD RIVERS HISTORY OF HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT ON THE CONNECTICUT AND DEERFIELD RIVERS INTRODUCTION increasingly complex. While the Depression limited further growth of the industry, a new era emerged In 1903, Malcolm Greene Chace (1875-1955) and after World War II, with streamlined management Henry Ingraham Harriman (1872-1950) established structures and increased regulations and Chace & Harriman, a company that, in its many government involvement (Cook 1991:4; Landry and incarnations over the course of the following Cruikshank 1996:2-5). The first of the 14 decades, grew into one of the largest electric utility hydroelectric facilities built on the Connecticut and companies in New England. The company built a Deerfield rivers by Chace & Harriman and its series of hydroelectric facilities on the Connecticut successors were developed in the early 1900s, and Deerfield rivers in Vermont, New Hampshire shortly after the potential of hydroelectric power and western Massachusetts, which were intended was realized on a large scale. Subsequent facilities to provide a reliable and less expensive alternative were constructed during the maturation of the to coal-produced steam power. Designed primarily industry in the 1920s, and two of the stations were to serve industrial centers in Massachusetts and completed in the post-World War II era. The history Rhode Island, the facilities also provided power to of the companies that built these stations is residential customers and municipalities in New intrinsically linked with broader trends in the history England. Chace & Harriman eventually evolved of electricity, hydropower technology, and industrial into the New England Power Association (NEPA) architecture in America.
    [Show full text]
  • The National Dam Safety Program Research Needs Workshop: Hydrologic Issues for Dams Preface
    The National Dam Safety Program Research Needs Workshop: Hydrologic Issues for Dams Preface One of the activities authorized by the Dam Safety and Security Act of 2002 is research to enhance the Nation’s ability to assure that adequate dam safety programs and practices are in place throughout the United States. The Act of 2002 states that the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), in cooperation with the National Dam Safety Review Board (Review Board), shall carry out a program of technical and archival research to develop and support: • improved techniques, historical experience, and equipment for rapid and effective dam construction, rehabilitation, and inspection; • devices for continued monitoring of the safety of dams; • development and maintenance of information resources systems needed to support managing the safety of dams; and • initiatives to guide the formulation of effective policy and advance improvements in dam safety engineering, security, and management. With the funding authorized by the Congress, the goal of the Review Board and the Dam Safety Research Work Group (Work Group) is to encourage research in those areas expected to make significant contributions to improving the safety and security of dams throughout the United States. The Work Group (formerly the Research Subcommittee of the Interagency Committee on Dam Safety) met initially in February 1998. To identify and prioritize research needs, the Subcommittee sponsored a workshop on Research Needs in Dam Safety in Washington D.C. in April 1999. Representatives of state and federal agencies, academia, and private industry attended the workshop. Seventeen broad area topics related to the research needs of the dam safety community were identified.
    [Show full text]
  • Deerfield River Watershed Association
    A Watershed-Based Plan to Maintain the Health and Improve the Resiliency of the Deerfield River Watershed Franklin Regional Council of Governments Staff: Kimberly Noake MacPhee, P.G., CFM, Land Use and Natural Resources Program Manager Mary Chicoine, Senior Land Use and Natural Resources Planner Ryan Clary, Senior GIS Specialist Alyssa Larose, Land Use and Natural Resources Planner Megan Rhodes, AICP, Senior Transportation/Land Use Planner With technical assistance provided by: Fuss & O’Neill, Inc., Erik Mas, PE Field Geology Services, John Field, Ph.D., P.G. and Nicolas Miller Franklin Conservation District Deborah Shriver Consulting, Deborah M. Shriver Acknowledgements: Watershed stakeholders provided valuable comments and insight during the development of this plan. This plan also benefitted from the assistance and advice of the following organizations and individuals: Brian Yellen, Researcher, Department of Geosciences, UMass Amherst Andy Fisk, Executive Director, Connecticut River Conservancy Rita Thibodeau, District Conservationist, USDA, NRCS Carrie Banks, MA Division of Ecological Restoration, Dept. Fish & Game Erin Rodgers, Ph.D., Western New England Project Coordinator, Trout Unlimited Michael B. Cole, Ph.D., Cole Ecological Will Sloan Anderson, Franklin Land Trust Photographs: Cover Deerfield River landscape Matthew MacPherson http://mattmacpherson.com Pp. 2-3 Deerfield River landscape Matthew MacPherson http://mattmacpherson.com P. 11 Flooding in Deerfield Town of Greenfield P. 39 Crowningshield property Franklin Land Trust P. 45 Dam sites Erin Rodgers, Trout Unlimited Pp. 82-105 Maps, figures and photos Field Geology Services This project has been financed with Federal Funds from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the Massachusetts Depart- ment of Environmental Protection (the Department) under an s.
    [Show full text]
  • The New Deal Versus Yankee Independence: the Failure of Comprehensive Development on the Connecticut River, and Its Long-Term Consequences
    The New Deal versus Yankee independence: The failure of comprehensive development on the Connecticut River, and its long-term consequences Eve Vogel1 Department of Geosciences, UMass Amherst With assistance from Alexandra Lacy 2011 alumna (BS, Environmental Sciences), UMass Amherst Adapted from: Vogel, Eve and Alexandra Lacy. Forthcoming. The New Deal versus Yankee independence: The failure of comprehensive development on the Connecticut River, and its long-term consequences. The Northeastern Geographer 4 (2) Introduction For a person familiar with federal dams on major rivers in the American West or South, a visit to an Army Corps of Engineers dam in New England’s largest river basin, the Connecticut, can be a startling experience. Instead of an extended reservoir, one looks down from the empty heights and on both sides sees only a small river far below. Nor is there the fanfare – the visitors center, the historical information, the celebratory propaganda. Simply finding one of the Connecticut River’s federal dams can take some effort. None are on the mainstem. One must drive through the bucolic New England byways and forested hills to find a dam on a tributary (See Figure 1). For New Englanders, the near-invisibility of federal dams may not seem surprising. New England’s history and identity, including the Connecticut Valley’s, seem to rest with the small- to medium-scale development of rivers with mill dams during the 17th thru 19th centuries (e.g. Delaney 1983; Steinberg 1991). It might be more startling for many to learn that during the mid- twentieth century, the federal government did build a series of very large dams in the Connecticut Basin, which have had profound effect on the river.
    [Show full text]
  • Connecticut River Flow Restoration Study Report
    Connecticut River Flow Restoration Study STUDY REPORT A watershed-scale assessment of the potential for flow restoration through dam re-operation THE NATURE CONSERVANCY, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST The Connecticut River Flow Restoration Study A watershed-scale assessment of the potential for flow restoration through dam re-operation Katie Kennedy, The Nature Conservancy Kim Lutz, The Nature Conservancy Christopher Hatfield, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Leanna Martin, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Townsend Barker, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Richard Palmer, University of Massachusetts Amherst Luke Detwiler, University of Massachusetts Amherst Jocelyn Anleitner, University of Massachusetts Amherst John Hickey, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Kennedy, K., K. Lutz, C. Hatfield, L. Martin, T. Barker, R. Palmer, L. Detwiler, J. Anleitner, J. Hickey. 2018. The Connecticut River Flow Restoration Study: A watershed-scale assessment of the potential for flow restoration through dam re-operation. The Nature Conservancy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and University of Massachusetts Amherst. Northampton, MA. Available: http://nature.org/ctriverwatershed For a quick, easy-to-read overview of the Connecticut River Watershed Study, see our companion “Study Overview” document, available at: http://nature.org/ctriverwatershed June 2018 Table of Contents Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................................................................................................1
    [Show full text]
  • Deerfield River & Lower Connecticut River Tactical Basin Plan
    Deerfield River & Lower Connecticut River Tactical Basin Plan Green River, Guilford December 2019 | Public Draft Tactical Basin Plan was prepared in accordance with 10 VSA § 1253(d), the Vermont Water Quality Standards1, the Federal Clean Water Act and 40 CFR 130.6, and the Vermont Surface Water Management Strategy. Approved: ----------------------------------------- ------------------------- Emily Boedecker, Commissioner Date Department of Environmental Conservation -------------------------------------- ------------------------- Julie Moore, Secretary Date Agency of Natural Resources Cover Photo: Green River in Guilford – Marie L. Caduto The Vermont Agency of Natural Resources is an equal opportunity agency and offers all persons the benefits of participating in each of its programs and competing in all areas of employment regardless of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, sexual preference, or other non-merit factors. This document is available in alternative formats upon request. Call 802-828-1535 i Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... 1 What is a Tactical Basin Plan ................................................................................................. 3 A. The Vermont Clean Water Act ........................................................................................... 4 B. Vermont Water Quality Standards ....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Surface Waters of Vermont
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FRANKLIN K. LANE, Secretary UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEORGE OTIS SMITH, Director Water-Supply Paper 424 SURFACE WATERS OF VERMONT BY C. H. PIERCE Prepared in cooperation with the STATE OF VERMONT WASHINGTON GOVEENMENT PBINTING OFFICE 1917 ADDITIONAL COPIES OF THIS PUBLICATION MAY BK PROCURED FROM THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON, D. C. AT 25 CENTS PER COPY CONTENTS. Introduction.............................................................. 5 Cooperation................................................................ 8 Division of work.......................................................... 8 Definition of terms......................................................... 9 Explanation of data........................................................ 9 Accuracy of field data and computed results................................ 11 Gaging stations maintained in Vermont..................................... 12 St. Lawrence River basin................................................. 13 Lake Champlain drainage basin......................................... 13 General features................................................... 13 Gaging-station records.............................................. 14 Lake Champlain at Burlington, Vt.............................. 14 Lake Champlain outlet (Richelieu River) at Chambly, Province of Quebec.1................................................. 20 Poultney Eiver near Fair Haven, Vt............................ 25 Otter Creek at Middlebury,
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Population Sampling
    2005 Deerfield River Watershed Fish Population Assessment Robert J. Maietta Watershed Planning Program Worcester, MA January, 2007 CN: 223.4 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Ian Bowles, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Arleen O’Donnell, Acting Commissioner Bureau of Resource Protection Glenn Haas, Acting Assistant Commissioner Division of Watershed Management Glenn Haas, Director Introduction Fish population surveys were conducted in the Deerfield River Watershed during the late summer of 2005 using techniques similar to Rapid Bioassessment Protocol V as described originally by Plafkin et al.(1989) and later by Barbour et al. (1999). Standard Operating Procedures are described in MassDEP Method CN 075.1 Fish Population SOP. Surveys also included a habitat assessment component modified from that described in the aforementioned document (Barbour et al. 1999). Fish populations were sampled by electrofishing using a Smith Root Model 12 battery powered backpack electrofisher. A reach of between 80m and 100m was sampled by passing a pole mounted anode ring, side to side through the stream channel and in and around likely fish holding cover. All fish shocked were netted and held in buckets. Sampling proceeded from an obstruction or constriction, upstream to an endpoint at another obstruction or constriction such as a waterfall or shallow riffle. Following completion of a sampling run, all fish were identified to species, measured, and released. Results of the fish population surveys can be found in Table 1. It should be noted that young of the year (yoy) fish from most species, with the exception of salmonids are not targeted for collection. Young-of-the-year fishes which are collected, either on purpose or inadvertently, are noted in Table 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Fall Foliage Rides
    MagazineMagazine ofof thethe NewNew EnglandEngland MountainMountain BikeBike AssociationAssociation SSingleingleTTrackrackSS OOccttoobbeerr // NNoovveemmbbeerr,, NNuummbbeerr 5588 wwwwww..nneemmbbaa..oorrgg New England’s Best Fall Foliage Rides 2 SSingleingleTTrackS October / November 2001, Number 58 NEMBA, the New England Mountain Bike Association, is a not-for-profit 501 (c) (3) organization dedicated to promoting trail The terrorist attacks against our country and the great sadness that we feel access, maintaining trails open for mountain for the untold loss of innocent life has made this a difficult issue of bicyclists, and educating mountain bicyclists SingleTracks to crank out. Paling in contast to the enormity of the dangers to use these trails sensitively and responsibly. and suffering facing our nation and the world, mountain biking is small and insignificant. However, we should all seek to make the world a better and kinder place through whatever SingleTracks is published six times a year by the New England Mountain Bike Association means possible. Indeed, it is the small things in life which provide meaning and value to for the trail community, and is made possible the whole. It is a gloriaous planet: ride it, cherish it and help make it a more peaceful place. by riders like you. —Philip Keyes ©SingleTracks Making the Trails a Better Place Editor & Publisher: Philip Keyes 11 Singletracks Committee: Bill Boles, Krisztina NEMBA means trails. As a user group, we donate Holly, Nanyee Keyes, and Mary Tunnicliffe 1000s of hours each year to improve the trails. Executive Director: Philip Keyes Here’s a park by park, blow by blow of what NEMBA Letters/Submissions: is doing.
    [Show full text]
  • Hazard Mitigation Plan
    Source: Wikimedia Town of Savoy, MA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN April 2021 Prepared by: westonandsampson.com SAVOY, MA Hazard Mitigation Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................1-1 1.1 What is a Hazard Mitigation Plan?............................................................................1-1 1.2 Hazard Mitigation Planning in Savoy ........................................................................1-2 1.3 Planning Process Summary .....................................................................................1-3 1.3.1 Core Team ...........................................................................................................1-3 1.3.2 Stakeholder Involvement ......................................................................................1-5 1.3.3 Plan Layout ..........................................................................................................1-5 1.4 Planning Timeline.....................................................................................................1-5 2.0 HAZARD MITIGATION GOALS ...................................................................................2-6 3.0 COMMUNITY PROFILE, LAND USE, AND DEVELOPMENT TRENDS.......................3-1 3.1 Community Profile ....................................................................................................3-1 3.2 Land Use..................................................................................................................3-4
    [Show full text]