DOCSLIB.ORG

List of Rural Counties and Designated Eligible Census

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
List of Rural Counties and Designated Eligible Census List of Rural Counties And Designated Eligible Census Tracts in Metropolitan Counties Updated Census 2010 The Office of Rural Health Policy uses two methods to determine geographic eligibility for its grant programs. As in prior years, all counties that are not designated as parts of Metropolitan Areas (MAs) by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) are considered rural. Any county that is not a part of a Metropolitan Area is considered rural. Counties classified as Micropolitan are non-Metropolitan. The current list of MAs, issued in 2013, and updates are available on the Internet at http://www.census.gov/population/www/metroareas/metrodef.html Due to the fact that entire counties are designated as Metropolitan when, in fact, large parts of many counties may be rural in nature, the Office of Rural Health Policy has sought an alternative method of looking at sub-county sections of these Metropolitan counties that would allow sections to be designated rural. The Goldsmith modification was originally developed and used to identify rural Census tracts in large Metropolitan counties. The Office of Rural Health Policy has funded the development of the Rural Urban Commuting Area Codes (RUCAs) to designate "Rural" areas within MAs. Census tracts with RUCA codes 4 through 10 are considered rural for the purposes of Rural Health grants. While use of the RUCA codes has allowed identification of rural census tracts in Metropolitan counties, among the more than 60,000 tracts in the U.S. there are some that are extremely large and where use of RUCA codes alone fails to account for distance to services and sparse population. In response to these concerns, ORHP has also designated as rural census tracts with RUCA codes 2 or 3 that are at least 400 square miles in area with a population density of no more than 35 people. More information on RUCAs is available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/data- products/rural-urban-commuting-area-codes.aspx To determine whether a county or a particular address is designated rural, visit the webpage Rural Health Grants Eligibility Advisor. The attached list is in two Sections. The Territories of the United States are included in these lists. Section I is a list of non-Metro counties arranged by State. The entire area of these counties is considered rural. Section II is a list of Metropolitan counties in which we have identified certain Census Tracts that are considered rural. Only the area of the identified tracts is considered rural in those Metropolitan counties. Please check the lists carefully. For further information, contact the Office of Rural Health Policy at (301) 443-0835. 1 of 48 Updated 12/31/2018 Section I STATE: Wilcox ARIZONA Winston County: Apache ALASKA Gila ALABAMA Aleutians East Graham Greenlee Barbour Aleutians West La Paz Bullock Bethel Navajo Butler Bristol Bay Santa Cruz Chambers Denali Cherokee Dillingham ARKANSAS Choctaw Haines Clarke Hoonah-Angoon Arkansas Clay Juneau Ashley Cleburne Kenai Peninsula Baxter Coffee Ketchikan Gateway Boone Conecuh Kodiak Island Bradley Coosa Kusilvak Calhoun Covington Lake and Peninsula Carroll Crenshaw Chicot Cullman Matanuska-Susitna Clark Dale This county is eligible Clay Dallas even though it is Cleburne DeKalb designated as a Columbia Escambia Metropolitan County. Conway Fayette All census tracts in the Cross Franklin county qualify as rural. Dallas Greene Nome Desha Jackson North Slope Drew Lamar Northwest Arctic Franklin Macon Petersburg Fulton Marengo Pr of Wales-Hyder Greene Marion Sitka Hempstead Marshall Skagway Hot Spring Monroe Southeast Fairbanks Howard Perry Valdez-Cordova Independence Pike Wrangell City and Izard Randolph Borough Jackson Sumter Yakutat Johnson Talladega Yukon-Koyukuk Lafayette Tallapoosa Lawrence Washington AMERICAN SAMOA - Lee All Logan 2 of 48 Updated 12/31/2018 Marion Trinity San Juan Mississippi Tuolumne San Miguel Monroe Sedgwick Montgomery COLORADO Summit Washington Nevada Alamosa Yuma Newton Archuleta Ouachita Baca CONNECTICUT Phillips Bent Pike Chaffee Litchfield Polk Cheyenne Pope Conejos DELAWARE Prairie Costilla No rural counties Randolph Crowley Scott Custer FLORIDA Searcy Delta Sevier Dolores Bradford Sharp Eagle Calhoun St. Francis Fremont Columbia Stone Garfield DeSoto Union Grand Dixie Van Buren Gunnison Franklin White Hinsdale Glades Woodruff Huerfano Hamilton Yell Jackson Hardee Hendry CALIFORNIA Kiowa Kit Carson Holmes Alpine La Plata Jackson Amador Lake Lafayette Calaveras Las Animas Levy Colusa Lincoln Liberty Del Norte Logan Madison Glenn Mineral Monroe Humboldt Moffat Okeechobee Inyo Montezuma Putnam Lake Montrose Suwannee Lassen Morgan Taylor Mariposa Otero Union Mendocino Ouray Washington Modoc Phillips Mono Pitkin GEORGIA Nevada Prowers Appling Plumas Rio Blanco Atkinson Sierra Rio Grande Bacon Siskiyou Routt Baldwin Tehama Saguache 3 of 48 Updated 12/31/2018 Banks Pierce Kalawao Ben Hill Polk This county is eligible Berrien Putnam even though it is Bleckley Quitman designated as a Bulloch Rabun Metropolitan County. Calhoun Randolph All census tracts in the Camden Schley county qualify as rural. Candler Screven Charlton Seminole Kauai Chattooga Stephens IDAHO Clay Stewart Clinch Sumter Adams Coffee Talbot Bear Lake Colquitt Taliaferro Benewah Cook Tattnall Bingham Crisp Taylor Blaine Decatur Telfair Dodge Thomas Boise Dooly Tift This county is eligible Early Toombs even though it is Elbert Towns designated as a Emanuel Treutlen Metropolitan County. Evans Troup All census tracts in the Fannin Turner county qualify as rural. Franklin Union Bonner Gilmer Upson Boundary Glascock Ware Gordon Warren Butte Grady Washington This county is eligible Greene Wayne even though it is Habersham Webster designated as a Hancock Wheeler Metropolitan County. Hart White All census tracts in the Irwin Wilcox county qualify as rural. Jackson Wilkes Jeff Davis Wilkinson Camas Jefferson Caribou Jenkins GUAM Cassia Clark Johnson All of Guam Laurens Clearwater Lumpkin HAWAII Custer Macon Elmore Miller Hawaii Mitchell Franklin This county is eligible Montgomery 4 of 48 Updated 12/31/2018 even though it is Cass Richland designated as a Christian Saline Metropolitan County. Clark Schuyler All census tracts in the Clay Scott county qualify as rural. Coles Shelby Crawford Stephenson Fremont Cumberland Union Gooding Douglas Wabash Idaho Edgar Warren Jerome Edwards Washington This county is eligible Effingham Wayne even though it is Fayette White designated as a Franklin Whiteside Fulton Metropolitan County. INDIANA All census tracts in the Gallatin county qualify as rural. Greene Adams Hamilton Blackford Latah Hancock Cass Lemhi Hardin Clinton Lewis Henderson Crawford Lincoln Iroquois Daviess Madison Jasper Decatur Minidoka Jefferson DeKalb Oneida Jo Daviess Dubois Payette Johnson Fayette Power Knox Fountain Shoshone LaSalle Franklin Teton Lawrence Fulton Lee Twin Falls Gibson Livingston Grant This county is eligible Logan even though it is Greene Marion Henry designated as a Mason Metropolitan County. Huntington Massac Jackson All census tracts in the McDonough county qualify as rural. Jay Montgomery Jefferson Valley Morgan Jennings Washington Moultrie Knox Ogle Kosciusko ILLINOIS Perry Lagrange Pike Lawrence Adams Pope Brown Marshall Pulaski Martin Bureau Putnam Carroll Miami Randolph Montgomery 5 of 48 Updated 12/31/2018 Noble Clarke Pocahontas Orange Clay Poweshiek Parke Clayton Ringgold Perry Clinton Sac Pike Crawford Shelby Pulaski Davis Sioux Randolph Decatur Tama Ripley Delaware Taylor Rush Des Moines Union Spencer Dickinson Van Buren Starke Emmet Wapello Steuben Fayette Wayne Switzerland Floyd Webster Tipton Franklin Winnebago Fremont Winneshiek Union Greene Worth This county is eligible Hamilton Wright even though it is Hancock designated as a Hardin KANSAS Metropolitan County. Henry Allen All census tracts in the Howard county qualify as rural. Anderson Humboldt Atchison Wabash Ida Barber Warren Iowa Barton Wayne Jackson Bourbon White Jasper Brown Jefferson Chase IOWA Keokuk Chautauqua Kossuth Cherokee Adair Lee Adams Cheyenne Louisa Clark Allamakee Lucas Appanoose Clay Lyon Cloud Audubon Mahaska Boone Coffey Marion Comanche Buchanan Marshall Buena Vista Cowley Mitchell Crawford Butler Monona Calhoun Decatur Monroe Dickinson Carroll Montgomery Cass Edwards Muscatine Elk Cedar Obrien Cerro Gordo Ellis Osceola Ellsworth Cherokee Page Chickasaw Finney Palo Alto Ford 6 of 48 Updated 12/31/2018 Franklin Scott Green Geary Seward Harlan Gove Sheridan Harrison Graham Sherman Hart Grant Smith Hickman Gray Stafford Hopkins Greeley Stanton Jackson Greenwood Stevens Johnson Hamilton Thomas Knott Harper Trego Knox Haskell Wallace Laurel Hodgeman Washington Lawrence Jewell Wichita Lee Kearny Wilson Leslie Kiowa Woodson Letcher Labette Lewis Lane KENTUCKY Lincoln Livingston Lincoln Adair Logan Logan Anderson Lyon Lyon Ballard Madison Marion Barren Magoffin Marshall Bath Marion McPherson Bell Marshall Meade Boyle Martin Mitchell Breathitt Mason Montgomery Breckinridge McCracken Morris Caldwell McCreary Morton Calloway Menifee Nemaha Carlisle Mercer Neosho Carroll Metcalfe Ness Carter Monroe Norton Casey Montgomery Osborne Clay Morgan Ottawa Clinton Muhlenberg Pawnee Crittenden Nelson Phillips Cumberland Nicholas Pratt Elliott Ohio Rawlins Estill Owen Reno Fleming Owsley Republic Floyd Perry Rice Franklin Pike Rooks Fulton Powell Rush Garrard Pulaski Russell Graves Robertson Saline Grayson 7 of 48 Updated 12/31/2018 Rockcastle La Salle MARYLAND Rowan Lincoln Russell Madison Caroline Simpson Morehouse Dorchester Taylor Natchitoches
Load more

Recommended publications
  • ADDRESSING the METROPOLITAN CHALLENGE in BARCELONA METROPOLITAN AREA Appendix
    ADDRESSING THE METROPOLITAN CHALLENGE IN BARCELONA METROPOLITAN AREA Appendix. Case studies of five metropolitan areas: Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Greater Manchester, Stuttgart and Zürich Case Studies of Five Metropolitan Areas: Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Greater Manchester, Stuttgart and Zürich is part of the study Addressing Metropolitan Challenges in Barcelona Metropolitan Area, which was drafted by the Metropolitan Research Institute of Budapest for the Barcelona Metropolitan Area (AMB). The views expressed herein are those of the authors alone, and the AMB cannot be held responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained in this document. © Àrea Metropolitana de Barcelona June 2018 Table of contents Amsterdam . 29 Copenhagen ....................................................... 36 Greater Manchester ................................................ 42 Stuttgart .......................................................... 52 Zürich ............................................................. 60 Addressing the Metropolitan Challenge in AMB. Case Studies AMSTERDAM (Netherlands) 1. National level framework 1.1. Formal government system The Netherlands is a constitutional monarchy with that is, only binding to the administrative unit which a representative parliamentary democracy and a has developed them (OECD 2017a:21). Aside from decentralised unitary state, characterised by a strong establishing the general legal framework and setting a political tradition of broad consensus seeking in policy strategic course, the state defined
    [Show full text]
  • Part 629 – Glossary of Landform and Geologic Terms
    Title 430 – National Soil Survey Handbook Part 629 – Glossary of Landform and Geologic Terms Subpart A – General Information 629.0 Definition and Purpose This glossary provides the NCSS soil survey program, soil scientists, and natural resource specialists with landform, geologic, and related terms and their definitions to— (1) Improve soil landscape description with a standard, single source landform and geologic glossary. (2) Enhance geomorphic content and clarity of soil map unit descriptions by use of accurate, defined terms. (3) Establish consistent geomorphic term usage in soil science and the National Cooperative Soil Survey (NCSS). (4) Provide standard geomorphic definitions for databases and soil survey technical publications. (5) Train soil scientists and related professionals in soils as landscape and geomorphic entities. 629.1 Responsibilities This glossary serves as the official NCSS reference for landform, geologic, and related terms. The staff of the National Soil Survey Center, located in Lincoln, NE, is responsible for maintaining and updating this glossary. Soil Science Division staff and NCSS participants are encouraged to propose additions and changes to the glossary for use in pedon descriptions, soil map unit descriptions, and soil survey publications. The Glossary of Geology (GG, 2005) serves as a major source for many glossary terms. The American Geologic Institute (AGI) granted the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly the Soil Conservation Service) permission (in letters dated September 11, 1985, and September 22, 1993) to use existing definitions. Sources of, and modifications to, original definitions are explained immediately below. 629.2 Definitions A. Reference Codes Sources from which definitions were taken, whole or in part, are identified by a code (e.g., GG) following each definition.
    [Show full text]
  • Geology and Groun D Water Features of the Butte Valley Region Siskiyou County California
    Geology and Groun d Water Features of the Butte Valley Region Siskiyou County California By P. R. WOOD GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1491 Prepared in cooperation with the California Department offf^ater Resources UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1960 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FRED A. SEATON, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas B. Nolan, Director The U.S. Geological Survey Library catalog card for this publication appears after page 151. For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D.C. CONTENTS Page Abstract___.__-_-____________-____________-_____----_----------- 1 Introduction.___---____-______________________--_----------------- 3 Purpose and scope of the work._..._____________________----.._-- 3 Location of area.-_-___-_____________-______--_------_--------- 4 Culture and accessibility. ________-___.___-______-----_--------- 4 Previous investigations.________-_____-______-_-_---_----------- 4 Acknowledgments _________________-___-____-__------_--------- 6 Well-numbering system____-______________-______------_------- 6 Method of investigation._____-______________-__-----_---------- 7 Physical features of the area..___________________._____-___-.---_--- 10 Topography and drainage. __________________-____----_-----_--- 10 Cascade Range.--___________-__________-_-_---_-_--------- 10 Butte Valley_-___----._-_----_---_--_---_----------------- 11 Red Rock Valley area________-_--__---_-------------------- H Oklahoma district. _____________________-___---------------
    [Show full text]
  • Charter of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee*
    ‐ THE CHARTER Part I CHARTER OF THE METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE* Part I CHARTER OF THE METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE* * State constitution reference—Authority of general assembly to provide for consolidation of cities and counties. State law reference—Metropolitan governments, T.C.A., §§ 7-1-101. Annotation—Metropolitan Charter upheld, constitutionality of enabling legislation discussed, C.T.C.A., §§ 6-3701 et seq., Frazier v. Carr, 210 Tenn. 565, 360 S.W. 2d 449 (1962). ARTICLE 1. - GENERAL PROVISIONS ARTICLE 2. - POWERS ARTICLE 3. - THE METROPOLITAN COUNTY COUNCIL ARTICLE 4. - THE URBAN COUNCIL ARTICLE 5. - THE METROPOLITAN COUNTY MAYOR AND VICE MAYOR ARTICLE 6. - THE BUDGETS AND FINANCIAL MATTERS ARTICLE 7. - BOND ISSUES ARTICLE 8. - METROPOLITAN DEPARTMENTS CHAPTER 1. - DEPARTMENT OF METROPOLITAN FINANCE RELATED FISCAL PROVISIONS CHAPTER 2. - DEPARTMENT OF METROPOLITAN POLICE CHAPTER 3. - DEPARTMENT OF FIRE CHAPTER 4. - DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS CHAPTER 5. - DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND SEWERAGE SERVICES CHAPTER 6. - DEPARTMENT OF LAW CHAPTER 7. - DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION* ARTICLE 9. - PUBLIC SCHOOLS* ARTICLE 10. - PUBLIC HEALTH AND HOSPITALS Metro Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, Code of Ordinances Page 1 ‐ THE CHARTER Part I CHARTER OF THE METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE* CHAPTER 1. - PUBLIC HEALTH CHAPTER 2. - PUBLIC HOSPITALS* ARTICLE 11. - ADMINISTRATIVE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS CHAPTER 1. - GENERAL PROVISIONS CHAPTER 2. - BOARD OF EQUALIZATION CHAPTER 3. - ELECTRIC POWER BOARD CHAPTER 4. - NASHVILLE TRANSIT AUTHORITY CHAPTER 5. - METROPOLITAN PLANNING COMMISSION CHAPTER 6. - METROPOLITAN BOARD OF FAIR COMMISSIONERS CHAPTER 7. - FARMERS MARKET BOARD CHAPTER 8. - AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION BOARD CHAPTER 9.
    [Show full text]
  • The Western Environmental Technology Office (WETO) Butte, Montana ^Jj&Gs^ «*Sim«
    DOE/EM-0217 Office of Environmental Management Office of Technology Development The Western Environmental Technology Office (WETO) Butte, Montana ^jj&gS^ «*sim« •4 4 1 Technology Summary October 1994 i DISTRIBUTION OF THIS DOCUMENrT I S UNLIMITED DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, make any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. DISCLAIMER Portions of this document may be illegible in electronic image products. Images are produced from the best available original document. THE WESTERN ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY OFFICE (WETO) BUTTE, MONTANA TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword iii Introduction iv 1.0 Office of Technology Development-Sponsored Projects 1 Heavy Metals Contaminated Soil Project 1.1 Heavy-Metals-Contaminated Soil Project 3 1.2 Heavy
    [Show full text]
  • Immigration - a Way out of the Swedish Rural Population Crisis?
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Johansson, Mats Conference Paper Immigration - a way out of the Swedish rural population crisis? 56th Congress of the European Regional Science Association: "Cities & Regions: Smart, Sustainable, Inclusive?", 23-26 August 2016, Vienna, Austria Provided in Cooperation with: European Regional Science Association (ERSA) Suggested Citation: Johansson, Mats (2016) : Immigration - a way out of the Swedish rural population crisis?, 56th Congress of the European Regional Science Association: "Cities & Regions: Smart, Sustainable, Inclusive?", 23-26 August 2016, Vienna, Austria, European Regional Science Association (ERSA), Louvain-la-Neuve This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/174634 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. www.econstor.eu Paper prepared for the ERSA conference in Vienna, August 23-26, 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • Hogback Is Ridge Formed by Near- Vertical, Resistant Sedimentary Rock
    Chapter 16 Landscape Evolution: Geomorphology Topography is a Balance Between Erosion and Tectonic Uplift 1 Topography is a Balance Between Erosion and Tectonic Uplift 2 Relief • The relief in an area is the maximum difference between the highest and lowest elevation. – We have about 7000 feet of relief between Boulder and the Continental divide. Relief 3 Mountains and Valleys • A mountain is a large mass of rock that projects above surrounding terrain. • A mountain range is a continuous area of high elevation and high relief. • A valley is an area of low relief typically formed by and drained by a single stream. • A basin is a large low-lying area of low relief. In arid areas basins commonly have closed topography (no river outlet to the sea). Mountains • Typically occur in ranges. • Glaciated forms –Horn –Arête • Desert Mountains – Vertical Cliffs – Alluvial Fans 4 Mountain Landforms: Horn Deserts: Vertical Cliffs and Alluvial Fans 5 Valleys and Basins • River Valleys – U-shape (Glacial) – V-shape (Active Water erosion) – Flat-floored (depositional flood plain) • Tectonic (Fault) Valleys (Basins) – Tectonic origin – San Luis Valley – Jackson Hole – Great Basin U-shaped Valley: Glacial Erosion 6 V-shaped Valley: Active water erosion Flat-floored Valley: Depositional Flood Plain 7 Desert and Semi-arid Landforms • A plateau is a broad area of uplift with relatively little internal relief. • A mesa is a small (<10 km2)plateau bounded by cliffs, commonly in an area of flat-lying sedimentary rocks. • A butte is a small (<1000m2) hill bounded by cliffs Plateau, Mesa, Butte 8 Colorado National Monument Canyonlands 9 Desert and Semi-arid Landforms • A cuesta is an asymmetric ridge in dipping sedimentary rocks as the Flatirons.
    [Show full text]
  • Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency Strategic Plan April 2018 1.0
    Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency Strategic Plan April 2018 1.0 Introduction The Sutter-Butte Basin (Basin) covers 300 square miles bordered by the Cherokee Canal to the north, the Sutter Buttes to the west, the Sutter Bypass to the southwest and the 44-mile long Feather River to the east—see Figure 1. The Basin is home to 95,000 residents and encompasses $7 billion of damageable assets (as estimated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or USACE). The region has sustained numerous floods, including the 1955 levee failure on the Feather River, which resulted in the deaths of at least 38 people. The personal safety and economic stability of large segments of the population are reliant on flood management systems that, until recent efforts, did not begin to meet modern engineering standards. Numerous projects and programs have been implemented in the Basin over the years to reduce flood risk, including the Feather River West Levee Project, which is nearing completion. The Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency (SBFCA) leads the planning and implementation efforts in the Basin to reduce the risk of catastrophic, riverine flooding. In this role, SBFCA collaborates with local, regional, state, tribal and federal agencies and organizations. On January 13, 2016 the SBFCA Board of Directors adopted the Strategic Plan to guide these efforts. This version is the first update to the Strategic Plan. 2.0 Purpose of the Strategic Plan The purpose of the Strategic Plan is to help formulate and articulate a vision for flood management within the Basin and to describe an approach to achieve this vision.
    [Show full text]
  • Geology and Slope Stability of Crestone, CO Snodgrass Mountain Ski Area March 2008 Crested Butte, CO CHAPTER 2-- GEOLOGY
    GEO-HAZ Consulting, Inc. Geology and Slope Stability of Crestone, CO Snodgrass Mountain Ski Area March 2008 Crested Butte, CO CHAPTER 2-- GEOLOGY This chapter describes the bedrock and Quaternary geology of Snodgrass Mountain, with special emphasis of landslides. Because the area had been mapped several times before, our first task was to compare the various maps. 2.1 Methods 2.1.1 Digitizing previous landslide mapping During the winter of 2006-2007 we digitized the landslide mapping from all seven previous landslide studies (Table 2-1). These maps were georeferenced by International Alpine Design, Vail, CO, for use in our GIS, so we could visually compare the various maps. Table 2-1. Previous studies in which landslides were mapped on Snodgrass Mountain. Author Date Title Map Remarks and Digitizing Scale Gaskill et al. 1967 Geologic map of the 1:24,000 Published USGS color map; being Oh-Be-Joyful digitized by IAD quadrangle… Soule 1976 Geologic Hazards in Ca. Polygons identical to those in the Crested Butte- 1:43,000 Gaskill. Gunnison Area (9 quads) Gaskill et al. 1991 Geologic map of the 1:24,000 Published USGS color map; see Gothic quadrangle… DIGITAL APPENDIX D2.1 on DVD- ROM only Resource 1995 Geologic Hazard 1:6,000 Includes several large landslide Consultants Assessment and deposits, and many small scarps; and Mitigation Planning for digitized by Pioneer Environmental Engineers Crested Butte Mountain in 1995 (RCE) Resort Irish 1996 Geologic Hazard Study 1:12,000 Concludes that Chicken Bone, Zones 3-A and 3-B Slump Block, and toe
    [Show full text]
  • Local Government in England: Evolution and Long- Term Trends
    RESEARCH and EVALUATION (PEER REVIEWED) Local government in England: evolution and long- term trends Commonwealth Journal of Local Governance Issue 23: 2020 http://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/ojs/index.php/cjlg John B Parr Bartlett School of Planning University College London London WC1E 6BT United Kingdom Email: [email protected] Abstract This paper traces the history of local government in England (as opposed to the United Kingdom) since the early nineteenth century, and explores five long-term trends in its evolution. These are path dependence; the occurrence of major structural change; the phenomenon of policy reversal; the treatment of urban areas; and resistance to regional government. The author concludes that throughout the period under study, policy towards local government has exhibited a ‘pendulum effect’, with two opposing emphases operating in a sequential, rather than a simultaneous manner. Keywords: County, metropolitan county, unitary authority, combined authority, official region Introduction Over the last 75 years, popular interest and participation in local government in England have waned. One reason for this is the fact that central government has effectively taken control of many local- government responsibilities, either directly or indirectly. This has been accompanied (and to some extent caused) by the dependence of local authorities on central government for an increasingly large proportion of their revenues, England’s being among the highest within developed nations (Copus et al. 2017; Rhodes 1986). More generally, public interest has been diverted to issues such as globalisation, climate change, the Brexit question etc. It is also noteworthy that on those occasions when local- government issues are considered, the concern is typically with the detail of specific cases, rather than the system of public administration at the local level.
    [Show full text]
  • A Geomorphic Classification System
    A Geomorphic Classification System U.S.D.A. Forest Service Geomorphology Working Group Haskins, Donald M.1, Correll, Cynthia S.2, Foster, Richard A.3, Chatoian, John M.4, Fincher, James M.5, Strenger, Steven 6, Keys, James E. Jr.7, Maxwell, James R.8 and King, Thomas 9 February 1998 Version 1.4 1 Forest Geologist, Shasta-Trinity National Forests, Pacific Southwest Region, Redding, CA; 2 Soil Scientist, Range Staff, Washington Office, Prineville, OR; 3 Area Soil Scientist, Chatham Area, Tongass National Forest, Alaska Region, Sitka, AK; 4 Regional Geologist, Pacific Southwest Region, San Francisco, CA; 5 Integrated Resource Inventory Program Manager, Alaska Region, Juneau, AK; 6 Supervisory Soil Scientist, Southwest Region, Albuquerque, NM; 7 Interagency Liaison for Washington Office ECOMAP Group, Southern Region, Atlanta, GA; 8 Water Program Leader, Rocky Mountain Region, Golden, CO; and 9 Geology Program Manager, Washington Office, Washington, DC. A Geomorphic Classification System 1 Table of Contents Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... 5 I. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. 6 History of Classification Efforts in the Forest Service ............................................................... 6 History of Development .............................................................................................................. 7 Goals
    [Show full text]
  • Metropolitan Organization: the St. Louis Case. Commission Report
    Current Members of the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (August 1988) Private Citizens James S. Dwight, Jr., Arlington, Virginia Daniel J. Elazar, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Robert B. Hawkins, Jr., Chairman, San Francisco, California Members of the U.S. Senate David Durenberger, Minnesota Carl Levin, Michigan James R. Sasser, Tennessee Members of the U.S. House of Representatives Sander Levin, Michigan Jim Ross Lightfoot, Iowa Ted Weiss, New York Officers of the Executive Branch, U.S. Government Andrew H. Card, Deputy Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs Ann McLaughlin, Secretary of Labor Vacancy Governors John Ashcroft, Missouri John H. Sununu, Vice Chairmun, New Hampshire Vacancy Vacancy Mayors Donald M. Fraser, Minneapolis, Minnesota William H. Hudnut, 111, Indianapolis, Indiana Robert M. Isaac, Colorado Springs, Colorado Vacancy Members of State Legislatures John T. Bragg, Deputy Speaker, Tennessee House of Representatives Ross 0.Doyen, Kansas Senate David E. Nething, North Dakota Senate Elected County Officials Philip B. Elfstrom, Kane County, Illinois, County Commission Harvey Ruvin, Metropolitan Dade County, Florida, County Commission Sandra Smoley, Sacramento County, California, Board of Supervisors - , A Commission Report Metropolitan Organization: I. I.I Louis Case ADVISORY COMMISSION ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS Washington, DC 20575 September 1988 M- 158 Preface This report marks the first publication in a series izational "overlays" can knit jurisdictions together at of case studies being undertaken by ACIR in an ef- key points. Economies of large scale can be cap- fort to learn more about how complex metropolitan tured without sacrificing the economies of small areas are organized and governed in our federal sys- scale. None of these good things, of course, come tem.
    [Show full text]