DOCSLIB.ORG

Alabama State Hazard Mitigation Plan State of Alabama

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Alabama State Hazard Mitigation Plan State of Alabama Alabama State Hazard Mitigation Plan State of Alabama July 18th, 2018 Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS I TABLE OF TABLES V TABLE OF FIGURES VIII EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 BACKGROUND 1 ORGANIZATION OF THE PLAN 2 HIGHLIGHTS OF THE PLAN 3 APPROVAL AND ADOPTION 3 THE PLANNING PROCESS 3 CURRENT AND FUTURE CONDITIONS 4 RISK ASSESSMENT 4 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT 4 MITIGATION STRATEGY 5 PLAN MAINTENANCE 5 PLAN APPROVAL, ADOPTION, AND ASSURANCES 7 PLAN APPROVAL AND ADOPTION PROCESS 7 BACKGROUND 7 AEMA REVIEW AND APPROVAL 7 FORMAL ADOPTION DOCUMENTS 7 ASSURANCES 7 1. THE PLANNING PROCESS 8 1.1 REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PLANNING PROCESS 8 1.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PLANNING PROCESS 9 1.2.1 HOW THE PLAN WAS PREPARED AND UPDATED 9 1.2.2 WHO WAS INVOLVED IN THE PLANNING PROCESS 13 1.2.3 HOW OTHER AGENCIES PARTICIPATED IN THE PLANNING PROCESS 23 1.2.4 AGENCY COORDINATION DURING DEVELOPMENT OF 2018 STATE HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 25 Alabama State Hazard Mitigation Plan State of Alabama Page i 1.3 COORDINATING LOCAL PLANNING 28 1.3.1 PROCESS FOR REVIEWING, COORDINATING AND LINKING THE STATE AND LOCAL PLANS 28 1.3.2 REVIEW AND INCORPORATION OF LOCAL PLAN INFORMATION INTO THE STATE PLAN UPDATE 29 1.3.3 FUTURE LOCAL PLAN REVIEW AND INCORPORATION 32 1.4 SUMMARY OF REVIEW, ANALYSIS, AND UPDATE OF EACH SECTION 33 2 ALABAMA CURRENT AND FUTURE CONDITIONS 39 2.1 CURRENT CONDITIONS 39 2.1.1 DEMOGRAPHICS 39 2.1.2 ECONOMY & INFRASTRUCTURE 44 2.1.3 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 47 2.2 FUTURE CONDITIONS 53 2.2.1 POPULATION TRENDS 53 2.2.2 LAND USE TRENDS 57 3 RISK ASSESSMENT 58 3.1 OVERVIEW 58 3.1.1 IDENTIFIED HAZARDS 59 3.1.2 RANKING METHODOLOGY 64 3.1.3 HAZARDS PROFILED IN COUNTY PLANS 67 3.2 HAZARD PROFILES 69 3.2.1 DAM FAILURE 69 3.2.2 DROUGHT 76 3.2.3 EARTHQUAKES 89 3.2.4 EXTREME TEMPERATURES 103 3.2.5 FLOODING 114 3.2.6 HAIL 129 3.2.7 HIGH WINDS 137 3.2.8 LANDSLIDES 160 3.2.9 LIGHTNING 170 3.2.10 SEA LEVEL RISE AND COASTAL LAND CHANGE 179 3.2.11 SINKHOLES AND LAND SUBSIDENCE 193 3.2.12 TSUNAMIS 201 3.2.13 WILDFIRE 204 3.2.14 WINTER STORMS 218 3.3 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT & LOSS ESTIMATION 225 3.3.1 METHODOLOGY 225 3.3.2 EARTHQUAKES 228 3.3.3 FLOODING 235 3.3.4 HIGH WINDS 249 Alabama State Hazard Mitigation Plan State of Alabama Page ii 3.3.5 SEA LEVEL RISE AND COASTAL LAND CHANGE 258 3.4 IMPACTS OF DEVELOPMENT TRENDS ON VULNERABILITY 260 3.4.1 POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT TRENDS 260 3.4.2 INTERSECTIONS BETWEEN HIGH GROWTH AREAS AND HIGH-RISK AREAS 261 4 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT 268 4.1 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ACCREDITATION PROGRAM (EMAP) ASSESSMENT 268 4.2 LAWS, REGULATIONS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS FOR PRE- AND POST- DISASTER HAZARD MANAGEMENT 269 4.2.1 LAWS 269 4.2.2 REGULATIONS 271 4.2.3 POLICIES 272 4.2.4 PROGRAMS 276 4.3 FUNDING CAPABILITIES FOR HAZARD MITIGATION PROJECTS 287 4.3.1 GRANT ADMINISTRATION 287 4.3.2 FEMA FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES 288 4.3.3 OTHER FEDERAL FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES 292 4.4 LOCAL MITIGATION POLICIES, PROGRAMS, AND CAPABILITIES 296 4.4.1 LOCAL MITIGATION POLICIES 297 4.4.2 LOCAL MITIGATION PROGRAMS AND CAPABILITIES 297 4.5 INTEGRATION INTO OTHER ONGOING STATE PLANNING EFFORTS 302 4.5.1 ONGOING STATE PLANNING EFFORTS AND INTEGRATION PROCESS 302 4.5.2 POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS 305 4.5.3 COMPLETED IMPROVEMENTS 306 4.6 INTEGRATION INTO OTHER FEMA MITIGATION PROGRAMS AND INITIATIVES 307 4.6.1 SUMMARY 307 4.6.2 LIST OF ONGOING FEMA MITIGATION PROGRAMS AND INITIATIVES 308 4.6.3 INTEGRATION PROCESS AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS 309 5 MITIGATION STRATEGY 312 5.1 STATE MITIGATION STRATEGY 312 5.1.1 MITIGATION GOALS 312 5.1.2 MITIGATION ACTION PLAN 315 5.1.3 STRATEGY FOR MITIGATING REPETITIVE LOSS AND SEVERE REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 350 5.2 PRIORITIZATION OF FUNDING 352 5.2.1 JURISDICTIONS WITH HIGHEST RISK 353 5.2.2 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 358 5.2.3 MOST INTENSE DEVELOPMENT PRESSURE 358 Alabama State Hazard Mitigation Plan State of Alabama Page iii 5.2.4 MAXIMIZING BENEFITS ACCORDING TO BENEFIT-COST REVIEW OF LOCAL PROJECTS 359 5.3 MITIGATION SUCCESSES 359 5.3.1 MITIGATING RL AND SRL PROPERTIES 362 5.3.2 SUCCESS STORIES 362 6 PLAN MAINTENANCE 366 6.1 METHOD FOR MONITORING, EVALUATING AND UPDATING THE PLAN 366 6.1.1 BACKGROUND 366 6.1.2 METHOD FOR MONITORING THE PLAN 366 6.1.3 SYSTEM FOR EVALUATING THE PLAN 366 6.1.4 SYSTEM FOR UPDATING THE PLAN 367 6.2 SYSTEM FOR MONITORING MITIGATION MEASURES AND PROJECT CLOSEOUTS 368 6.2.1 MONITORING MITIGATION MEASURES 368 6.2.2 MONITORING PROJECT CLOSEOUTS 369 6.3 SYSTEM FOR REVIEWING PROGRESS ON ACHIEVING GOALS 369 6.4 SYSTEM FOR REVIEWING PROGRESS ON ACTIVITIES AND PROJECTS IN THE STATE MITIGATION STRATEGY 369 A. APPROVAL AND IMPLEMENTATION 371 B. GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND TERMS 372 C. COORDINATION OF LOCAL PLANNING 377 CFR REQUIREMENTS FOR COORDINATION OF LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING 377 DEVELOPMENT AND UPDATE OF LOCAL MITIGATION PLANS 377 DEVELOPMENT OF LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLANS 378 LOCAL PLAN STATUS 380 TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLANS 384 FUNDING FOR LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PROJECTS AND PLANNING 385 BARRIERS TO UPDATING, ADOPTING, AND IMPLEMENTING LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLANS 391 LOCAL CAPABILITY TABLE 392 D. COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM SHMT AND FEMA 416 E. PLANNING PROCESS DOCUMENTS 420 F. RECORD OF CHANGES 421 Alabama State Hazard Mitigation Plan State of Alabama Page iv G. HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS 422 H. UPDATES TO THE 2013 MITIGATION ACTION PLAN 425 I. STATE OF ALABAMA OFFICE OF WATER RESOURCES RISK MAP PROGRAM BUSINESS PLAN 469 Alabama State Hazard Mitigation Plan State of Alabama Page v Table of Tables Table 1.1 Summary of Agencies or Groups Represented at SHMT Meetings 16 Table 1.2 County Participation in SHMT Meetings 20 Table 1.3 Data Sources per Hazard 26 Table 1.4 Review of County Plan Goals Against State Plan Goals 30 Table 3.1 Federal Disaster Declarations in Alabama (Through January 8, 2018) 62 Table 3.2 Summary of Risk Factor approach 66 Table 3.3 Qualitative Ranking for Identified Hazards 67 Table 3.4 Summary of County Hazard Mitigation Plans 68 Table 3.5 Dam Hazard Classifications (FEMA, 2004) 71 Table 3.6 Historical Dam Failure Events (ASDSO and ASCE, 2017) 74 Table 3.7 Types of Drought 77 Table 3.8 Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) Classifications 78 Table 3.9 US Drought Monitor Classifications 79 Table 3.10 Indemnity Payments for Losses Suffered from Drought in Alabama 84 Table 3.11 Relationship Between Measures of Magnitude, Felt Intensity, and Instrumental Intensity 90 Table 3.12 Historical Earthquakes in Alabama that Produced Structural Damage (1916 – 2017) 97 Table 3.13 Heat Index and Disorders (FEMA, 1997; NWS, 1997) 104 Table 3.14 Average Annual Number of Extreme Heat Days (SERCC, 2018) 106 Table 3.15 Average Annual Number of Extreme Cold Days (SERCC, 2018) 107 Table 3.16 Recorded Excessive Heat Events in Alabama (NOAA, 2018) 108 Table 3.17 Recorded Extreme Cold Events in Alabama (NOAA, 2018) 109 Table 3.18 Flood Types (NWS, 2016) 114 Table 3.19 NFIP Flood Zones 116 Table 3.20 Reported Flood Events by County, 1996-2017 (NWS, 2017) 117 Table 3.21 Alabama Flood History, 1996-2017 (NWS, 2017) 123 Table 3.22 TORRO Hail Intensity Scale 130 Table 3.23 Historical Hail Storms in Alabama with Significant Economic Damage (1955 – 2017) 133 Table 3.24 Enhanced Fujita (EF) Scale for Tornado Magnitude (NWS, 2018) 138 Table 3.25 Saffir-Simpson Scale for Hurricane Magnitude (NWS, 2018) 140 Table 3.26 Historical Tornado Events in Alabama (NWS, 2017) 148 Table 3.27 Historical Hurricane Events in Alabama (NWS, 2017) 153 Table 3.28 Landslide Types 160 Alabama State Hazard Mitigation Plan State of Alabama Page vi Table 3.29 Landslide History in Alabama 166 Table 3.30 Select Past Occurrences of Lightning Events in Alabama 175 Table 3.31 Causes of Vertical Land Movement in Coastal Environments 180 Table 3.32 US Communities Exposed to Chronic Inundation with Sea Level Rise (UCS, 2017) 183 Table 3.33 Probability of exceeding Global Mean Sea Level Rise scenarios in 2100 189 Table 3.34 Sea Level Rise Scenarios for Dauphin Island (in feet above 2000 level) (NOAA, 2017) 190 Table 3.35 Types of Land Subsidence 193 Table 3.36 Historical Sinkhole Events 198 Table 3.37 National Fire Danger Rating System (USFS) 205 Table 3.38 Wildfires in Alabama, 2009 to 2018 (Alabama Forestry Commission, 2018) 210 Table 3.39 Wildfire Size and Cause (USGS, 2018) 214 Table 3.40 Winter Storm Precipitation Types 218 Table 3.41 Local Warning Criteria for Winter Storms 219 Table 3.42 Historical Winter Storms with Damage Exceeding $1 million (1993 – 2017) 220 Table 3.43 State-Insured Facilities (DORM, 2018) 225 Table 3.44 Critical Infrastructure and Key Resources (ALEA, 2018) 226 Table 3.45 State-Insured Facilities Vulnerable to Earthquake Hazard 229 Table 3.46 Critical Infrastructure Vulnerable to Earthquake Hazard 229 Table 3.47 Potential Immediate Losses from Earthquake Hazards (AAL) 230 Table 3.48 Potential Business Interruption Losses from Earthquake Hazards (AAL) 232 Table 3.49 State-Insured Facilities Vulnerable to 1%-Annual-Chance Flood 235 Table 3.50 State-Insured Facilities Vulnerable to 0.2%-Annual-Chance Flood 236 Table 3.51 Critical Infrastructure Vulnerable to 1%-Annual-Chance Flood 236 Table 3.52 Critical Infrastructure Vulnerable to 1%-Annual-Chance Flood 237 Table 3.53 Summary of NFIP Severe Repetitive Loss Properties and Claims 243 Table 3.54 Potential Immediate Losses from Flood Hazards (1%-Annual-Chance Flood) 244 Table 3.55 Potential Business Interruption Losses from Flood Hazards (1%-Annual-Chance Flood) 245 Table 3.56 State-Insured Facilities Vulnerable to High Wind Hazard 249 Table
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Risk Assessment
    3 Risk Assessment Many kinds of natural and technological hazards impact the state of Alabama. To reduce the loss of life and property to the hazards that affect Alabama, state and local officials must have a robust and up-to-date understanding of the risks posed by these hazards. In addition, federal regulations and guidance require that certain components be included in the risk assessment section of state hazard mitigation plans (see Title 44 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 201 for federal regulations for mitigation planning and the State Mitigation Plan Review Guide for the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) official interpretation of these regulations). The required components are as follows: • An overview of the type and location of all natural hazards that can affect the state, including information on previous occurrences of hazard events and the probability of future hazard events. According to the State Mitigation Plan Review Guide, the probability of future hazard events “must include considerations of changing future conditions, including the effects of long-term changes in weather patterns and climate;” • An overview and analysis of the state’s vulnerability to these hazards. According to the CFR, the state risk assessment should address the jurisdictions most threatened by the identified hazards, as well as the state assets located in the identified hazard areas; • An overview and analysis of the potential losses to the identified vulnerable structures. According to the CFR, the state risk assessment should estimate the potential dollar losses to state assets and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas. The Alabama State Hazard Mitigation Plan Update approved by FEMA in 2013 assessed statewide risks based on the best available data at the time and complied with existing federal regulations and policy.
    [Show full text]
  • The University of Alabama College of Engineering Bureau of Engineering Research
    THE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING BUREAU OF ENGINEERING RESEARCH U,"lmade available under NASA sPonrsl q-0n the interesid ie dis- ,.4N FINAL REPORT Somination of Ladh fesources Survey au Program informa,"on 'j.jioo ut liability So VOLUME THREE r ony use made thereot." m of Contract NAS5-21876 PD INVESTIGATIONS USING DATA N o ALABAMA FROM ERTS-A Q) U 14 p .Principal Investigator " P-"DR. HAROLD R. HENRY Submitted to -O ...4 Goddard Space Flight Center 0M ( National Aeronautics and Space Administration S 0 Greenbelt, Maryland H Po August,, 1974 0 *C4 o l4 BER Report No. 179-122 -U N I V E R 8IT Y, ALABA M A 35486 44. INVESTIGATIONS USING DATA IN ALABAMA FROM ERTS-A FINAL REPORT VOLUME THREE Contract NAS5-21876 GSFC Proposal No. 271 Principal Investigator DR. HAROLD R. HENRY GSFC ID UN604 Submitted to Goddard Space Flight Center National Aeronautics and Space Administration Greenbelt, Maryland Submitted by Bureau,.of Engineering Research The University of Alabama. University, Alabama August, 19i4 GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF ALABAMA STUDIES James A. Drahovzal SECTION TWELVE of VOLUME THREE INVESTIGATIONS USING DATA IN ALABAMA FROM ERTS-A CONTENTS SECTION TWELVE INTRODUCTION ...................................................... 1 LINEAMENTS ......................................................... 24 A COMPARISON OF LINEAMENTS AND FRACTURE TRACES TO JOINTING IN THE APPALACHIAN PLATEAU OF ALABAMA -- DORA-SYLVAN SPRINGS AREA .... 146 LINEAMENT ANALYSIS OF ERTS-1 IMAGERY OF THE ALABAMA PIEDMONT ...... 181 LINEAMENT ANALYSIS IN THE CROOKED CREEK AREA, CLAY AND RANDOLPH COUNTIES, ALABAMA ......................................... 209 GEOCHEMICAL EVALUATION OF LINEAMENTS ............................... 226 HYDROLOGIC EVALUATION AND APPLICATION OF ERTS DATA ................ 404 A COMPARISON OF SINKHOLE, CAVE, JOINT AND LINEAMENT ORIENTATIONS .
    [Show full text]
  • Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3, Revision 309 to Final Safety
    WSES-FSAR-UNIT-3 2.5 GEOLOGY AND SEISMOLOGY Waterford 3 is situated along the west (right descending) bank of the Mississippi River, about 25 miles west of New Orleans, Louisiana. It is located in the southern portion of the Gulf Coastal Plain geologic province. The southern portion of the Gulf Coastal Plain is the Mississippi River deltaic plain physiographic province. The Mississippi River has dominated the development of geologic and physiographic features in the deltaic plain since the beginning of Neogene. The deltaic plain is characterized by low marshy terrain, much of which is covered by water. The higher natural ground within the deltaic plain generally occurs along the natural levees of existing and abandoned stream courses. The deltaic plain is an area where extensive exploration and exploitation of petroleum has occurred. As a result of exploration near the site, deep boring data are available that provide identification of strata characteristic of the site to depths of 12,000 ft. In addition, 74 borings were drilled within the site to depths up to 500 ft., to define the site stratigraphic and hydrostratigraphic sequences and to determine the engineering properties of subsurface materials. The regional geologic structures in the deltaic plain consist of salt structures, their overlying attendant faults, and growth faults. The growth faults represent previously unstable areas which were at the leading slope of sediment accumulation. The subsurface data demonstrate that such regional structures cannot affect the Waterford site. ¨(DRN 01-464) The site is within a region of infrequent and minor seismic activity. The maximum earthquake associated with the site region is the Donaldsonville earthquake of October 19, 1930, which has an epicentral intensity of nearly VI Modified Mercalli (MM).
    [Show full text]
  • Natural and Man-Made Hazards Mitigation Plan
    Natural and Man‐made Hazards Mitigation Plan Maintained By: The UAH Office of Emergency Preparedness under guidance from the UAH Disaster Resilient University Committee [This page intentionally left blank] The University of Alabama in Huntsville Natural and Man-made Hazards Mitigation Plan This document was funded through a Pre‐Disaster Mitigation planning grant awarded to The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) by the Federal Emergency Management Agency through the Alabama Emergency Management Agency. The plan was prepared by the UAH Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee under the direction of the UAH Emergency Management Operations Group and the UAH Disaster Resilient University Committee. For additional information, please contact The University of Alabama in Huntsville Office of Emergency Preparedness: Kevin Bennett, Emergency Management Coordinator UAH Facilities and Operations 301 Sparkman Drive Physical Plant Building, Room 113‐C Huntsville, AL 35899 Phone: (256) 824‐6875 E‐mail: [email protected] Web Site: http://facilities.uah.edu/erp/ i The University of Alabama in Huntsville Natural and Man-made Hazards Mitigation Plan Acknowledgments The University of Alabama in Huntsville would like to thank the following groups for their contributions to the development of this hazard mitigation plan: UAH Disaster Resilient University Committee Name Title Organization Randy Barbour Contract Administrator I UAH Office of VP for Research Kevin Bennett Emergency Management UAH Office of Emergency Coordinator Preparedness Jared Cassidy Emergency Management Huntsville‐Madison County Officer Emergency Management Agency Michael Finnegan Associate Vice President UAH Facilities and Operations Melissa Foster Manager Barnes and Noble David Nadler Warning Coordination National Weather Service Meteorologist Valerie Oldani Fitness Director University Fitness Center Scott Royce Director UAH University Housing Michael Snellgrove Chief of Police UAH Police Department Jorgy Umlor Maintenance Mgmt.
    [Show full text]
  • Historic United States Eart
    Historic United States Earthquakes http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/states/historical_state.php#california Earthquake Hazards Program Historic United States Earthquakes Sorted by State & Date United States Earthquakes sorted by All earthquake dates are UTC, not local time. Date Magnitude Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Cascadia Subduction Zone • State & Date Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • State & Magnitude Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Largest by State Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Madrid • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • Worldwide Earthquakes North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South sorted by Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Date Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming Magnitude Alabama Magnitude 6.0 and Greater Country & Date 1916 10 18 - Irondale, Alabama - M 5.1 Country & Magnitude 2003 04 29 - Alabama - M 4.6 2004 08 19 - Alabama - M 3.6 Alaska 1899 09 04 - Cape Yakataga, Alaska - M 7.9 1899 09 10 - Yakutat Bay, Alaska - M 8.0 1899 09 23 - Copper River delta, Alaska - M 7.0 1900 10 09 - Kodiak Island, Alaska - M 7.7 1901 12 31 - Cook Inlet, Alaska - M 7.1 1904 08 27 - Fairbanks, Alaska - M 7.3 1908 05 15 - Gulf of Alaska - M 7.0 1910 09 09 - Rat Islands, Aleutian Islands, Alaska - M 7.0 1912 07 07 - Paxson, Alaska - M 7.2 1927 10
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Seismicity in the Southern Appalachian Seismic Zone by D. J
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Historical Seismicity in the Southern Appalachian Seismic Zone by D. J. Reinbold and A. C. Johnston* Open-File Report 87-433 U.S. Geological Survey Contract Report This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards (and stratigraphic nomenclature). Any use of.trade names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the USGS. *Tennessee Earthquake Information Center Memphis State University Memphis/ Tennessee HISTORICAL SEISMICITY IN THE SOUTHERN APPALACHIAN SEISMIC ZONE ABSTRACT This report presents the result of an effort to compile as complete and accurate an historical earthquake catalog as is possible for the Southern Appalachian Seismic Zone (SASZ). This catalog is unique in that substantially all of the supporting documentation is provided as an integral part of the history. Consistent and methodical interpretation of intensity and location is maintained throughout. New formulae developed by Sibol and others (1986) for converting epicentral intensity and felt area to magnitude are used. The equation relating mb to lo and felt area is thought to provide the best estimates yet of magnitudes for non-instrumental earthquakes in the SASZ. Additionally, depth of focus estimates are made. Four events mb >5.0 are listed among the 166 events that comprise this catalog. The largest event is the Modified Mercalli intensity VIII, 1897 Giles County, Virginia earthquake, mb = 5.6 (this study). Recurrence curves are plotted for both intensity and magnitude data. These suggest that an intensity VII (mb X5.0) should be expected roughly every 20-40 years.
    [Show full text]
  • Black Hills NOV 25 2014 Leidos PAGS Report.Pdf
    Final Report Pueblo Airport Generation Site Risk Analysis Black Hills Electric Corporation Colorado PUC E-Filings System November 25, 2014 P:\\012094\311070\PAGS Site Risk Analysis Final Report Pueblo Airport Generation Site Risk Analysis Black Hills Electric Corporation November 25, 2014 This report has been prepared for the use of the client for the specific purposes identified in the report. The conclusions, observations and recommendations contained herein attributed to Leidos constitute the opinions of Leidos. To the extent that statements, information and opinions provided by the client or others have been used in the preparation of this report, Leidos has relied upon the same to be accurate, and for which no assurances are intended and no representations or warranties are made. Leidos makes no certification and gives no assurances except as explicitly set forth in this report. © 2014 Leidos, Inc. All rights reserved. Pueblo Airport Generation Site Risk Analysis Black Hills Corporation Table of Contents Letter of Transmittal Table of Contents List of Tables List of Figures Section 1 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE ....................................................... 1-1 Section 2 PAGS POWER PLANT FACILITIES ................................................... 2-1 2.1 Existing PAGS Power Plant..................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Approved PUC Expansion – Future Generation ...................................... 2-1 2.3 Future Generation ...................................................................................
    [Show full text]