DOCSLIB.ORG

Guidelines for Dam Decommissioning Projects

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

United States Society on Dams Guidelines for Dam Decommissioning Projects July 2015 Prepared by the USSD Committee on Dam Decommissioning U.S. Society on Dams Vision A world class organization dedicated to advancing the role of dam and levee systems and building the community of practice. Mission USSD, as the United States member of the International Commission on Large Dams, is dedicated to: ADVOCATE: Champion the role of dam and levee systems in society. EDUCATE: Be the premier source for technical information about dam and levee systems. COLLABORATE: Build networks and relationships to strengthen the community of practice. CULTIVATE: Nurture the growth of the community of practice. The information contained in this report regarding commercial products or firms may not be used for advertising or promotional purposes and may not be construed as an endorsement of any product or firm by the United States Society on Dams. USSD accepts no responsibility for the statements made or the opinions expressed in this publication. Copyright © 2015 U. S. Society on Dams Printed in the United States of America ISBN 978-1-884575-71-6 U.S. Society on Dams 1616 Seventeenth Street, #483 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: 303-628-5430 Fax: 303-628-5431 E-mail: [email protected] Internet: www.ussdams.org FOREWORD The primary objective of these Guidelines for Dam Decommissioning Projects is to provide dam owners, dam engineers, and other professionals with the information necessary to help guide decision-making when considering dam removal as a project alternative. If selected as the preferred alternative, these Guidelines may help in the development and execution of a successful dam decommissioning project, which would include all necessary activities associated with the removal of a dam and restoration of the river, from project planning through design and implementation. These Guidelines define dam removal as the full or partial removal of an existing dam and its associated facilities such that the statutory definition of a dam is no longer met or the structure no longer presents a downstream hazard. Chapter 1 provides this definition and other background information on dams within the United States. Chapter 2 describes the primary factors to consider in the decision-making process, including public safety, fish passage and aquatic migration, river restoration, economics, funding availability and source, potential public and owner benefits, and potential environmental impacts. Chapter 3 describes the general project planning components and issues, including problem and stakeholder identification, environmental compliance, and permitting requirements, and the evaluation of project alternatives. Chapter 4 addresses the basis of design, design stages, project schedules, and cost estimates. Chapter 5 focuses on issues related to sediment management, including potential downstream impacts and management alternatives. Chapter 6 describes various construction activities related to dam removal and site restoration. Chapter 7 describes performance monitoring and mitigation for potential physical, biological, and socioeconomic impacts. Chapter 8 provides case histories representative of various types of decommissioning projects completed or planned within the United States. These Guidelines have been prepared by the Committee on Dam Decommissioning of the United States Society on Dams (Hover et al., 2006; Randle and Hepler, 2012) The principal contributors are listed below: • Timothy Randle, Bureau of Reclamation – Committee Chair • Thomas E. Hepler, Bureau of Reclamation (retired) – Past Committee Chair • Wayne D. Edwards, W.D. Edwards Consulting - Past Committee Chair • William H. Hover, GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. - Past Committee Chair • Chris Krivanec, HDR – Past Committee Vice-Chair Additional contributions and review comments were received from the following Committee members: • Michael L. Brown, Golder Associates, Inc. • Robert L. Dewey, Bureau of Reclamation (retired) • Charles Karpowicz, National Park Service (retired) • David M. Leone, GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. • Kevin Schneider, Barnard Construction Company, Inc. iii • John R. Shuman, Johnson, Miraman & Thompson, Inc. • Stephen L. Whiteside, CDM Smith • Jennifer Bountry, Bureau of Reclamation The Committee is grateful to external peer reviewers Kenneth A. Steele, Consultant; Daniel J. Hertel, Engineering Solutions, LLC; Martin J. Teal, WEST Consultants, Inc.; and Laura Wildman, Princeton Hydro, who provided very helpful contributions; and to Susan Ward, Bureau of Reclamation, who provided final format editing and word processing services. iv LIST OF ACRONYMS Acronym Definition AACE Association for the Advancement of Cost Estimating ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation ADA Americans with Disabilities Act APE Area of Potential Effect ASDSO Association of State Dam Safety Officials BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs BMPs Best Management Practices CAA Clean Air Act CAW California American Water CCAA California Clean Air Act CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CESA California Endangered Species Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CWA Clean Water Act DEP Department of Environmental Protection DFG Department of Fish & Game EA Environmental Assessment EAP Emergency Action Plans EFH Essential Fish Habitat EIR Environmental Impact Report EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact FPA Federal Power Act FWCA Fish & Wildlife Coordination Act FWS US Fish & Wildlife Service GIS Geographic Information System GPS Global Positioning System HABS Historic American Buildings Survey HAER Historic American Engineering Record ICOLD International Commission on Large Dams IDF Inflow Design Flood LiDAR Light Detection and Ranging M&I Municipal and Industrial MCE Maximum Credible Earthquake MISD Management Information System for Dams MPE Most Probable Estimate MPID Modoc Point Irrigation District v Acronym Definition MW Megawatts NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act NCDRI National Clearinghouse of Dam Removal Information NED National Economic Development NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NGOs Non-governmental Organizations NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NID National Inventory of Dams NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency NOI Notice of Intent NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPS National Park Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places NTP Notice to Proceed ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife PADEP Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls PG&E Pacific Gas & Electric Company PHE Probable High Estimate PLE Probable Low Estimate PMF Probable Maximum Flood PUC Public Utilities Commission RCC Roller Compacted Concrete Reclamation U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation RED Regional Economic Development RM River Mile ROD Record of Decision SCD San Clemente Dam SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USFWS U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service USID U.S. Indian Service USSD United States Society on Dams WBS Work Breakdown Structure vi TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD ..................................................................................................................... iii LIST OF ACRONYMS .......................................................................................................v TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................. vii LIST OF TABLES ...............................................................................................................x LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... xi 1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................1 1.1 Objective of Guidelines ......................................................................................1 1.2 Definitions for Dams and Appurtenant Structures..............................................2 1.3 Dam Size and Hazard Classifications .................................................................7 1.4 National Inventory of Dams ...............................................................................9 1.5 Dam Removal Statistics in the United States ...................................................10 2. FACTORS TO CONSIDER FOR DAM DECOMMISSIONING PROJECTS ........14 2.1 General ..............................................................................................................14 2.2 Public Safety .....................................................................................................14 2.3 Fish Passage and Aquatic Migration ................................................................15 2.4 River Restoration ..............................................................................................16 2.5 Economics .........................................................................................................18 2.6 Project Funding .................................................................................................19 2.7 Public Benefits ..................................................................................................20 2.8
Recommended publications
  • Aitken Basin

    Aitken Basin

    Geological and geochemical analysis of units in the South Pole – Aitken Basin A.M. Borst¹,², F.S. Bexkens¹,², B. H. Foing², D. Koschny² ¹ Department of Petrology, VU University Amsterdam ² SCI-S. Research and Scientific Support Department, ESA – ESTEC Student Planetary Workshop 10-10-2008 ESA/ESTEC The Netherlands The South Pole – Aitken Basin Largest and oldest Lunar impact basin - Diameter > 2500 km - Depth > 12 km - Age 4.2 - 3.9 Ga Formed during Late heavy bombardment? Window into the interior and evolution of the Moon Priority target for future sample return missions Digital Elevation Model from Clementine altimetry data. Produced in ENVI, 50x vertical exaggeration, orthographic projection centered on the far side. Red +10 km, purple/black -10km. (A.M.Borst et.al. 2008) 1 The Moon and the SPA Basin Geochemistry Iron map South Pole – Aitken Basin mafic anomaly • High Fe, Th, Ti and Mg abundances • Excavation of mafic deep crustal / upper mantle material Thorium map Clementine 750 nm albedo map from USGS From Paul Lucey, J. Geophys. Res., 2000 Map-a-Planet What can we learn from the SPA Basin? • Large impacts; Implications and processes • Volcanism; Origin, age and difference with near side mare basalts • Cratering record; Age, frequency and size distribution • Late Heavy Bombardment; Intensity, duration and origin • Composition of the deeper crust and possibly upper mantle 2 Topics of SPA Basin study 1) Global structure of the basin (F.S. Bexkens et al, 2008) • Rims, rings, ejecta distribution, subsequent craters modifications, reconstructive
  • US 101 Elwha River Bridge Environmental Assessment With

    US 101 Elwha River Bridge Environmental Assessment With

    US 101 Elwha River Bridge Replacement Environmental Assessment Washington State Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration – Washington Division June 30, 2021 Title VI Notice to Public It is the Washington State Department of Transportation’s (WSDOT) policy to assure that no person shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin or sex, as provided by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise discriminated against under any of its programs and activities. Any person who believes his/her Title VI protection has been violated, may file a complaint with WSDOT’s Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO). For additional information regarding Title VI complaint procedures and/or information regarding our non-discrimination obligations, please contact OEO’s Title VI Coordinator at (360) 705-7090. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Information This material can be made available in an alternate format by emailing the Office of Equal Opportunity at [email protected] or by calling toll free, 855-362-4ADA (4232). Persons who are deaf or hard of hearing may make a request by calling the Washington State Relay at 711. US 101 Elwha River Bridge Replacement –Environmental Assessment ii US 101 Elwha River Bridge Replacement –Environmental Assessment iii Table of Contents Chapter 1: Background and Purpose and Need ............................................................................................ 1 1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................................
  • Dam Removal Planning in the California Coast Ranges by Clare

    Dam Removal Planning in the California Coast Ranges by Clare

    The Big Five: Dam Removal Planning in the California Coast Ranges by Clare Kathryn O’Reilly A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Master of Landscape Architecture in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor G. Mathias Kondolf, Chair Professor Randolph T. Hester Professor Emeritus Robert Twiss Spring 2010 The thesis of Clare Kathryn O’Reilly, titled The Big Five: Dam Removal Planning in the California Coast Ranges, is approved: Chair Date: Professor G. Mathias Kondolf Date: Professor Randolph T. Hester Date: Professor Emeritus Robert Twiss University of California, Berkeley Spring 2010 The Big Five: Dam Removal Planning in the California Coast Ranges Copyright 2010 by Clare O’Reilly Table of Contents CHAPTER 1: Introduction 1 CHAPTER 2: Methods 18 CHAPTER 3: Conceptual Framework 22 CHAPTER 4: Case Studies 46 Upper York Creek Dam 47 Searsville Dam 58 San Clemente Dam 72 Matilija Dam 84 Rindge Dam 99 CHAPTER 5: Synthesis & Recommendations 108 REFERENCES 124 APPENDICES 136 table OF COnTEnTS i List of Figures CHAPTER 1 Figure 1-1. Sediment deposition from upstream watershed (left) and resulting deposition in reservoir. 2 Figure 1-2. Transport impact of dams. (Wildman, 2006) 3 Figure 1-3. Dams in the US by height. (USACE, 2009) 3 Figure 1-4. Dams in the US by hazard potential. (USACE, 2009) 3 Figure 1-5. Delta deposition in reservoir. (Mahmood, 1987) 5 Figure 1-6. Example of reservoir sediment deposit. 5 Figure 1-7. Infilled reservoir. (Morris & Fan, 1998) 5 Figure 1-8. Bar-lin Dam on the Dahan River in Taiwan, full of sediment in 2006 four years after completion (left), and post-failure in 2007 (right).
  • Ices on Mercury: Chemistry of Volatiles in Permanently Cold Areas of Mercury’S North Polar Region

    Ices on Mercury: Chemistry of Volatiles in Permanently Cold Areas of Mercury’S North Polar Region

    Icarus 281 (2017) 19–31 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Icarus journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/icarus Ices on Mercury: Chemistry of volatiles in permanently cold areas of Mercury’s north polar region ∗ M.L. Delitsky a, , D.A. Paige b, M.A. Siegler c, E.R. Harju b,f, D. Schriver b, R.E. Johnson d, P. Travnicek e a California Specialty Engineering, Pasadena, CA b Dept of Earth, Planetary and Space Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, CA c Planetary Science Institute, Tucson, AZ d Dept of Engineering Physics, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA e Space Sciences Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, CA f Pasadena City College, Pasadena, CA a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history: Observations by the MESSENGER spacecraft during its flyby and orbital observations of Mercury in 2008– Received 3 January 2016 2015 indicated the presence of cold icy materials hiding in permanently-shadowed craters in Mercury’s Revised 29 July 2016 north polar region. These icy condensed volatiles are thought to be composed of water ice and frozen Accepted 2 August 2016 organics that can persist over long geologic timescales and evolve under the influence of the Mercury Available online 4 August 2016 space environment. Polar ices never see solar photons because at such high latitudes, sunlight cannot Keywords: reach over the crater rims. The craters maintain a permanently cold environment for the ices to persist. Mercury surface ices magnetospheres However, the magnetosphere will supply a beam of ions and electrons that can reach the frozen volatiles radiolysis and induce ice chemistry.
  • AFS Policy Statement #32: STUDY REPORT on DAM REMOVAL for the AFS RESOURCE POLICY COMMITTEE (Full Text)

    AFS Policy Statement #32: STUDY REPORT on DAM REMOVAL for the AFS RESOURCE POLICY COMMITTEE (Full Text)

    AFS Policy Statement #32: STUDY REPORT ON DAM REMOVAL FOR THE AFS RESOURCE POLICY COMMITTEE (Full Text) (DRAFT #7: 10/05/01, J. Haynes, Editor) (DRAFT #8: 02/23/03, T. Bigford) (DRAFT #9: 03/18/03, H. Blough) (DRAFT #10: 09/23/03, T. Bigford) (DRAFT #11: 09/25/03, T. Bigford) (DRAFT #12: 10/31/03, T. Bigford) (DRAFT #13: 1/9/04, T. Bigford) (DRAFT #14: 7/7/04, T. Bigford) (DRAFT #15: 7/18/04, T. Bigford) (DRAFT #16: 11/20/04, T. Bigford) 2003-2004 Resource Policy Committee Heather Blough, Co-Chair, Kim Hyatt, Co-Chair, Mary Gessner, Victoria Poage, Allan Creamer, Chris Lenhart, Jamie Geiger, Jarrad Rosa, Wilson Laney, Tom Bigford, Danielle Pender, Tim Essington with assistance from Jennifer Lowery 2002-2003 Resource Policy Committee Heather Blough, Co-Chair, Thomas E. Bigford, Co-Chair Allan Creamer, Bob Peoples, Chris Lenhart, Maria La Salete Bernardino Rodrigues, Jamie Geiger, Jarrad Rosa, Wilson Laney, Kim Hyatt, Danielle Pender 2001-2002 Resource Policy Committee Tom Bigford, Chair, Heather Blough, Vice Chair, Jim Francis, Bill Gordon, Judy Pederson, Larry Simpson, Jarrad Kosa, Jaime Geiger, Bob Peoples, Maria La Salete Bernardino Rodrigues, Chris Lenhart 2000-2001 Coordinating Committee James M. Haynes, Chair, R. Duane Harrell, Christine M. Moffitt (ex officio), tc "James M. Haynes, Chair, R. Duane Harrell, Christine M. Moffitt (ex officio), Gary E. Whelan, Maureen Wilson, James M. Haynes, Chair 1999-2000 Study Committee Larry L. Olmsted, Chair, Donald C. Jackson, Peter B. Moyle,Stephen G. Rideout November 20, 2004 Introduction This study report provides background information to support a recommendation by the American Fisheries Society’s (AFS) Resource Policy Committee to develop a Dam Removal Policy Statement for consideration by the Governing Board and the full membership.
  • Matilija Dam Giant Reed Removal Water Quality Monitoring Plan

    Matilija Dam Giant Reed Removal Water Quality Monitoring Plan

    MATILIJA DAM GIANT REED REMOVAL WATER QUALITY MONITORING PLAN County of Ventura Watershed Protection District 800 S. Victoria Ave., Ventura, California 93009 Contact: Tom Lagier, Project Manager EcoSystems Restoration Associates 8954 Rio San Diego Drive Suite 610 San Diego, CA 92108 619.291.1475 Contact: Julie Simonsen-Marchant, Project Manager June 2007 Matilija Dam Giant Reed Removal Water Quality Monitoring Program TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Monitoring Plan Objectives ................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Existing Data....................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Quality Assurance and Quality Control for Water Quality Data Collected.......................... 1 1.4 Data Management............................................................................................................... 1 1.5 Reporting............................................................................................................................. 3 2.0 WATERSHED OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................. 3 2.1 Geology............................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Land Uses ..........................................................................................................................
  • Geologic Gems of California's State Parks

    Geologic Gems of California's State Parks

    STATE OF CALIFORNIA – EDMUND G. BROWN JR., GOVERNOR NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY – JOHN LAIRD, SECRETARY CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION – LISA MANGAT, DIRECTOR JOHN D. PARRISH, Ph.D., STATE GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION – DAVID BUNN, DIRECTOR PLATE 1 The rugged cliffs of Del Norte Coast Redwoods State Park are composed of some of California’s Bio-regions the most tortured, twisted, and mobile rocks of the North American continent. The California’s Geomorphic Provinces rocks are mostly buried beneath soils and covered by vigorous redwood forests, which thrive in a climate famous for summer fog and powerful winter storms. The rocks only reveal themselves in steep stream banks, along road and trail cut banks, along the precipitous coastal cliffs and offshore in the form of towering rock monuments or sea stacks. (Photograph by CalTrans staff.) Few of California’s State parks display impressive monoliths adorned like a Patrick’s Point State Park displays a snapshot of geologic processes that have castle with towering spires and few permit rock climbing. Castle Crags State shaped the face of western North America, and that continue today. The rocks Park is an exception. The scenic beauty is best enjoyed from a distant exposed in the seacliffs and offshore represent dynamic interplay between the vantage point where one can see the range of surrounding landforms. The The Klamath Mountains consist of several rugged ranges and deep canyons. Klamath/North Coast Bioregion San Joaquin Valley Colorado Desert subducting oceanic tectonic plate (Gorda Plate) and the continental North American monolith and its surroundings are a microcosm of the Klamath Mountains The mountains reach elevations of 6,000 to 8,000 feet.
  • Final Environmental Impact Statement

    Final Environmental Impact Statement

    Final Environmental Impact Statement Elwha River Ecosystem Restoration Implementation Purpose and Need: The Elwha River ecosystem and native anadromous fisheries are severely degraded as a result of two hydroelectric dams (projects) and their reservoirs built in the early 1900s. Congress has mandated the full restoration of this ecosystem and its native anadromous fisheries through the Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries Restoration Act (Public Law 102-495). The Department of the Interior has found there is a need to return this river and the ecosystem to its natural, self-regulating state, and proposes to implement the Congressional mandate by removing both dams in a safe, environmentally sound and cost effective manner and implementing fisheries and ecosystem restoration planning. Only dam removal would fully restore the ecosystem or its native anadromous fisheries. Proposed Action: The U.S. Department of the Interior proposes to fully restore the Elwha River ecosystem and native anadromous fisheries through the removal of Elwha Dam and Glines Canyon Dam and implementing fish restoration and revegetation. Dam removal would occur over a 2-year period. Elwha Dam would be removed by blasting, and Glines Canyon Dam by a combination of blasting and diamond wire saw cutting. Lake Aldwell would be drained by a diversion channel, and Lake Mills by notching down Glines Canyon Dam. Stored sediment would be eroded naturally by the Elwha River. The proposed action is located in Clallam County, on the Olympic Peninsula, in Washington State. Lead/Cooperating agencies: The National Park Service is the lead agency. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.
  • Environmental Benefits of Dam Removal

    Environmental Benefits of Dam Removal

    A Research Paper by Dam Removal: Case Studies on the Fiscal, Economic, Social, and Environmental Benefits of Dam Removal October 2016 <Year> Dam Removal: Case Studies on the Fiscal, Economic, Social, and Environmental Benefits of Dam Removal October 2016 PUBLISHED ONLINE: http://headwaterseconomics.org/economic-development/local-studies/dam-removal-case-studies ABOUT HEADWATERS ECONOMICS Headwaters Economics is an independent, nonprofit research group whose mission is to improve community development and land management decisions in the West. CONTACT INFORMATION Megan Lawson, Ph.D.| [email protected] | 406-570-7475 P.O. Box 7059 Bozeman, MT 59771 http://headwaterseconomics.org Cover Photo: Whittenton Pond Dam, Mill River, Massachusetts. American Rivers. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1 MEASURING THE BENEFITS OF DAM REMOVAL ........................................................................................... 2 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................................. 5 CASE STUDIES WHITTENTON POND DAM, MILL RIVER, MASSACHUSETTS ........................................................................ 11 ELWHA AND GLINES CANYON DAMS, ELWHA RIVER, WASHINGTON ........................................................ 14 EDWARDS DAM, KENNEBEC RIVER, MAINE ...............................................................................................
  • Marmot Dam Removal Geomorphic Monitoring & Modelling Project

    Marmot Dam Removal Geomorphic Monitoring & Modelling Project

    MARMOT DAM REMOVAL GEOMORPHIC MONITORING & MODELING PROJECT ANNUAL REPORT June 2008 – May 2009 Prepared for: Sandy River Basin Watershed Council PO Box 868 Sandy OR 97055 Prepared by: Charles Podolak Johns Hopkins University Department of Geography & Environmental Engineering 3400 N. Charles St, Baltimore MD 21218 Smokey Pittman Graham Matthews & Associates P.O. Box 1516, Weaverville, CA, 96093 June 2010 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to sincerely thank all who assisted with the Marmot Dam Removal Geomorphic Monitoring & Modeling Project: Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board – funding Johns Hopkins University & The National Center for Earth-surface Dynamics (NCED) Peter Wilcock Project Advisor Daniela Martinez Graduate Assistant NCED & National Science Foundation Research Experience for Undergraduates Kim Devillier Intern Dajana Jurk Intern Cecilia Palomo Intern Tim Shin Intern Katie Trifone Intern Graham Matthews & Associates Graham Matthews GMA Principle Investigator Logan Cornelius Streamflow and Sediment Sampling Cort Pryor Streamflow and Sediment Sampling Brooke Connell Topographic Surveys Keith Barnard Topographic Surveys/Survey Data Analysis Sandy River Basin Watershed Council Russ Plaeger Director U.S. Geological Survey Jon Major Jim O’Connor Rose Wallick Mackenzie Keith U.S. Forest Service Connie Athman Gordon Grant Portland General Electric David Heinzman John Esler Tim Keller Tony Dentel Metro Parks Bill Doran Landowners Mary Elkins David Boos MARMOT DAM REMOVAL GEOMORPHIC MONITORING & MODELING PROJECT – 2009 ANNUAL REPORT ii
  • Shoreline Master Program.Doc

    Shoreline Master Program.Doc

    CLALLAM COUNTY SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Prepared by The CLALLAM COUNTY SHORELINE ADVISORY COMMITTEE With Assistance from the CLALLAM COUNTY DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION ADOPTED: By Clallam County Board of Commissioners: June 30, 1976 By Washington State Department of Ecology: August 5, 1976 REVISED: By Washington State Department of Ecology: November 16, 1976 August 10, 1979 January 4, 1983 March 27, 1984 January 27, 1986 June 3, 1986 March 1, 1988 October 31, 1989 June 16, 1992 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Title Page 1 Preamble and Purpose 1 2 Goals and General Policies 2 3 Environments and Use-Element Policies 3 4 Natural Systems Regulations 12 4.01 Marine Beaches 13 4.02 Spits and Bars 15 4.03 Dunes 16 4.04 Islands 17 4.05 Estuaries 18 4.06 Reefs 19 4.07 Bays, Coves, and Headlands 20 4.08 Marshes, Bogs, and Swamps 22 4.09 Lakes 24 4.10 Rivers, Streams, and Creeks 26 4.11 Flood Plains 28 4.12 Subtidal Shorelines 30 4.13 Shoreline Cliffs 31 5 Use Activity Regulations 33 5.01 Agricultural Practices 34 5.02 Aquaculture 35 5.03 Forest Management Practices 39 5.04 Commercial Development 41 5.05 Marinas and Boat Launching Facilities 43 5.06 Mining 45 5.07 Outdoor Advertising (Signs and Billboards) 47 5.08 Residential Development 49 5.09 Utilities 53 5.10 Ports and Water-Related Industries 54 5.11 Bulkheads 56 5.12 Breakwaters 58 5.13 Jetties and Groins 60 5.14 Landfill and Solid Waste Disposal 62 5.15 Dredging 64 5.16 Shoreline Protection 66 5.17 Roads and Railroad Design and Construction 68 5.18 Piers, Docks, Floats, Mooring
  • Study of Acoustic Cavitation Near Metal Surfaces Contaminated by Uranium Ran Ji

    Study of Acoustic Cavitation Near Metal Surfaces Contaminated by Uranium Ran Ji

    Study of acoustic cavitation near metal surfaces contaminated by uranium Ran Ji To cite this version: Ran Ji. Study of acoustic cavitation near metal surfaces contaminated by uranium. Other. Université Montpellier, 2018. English. NNT : 2018MONTS131. tel-02282007 HAL Id: tel-02282007 https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-02282007 Submitted on 9 Sep 2019 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. THÈ SE POUR OBTENIR LE GRADE DE DOCTEUR DE L’UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTPELLIER En Chimie Sé parative - Maté riaux et Procé dé s É cole doctorale Sciences Chimiques Balard (ED 459) Unité de recherche Institut de Chimie Sé parative de Marcoule (UMR 5257) Study of Acoustic Cavitation near Metal Surfaces Contaminated by Uranium Pré senté e par Ran JI Le 13 novembre 2018 Sous la direction de Sergueï NIKITENKO Rapport de gestion Devant le jury composé de [Jean-Franç ois DUFÊ CHE, Prof, Université Montpellier] [Pré sident] [Jean-Yves HIHN, Prof, Université de Franche-Comté ] [Rapporteur] 2015 [Laurie BARTHE, MCF, INP Toulouse] [Rapporteur] [Sergueï NIKITENKO, DR, CNRS Montpellier] [Directeur de Thè se] [Claire LE NAOUR, CR, Université Paris Saclay] [Examinateur] [Micheline DRAYE, Prof, Université Savoie Mont Blanc] [Examinateur] [Rachel PFLIEGER, CR, CEA Marcoule] [Encadrant] [Matthieu VIROT, CR, CEA Marcoule] [Encadrant] [Pascal PILUSO, CR, CEA Cadarache] [Invité ] “The unity of inner knowledge and action” [Wang Yangming] Acknowledgements Acknowledgements The doctoral study of the past three years has greatly enriched my experience in academic and personal life.