DOCSLIB.ORG

Duke Energy WSL III Units 1 & 2 COLA

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Duke Energy WSL III Units 1 & 2 COLA William States Lee III Nuclear Station Environmental Report, Chapter 2 CHAPTER 2 ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION............................................................................ 2.0-1 2.1 STATION LOCATION ................................................................................................. 2.1-1 2.1.1 REFERENCES...................................................................................................... 2.1-1 2.2 LAND........................................................................................................................... 2.2-1 2.2.1 THE SITE AND VICINITY ..................................................................................... 2.2-1 2.2.1.1 The Site........................................................................................................... 2.2-1 2.2.1.2 The Vicinity...................................................................................................... 2.2-2 2.2.2 TRANSMISSION CORRIDORS AND OFF-SITE AREAS..................................... 2.2-5 2.2.3 THE REGION........................................................................................................ 2.2-5 2.2.4 REFERENCES...................................................................................................... 2.2-6 2.3 WATER ....................................................................................................................... 2.3-1 2.3.1 HYDROLOGY ....................................................................................................... 2.3-1 2.3.1.1 Surface Water ................................................................................................. 2.3-1 2.3.1.1.1 Streams........................................................................................................... 2.3-1 2.3.1.1.1.1 Upper Broad River Basin Watershed .................................................. 2.3-1 2.3.1.2 Freshwater Streams........................................................................................ 2.3-2 2.3.1.2.1 Broad River Description .................................................................................. 2.3-3 2.3.1.2.1.1 Bedforms ............................................................................................. 2.3-3 2.3.1.2.1.2 Sediment Transport ............................................................................. 2.3-4 2.3.1.2.1.3 Discharge Characteristics.................................................................... 2.3-5 2.3.1.2.2 Description of Major Tributaries ...................................................................... 2.3-6 2.3.1.2.2.1 First Broad River.................................................................................. 2.3-6 2.3.1.2.2.2 Second Broad River ............................................................................ 2.3-6 2.3.1.2.2.3 Green River ......................................................................................... 2.3-6 2.3.1.2.2.4 Buffalo Creek....................................................................................... 2.3-7 2.3.1.2.3 Local Tributaries.............................................................................................. 2.3-7 2.3.1.2.4 Wetlands ......................................................................................................... 2.3-7 2.3.1.3 Lakes and Impoundments............................................................................... 2.3-7 2.3.1.3.1 Ninety-Nine Islands Reservoir......................................................................... 2.3-8 2.3.1.3.1.1 Reservoir Characteristics .................................................................... 2.3-8 2.3.1.3.1.2 Morphology.......................................................................................... 2.3-9 2.3.1.3.1.3 Circulation and Mixing ....................................................................... 2.3-10 2.3.1.3.2 Surface Water Impoundments....................................................................... 2.3-10 2.3.1.3.2.1 Make-Up Pond B ............................................................................... 2.3-11 2.3.1.3.2.2 Make-Up Pond A ............................................................................... 2.3-11 2.3.1.3.2.3 Hold-Up Pond A................................................................................. 2.3-12 Revision: 1 2-i William States Lee III Nuclear Station Environmental Report, Chapter 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section Title Page 2.3.1.3.3 Upstream Dams and Reservoirs ................................................................... 2.3-12 2.3.1.3.4 Downstream Dams and Reservoirs............................................................... 2.3-13 2.3.1.4 Estuaries and Ocean..................................................................................... 2.3-14 2.3.1.5 Groundwater.................................................................................................. 2.3-14 2.3.1.5.1 Physiographic Setting.................................................................................... 2.3-14 2.3.1.5.2 Regional and Local Geology ......................................................................... 2.3-15 2.3.1.5.3 Soil Properties............................................................................................... 2.3-16 2.3.1.5.4 Topography ................................................................................................... 2.3-17 2.3.1.5.5 Regional Hydrogeology ................................................................................. 2.3-17 2.3.1.5.6 Groundwater Occurrence and Usage............................................................ 2.3-18 2.3.1.5.7 Site Geohydrology......................................................................................... 2.3-19 2.3.1.5.8 Permeability................................................................................................... 2.3-21 2.3.1.5.9 Groundwater Movement................................................................................ 2.3-23 2.3.2 WATER USE....................................................................................................... 2.3-25 2.3.2.1 Surface Water ............................................................................................... 2.3-25 2.3.2.1.1 Surface Water Use........................................................................................ 2.3-26 2.3.2.1.2 Recreational and Navigational Use ............................................................... 2.3-26 2.3.2.1.3 On-Site Surface Water Use........................................................................... 2.3-27 2.3.2.1.4 Future Surface Water Use............................................................................. 2.3-27 2.3.2.2 Groundwater.................................................................................................. 2.3-28 2.3.2.2.1 Local Groundwater Use................................................................................. 2.3-28 2.3.2.2.2 On-Site Groundwater Use............................................................................. 2.3-29 2.3.3 WATER QUALITY............................................................................................... 2.3-29 2.3.3.1 Surface Water Quality ................................................................................... 2.3-29 2.3.3.1.1 Basinwide Water Quality ............................................................................... 2.3-29 2.3.3.1.2 Local Surface Water Quality.......................................................................... 2.3-32 2.3.3.2 Groundwater Quality ..................................................................................... 2.3-35 2.3.3.2.1 Regional Groundwater Quality ...................................................................... 2.3-35 2.3.3.2.2 Local Groundwater Quality............................................................................ 2.3-36 2.3.3.3 Factors Affecting Water Quality..................................................................... 2.3-36 2.3.3.3.1 NDPES Program ........................................................................................... 2.3-37 2.3.3.3.2 NSM Program................................................................................................ 2.3-37 2.3.3.3.3 Other Potential Pollution Sources ................................................................. 2.3-37 2.3.3.3.3.1 Dams and Reservoirs ........................................................................ 2.3-38 2.3.3.3.3.2 Power Plants ..................................................................................... 2.3-38 2.3.3.3.3.3 Pipelines ............................................................................................ 2.3-38 2.3.3.3.3.4 Hazardous Waste Generators ........................................................... 2.3-39 2.3.3.3.3.5 Toxic Release Inventory Sites ........................................................... 2.3-39 2.3.4 REFERENCES.................................................................................................... 2.3-39 2.4 ECOLOGY .................................................................................................................. 2.4-1 2.4.1 TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY................................................................................... 2.4-2 2.4.1.1 Existing Cover Types .....................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • History of the Broad River Development from Henderson Island to Hampton Island
    History of the Broad River Development From Henderson Island to Hampton Island Prepared For: South Carolina Electric & Gas Company 220 Operation Way Cayce, South Carolina 29033-3701 Prepared By: 521 Clemson Road Columbia, South Carolina 29229 December 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 2 DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY 3 Early Settlement 3 The Revolutionary War 4 Civil War 5 Reconstruction – 20th Century 7 HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT 9 HISTORIC SITES 14 Parr Shoals 14 Fairfield Pumped Storage 19 Lyles Ford 22 REFERENCES 23 INTRODUCTION The existing Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license for the Parr Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 1894) expires on June 30, 2020. As a result, cultural resources investigations were conducted to assist the South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G) in complying with the FERC relicensing process for the Parr Hydroelectric Project. The Parr Hydroelectric Project is located in central South Carolina along the Broad River in eastern Newberry County and western Fairfield County. The project includes both the Parr Shoals Development and the Fairfield Pumped Storage Facility Development. The total project area encompasses 4,400 acres on the Broad River and its tributaries between Henderson Island to the north and Hampton Island to the south, and Monticello Reservoir. As part of the FERC relicensing process, a Phase I cultural resources survey of the Parr Hydroelectric Project was completed in 2013 and 2014. Additional Phase II archaeological investigations were conducted in 2016 at two archaeological sites, 38NE8 and 38NE10. As a result of these investigations, four resources were identified as being eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP): the Parr Shoals Development, the Fairfield Pumped Storage Facility, Lyles Ford; and archaeological site 38NE8.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Quality
    3. Existing Conditions and WaterEnvironmental Quality Consequences 3.6 Water Quality 3.6.1 CHANGES TO THIS CHAPTER SINCE THE DEIS Since the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) the acreage of water resources in the project area have been updated to reflect the design changes resulting in the Refined Recommended Preferred Alternative (RPA); impacts resulting from the Refined RPA; and reflect the impacts to impervious and pervious surface areas of the Refined RPA. 3.6.2 HOW IS WATER QUALITY ASSESSED? The Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972 requires that each state set water quality standards for all contaminants in surface waters. These standards are typically based on criteria recommended by the US Environmental In South Carolina, the SCDHEC Protection Agency (USEPA). The CWA also regulates the discharge of is responsible for monitoring pollutants into our state’s waters. In South Carolina, the USEPA has and regulating water quality delegated the responsibility of monitoring and regulating water quality for the USEPA. to the Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). Many factors can affect water quality, including pesticides, heavy metals, livestock waste, litter, oils and grease, and other chemicals. Water from rain and runoff collect these pollutants and carry them into creeks and rivers. Natural resources and processes can also affect water quality. The amount of tree cover over streams and rivers can affect the temperature of the water, thereby affecting the habitat for other plants, fish, and insects. Additionally, sediment from erosion can wash downstream and impact the depth and important substrate within the stream. Existing Conditions and Environmental Consequences Water Quality FEIS May 2019 Page 3-237 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Phase I ESA Dicey Mills
    Phase I ESA Dicey Mills 430 Neisler Street Shelby, North Carolina H&H Job No. DCY-001 July 29, 2016 #C-1269 Engineering #-245 Geology Phase I ESA Dicey Mills 430 Neisler Street Shelby, North Carolina H&H Job No. DCY-001 Table of Contents 1.0 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................1 1.1 Property Summary .................................................................................................................1 1.2 Findings, Opinions, and Conclusions ....................................................................................2 2.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................................8 2.1 Purpose and Scope of Services ..............................................................................................8 2.2 Methodology ..........................................................................................................................8 2.3 Limitations and Exceptions of Assessment ...........................................................................9 2.4 Special Terms and Conditions ...............................................................................................9 2.5 Data Gaps and Limitations ..................................................................................................10 3.0 Site and Area Description ....................................................................................................11
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Memorandum
    Technical Memorandum To: South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (DNR) South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) From: CDM Smith Date: January 2015 Subject: Methodology for Unimpaired Flow Development Saluda River Basin, South Carolina (Prepared as part of the South Carolina Surface Water Quantity Modeling Program) 1.0 Background and Objectives for Unimpaired Flows Unimpaired Flow (UIF) describes the natural hydrology of a river basin. UIFs quantify streamflows throughout a river basin in the absence of human intervention in the river channel, such as storage, withdrawals, discharges, and return flows. From this basis, modeling and decision making can be compared with pristine conditions. This memorandum explains the methods that will be employed to develop UIFs for South Carolina’s Saluda River basin. It describes data needs, methods for filling data gaps, and issues specific to the Saluda River basin. Once developed, UIFs will be input to the Simplified Water Allocation Model (SWAM) to evaluate surface water hydrology and operations throughout the basin. The UIFs for the Saluda Basin will extend from 1925-2013. UIFs will serve two purposes: ° UIFs will be the fundamental input to the model at headwater nodes and tributary nodes upstream of historic management activity, representing naturally occurring water in the riverways. Current and future management practices such as storage, withdrawals, and discharges will be superimposed on the UIFs. ° UIFs will provide a comparative basis for model results. The impacts of current and future management practices on flow throughout the river network can be compared to the natural conditions represented by the UIFs, and decisions about relative impacts can be well informed.
    [Show full text]
  • Predictive Modeling: an Archeolgical Assessment of Duke Power Company's Proposed Cherokee Transmission Lines Veletta Canouts
    University of South Carolina Scholar Commons Archaeology and Anthropology, South Carolina Research Manuscript Series Institute of 10-1981 Predictive Modeling: An Archeolgical Assessment of Duke Power Company's Proposed Cherokee Transmission Lines Veletta Canouts Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/archanth_books Part of the Anthropology Commons Recommended Citation Canouts, Veletta, "Predictive Modeling: An Archeolgical Assessment of Duke Power Company's Proposed Cherokee Transmission Lines" (1981). Research Manuscript Series. 173. https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/archanth_books/173 This Book is brought to you by the Archaeology and Anthropology, South Carolina Institute of at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Research Manuscript Series by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Predictive Modeling: An Archeolgical Assessment of Duke Power Company's Proposed Cherokee Transmission Lines Keywords Excavations, Duke Power Company, Transmission lines, Cherokee County, South Carolina, Archeology Disciplines Anthropology Publisher The outhS Carolina Institute of Archeology and Anthropology--University of South Carolina Comments In USC online Library catalog at: http://www.sc.edu/library/ This book is available at Scholar Commons: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/archanth_books/173 PREDICTIVE MODELING: AN ARCHEOLOG~CAL ASSESSMENT OF DUKE POWER COMPANY'S PROPOSED CHEROKEE TRANSMISSION LINES by Veletta Canouts Research Manuscript Series 181 With Contributions by Paul E. Brockington, Jr. and Tommy Charles INSTITUTE OF ARCHEOLOGY AND ANTHROPOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA 29208 October 1981 The University of South Carolina offers equal opportunity in its employment, admissions and educational activities, in accordance with Title IX, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and other civil rights laws.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper French Broad Water Quality Management Plan
    UPPER FRENCH BROAD RIVER WATERSHED (06010105) OF THE TENNESSEE RIVER BASIN WATERSHED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION DIVISION OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL WATERSHED MANAGEMENT SECTION UPPER FRENCH BROAD RIVER WATERSHED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS Glossary Summary Chapter 1. Watershed Approach to Water Quality Chapter 2. Description of the Upper French Broad River Watershed Chapter 3. Water Quality Assessment of the Upper French Broad River Watershed Chapter 4. Point and Nonpoint Source Characterization of the Upper French Broad River Watershed Chapter 5. Water Quality Partnerships in the Upper French Broad River Watershed Chapter 6. Restoration Strategies Appendix I Appendix II Appendix III Appendix IV Appendix V Glossary GLOSSARY 1Q20. The lowest average 1 consecutive days flow with average recurrence frequency of once every 20 years. 30Q2. The lowest average 3 consecutive days flow with average recurrence frequency of once every 2 years. 7Q10. The lowest average 7 consecutive days flow with average recurrence frequency of once every 10 years. 303(d). The section of the federal Clean Water Act that requires a listing by states, territories, and authorized tribes of impaired waters, which do not meet the water quality standards that states, territories, and authorized tribes have set for them, even after point sources of pollution have installed the minimum required levels of pollution control technology. 305(b). The section of the federal Clean Water Act that requires EPA to assemble and submit a report to Congress on the condition of all water bodies across the Country as determined by a biennial collection of data and other information by States and Tribes.
    [Show full text]
  • Broad River Basin Have Captivated Tourists T and Ecologists Alike
    RIVER BR OAD BASIN he scenery and natural heritage of the Broad River Basin have captivated tourists T and ecologists alike. Hollywood even memorialized some of these places on the big screen, including in battle scenes filmed for the 1992 movie “Last of the Mohicans” at the 404-foot Hickory Nut Falls. profile: Total miles of The Broad River originates in the mountains of streams and rivers: western North Carolina and flows south east 1,513 through the foothills and Piedmont before Total acres of lakes: entering South Carolina. Major tributaries 1,954 SC include the Green, First Broad, Second Broad and Municipalities North Pacolet rivers. There are also four major man-made within basin: 27 lakes, including the popular tourist destination Lake Lure, which was Counties built in 1926 to supply electricity. Other reservoirs include Lake Adger within basin: 8 Bog turtle and Kings Mountain Reservoir, also known as Moss Lake. Municipalities Size: 1,514 in the basin include Forest City, Kings Mountain, Chim ney Rock square miles Village, Lake Lure, Rutherfordton, Shelby and Spindale. Population: 204,803 Some of the best-known natural beauties of the basin are Hickory Nut (2010 U.S. Census) Gorge, Chimney Rock State Park and Lake Lure. Perhaps lesser known is the incredible diversity of flora and fauna within the basin. The Broad BILL LEA KEVIN ADAMS River Basin contains more than 100,000 acres of public and private lands with rare animals, plants and natural communities. These Signi - ficant Natural Heritage Areas provide habitat for more than 100 rare plant and animal spe - Big Bradley Falls (left); cies and 24 rare natural communities.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 11/Wednesday, January
    Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 2835 * Elevation in feet (NGVD) + Elevation in feet Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation (NAVD) Communities # Depth in feet affected above ground Modified At the intersection of Marlin Avenue and Southeast Dog- +125 wood Drive. * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ADDRESSES City of Damascus Maps are available for inspection at Damascus City Hall, 19920 Highway 212, Damascus, OR 97089. City of Happy Valley Maps are available for inspection at Michael Walter Planning Services Manager, 12915 SE King Road, Happy Valley, OR 97086. City of Lake Oswego Maps are available for inspection at Rob D. Amsberry Surface Water Management, 380 A Avenue, Lake Oswego, OR 97034. City of Rivergrove Maps are available for inspection at Larry Barrett City Manager, 5311 Childs Road, Lake Oswego, OR 97035. City of West Linn Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 22500 Salamo Road, West Linn, OR 97068. Clackamas County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps are available for inspection at Steve F. Hanschka Floodplain Administrator Sunnybrook Service Center, 9101 SE Sannybrook Boulevard, Clackamas, OR 97015. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. community. This date may be obtained communities listed below. Elevations at 97.022, ‘‘Flood Insurance.’’) by contacting the office where the maps selected locations in each community Dated: January 3, 2008. are available for inspection as indicated are shown. David I. Maurstad, on the table below. National Environmental Policy Act. Federal Insurance Administrator of the ADDRESSES: The final BFEs for each This final rule is categorically excluded National Flood Insurance Program, community are available for inspection from the requirements of 44 CFR part Department of Homeland Security, Federal at the office of the Chief Executive 10, Environmental Consideration.
    [Show full text]
  • South Carolina Surface Water Quantity Modeling Project
    South Carolina Surface Water Kirk Westphal, PE Quantity Modeling Project John Boyer, PE, BCEE Broad Basin Meeting No. 2 – Introduction to the Draft Model May 18, 2016 Presentation Outline • Project Background and Status • Model Calibration/Verification • Calibration/Verification Philosophy and Approach • Calibration Results and Discussion • Overview and Demonstration of Broad Basin Model Project Purpose • Build surface water quantity models capable of: – Accounting for inflows and outflows from a basin – Accurately simulating streamflows and reservoir levels over the historical inflow record – Conducting “What if” scenarios to evaluate future water demands, management strategies and system performance. The Simplified Water Allocation Model is… • A water accounting tool • Calculates physically and legally available water • Traces water through a natural stream network, simulating withdrawals, discharges, storage, and hydroelectric operations • Not a precipitation-runoff model (e.g., HEC-HMS) • Not a hydraulic model (e.g. HEC-RAS) • Not a water quality model (e.g., QUAL2K) • Not an optimization model • Not a groundwater flow model (e.g., MODFLOW) Project Status – Broad Basin Data Collection Unimpaired Flow - Streamflow, M&I and ag Development withdrawals, discharges, - Daily mean UIFs precipitation, reservoir Task 1 Task operations, interconnections, facility operation dates, etc. Data Analysis - Gap filling and record extension Stakeholder Input Basin Model Baseline Model Schematic Calibration Task 2 Task - Model framework - Reproduce actual - Simulate current development conditions conditions Stakeholder Stakeholder Input Meeting Input Meeting #1 #2 Catawba Salkehatchie Savannah Overall Dee Pee Santee Saluda Edisto Broad - Project Status Wat. 1. Data Collection, Organization and Analysis 2. Model Framework Development 3. Unimpaired Flow Development 4. Model Development and Calibration 5. Baseline Model Development and Documentation 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Historical and Architectural Inventory
    Upper Richland County South Carolina Historical and Architectural Inventory Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. June 2002 Upper Richland County, South Carolina Historical and Architectural Inventory Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. Jennifer F. Martin Nicholas G. Theos Sarah A. Woodard Funded by The Richland County Conservation Commission and The South Carolina Department of Archives and History June 2002 The activity that is the subject of this report has been financed in part with Federal funds from the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, and administered by the South Carolina Department of Archives and History. However, the contents and opinions do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of the Interior. This program receives Federal financial assistance for identification and protection of historic properties. Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, the U. S. Department of the Interior prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability or age in its federally assisted programs. If you believe you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility as described above, or if you desire further information please write to: Office of Equal Opportunity, National Park Service, 1849 C Street, N.W., Washington DC 20240. Acknowledgements Several individuals provided assistance without which we would not have been able to carry out this survey. Daniel J. Vivian, who served as the Survey Coordinator for the South Carolina State Historic Preservation Office during the majority of the project, offered excellent advice and technical assistance.
    [Show full text]
  • GIS Final Project
    Runoff and geomorphic properties of North Carolina rivers Michael Kanarek Dec. 7, 2012 CE 394K.3 Introduction Hypsometric analysis is used in a several geologic fields, including hydrology. A number of studies on the relationship between hypsometry and hydrology have found that hypsometric curve parameters have a strong relationship with basin hydrology, especially flood response. (Perez-Pena et al., 2009) GIS provides powerful tools for the study of these properties, especially through the utilization of digital elevation models. For the purposes of this study, two watersheds originating in western North Carolina will be studied: the Upper French Broad River watershed (HUC8 06010105) and the Upper Broad River watershed (HUC8 03050105). The French Broad River flows for 213 miles, starting in the Appalachian Mountains of Transylvania County, N.C., and ending in Knoxville, TN, where it joins with the Holston River to form the start of the Tennessee River. The Upper French Broad River watershed has an area of 4,868 km2. The Broad River flows for 150 miles, beginning in the Blue Ridge Mountains of Buncombe County, N.C., and eventually joining the Saluda River to form the Congaree River near the city of Columbia, S.C. The Upper Broad river watershed has an area of 6,419 km2. Watershed locations National Geographic, Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, UNEP-WCMC, USGS, NASA, ESA, METI, NRCAN, GEBCO, NOAA, iPC Watersheds Upper Broad 0 5 10 20 30 40 Upper French Broad Miles ± Data gathering Data for this project was acquired primarily from the USGS’s National Map Viewer. Elevation data was downloaded in the form of nine individual 1/3 arcsecond digital elevation maps.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 59/Wednesday, March
    Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Proposed Rules 14503 a second comment period, so anyone DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND stringent in their floodplain interested in commenting should do so SECURITY management requirements. The at this time. If we do not receive community may at any time enact comments, no further activity is Federal Emergency Management stricter requirements of its own, or planned. Agency pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State or regional entities. These For all the reasons set forth in the 44 CFR Part 67 proposed elevations are used to meet parallel direct final rule, we are [Docket No. FEMA–B 7711] the floodplain management proposing to approve the State of requirements of the NFIP and are also Arizona’s boundary redesignation of the Proposed Flood Elevation used to calculate the appropriate flood Hayden/Miami PM10 nonattainment Determinations insurance premium rates for new area into two separate PM10 buildings built after these elevations are AGENCY: nonattainment areas: Hayden and Federal Emergency made final, and for the contents in these Miami, and to determine that the Miami Management Agency, DHS. buildings. ACTION: moderate PM10 nonattainment area in Proposed rule. National Environmental Policy Act. Arizona is attaining the PM national 10 SUMMARY: Technical information or This proposed rule is categorically ambient air quality standard. A comments are requested on the excluded from the requirements of 44 determination of attainment is not a proposed Base (1% annual chance) CFR part 10, Environmental redesignation to attainment under CAA Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed Consideration. An environmental section 107(d)(3) because we have not BFEs modifications for the communities impact assessment has not been yet approved a maintenance plan as listed below.
    [Show full text]