DOCSLIB.ORG

Management Plan December 2016 December and Inlet

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Management Plan December 2016 December and Inlet NORTH CAROLINA BEACH AND INLET MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE FINAL REPORT | DECEMBER 2016 NC BEACH AND INLET MANAGEMENT PLAN 2016 UPDATE REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY North Carolina’s oceanfront beaches and active tidal inlets play a dominant role in promulgating the state cultural heritage and providing significant economic impact to the state. The state recognized that to maintain and enhance these valuable resources necessitated the development of a management strategy that would evolve with changes to the State’ oceanfront beaches and tidal inlets. Through legislation passed by the General Assembly in 2000 (Section 13.9c of HB 1840) and recommendations presented in the Coastal Habitat Projection Plan of 2005), the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality commissioned the development of a comprehensive Beach and Inlet Management Plan (BIMP) that was completed in 2009. An update to the BIMP was authorized in 2015 (HB 97) to incorporate new coastal and socio-economic data and reflect policy changes that had been implemented since the original report. The updated BIMP would also include supplemental studies conducted by the Departments of Commerce, Environmental Quality, and Revenue on the benefits of state’s beaches and beach nourishment projects. The primary focus of the update to the BIMP was to incorporate beach nourishment and dredging activities completed over the past seven years as well as refine the historical data evaluated in the initial report in order to develop an updated accurate estimate of the funding needed to maintain the State’s beaches and inlets. The more comprehensive data set served as the basis for refining the volume and cost projections of dredging and beach nourishment for current and future managed shorelines. Potential funding sources to establish a statewide beach preservation fund were identified and evaluated. Similarly, the funding neede for appropriations to the state’s deep draft navigation fund were also identified. Revisions to the socio-economic impact study of the state’s beaches and inlets were conducted to highlight the importance of these vital resources and the need for the state to increase their participation in preserving them. Socio-Economic Value of State Beaches and Inlets Citizens of the State and visitors derive considerable benefits from the coastal region. Beaches and inlets support millions of beach recreationists every year, provide billions in economic value through business and tourism as well as residential and commercial property value. They also provide a direct source of employment and generate associated jobs in the coastal communities. The direct expenditures generated by the beaches and inlets amounts to $2.5 billion. When multiplier effects are added, these numbers rise to $6.1 billion supporting almost 65,000 jobs. The total State tax revenue from all these sectors is $188.4 million/yr. The recreational consumer surplus resulting from beaches and inlets is over $214 million. December 2016 ES-1 NC BEACH AND INLET MANAGEMENT PLAN 2016 UPDATE REPORT The value of coastal property at risk in the eight oceanfront counties as defined by the Ocean Erodible Area was $11.73 billion using the 1998 setback factors and $11.12 billion using the 2012 setback factors, indicating that beach and inlet management strategies have been effective in reducing risk ($600.8 million reduction). If only the five counties that actively complete nourishment are considered the reduction in risk is even greater at an approximate $818.8 million. Non-NC residents own less than half of the parcels at risk in the eight coastal counties but own more than half of the parcel value at risk. Data Collection and Refinement Dredging Projects or parts of projects where material was not used for beneficial reuse (each nourishment specifically) but placed on disposal islands or at offshore disposal sites were categorized as dredging projects. This database was updated for the 2008 to 2015 timespan and included additional historical data. Statewide dredging volume has decreased from 6 million cy/yr historically to under 4.5 million cy/yr in the past 5 years. Separating shallow and deep projects in the statewide trends; deep draft volumes have remained constant around 3 million cy/yr while shallow draft volumes have reduced from 3 million cy/yr historically to around 1.5 million cy/yr in the past five years. The reduction in dredged volumes is to a corresponding reduction in federal funds for shallow draft projects in NC. The total cost of dredging in 2015 dollars is $25 to $30 million, with federal deep draft spending averaging $21 million annually over the last five years and statewide shallow draft inlet spending averaging $7 million over the same time period. Historically, shallow draft spending averaged $17.5 million when the AIWW and other shallow draft inlet channels were routinely dredged to their authorized depth. Beach Nourishment The beach nourishment database was updated to include new data from 2008 to 2015 as well as complete data gaps prior to 2008. Total volumes, distances, and costs (total and average cost/yr) for beach nourishment events that occurred between 1955 and 2015 were summarized statewide and by region. Historically, the beach nourishment volume placed statewide has been between 1 and 2 million cubic yards (cy) but has increased to 4 to 5 million cubic yards over the last five years. The total statewide cost have reached approximately $50M; with Federal and State/Local share split evenly at approximately $25M each. December 2016 ES-2 NC BEACH AND INLET MANAGEMENT PLAN 2016 UPDATE REPORT Projection of Funding Needs Dredging The state used to receive substantial federal funding to maintain shallow and deep draft inlets, however federal funding has declined in recent years, especially for shallow draft projects. In 2013, the state established a Shallow Draft Navigation Channel and Lake Dredging (SDI) Fund to compensate for the loss of federal funding. Current funding levels for the SDI are low ($6.6 million/yr) but funding level may rise to $20 to $25 million/yr if historical maintenance levels were achieved. Some increases have already been seen in the present year (e.g. Oregon Inlet). The Shallow Draft Navigation Channel and Lake Dredging Fund has a total appropriation (with the local cost share included) of $28.5 million/yr. All shallow draft projects including those associated with the AIWW can be maintained at present levels with present funds. Federal funding of the state’s deep draft channels has been problematic as of late and has resulted in increased draft restrictions as dredging volumes have not kept pace with the increase in authorized dredge depths. The most challenging sections to maintain authorized depths are the ocean bars of the Wilmington Harbor and Morehead City Harbor projects where shoaling is a constant issue. Dredging of inland sections of deep draft navigation projects appear to receive adequate fund to maintain these portions. The General Assembly has recognized the need to maintain the two deep draft navigation projects in the state by establishing a deep draft fund but monies for this fund were not appropriated. These studies suggest that a conservative funding estimate of $17.5 million/yr may be needed to maintain the ocean bars of these deep draft harbor channels. The proposed split in the fund would be $10 million/yr for Wilmington Harbor and $7.5 million/yr for Morehead City Harbor. Beach Nourishment The total shoreline in North Carolina is 326 miles long and the total historically managed shoreline is approximately 74.8 miles. Currently there is a near 50% split in Federal managed and State/Local managed shoreline, each contributing approximately $25 million annually. The current total managed shoreline may increase from 74.8 miles to 85.3 miles with State/Local managed shoreline increasing from 38 to 57.1 miles after projects that are planned but not permitted are implemented. This would increase the state/ local’s cost share to approximately $40 million annually. Assuming a gradual reduction in federal funding of Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Projects and taking into consideration storm impacts that occur on average every 4 years and other upfront engineering/environmental costs, the preliminary recommendation for a State/Local beach nourishment fund is $40 million to $60 million annually. Cost share scenarios between the state and local sponsors were identified for the recommended funding December 2016 ES-3 NC BEACH AND INLET MANAGEMENT PLAN 2016 UPDATE REPORT levels. A minimum target of $25M annually is recommended for the state beach nourishment fund which would allow for some buffer and a minimum 50/50 cost share between State/Local interests. The ultimate need for beach nourishment and associated funding was projected based the management of all developed shoreline, a shoreline distance of 167.3 miles. The ultimate State/Local funding need may increase to $92 million /yr for a projected total of $95 to $115 million, allowing for a buffer for some CSDR and storm funding or upfront engineering/environmental studies. Potential Funding Sources Dedicated Shallow Draft Dredging Fund As has been shown previously, the current shallow draft fund ($19 million/yr) is adequate to meet both current and future projected needs and should be kept as is. This fund is more than justified given the amount of economic impact provided by the inlets to our State. Based on results from Section II, the inlets in NC provide $651.8 million in direct impact, $908.8 million in indirect impact, and 13,220 jobs. This approximates a ROI of $34.3/$1 to $47.8/$1 depending on whether economic multiplier effects are considered or not. Dedicated Deep Draft Dredging Fund The Deep Draft Port fund should be a recurring appropriation of $17.5 million/yr by the legislature as part of its investment in our ports.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 1 the Outer Banks Brogue Overview North Carolina's Outer Banks Is
    The Outer Banks Brogue “We’re losing our heritage basically. I mean…we’re going from a fishing community to more like a tourism community…And you don’t realize it, but you slowly adapt to a new way of life. And it ain’t nothing negative, but it ain’t nothing positive.” –Bubby Boos, resident of Ocracoke Island Overview North Carolina’s Outer Banks is one of the most geographically, historically, and culturally distinct areas in the state and along the entire Atlantic Seaboard. In this lesson, students will explore one of the more distinctive aspects that makes the North Carolina coastal area so culturally rich – its dialect. For several centuries, the small villages dotting the barrier islands of North Carolina and the adjacent coastal mainland harbored one of the most distinctive varieties of English in the United States, the so-called “Outer Banks Brogue.” Through reading, discussion, and interaction with audio and visual clips, students will not only have the chance to hear the Brogue, but also begin to think about how the history and geography of North Carolina resulted in such diverse language qualities. Students will culminate their exploration by experimenting with a long-time Outer Banks tradition – storytelling – in which they practice integrating some of the unique words and pronunciations of the region. Grade 8 NC Essential Standards • 8.H.3.2 - Explain how changes brought about by technology and other innovations affected individuals and groups in North Carolina and the United States. • 8.H.3.4 - Compare historical and contemporary issues to understand continuity and change in the development of North Carolina and the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Greene County Open Space and Recreation Plan
    GREENE COUNTY OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION PLAN PHASE I INVENTORY, DATA COLLECTION, SURVEY AND PUBLIC COMMENT DECEMBER 2002 A Publication of the Greene County Planning Department Funded in Part by a West of Hudson Master Planning and Zoning Incentive Award From the New York State Department of State Greene County Planning Department 909 Greene County Office Building, Cairo, New York 12413-9509 Phone: (518) 622-3251 Fax: (518) 622-9437 E-mail: [email protected] GREENE COUNTY OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION PLAN - PHASE I INVENTORY, DATA COLLECTION, SURVEY AND PUBLIC COMMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 1 II. Natural Resources ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2 A. Bedrock Geology ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2 1. Geological History ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2 2. Overburden …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 4 3. Major Bedrock Groups …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 5 B. Soils ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 5 1. Soil Rating …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 7 2. Depth to Bedrock ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 7 3. Suitability for Septic Systems ……………………………………………………………………………………… 8 4. Limitations to Community Development ………………………………………………………………… 8 C. Topography …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 9 D. Slope …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 10 E. Erosion and Sedimentation ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 11 F. Aquifers ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
    [Show full text]
  • Recreational Boating As a Major Vector of Spread of Nonindigenous Species Around the Mediterranean Aylin Ulman
    Recreational boating as a major vector of spread of nonindigenous species around the Mediterranean Aylin Ulman To cite this version: Aylin Ulman. Recreational boating as a major vector of spread of nonindigenous species around the Mediterranean. Ecosystems. Sorbonne Université, 2018. English. NNT : 2018SORUS222. tel- 02483397 HAL Id: tel-02483397 https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-02483397 Submitted on 18 Feb 2020 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. Sorbonne Université Università di Pavia Ecole doctorale CNRS, Laboratoire d'Ecogeochimie des Environments Benthiques, LECOB, F-66650 Banyuls-sur-Mer, France Recreational boating as a major vector of spread of non- indigenous species around the Mediterranean La navigation de plaisance, vecteur majeur de la propagation d’espèces non-indigènes autour des marinas Méditerranéenne Par Aylin Ulman Thèse de doctorat de Philosophie Dirigée par Agnese Marchini et Jean-Marc Guarini Présentée et soutenue publiquement le 6 Avril, 2018 Devant un jury composé de : Anna Occhipinti (President, University
    [Show full text]
  • Bibliography of North Carolina Underwater Archaeology
    i BIBLIOGRAPHY OF NORTH CAROLINA UNDERWATER ARCHAEOLOGY Compiled by Barbara Lynn Brooks, Ann M. Merriman, Madeline P. Spencer, and Mark Wilde-Ramsing Underwater Archaeology Branch North Carolina Division of Archives and History April 2009 ii FOREWARD In the forty-five years since the salvage of the Modern Greece, an event that marks the beginning of underwater archaeology in North Carolina, there has been a steady growth in efforts to document the state’s maritime history through underwater research. Nearly two dozen professionals and technicians are now employed at the North Carolina Underwater Archaeology Branch (N.C. UAB), the North Carolina Maritime Museum (NCMM), the Wilmington District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), and East Carolina University’s (ECU) Program in Maritime Studies. Several North Carolina companies are currently involved in conducting underwater archaeological surveys, site assessments, and excavations for environmental review purposes and a number of individuals and groups are conducting ship search and recovery operations under the UAB permit system. The results of these activities can be found in the pages that follow. They contain report references for all projects involving the location and documentation of physical remains pertaining to cultural activities within North Carolina waters. Each reference is organized by the location within which the reported investigation took place. The Bibliography is divided into two geographical sections: Region and Body of Water. The Region section encompasses studies that are non-specific and cover broad areas or areas lying outside the state's three-mile limit, for example Cape Hatteras Area. The Body of Water section contains references organized by defined geographic areas.
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 Lost Fishing Gear Recovery Project: Call for Working Water Assistance
    2021 Lost Fishing Gear Recovery Project: Call for Working Water Assistance Applications Accepted Until December 15, 2020 The North Carolina Coastal Federation is currently accepting applications for “on-water” cleanup assistance relating to its annual Lost Fishing Gear Recovery Project. This project is open to commercial watermen and women in North Carolina. This project is funded by the N.C. Marine Fisheries Commission Commercial Resource Fund Committee and the Funding Committee for the N.C. Commercial Resource Fund under the Commercial Fishing Resource Fund Grant Program and is intended to improve habitat, water quality and support coastal economies. Eligible participants are selected for involvement in this program to help the federation and N.C. Marine Patrol remove lost fishing gear from coastal waters during the “no-potting” period. In January 2019, commercial watermen and women in partnership with Marine Patrol officers removed 3,112 pots from select areas in Districts 1, 2, and 3. The 2021 project will take place in select areas within all three Marine Patrol Districts statewide, during the closed seasons: o Jan. 1-31 north of the Highway 58 bridge to Emerald Isle o March 1-15 south of the Highway 58 bridge Compensation is $450 per boat per day. A captain and mate are required for each boat. Captain refers to the individual who is in charge of and provides the vessel. (A merchant mariner credential is not required for this project.) To be considered, captains must have a valid North Carolina standard commercial fishing license (SCFL). A copy of the license must be submitted with this application.
    [Show full text]
  • Foundation Document Cape Lookout National Seashore North Carolina October 2012 Foundation Document
    NATIONAL PARK SERVICE • U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Foundation Document Cape Lookout National Seashore North Carolina October 2012 Foundation Document To Nags Head OCRACOKE Natural areas within Water depths 12 Cape Lookout NS Ocracoke D Lighthouse N y Maritime forest 0-6 feet Ranger station Drinking water r A r L e S (0-2 meters) I F r Picnic area Parking e Cape Hatteras Beach and More than 6 feet g Permit required n (more than 2meters) e National grassland s Picnic shelter Showers s HYDE COUNTY a Seashore P Marshland CARTERET COUNTY E Restrooms Sanitary disposal station Beacon I K O C A North Rock R Tidal flat Toll ferry Lodging Gas station C Shell Castle O Life-Saving Service Station (Historic) PORTSMOUTH VILLAGE (Historic) Casey Ocracoke Open seasonally Island Inlet Babb-Dixon Cemetery There are no roads within Some land within the park National Ocean Survey Methodist Church the national seashore; a remains private property; charts are indispensable Community Cemetery 4-wheel-drive vehicle is please respect the owner's for safe navigation in Schoolhouse highly recommended for rights. these waters. driving on the beach. Sheep Island Tidal flats may flood quickly at high tide— depending upon winds North 0 5 Kilometers and seasons. ) y r y r r e 0 5 Miles F r e e PORTSMOUTH FLATS F t a t e S l c a i n i h l e o r V a C h t r o N ( PAMLICO SOUND PAMLICO COUNTY Mullet Shoal CARTERET COUNTY Pilontary Islands Wainwright I Shell Island Harbor Island Chain Shot Island Cricket Hog Island Island Cedar Island y r Point of Grass a d C n eda
    [Show full text]
  • Extent of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Metric Report High-Salinity Estuarine Waters
    EXTENT OF SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION METRIC REPORT HIGH-SALINITY ESTUARINE WATERS Extent of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation High-Salinity Estuarine Waters Metric Report Don Field 1, Jud Kenworthy 1, Dean Carpenter 2 INTRODUCTION Why Is the Extent of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Important Within the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine System? Underwater vascular plants are key components of aquatic ecosystems. They play multiple roles in keeping Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine System (APES) waters healthy by providing habitat, food, and shelter for aquatic life; absorbing and recycling nutrients and filtering sediment; and acting as a barometer of water quality (Thayer et al. 1984). More commonly called “submerged aquatic vegetation” (SAV), these plants enrich shallow aquatic environments around the world, providing sanctuaries for mollusks, crustaceans, and finfish as well as sustenance for waterfowl (Bergstrom et al. 2006). SAV includes marine, estuarine, and riverine vascular plants that are rooted in sediment (NCDEQ 2016) and is one of five types of aquatic plants in APES waters, the others being floating aquatic vegetation, emergent aquatic vegetation, micro- and macroalgae, and blue-greens (cyanobacteria) (Bergstrom et al. 2006). Because SAV are rooted in anaerobic sediments, they need to produce a large amount of oxygen to aerate the roots, and therefore have the highest light requirements of all aquatic plants (NCDEQ 2016). SAV can become stressed by eutrophication and other environmental conditions which impair water transparency and/or diminish the oxygen content of water and sediments. The plant’s response to these factors enables them to be sensitive bio-indicators of environmental health (Biber et al. 2004). While more than 500 species of SAV inhabit the world’s rivers, lakes, estuaries, and oceans (Bergstrom et al.
    [Show full text]
  • North Carolina, Pp. 50-56
    36086 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2001 / Rules and Regulations Species Vertebrate popu- Historic range lation where endan- Status When listed Critical Special Common name Scientific name gered or threatened habitat rules ******* 3. Amend § 17.95(b) by adding critical elements within the designated Unit NC–4: Hatteras Inlet. 516 ha (1273 habitat for the piping plover boundaries are considered critical ac) in Dare and Hyde Counties (Charadrius melodus) in the same habitat. The majority of the unit is surrounded alphabetical order as this species occurs 3. Below, we describe each unit in by Cape Hatteras National Seashore, but in § 17.11(h), to read as follows: terms of its location, size, and is privately owned. This unit extends § 17.95 Critical habitat-fish and wildlife. ownership. These textual unit west from the end of Highway 12 on the * * * * * descriptions are the definitive source for western portion of Hatteras Island to (b) Birds. determining the critical habitat 1.25 km (0.78 mi) southwest of the ferry terminal at the end of Highway 12 on * * * * * boundaries. All distances and areas provided here are approximated. Ocracoke Island. It includes all lands Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) General location maps by State are where constituent elements occur from MLLW on the Atlantic Ocean across to Wintering Habitat provided at the end of each State’s unit 1. The primary constituent elements MLLW on Pamlico Sound. All emergent descriptions and are provided for sandbars within Hatteras Inlet between essential for the conservation of general guidance purposes only, and not wintering piping plovers are those Hatteras Island and Ocracoke Island are as a definitive source for determining also included.
    [Show full text]
  • White Oakriver
    RIVER WHITE OAK BASIN Tucked between the eastern portions of the Neuse and Cape Fear river basins, the White Oak River Basin abounds with coastal and freshwater wetlands. The basin includes four separate river systems, or subbasins, that feed into highly productive estuaries of Back, Core and Bogue sounds. profile: Core Sound produces the most valuable Total miles of streams and rivers: seafood catch in the basin, followed by 446 Bogue Sound and the Newport River. Total acres of The New River subbasin (not to be confused estuary: 130,009 with the New River Basin in the northwestern Total miles of part of the state) is the largest and most populated of the White Oak River Basin. It contains coastline: 91 the city of Jackson ville and the U.S. Marine Corps base at Camp Lejeune. But the basin draws Municipalities its name from the White Oak River, a remote, scenic, 48-mile river that spills into Bogue Sound within basin: 16 past the picturesque town of Swansboro. Still farther east is the basin’s Newport River, which Counties begins near Havelock and flows into the eastern end of Bogue Sound. The shortest and eastern - within basin: 4 most river in the basin is the North River, which empties into Back Sound near Harkers Island. Size: 1,264 square miles Forest and wetlands—both privately and publicly owned—cover almost half the basin. More Population: than 80,000 acres of the Croatan National Forest lie within the White Oak River Basin. It 150,501 hosts the largest population of carnivorous plants of any national forest and is the second largest (2000 U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of Coastal Water Resources and Watershed Conditions in Cape Lookout National Seashore North Carolina
    Assessment of Coastal Water Resources and Watershed Conditions in Cape Lookout National Seashore North Carolina Michael A. Mallin Virginia L. Johnson Matthew R. McIver Technical Report NPS/NRWRD/NRTR-2004/322 United States Department of the Interior • National Park Service The National Park Service Water Resources Division is responsible for providing water resources management policy and guidelines, planning, technical assistance, training, and operational support to units of the national park system. Program areas include water rights, water resources planning, regulatory guidance and review, hydrology, water quality, watershed management, watershed studies, and aquatic ecology. Technical Reports The National Park Service disseminates the results of biological, physical, and social research through the Natural Resources Technical Report Series. Natural resources inventories and monitoring activities, scientific literature reviews, bibliographies, and proceedings of technical workshops and conferences are also disseminated through this series. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the National Park Service. Copies of this report are available from the following: National Park Service (970) 225-3500 Water Resources Division 1201 Oak Ridge Drive, Suite 250 Fort Collins, CO 80525 National Park Service (303) 969-2130 Technical Information Center Denver Service Center P.O. Box 25287 Denver, CO 80225-0287 ii Assessment of Coastal Water Resources and Watershed Conditions in Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina Michael A. Mallin, Virginia L. Johnson, Matthew R. McIver Center for Marine Science University of North Carolina at Wilmington Wilmington, N.C. 28403 http://www.uncw.edu/cmsr/aquaticecology/laboratory This work was accomplished under Task Order J2380 03 0238 of Cooperative Agreement H5000 02 0433 of the South Florida / Caribbean Cooperative Ecosystems Study Support Unit.
    [Show full text]
  • Model for Leisure Boat Activities and Emissions – Implementation for the Baltic Sea
    Ocean Sci., 16, 1143–1163, 2020 https://doi.org/10.5194/os-16-1143-2020 © Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Model for leisure boat activities and emissions – implementation for the Baltic Sea Lasse Johansson1, Erik Ytreberg4, Jukka-Pekka Jalkanen1, Erik Fridell2, K. Martin Eriksson4, Maria Lagerström4, Ilja Maljutenko3, Urmas Raudsepp3, Vivian Fischer6, and Eva Roth5 1Finnish Meteorological Institute, Erik Palmenin aukio 1, 00101 Helsinki, Finland 2IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute, Aschebergsgatan 44, 41133 Gothenburg, Sweden 3Marine Systems Institute, Tallinn University of Technology, Ehitajate tee 5, 12616 Tallinn, Estonia 4Chalmers University of Technology, 41296 Gothenburg, Sweden 5University of Southern Denmark, Esbjerg, Niels Bohrs Vej 9-10, 6700, Denmark 6Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht, Max-Planck-Straße 1, 21502 Geesthacht, Germany Correspondence: Lasse Johansson (lasse.johansson@fmi.fi) Received: 16 January 2020 – Discussion started: 29 January 2020 Revised: 8 May 2020 – Accepted: 22 July 2020 – Published: 2 October 2020 Abstract. The activities and emissions from leisure boats leisure boats, this commonly overlooked source of emissions in the Baltic Sea have been modeled in a comprehensive should be further investigated in greater detail. approach for the first time, using a new simulation model leisure Boat Emissions and Activities siMulator (BEAM). The model utilizes survey data to characterize the national 1 Introduction leisure boat fleets. Leisure boats have
    [Show full text]
  • Detroit Edison Fermi 3 COLA (Environmental Report)
    Fermi 3 Combined License Application Part 3: Environmental Report Chapter 2 Environmental Description Chapter 2 describes the existing environmental conditions at the Enrico Fermi Nuclear Power Plant (Fermi) site, the site vicinity, and the surrounding region. The environmental descriptions provide sufficient detail to identify those environmental resources that may be affected by the construction and operation of the proposed Fermi 3. This chapter is divided into eight sections: • Station Location (Section 2.1) • Land (Section 2.2) •Water (Section 2.3) • Ecology (Section 2.4) • Socioeconomics (Section 2.5) • Geology (Section 2.6) • Meteorology and Air Quality (Section 2.7) • Related Federal Project Activities (Section 2.8) The following definitions and figures are provided as additional information related to content of the Chapter 2 sections: • Fermi 3 region – the area within a 50-mile radius around the Fermi 3 site (Figure 2.1-1) • Fermi 3 vicinity – the area within a 7.5-mile radius around the Fermi 3 site (Figure 2.1-2) • Fermi 3 site – the Detroit Edison property that comprises the Exclusion Area Boundary (Figure 2.1-3) 2.1 Station Location The Fermi site is located in Monroe County in southeastern Michigan, about 20 miles north of the Michigan/Ohio border. The U.S./Canada international border runs through Lake Erie about 7 miles east of the Fermi site. The Fermi site is on the west bank of Lake Erie, approximately 24 miles northeast of Toledo, Ohio and 30 miles southwest of Detroit, Michigan. The River Raisin is located about 6 miles southwest of the Fermi site.
    [Show full text]