DOCSLIB.ORG

FINAL Programmatic Environmental Assessment Great Lakes Shoreline Stabilization Projects

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
FINAL Programmatic Environmental Assessment Great Lakes Shoreline Stabilization Projects FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR GREAT LAKES SHORELINE STABILIZATION PROJECTS The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has completed a Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and tribal considerations; Endangered Species Act (ESA); Executive Orders (EO) addressing Floodplains (EO 11988), Wetlands (EO 11990), and Environmental Justice (EO 12898); and agency guidance for implementing NEPA (DHS Instruction 023-01 and FEMA Directive 108-01-1). The PEA is hereby incorporated by reference. BACKGROUND The PEA evaluated the impacts of FEMA-funded shoreline stabilization projects and commonly connected actions along the Great Lakes shorelines in the states of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin. The purpose of shoreline stabilization assistance provided through FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Assistance and Public Assistance grant programs is to reduce risks associated with erosion hazards that affect people, structures, and infrastructure by mitigating the effects of flowing water, wave, or wind action. There is an increasing need to provide effective stabilization measures along the shorelines of the Great Lakes because water levels on the lakes, despite being highly variable over the long term, have been rising since 2014. During periods of high water levels and high wave action, structures and beaches become submerged, lakebeds experience downcutting, and rates of shoreline and bluff erosion and recession increase. During these periods of high water or increased erosion, the risk of bluff failure increases, putting nearby structures, utilities, and transportation infrastructure at higher risk of damage or closure. The PEA evaluated two alternatives: (1) No Action and (2) Proposed Action and Connected Actions. Several other alternatives were considered and eliminated from evaluation and these are described in the PEA with the reasons for their elimination. The Proposed Action and Connected Actions includes the following shoreline stabilization activities and common actions connected with those shoreline stabilization activities: • Bioengineering Stabilization Measures o Bank Regrading/Stabilization o Marsh and Wetlands Creation, Restoration, or Enhancement o Beach/Dune Nourishment • Hard Stabilization Measures o Revetments o Bulkheads and Seawalls o Breakwaters o Groins and Jetties • Connected Actions o Infrastructure Relocation or Repair o Piers and Boardwalks Finding of No Significant Impact Great Lakes Shoreline Stabilization Projects Programmatic Environmental Assessment Page 1 June 23, 2020 o Rain Gardens and Bioswales o Structure Acquisition and Demolition or Relocation Based on a preliminary screening of resources and the geographic location of the Proposed Action and Connected Actions, the PEA found that seismic risks and geology did not require a detailed assessment. During the construction period for each project, there may be short-term impacts on soils, air quality, climate, visual resources, water quality and resources, floodplains, wetlands, coastal resources, navigation, wild and scenic rivers, vegetation and invasive species, fish and wildlife, threatened and endangered species, cultural resources, public health and safety, noise, traffic and transportation, public services and utilities, and hazardous materials. All potential short-term impacts require conditions to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts. With the implementation of these conditions, none of the potential impacts will be significant. In the long-term, the Proposed Action and Connected Actions will have beneficial effects on several resources. The PEA is intended to facilitate FEMA’s compliance with environmental and historic preservation requirements by providing a framework to address the potential impacts of shoreline stabilization actions. Each project will be evaluated to ensure that it is encompassed by the range of activities and potential impacts described in the PEA. A finding that the project conforms to the PEA must be documented. The compliance checklist in Appendix A is provided to facilitate project-level reviews. All projects using the PEA must undergo standard compliance procedures with regard to other federal laws, as described in the checklist (e.g., ESA, NHPA, and EOs 11988, 11990, and 12898). Additional project-specific analyses may be required if the context and intensity of a proposed project substantively differs from those described in the PEA. Projects that either do not meet the thresholds described in the PEA, create impacts not described in the PEA, create impacts greater in magnitude, extent, or duration than those described in the PEA, or require mitigation measures to keep impacts below significant levels that are not described in the PEA, would require the preparation of a supplemental environmental assessment (SEA) or environmental impact statement to evaluate the specific action. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT FEMA issued a public notice of intent (NOI) to prepare the draft PEA. The notice of intent was published in the newspapers listed in Table 1 below. The notice of availability (NOA) for the draft PEA was published in the same newspapers. The draft PEA was available for public review and comment between April 12, 2021 and May 12, 2021. Finding of No Significant Impact Great Lakes Shoreline Stabilization Projects Programmatic Environmental Assessment Page 2 June 23, 2020 Table 1. NOI and NOA Newspaper Publication Date NOI Date NOA State Municipality Newspaper Published Published Illinois Chicago The Chicago Tribune 10/10/2020 4/10/2021 Indiana Gary The Gary Crusader 10/10/2020 4/17/2021 Indiana Gary The Times of Northwest Indiana 10/10/2020 4/10/2021- 4/12/2021 Indiana Michigan City LaPorte County Herald- 10/10/2020 4/10/2021- Dispatch / The News Dispatch 4/11/2021 Michigan Cheboygan Cheboygan Daily Tribune 10/10/2020 4/12/2021 Michigan Bangor The Bay City Times 10/11/2020 4/11/2021 Township/Bay City Michigan Sault Saint Marie The Sault News 10/10/2020 4/10/2021 Michigan Detroit The Detroit Free Press 10/10/2020 4/10/2021 Michigan Marquette The Mining Journal 10/10/2020 4/10/2021 Michigan Muskegon Muskegon Chronicle 10/11/2020 4/11/2021 Michigan St. Joseph The Herald Palladium 10/10/2020 4/10/2021 Michigan Traverse City Record Eagle 10/11/2020 4/10/2021 – 4/11/2021 Minnesota Duluth Duluth News Tribune 10/10/2020 4/10/2021 Ohio Toledo The Blade 10/11/2020 4/11/2021 Ohio Cleveland The Plain Dealer 10/11/2020 4/11/2021 Wisconsin Green Bay Green Bay Press Gazette 10/10/2020 and 4/10/2021 10/11/2020 Wisconsin Milwaukee The Milwaukee Journal 10/10/2020 4/10/2021 Sentinel Five substantive comments were received on the NOI from federal and state agencies and tribes and seven substantive responses were received on the draft EA from federal, state, and local agencies. Comments on the NOI and draft PEA were incorporated into the final PEA, as appropriate. This draft PEA reflects the evaluation and assessment of the federal government, the decision maker for the federal action; FEMA took into consideration any substantive comments received during the public review period to inform the final decision regarding adoption of the PEA. Finding of No Significant Impact Great Lakes Shoreline Stabilization Projects Programmatic Environmental Assessment Page 3 June 23, 2020 MITIGATION AND STIPULATIONS Specific avoidance and mitigation measures may be developed and required for specific projects. When a project is proposed for coverage under the PEA, FEMA will consult with the following agencies on a project-specific basis: • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to identify and evaluate effects to federally listed threatened and endangered species protected by the Endangered Species Act and species protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. • State and/or Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO/THPOs) to identify and resolve adverse effects on any historic properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) (36 CFR 800.2). • Federal river management agencies for any potential impacts on federally designated wild and scenic rivers protected under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1283). In addition, the avoidance and minimization measures that would apply to each project are provided below. The Subapplicant is responsible for compliance with all federal, state, and local laws and regulations, including obtaining any necessary permits before beginning the shoreline stabilization activities and adhering to any conditions laid out in those permits. Any substantive changes, additions, and/or supplements to the approved scope of work that alter the scope of work, including additional work not funded by FEMA but performed substantially at the same time, will require re-submission of the application prior to construction to FEMA for re-evaluation under NEPA. Failure to comply with FEMA grant conditions may jeopardize federal funding. Impacts from the Proposed and Connected Actions may combine with other reasonably foreseeable projects and result in short-term cumulative impacts on a variety of resources. However, it is unlikely that there would be significant cumulative impacts because in most cases there would be temporal and spatial separation between activities. Past, present, and future shoreline stabilization initiatives occurring along the Great Lakes shorelines would result in long-term net beneficial
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Natural Disasters in the Middle East and North Africa
    Natural Disasters in Public Disclosure Authorized the Middle East and North Africa: A Regional Overview Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized January 2014 Urban, Social Development, and Disaster Risk Management Unit Sustainable Development Department Middle East and North Africa Natural Disasters in the Middle East and North Africa: A Regional Overview © 2014 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank 1818 H Street NW Washington DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org All rights reserved 1 2 3 4 13 12 11 10 This volume is a product of the staff of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this volume do not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors of The World Bank or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundar- ies, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorse- ment or acceptance of such boundaries. Rights and Permissions The material in this publication is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions or all of this work without permission may be a violation of applicable law. The International Bank for Recon- struction and Development / The World Bank encourages dissemination of its work and will normally grant permission to reproduce portions of the work promptly. For permission to photocopy or reprint any part of this work, please send a request with complete information to the Copyright Clearance Center Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA; telephone: 978-750-8400; fax: 978-750-4470; Internet: www.copyright.com.
    [Show full text]
  • Exposure and Vulnerability
    Determinants of Risk: 2 Exposure and Vulnerability Coordinating Lead Authors: Omar-Dario Cardona (Colombia), Maarten K. van Aalst (Netherlands) Lead Authors: Jörn Birkmann (Germany), Maureen Fordham (UK), Glenn McGregor (New Zealand), Rosa Perez (Philippines), Roger S. Pulwarty (USA), E. Lisa F. Schipper (Sweden), Bach Tan Sinh (Vietnam) Review Editors: Henri Décamps (France), Mark Keim (USA) Contributing Authors: Ian Davis (UK), Kristie L. Ebi (USA), Allan Lavell (Costa Rica), Reinhard Mechler (Germany), Virginia Murray (UK), Mark Pelling (UK), Jürgen Pohl (Germany), Anthony-Oliver Smith (USA), Frank Thomalla (Australia) This chapter should be cited as: Cardona, O.D., M.K. van Aalst, J. Birkmann, M. Fordham, G. McGregor, R. Perez, R.S. Pulwarty, E.L.F. Schipper, and B.T. Sinh, 2012: Determinants of risk: exposure and vulnerability. In: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation [Field, C.B., V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor, and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA, pp. 65-108. 65 Determinants of Risk: Exposure and Vulnerability Chapter 2 Table of Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................67 2.1. Introduction and Scope..............................................................................................................69
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Deep Dive on Deep Dive Technical Summary Report Summary
    TECHNICAL DEEP DIVE ON SEISMIC RISK AND RESILIENCE - SUMMARY REPORT SUMMARY - RESILIENCE AND RISK SEISMIC ON DIVE DEEP TECHNICAL TECHNICAL DEEP DIVE ON AND SUMMARY REPORT This report was prepared by World Bank staff. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed here do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of the World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Rights and Permissions: The World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to the work is given. The material in this work is subject to copyright. © 2018 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / International Development Association or The World Bank 1818 H Street NW Washington DC 20433 Cover image: Varunyuuu/Shutterstock.com TECHNICAL DEEP DIVE (TDD) ON SEISMIC RISK AND RESILIENCE MARCH 12–16, 2018 This Technical Deep Dive (TDD) was jointly organized by the World Bank Disaster Risk Management (DRM) Hub, Tokyo, and the Tokyo Development Learning Center (TDLC), in partnership with the Government of Japan (the Ministry of Finance; the Cabinet Office; the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism [MLIT]; the Japan International Cooperation Agency [JICA]; the Japan Meteorological Agency [JMA]; Sendai City; and Kobe City).
    [Show full text]
  • Shoreline Development 99 Chapter
    The Lake Book Shoreline Development 99 Chapter Canandaigua Lake offers beautiful scenery, clear blue waters, good fishing, and is an excel- lent lake for water sports. These factors have proven to be an irresistible combination for thou- sands of homeowners and vacationers. Much of the lake front development occurred during the 1950s and 60s, a time period when there was less concern about the effects of development on the lake shore and water quality. Building along Canandaigua Lake has continued since then. Today there are around 1100 seasonal and year round residences on approximately 1400 lake shore parcels. High building densities, building on mar- ginal lands, greater numbers of septic systems, View of development along the north end of the lake. and aging pictureseptic systems of scenic risk lakeshore overwhelming develop- Canandaigua Lakes natural abilityment to effectively dilute wastes and nutrients from runoff and seep- age. In an effort to protect public health, safety, and to address potential environmental impacts that building and altering the landscape might have, most municipalities have adopted regula- tions that govern design and construction in and around the lake. Contained in the zoning ordi- Table showing the increased residential nances, these regulations pertain to type and lo- development within the watershed. cation of septic systems, home distance from shore, maximum building height, etc... Ordi- 49 Shoreline Development nances vary from town to town, so it is impor- count before any construction. tant to check with your local zoning officials as to the particulars of your area. They will also Sediment Control for Building and Property know which other agencies it will be necessary Improvements to contact before building.
    [Show full text]
  • Seismic Risk Perception and Household Adjustment in Salt Lake
    aphy & N r at og u e ra G l Nicoll et al., J Geogr Nat Disast 2016, 6:2 f D o i s l a Journal of a s DOI: 10.4172/2167-0587.1000168 n t r e u r s o J ISSN: 2167-0587 Geography & Natural Disasters ResearchResearch Article Article OpenOpen Access Access Assessing “Preparedness Elevated”: Seismic Risk Perception and Household Adjustment in Salt Lake City, Utah Nicoll K*, Cova TJ, Siebeneck LK and Martineau E Department of Geography, University of Utah, USA Abstract Determining household earthquake risk perceptions and adjustments is important for improving our understanding of community preparedness and establishing baselines fro improvements. Greater than 90% of the Utah population lives within 25 km of the Wasatch Fault System (WFS), and a 2012 FEMA report ranked seismic risk in Utah as the 6th highest in the U.S.A. We administered a geocoded, mail-out survey to households located in high-risk ground shaking and liquefaction hazard zones. We examined relationships between adoptions of 13 household adjustments and how respondents perceive risk and responsibility in the context of demographic characteristics, house location, and construction type (e.g. year built, unreinforced masonry (URM) or not, number of floors). Results characterize a population that perceives seismic risk as high, but varies significantly in its preparedness and sense of vulnerability. Further research is needed about how residents obtain information, given that fewer than 10% of respondents were aware of Utah's earthquake preparedness guide. Keywords: Earthquake risk; Preparedness; Geocoded survey; studies in the New Madrid Fault area in the south-central U.S.A., Unreinforced masonry; Hazard mitigation; Hazard adjustment an intra-plate zone that includes areas of Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Mississippi [3,9,10].
    [Show full text]
  • Disaster Risk Management in South Asia: a Regional Overview
    DISASTER RISK & CLIMATE CHANGE UNIT DSouth CAsia Region - World Bank The World Bank Group • South Asia Region Disaster Risk Management and Climate Change Unit • Sustainable Development Network December 2012 DISASTER RISK & CLIMATE CHANGE UNIT DSouth CAsia Region - World Bank Disaster Risk Management in South Asia: A Regional Overview The World Bank, 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20433, U.S.A. Internet: www.worldbank.org All Rights Reserved Printed in Washington, DC First Printing: December, 2012 The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this book are entirely those of the authors and should not be attributed in any manner to the World Bank, to its affiliated organizations, or to members of its Board of Executive Directors or the countries they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this publication and accepts no responsibility for any consequence of their use. The boundaries, colors, denomina- tions, and other information shown on any map in this volume do not imply on the part of The World Bank Group any judgment on the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Rights and Permissions The material in this publication is copyrighted. The World Bank encourages dissemination of its work and will promptly grant permission to reproduce portions of the work under normal circumstances. For permission to photocopy or reprint any part of this work, as well as all other queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, please send a request with complete details to the Office of the Publisher, The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2422; e-mail: [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Integrated Feasibility Study & Draft Environmental Assessment
    Integrated Feasibility Study & Draft Environmental Assessment Section 204 Studies: Beneficial Use of Dredged Material for Ecosystem Restoration Woodland Islands, Lower Columbia River Estuary February 2018 DRAFT 1 This page is intentionally blank 2 Woodland Islands, Lower Columbia River Estuary Section 204 Studies: Beneficial Use of Dredged Material for Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Study and Draft Environmental Assessment Prepared by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Portland District Lower Columbia River Beneficial Use of Dredged Material for Ecosystem Restoration Project Delivery Team 3 This page is intentionally blank 4 Executive Summary This integrated Feasibility Study and draft Environmental Assessment (FS/EA) has been prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District (Corps) to develop and evaluate the feasibility of alternatives for the strategic placement of dredged material to restore and expand shallow water and scrub-shrub wetland habitat for fish and wildlife species in the Lower Columbia River estuary. This evaluation resulted in the recommendation of a Tentatively Selected Plan (TSP), also referred to as the “Proposed Action” for purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). In accordance with regulations implementing NEPA, this FS/EA compares the environmental consequences of the alternatives, including the Proposed Action, and identifies a preferred alternative (the TSP/Proposed Action). This project is authorized under the Continuing Authorities Program (CAP) pursuant to Section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1992, as amended by Section 2037 of WRDA 2007, which provides the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with the authority to restore, protect, and create aquatic and wetland habitats in connection with construction, operation, or maintenance dredging of an authorized navigation project.
    [Show full text]
  • Multidisciplinary Integrated Tools in Seismic Risk Management
    Multidisciplinary Integrated Tools in Seismic Risk Management Vahdat, K. School of civil Eng.,University of Leeds (email: [email protected]) Smith, N.J. School of civil Eng.,University of Leeds (email: [email protected]) Abstract Earthquake disaster is inevitable but it is possible to manage the potential risk by assessing contributory factors in a hierarchical manner. In this paper the risk assessment techniques are classified into two major groups: Conventional Methods, based on the classical perspective of reducing consequences or impacts of earthquake damages; Holistic Models, based on modelling characterisation of the risk sources through a multidisciplinary approach. Since the conventional methods target a limited audience, holistic models are suggested to cover a new range of applications. A decision support tool is proposed which includes a matrix presents a multi attribute technique to demonstrate the ability and scope of analysis appropriately. General framework of the indicator system as core concept in holistic models is also discussed. This tool would help decision makers to incorporate the knowledge of seismic risk to build an appropriate strategy at national, regional or local level. Keywords: seismic risk management, holistic models, indicator system 447 1. Introduction Making decisions in high-seismic regions usually involves different considerations than in areas without any earthquake threat. Mitigation projects without effective risk assessment may fail to reduce the seismic risk and its consequences. Mora et al (2006) pointed out many reasons for lack of proactive risk management and stressed on incorporating multi attribute factors of mitigation, such as financial and social protection to control the cause and consequence of seismic risk in early stage of projects.
    [Show full text]
  • Seismic Risk Perception of People for Safer Housing
    th The 14 World Conference on Earthquake Engineering October 12-17, 2008, Beijing, China SEISMIC RISK PERCEPTION OF PEOPLE FOR SAFER HOUSING 1 2 3 4 5 K. Okazaki , A. Ilki , N. Ahmad , R. C. Kandel , and H. Rahayu 1 Professor, National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies, Tokyo, Japan 2 Associate Professor, Civil Engineering Faculty, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey 3 Program Manager, Disaster Research Institute, Preston University, Islamabad, Pakistan 4 National Society for Earthquake Technology-Nepal (NSET), Kathmandu, Nepal 5 Center for Disaster Mitigation, Institute of Technology Bandung, Bandung, Indonesia Email: [email protected] ABSTRACT : The majority of earthquake-caused deaths are instances of people being killed by their own houses. It is thus crucial to convince people that the investment in safer housing will eventually prove to be worthwhile. Because people base their choices regarding housing safety on their own perception of seismic risk, we conducted a field survey in 2007 in Indonesia, Nepal, Pakistan, and Turkey to better understand the seismic risk perception of residents. The survey targeted approximately 800 households in each country. Trained surveyors visited the selected houses to conduct interviews and fill in questionnaires. The questionnaire includes questions asking whether the residents think their house is safe against earthquakes, how they want to avoid the risks of damage to their house and harm to their family, and what they know about seismic retrofitting, in addition to questions about their sex, age, household income, occupation, and house-related information such as floor area, structural type, cost, and ownership. This study analyses how people perceive seismic risk, how such perception is associated with demographic variables and housing conditions, and how their risk perception affects their behaviour towards earthquake-safe housing measures.
    [Show full text]
  • The Project for Seismic Risk Assessment and Risk Management Planning in the Republic of Armenia
    Republic of Armenia Rescue Service, Ministry of Emergency Situations (RS) The Project for Seismic Risk Assessment and Risk Management Planning in the Republic of Armenia Final Report Vol. II Main Report 1 Risk Assessment of Yerevan City December 2012 Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) OYO International Corp. Nippon Koei Co., Ltd. GE JR Kokusai Kogyo Co., Ltd. 12-181 Republic of Armenia Rescue Service, Ministry of Emergency Situations (RS) The Project for Seismic Risk Assessment and Risk Management Planning in the Republic of Armenia Final Report Vol. II Main Report 1 Risk Assessment of Yerevan City December 2012 Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) OYO International Corp. Nippon Koei Co., Ltd. Kokusai Kogyo Co., Ltd. The Project for Seismic Risk Assessment and Risk Management Planning in the Republic of Armenia Structure of Volume of Final Report Vol. Title Language Armenian I Summary English Japanese Armenian Main Report 1 II English Risk Assessment of Yerevan City Japanese Armenian Main Report 2 III English Yerevan Earthquake Disaster Management Plan Japanese Armenian IV Data Book English Exchange rate used in this report 1.00 US Dollar (US$) = 407.43 Armenia Drams (AMD) 1.00 Japanese Yen (JPY) = 5.19 Armenia Drams (AMD) (as of October 8, 2012) Outline of the Project Outline of the Project 1. Background Title: The Project for Seismic Risk Assessment and Risk Management Planning in the Republic of Armenia Counterpart Agency: Rescue Service, Ministry of Emergency Situations (RS) Project Period: August 2010 - December 2012 The goal of this project is “Reduction of Disasters due to a large scale earthquake which has a possibility of occurrence in Yerevan City”.
    [Show full text]
  • Bell Umd 0117N 21178.Pdf (8.024Mb)
    ABSTRACT Title of thesis: DYNAMIC EQUILIBRIUM BEACH PROFILES: FORCES OF OFFSHORE SEDIMENT TRANSPORT IN MARYLAND’S CHESAPEAKE BAY Degree candidate: Lynda Bell Degree and year: Master of Science, 2020 Thesis directed by: Dr. Lawrence Sanford, Professor University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science To examine the impact of shoreline erosion on the near shore environment, it is necessary to estimate the quantity and quality of yearly sediment mass that is likely to be added by erosion. Data were collected in 2008 at ten sites along the Maryland shoreline of the Chesapeake Bay and compared to both empirical and theoretical models of offshore profiles. The data collected at each site included a series of three-dimensional bathymetric profiles from offshore transects run at each site, as well as a series of sediment core data that were acquired along each transect. Relationships between grain size, beach type, sediment composition, and strength of eroding sediments were also explored. The results showed that sands dominated offshore surficial sediments at most locations, even though the source sediments were mixtures of sands and muds. The observed offshore profiles were consistent with expectation from ocean beach profile paradigms, with the exception that the steepness proportionality factor was not related to sediment grain size. An adjusted form of the classic Bruun relationship for predicting shoreline retreat was in approximate agreement with long-term observations. DYNAMIC EQUILIBRIUM BEACH PROFILES: FORCES OF OFFSHORE SEDIMENT TRANSPORT IN MARYLAND’S CHESAPEAKE BAY by Lynda Bell Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland at College Park in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science 2020 Advisory Committee: Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Calarp Program Implementation Guidance, 1999
    IMPLEMENTATION GUIDANCE DOCUMENT Approved by Region 1 LEPC - 1/12/99 Region 1 LEPC AA Sub-Committee California Accidental Release Program Guidance Task Group Co-Chairs: Anna Olekszyk (City of Los Angeles Fire Department) Barbara Yu (Los Angeles County Fire Department) Task Group Participants: Paul Beswick (Metropolitan Water District) Larry Bishop (Santa Barbara County Fire Dept.) Jennifer Bower (Orange County Fire Authority) Christine Boyd (Orange County Fire Authority) Nancy Brodbeck (Tosco Refining Co.) Jon Chrostowski (ACTA, Inc.) Joyce Clark (Metropolitan Water District) Ken Hall (Torrance Fire Dept.) Ron Hargreaves (LA County Sanitation Dist.) Ryan Hill (Santa Barbara County Fire Dept.) Jim Hudson (ACTA, Inc.) Richard Kallman (Santa Fe Springs Fire Dept.) Mardy Kazarians (Kazarians & Assoc.) Steve Kephart (Ventura Co. EHD) Jerry Kopecek (Tosco Refining Co.) John Kulluk (Torrance Fire Dept.) Paul Lisak (LA County Fire Dept.) Bruno Loran (Boeing/Rocketdyne) Steve Maher (Risk Management Professionals) Roger Mallett (Total Prevention Systems) Aaron Nagayama (ARCO) Krishna Nand (Parsons Engineering Science) Jim Wilcox (City of Vernon E.H.) i TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page INTRODUCTION 1 Industry-Specific Risk Management Guidance 2 Coordination 2 Trade Secrets 2 Classified Information 3 Sources of Additional CalARP Information 3 1 GENERAL APPLICABILITY 4 1.3 Regulated Substances and Thresholds 4 1.7 When You Must Comply 4 2 APPLICABILITY OF PROGRAM LEVELS 5 2.6 Dealing with Program Levels 5 3 FIVE-YEAR ACCIDENT HISTORY 6 4 OFFSITE CONSEQUENSE
    [Show full text]