DOCSLIB.ORG

Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 181/Tuesday

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 181/Tuesday Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 181 / Tuesday, September 20, 2005 / Proposed Rules 55073 (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. at the office of the Chief Executive proposed rule is exempt from the 83.100, ‘‘Flood Insurance.’’) Officer of each community. The requirements of the Regulatory Dated: September 14, 2005. respective addresses are listed in the Flexibility Act because proposed or David I. Maurstad, table below. modified BFEs are required by the Flood Acting Director, Mitigation Division, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 Emergency Preparedness and Response Doug Bellomo, P.E., Hazard U.S.C. 4105, and are required to Directorate. Identification Section, Emergency establish and maintain community [FR Doc. 05–18730 Filed 9–19–05; 8:45 am] Preparedness and Response Directorate, eligibility in the NFIP. As a result, a BILLING CODE 9110–12–P FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, regulatory flexibility analysis has not DC 20472, (202) 646–2903. been prepared. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA Regulatory Classification DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND proposes to make determinations of This proposed rule is not a significant SECURITY BFEs and modified BFEs for each regulatory action under the criteria of community listed below, in accordance Federal Emergency Management Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of with Section 110 of the Flood Disaster Agency September 30, 1993, Regulatory Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. and 44 CFR 67.4(a). 44 CFR Part 67 These proposed base flood elevations Executive Order 12612, Federalism [Docket No. FEMA–D–7636] and modified BFEs, together with the This proposed rule involves no floodplain management criteria required policies that have federalism Proposed Flood Elevation by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that Determinations implications under Executive Order are required. They should not be 12612, Federalism, dated October 26, AGENCY: Federal Emergency construed to mean that the community 1987. Management Agency (FEMA), must change any existing ordinances Emergency Preparedness and Response that are more stringent in their Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice Directorate, Department of Homeland floodplain management requirements. Reform Security. The community may at any time enact This proposed rule meets the stricter requirements of its own, or ACTION: Proposed rule. applicable standards of Section 2(b)(2) pursuant to policies established by other of Executive Order 12778. SUMMARY: Technical information or Federal, State or regional entities. These comments are requested on the proposed elevations are used to meet List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67 proposed Base (1% annual chance) the floodplain management Administrative practice and Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed requirements of the NFIP and are also procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting BFE modifications for the communities used to calculate the appropriate flood and recordkeeping requirements. insurance premium rates for new listed below. The BFEs are the basis for Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is buildings built after these elevations are the floodplain management measures proposed to be amended as follows: that the community is required either to made final, and for the contents in these adopt or to show evidence of being buildings. PART 67—[AMENDED] already in effect in order to qualify or National Environmental Policy Act remain qualified for participation in the 1. The authority citation for part 67 National Flood Insurance Program This proposed rule is categorically continues to read as follows: (NFIP). excluded from the requirements of 44 Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; CFR part 10, Environmental DATES: Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, The comment period is ninety Consideration. No environmental (90) days following the second 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, impact assessment has been prepared. 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. publication of this proposed rule in a newspaper of local circulation in each Regulatory Flexibility Act § 67.4 [Amended] community. The Mitigation Division Director of 2. The tables published under the ADDRESSES: The proposed BFEs for each the Emergency Preparedness and authority of § 67.4 are proposed to be community are available for inspection Response Directorate certifies that this amended as follows: #Depth in feet above ground *Elevation in feet (NGVD) Communities Source of flooding Location •Elevation in feet (NAVD) affected Existing Modified FLORIDA Alachua County Little Hatchet Creek ....... Approximately 0.59 mile upstream of the entrance •86 •85 Alachua County (Unincorporated to Gum Root Swamp. Areas). Approximately 4,400 feet upstream of the en- •94 •89 trance to Gum Root Swamp. Little Monteocha Creek .. At the confluence with Monteocha Creek .............. None •102 Alachua County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 100 feet upstream of County Route None 135 340. VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:23 Sep 19, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20SEP1.SGM 20SEP1 55074 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 181 / Tuesday, September 20, 2005 / Proposed Rules #Depth in feet above ground *Elevation in feet (NGVD) Communities Source of flooding Location •Elevation in feet (NAVD) affected Existing Modified Monteocha Creek ........... Approximately 1,700 feet upstream of the con- •95 •96 Alachua County (Unincorporated fluence with Sante Fe River. Areas). Approximately 2.48 miles upstream of County None •160 Route 340. Rhoda Branch ................ At the confluence with Sunshine Lake .................. None •91 Alachua County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 440 feet upstream of County Route None •136 231. Rocky Creek ................... Approximately 1,220 feet upstream of the Santa •84 •85 Alachua County (Unincorporated Fe River. Areas). Approximately 1.74 miles upstream of County None •174 Route 329. Rocky Creek Tributary ... At the confluence with Rocky Creek ...................... None •114 Alachua County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1.48 miles upstream of the con- None •139 fluence with Rocky Creek. Grass Prairie .................. ................................................................................. None •64 Alachua County (Unincorporated Areas). Ledwith Lake .................. ................................................................................. None •69 Alachua County (Unincorporated Areas). Levy Lake East .............. ................................................................................. None •65 Alachua County (Unincorporated Areas). Lochloosa Lake .............. ................................................................................. None •61 Alachua County (Unincorporated Areas). Mud Pond ....................... ................................................................................. None •71 Alachua County (Unincorporated Areas). Orange Lake .................. ................................................................................. None •61 Alachua County (Unincorporated Areas). Sunshine Lake ............... ................................................................................. None •89 Alachua County (Unincorporated Areas). Unnamed Lake West of Approximately 1,500 feet south of the intersection None •95 Sunshine Lake. of State Highway 235 and State Highway 329. Kanapaha Prairie ........... None •64 Alachua County (Unincorporated Areas). Little Manteocha Creek At the confluence with Little Manteocha Creek ..... None •107 Alachua County (Unincorporated Diversion. Areas). Divergence from Little Manteocha Creek .............. None •122 Little Manteocha Creek At the confluence with Little Manteocha Creek Di- None •108 Alachua County (Unincorporated Diversion Tributary. version. Areas). Approximately 100 feet upstream of County Road None •110 31A. Levy Lake-West ............. ................................................................................. None •65 Alachua County (Unincorporated Areas). Levy Lake-North ............. ................................................................................. None •65 Alachua County (Unincorporated Areas). Kanapaha Sink ............... ................................................................................. None •64 Alachua County (Unincorporated Areas). Unnamed flooding area Connecting channel between Levy Lake-East and None #1 Alachua County (Unincorporated between Levy Lake Ledwith Lake. Areas). and Zedwith Lake. Unnamed Pond West of Approximately 0.96 mile west of Lake Ledwith on None •76 Alachua County (Unincorporated Ledwith Lake. the Marion County boundary. Areas). Unnamed Pond North of Approximately 1,400 feet north of Mud Pond ........ None •67 Alachua County (Unincorporated Mud Pond. Areas). Unnamed Ponding Area Approximately 1,000 feet south of Levy Lake- None •65 Alachua County (Unincorporated No. 1 South Levy Lake West. Areas). West. Unnamed Ponding Area Approximately 2,000 feet south of Levy Lake- None •66 Alachua County (Unincorporated No. 2 South of Levy West. Areas). Lake-West. Hogtown Creek Tributary Approximately 400 feet downstream of Northwest None •155 City of Gainesville. 1. 53rd Avenue. Approximately 300 feet upstream of Northwest None •167 53rd Avenue. Alachua County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps available for inspection at the Alachua County Department of Public Works, 5620 Northwest 120th Lane, Gainesville, Florida. Send comments to Mr. Randall H. Reid, Alachua County Manager, P.O. Box 2877, 12 Southeast 1st Street,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • ABSTRACT PALMER, TRISHA DENISE. The
    ABSTRACT PALMER, TRISHA DENISE. The Role of Land-Surface Hydrology on Small Stream Flash Flooding in Central North Carolina. (Under the direction of Dr. Sethu Raman and Kermit Keeter.) In order to determine the influence of various factors on flash flooding, six case studies during which flash flooding occurred across central North Carolina are examined: 1) 26 August 2002, 2) 11 October 2002, 3) 9-10 April 2003, 4) 16 June 2003, 5) 29 July 2003, and 6) 9 August 2003. Utilizing stream gage data from the United States Geological Survey combined with radar-estimated precipitation from the Weather Surveillance Radar-1988 Doppler (WSR-88D) KRAX near Clayton, NC, several statistical conclusions are drawn. These conclusions are based on relationships between the inputs – rain rate and precipitation amount – to the stream responses: the amount of time between when the stream began its rise and when the maximum stage was reached, the amount of time between the onset of precipitation and the initial response of the stream, the maximum stage reached, the change in height of the stream, and the rate of change of height of the stream. Results indicate that precipitation rate and amount tend to dominate the influence of stream response; however, in many situations, land-surface characteristics play an important role. The notable situations where precipitation rate and amount do not dominate are along the major rivers, in locations with sandy soils where infiltration is high, and in urban areas, where runoff occurs rapidly and streams thus respond quickly regardless of precipitation rate or amount. In addition, rain rate and precipitation amount do not necessarily have similar relationships with the stream response variables; rain rate has a stronger correlation with rate of change of stream rise, while precipitation amount has a stronger correlation with change in stream height.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Phase Iii Remedial Investigation Report Volume I Text and Appendices
    FINAL PHASE III REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VOLUME I TEXT AND APPENDICES For REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION AND FEASIBILITY STUDY COLD REGIONS RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING LABORATORY (CRREL) HANOVER, NEW HAMPSHIRE Contract No.: W912WJ-11-D-0005 TASK ORDER 0004 Prepared for: New England District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 696 Virginia Road Concord MA 01742-2751 June 29, 2018 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - New England District Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory Hanover, New Hampshire Final Phase III Remedial Investigation Report – Volume I TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... ES-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 REGULATORY STATUS ................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ....................................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE RI REPORT ...................................................................................... 1-2 1.4 SITE BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................... 1-3 1.4.1 Site Description (From FY 2013 CRREL Army Defense Environmental Restoration Program, Installation Action Plan, US Army Installation Command)
    [Show full text]
  • Lake & Reservoir Assessments Cape Fear River Basin
    LAKE & RESERVOIR ASSESSMENTS CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN Carthage City Lake Intensive Survey Unit Environmental Sciences Section Division of Water Resources January 9, 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................... 2 GLOSSARY .................................................................................................................................. 4 OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................................. 6 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................ 7 QUALITY ASSURANCE OF FIELD AND LABORATORY LAKES DATA ................................... 7 WEATHER OVERVIEW FOR SUMMER 2013 .............................................................................. 8 ASSESSMENT BY 8-DIGIT HUC HUC 03030002 Reidsville Lake ...................................................................................................... 13 Lake Hunt .............................................................................................................. 14 Lake Higgins ......................................................................................................... 15 Lake Brandt ........................................................................................................... 16 Lake Townsend ....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • List of North Carolina Bridges
    3/31/21 Division County Number DOT # Route Across Year Built Posted SV Posted TTST 7 Alamance 2 000002 SR1529 PRONG OF HAW RIVER 1998 LGW LGW 7 Alamance 3 000003 SR1529 DRY CREEK 1954 20 29 7 Alamance 6 000006 SR1504 TRAVIS CREEK 2004 LGW LGW 7 Alamance 7 000007 SR1504 TICKLE CREEK 2009 LGW LGW 7 Alamance 11 000011 NC54 HAW RIVER 2001 LGW LGW 7 Alamance 12 000012 NC62 BIG ALAMANCE CREEK 1999 LGW LGW 7 Alamance 13 000013 SR1530 HAW RIVER 2002 LGW LGW 7 Alamance 14 000014 NC87 CANE CREEK 1929 LGW LGW 7 Alamance 15 000015 SR1530 HAW RIVER 1957 LGW LGW 7 Alamance 16 000016 NC119 I40, I85 1994 LGW LGW 7 Alamance 18 000018 SR1561 HAW RIVER 2004 LGW LGW 7 Alamance 22 000022 SR1001 MINE CREEK 1951 23 30 7 Alamance 23 000023 SR1001 STONEY CREEK 1991 LGW LGW 7 Alamance 24 000024 SR1581 STONY CREEK 1960 LGW LGW 7 Alamance 26 000026 NC62 GUNN CREEK 1949 LGW LGW 7 Alamance 27 000027 SR1002 BUTTERMILK CREEK 2004 LGW LGW 7 Alamance 28 000028 SR1587 BUTTERMILK CREEK 1986 LGW LGW 7 Alamance 31 000031 SR1584 BUTTERMILK CREEK 2005 LGW LGW 7 Alamance 32 000032 SR1582 BUTTERMILK CREEK 2012 LGW LGW 7 Alamance 33 000033 NC49 STINKING QUARTER CREEK 1980 LGW LGW 7 Alamance 34 000034 NC54 BACK CREEK 1973 LGW LGW 7 Alamance 35 000035 NC62 HAW RIVER 1958 LGW LGW 7 Alamance 36 000036 SR1613 TOM'S CREEK 1960 35 41 7 Alamance 37 000037 SR1611 PRONG STONEY CREEK 2013 LGW LGW 7 Alamance 38 000038 SR1611 STONEY CREEK 1960 33 39 7 Alamance 39 000039 SR1584 PRONG BUTTERMILK CREEK 1995 LGW LGW 7 Alamance 40 000040 NC87 BRANCH OF VARNALS CREEK 1929 LGW LGW 7 Alamance 41 000041 SR1002 STONEY CREEK 1960 34 37 7 Alamance 42 000042 SR1002 TOM'S CREEK 1960 34 38 7 Alamance 43 000043 SR1763 JORDAN CREEK 1995 LGW LGW 7 Alamance 44 000044 SR1768 JORDAN'S CREEK 1968 5 0 7 Alamance 45 000045 SR1002 JORDAN CREEK 2008 LGW LGW 7 Alamance 47 000047 SR1226 I40, I85 2004 LGW LGW This report includes NC Bridges that are less than 20' in length.
    [Show full text]
  • How to Read the Draft 2018 North Carolina 303(D) List
    How to read the Draft 2018 North Carolina 303(d) List NC River Basin Subbasin or 8-digit HUC AU Number Assessment Unit (AU) Name Spatial description of AU Length of AU - Miles or Acres Waterbody Classification Freshwater (FW) or Saltwater (SW) Assessment Criteria Status - Exceeding Criteria – for all Category 5 assessments. Reason for Rating - Brief description of reason for 303(d) listing. Parameter of Interest – Brief description of parameter causing Exceeding Criteria rating. Shown on 303(d) list as: Parameter name (Standard, Related Use, Applicability). • Standard are numeric with number and units of measure, or Nar- Narrative aquatic life standard or Advisory for fish consumption • Related Uses include HH- Human Health, AL- Aquatic Life, FC- Fish Consumption, WS- Water Supply, REC- Recreation, and SH- Shellfish Harvesting. • Applicability are NC- all NC waters, SW- Saltwaters, FW- Freshwaters, WS- Water Supply waters, SA -Shellfish waters, Tr- trout waters Category – Integrated Report category, 5 for all 303(d) listed waters. Draft 2018 NC Category 5 Assessments "303(d) List" for Public Review Broad River Basin Upper Broad Subbasin 03050105 Broad River Basin Upper Broad Subbasin 03050105 Upper Broad Subbasin 03050105 9-(22)a BROAD RIVER From Carolina Mountain Power Company to US 64/74 Classification C Length or Area 2 Units FW Miles Previous AU Number Assessment Criteria Status Reason for Rating Parameter of Interest Category Exceeding Criteria Fair Benthos (Nar, AL, FW) 5 9-(22)b1 BROAD RIVER From US 64/74 to Cove Creek Classification
    [Show full text]
  • EPA Partial Approval and Decision Document for North Carolina 2014
    DECISION DOCUMENT for the Partial Approval of the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources’ 2014 Section 303(d) List submitted on March 31, 2014 Prepared by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 Water Protection Division July 2014 1 Contents I. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 4 II. Statutory and Regulatory Background ............................................................................................... 4 A. Identification of Water Quality Limited Segments for Inclusion on the Section 303(d) List .............. 4 B. Consideration of Existing and Readily Available Water Quality Related Data and Information (40 CFR Part 130.7(b)(5)(i-iv)) ......................................................................................................................... 5 C. Priority Ranking .................................................................................................................................. 6 III. Analysis of the North Carolina Submittal ........................................................................................... 6 A. Review of North Carolina’s Identification of Waters (40 CFR 130.7(b)(6)(i - iv)) .............................. 6 1. North Carolina’s Water Quality Standards and Section 303(d) List Development .......................... 7 2. Consideration of Existing and Readily Available Water Quality-Related Data and Information ... 8 3. Assessment Unit Delineation
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report of the Selectmen, Treasurer, Road Agent, and Trustees
    ANNUAL REPORTS of the Town of Grantham New Hampshire C_Y_} FOR THE YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1977 University of Hew Hampshire Cibmrv ANNUAL REPORTS OF THE SELECTMEN, TREASURER, ROAD AGENT, AND TRUSTEES OF THE TRUST FUNDS AND OTHER OFFICERS of the Town of Grantham New Hampshire Together with the Report of the SCHOOL BOARD and the VITAL STATISTICS FOR THE YEAR 1977 GRANTHAM GRAPHICS Grantham, New Hampshire 03753 INDEX Auditor's Report 54 Balance Sheet 14 Bicentennial Committee Report 55 Budget 9 Comparative Statement 13 Detailed Statement of Expenditures, School 61 Detailed Statement of Payments 32 Enrollment 88 Fire Department Report 41 Fire Warden's Report 48 Head Teacher's Report 82 Library Report 49 Planning Board Report 36 Police Department Report 45 Report of the Trustees of Trust Funds 52 Revenue Sharing Fund Audit 54 Road Agent's Report 38 Schedule of Town Property 16 School Budget 69 School Directory 56 School Revenue 80 School Warrant 57 Statement of Appropriations and Taxes 11 Summary— Inventory of Valuation 25 Tax Collector's Report 16 Town Clerk's Report 30 Town Officers 3 Town Warrant 4 Treasurer's Report, School 68 Treasurer's Report, Town 20 Tuition Pupils 88 Uniform Classification of Payments 27 Uniform Classification of Receipts 26 Vital Statistics 89 TOWN OFFICERS Moderator Charles L. Moore Jr. Selectmen Everett R. Reney, 1978* Maurice D. Reney, 1979* Wilfred M. Hastings, 1980* Town Clerk B. Joey Holmes Treasurer Earline M. Pillsbury Planning Board Alden H. Pillsbury, 1981* Wilfred M. Hastings Merle W. Schotanus, 1980* Ella B. Reney, 1979* John H.Rockwell, 1978* Overseer of the Poor Everett R.
    [Show full text]
  • Swanzey NH 10 Corridor Study Was Financed in Part Through a Grant from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S
    Prepared for: & Swanzey NH Route 10 Corridor Study Prepared by June 2021 The preparation of the Swanzey NH 10 Corridor Study was financed in part through a grant from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. Department of Transportation, under the State Planning and Research Program of Title 23, U.S. Code. The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the U.S. Department of Transportation. Acknowledgements Southwest Region Planning Commission would like to thank the following individuals that served on and assisted the Swanzey NH 10 Corridor Study Working Group including Michael Gomarlo, Alfred “Gus” Lerandeau, Michael Branley, Matthew Bachler, Scott Self, and John Kallfelz. J. B. Mack, James Weatherly, Henry Underwood, and Lisa Murphy of the Southwest Region Planning Commission staff contributed to development of the Swanzey NH Route 10 Corridor Study. Cover photos taken by Matthew Bachler. June 2021 Swanzey NH 10 Corridor Study, 2021 1 | P a g e Table of Contents Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 3 Corridor Use Today ....................................................................................................... 4 Transportation ........................................................................................................... 4 Motorized Transportation Infrastructure
    [Show full text]
  • Executive Summary
    Executive Summary The North Carolina Department of Transportation Rail Division (NCDOT) and the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (VDRPT) in conjunction with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) propose the implementation of high speed rail (HSR) passenger service within the Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor (SEHSR) from Washington DC to Charlotte, North Carolina. The US Department of Transportation (USDOT) designated the SEHSR corridor in 1992. The designation identified Washington, DC; Richmond, VA; Raleigh, NC; and Charlotte, NC as the major urban areas to be connected. The SEHSR corridor has since been extended to include South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, and would connect the Northeast Corridor (NEC), the southeast, and the gulf coast. The fully extended corridor is illustrated in Figure ES-1. Nationally, the USDOT is seeking to develop an economically efficient, environmentally sound, and globally competitive nationwide intermodal transportation network. USDOT is developing a nationwide high speed rail network as one component of the nationwide intermodal transportation network, and the SEHSR corridor is part of that effort. The purpose for the development of the SEHSR is to offer a competitive transportation mode which would divert travelers from air and auto travel within the overall travel corridor, lessening the congestion in the corridor, improving modal balance and overall system efficiency, with a minimum of environmental impact. The system is needed because of the rapid economic and population growth in Virginia and North Carolina and the associated congestion this growth places on the existing and proposed transportation network. This growth also causes strains on the natural and human environment, and makes it increasingly difficult to increase the capacity of the existing transportation network with an acceptable level of negative impacts.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 200/Tuesday, October 17, 2006
    60988 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. publication of this proposed rule in a excluded from the requirements of 44 83.100, ‘‘Flood Insurance.’’) newspaper of local circulation in each CFR Part 10, Environmental Dated: October 4, 2006. community. Consideration. No environmental David I. Maurstad, ADDRESSES: The proposed BFEs for each impact assessment has been prepared. Director, Mitigation Division, Federal community are available for inspection Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood Emergency Management Agency, Department at the office of the Chief Executive elevation determinations are not within of Homeland Security. Officer of each community. The the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility [FR Doc. E6–17278 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] respective addresses are listed in the Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, a regulatory BILLING CODE 9110–12–P table below. flexibility analysis is not required. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Regulatory Classification. This William R. Blanton, Jr., Engineering proposed rule is not a significant DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND Management Section, Mitigation regulatory action under the criteria of SECURITY Division, 500 C Street SW., Washington, Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of DC 20472, (202) 646–3151. Federal Emergency Management September 30, 1993, Regulatory SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agency FEMA Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. proposes to make determinations of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. BFEs and modified BFEs for each 44 CFR Part 67 This rule involves no policies that have community listed below, in accordance federalism implications under Executive [Docket No. FEMA–D–7672] with Section 110 of the Flood Disaster Order 13132.
    [Show full text]
  • Unc-Wrri-94-284 Effects of Urban I
    UNC-WRRI-94-284 EFFECTS OF URBAN IZATION AND LAND-USE CHANGES ON LOW STREAMFLOW by Jack B. Evett with Contributions from Margaret A. Love and James M. Gordon Department of Civi 1 Engineering College of ~ngineering The University of North Carolina at Char1 otte Charlotte, North Carolina 28233 The research on which this report is based was financed in part by the Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, through the Water Resources Research Institute of The University of North Carol ina. The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Department of the Interior, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute their endorsement by the United States government. Agreement No. 14-08-0001 -G2O37 USGS Project No. 14 (FY93) WRRI Project No. 70122 .One hundred fifty copies of this report were printed at a cost of $1,981 -50 or $13.21 per copy. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The research on which this report is based was financed in part by the United States Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, through the N.C. Water Resources Research Institute. Margaret A. Love, a graduate student in civil engineering supported financially by the project, contributed significantly to all phases of the study. James M. Gordon, also a graduate student in civil engineering, was instrumental in developing, as part of his master's thesis, some of the statistical methodology used herein. Ms. Love contributed to the writing of the "Introduction" section; Mr. Gordon contributed to the writing of both the "Introduction" and the "Procedures" sections.
    [Show full text]
  • Cardno ENTRIX Report Template
    Comparison of Flow Estimation Methods UNRBA Monitoring Program Development and Implementation E213006400 Comparison of Flow Estimation Methods UNRBA Monitoring Program Development and Implementation Document Information Prepared for Upper Neuse River Basin Association Project Name UNRBA Monitoring Program Development and Implementation Project Number E213006400 Project Manager Lauren Elmore Date February 6, 2014, Revised March 28, 2014 Prepared for: Forrest Westall, UNRBA Executive Director PO Box 270, Butner, NC, 27509 Prepared by: Cardno ENTRIX 5400 Glenwood Ave, Suite G03, Raleigh, NC 27612 March 28, 2014 Cardno ENTRIX i FlowEstimationTM_March28_Final Comparison of Flow Estimation Methods UNRBA Monitoring Program Development and Implementation This Page Intentionally Left Blank ii FlowEstimationTM_March28_FINAL Cardno ENTRIX March 28, 2014 FlowEstimationTM_March28_Final Comparison of Flow Estimation Methods UNRBA Monitoring Program Development and Implementation Table of Contents 1 Executive Summary ......................................................................................................1-1 2 Flow Estimation Methods .............................................................................................2-1 3 Group 1 Hydrologic and Watershed Models................................................................3-1 3.1 Neuse River Basin Hydrologic Model ............................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Watershed Flow and ALLocation (WaterFALLTM) Watershed Modeling Tool .................
    [Show full text]