DOCSLIB.ORG

Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 229/Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 229/Tuesday, November 29, 2011 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules 73537 (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. ADDRESSES: The corresponding made final, and for the contents in those 97.022, ‘‘Flood Insurance.’’) preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map buildings. Dated: November 18, 2011. (FIRM) for the proposed BFEs for each Comments on any aspect of the Flood Sandra K. Knight, community is available for inspection at Insurance Study and FIRM, other than Deputy Associate Administrator for the community’s map repository. The the proposed BFEs, will be considered. Mitigation, Department of Homeland respective addresses are listed in the A letter acknowledging receipt of any Security, Federal Emergency Management table below. comments will not be sent. Agency. You may submit comments, identified National Environmental Policy Act. [FR Doc. 2011–30709 Filed 11–28–11; 8:45 am] by Docket No. FEMA–B–1233, to Luis This proposed rule is categorically BILLING CODE 9110–12–P Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering excluded from the requirements of 44 Management Branch, Federal Insurance CFR part 10, Environmental and Mitigation Administration, Federal Consideration. An environmental DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND Emergency Management Agency, 500 C impact assessment has not been SECURITY Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, prepared. Federal Emergency Management (202) 646–4064, or (email) Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood Agency [email protected]. elevation determinations are not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis 44 CFR Part 67 Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, a regulatory Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering flexibility analysis is not required. [Docket ID FEMA–2011–0002; Internal Management Branch, Federal Insurance Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Agency Docket No. FEMA–B–1233] and Mitigation Administration, Federal Planning and Review. This proposed Emergency Management Agency, 500 C rule is not a significant regulatory action Proposed Flood Elevation Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, Determinations under the criteria of section 3(f) of (202) 646–4064, or (email) Executive Order 12866, as amended. AGENCY: Federal Emergency [email protected]. Executive Order 13132, Federalism. Management Agency, DHS. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The This proposed rule involves no policies ACTION: Proposed rule. Federal Emergency Management Agency that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. SUMMARY: Comments are requested on (FEMA) proposes to make determinations of BFEs and modified Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice the proposed Base (1% annual-chance) Reform. This proposed rule meets the Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed BFEs for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the applicable standards of Executive Order BFE modifications for the communities 12988. listed in the table below. The purpose Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, of this proposed rule is to seek general 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a). List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67 information and comment regarding the These proposed BFEs and modified Administrative practice and proposed regulatory flood elevations for BFEs, together with the floodplain procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting the reach described by the downstream management criteria required by 44 CFR and recordkeeping requirements. and upstream locations in the table 60.3, are the minimum that are required. below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are They should not be construed to mean Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is a part of the floodplain management that the community must change any proposed to be amended as follows: measures that the community is existing ordinances that are more PART 67—[AMENDED] required either to adopt or to show stringent in their floodplain evidence of having in effect in order to management requirements. The 1. The authority citation for part 67 qualify or remain qualified for community may at any time enact continues to read as follows: participation in the National Flood stricter requirements of its own or Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; pursuant to policies established by other Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, these elevations, once finalized, will be Federal, State, or regional entities. 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, used by insurance agents and others to These proposed elevations are used to 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. calculate appropriate flood insurance meet the floodplain management premium rates for new buildings and requirements of the NFIP and also are § 67.4 [Amended] the contents in those buildings. used to calculate the appropriate flood 2. The tables published under the DATES: Comments are to be submitted insurance premium rates for new authority of § 67.4 are proposed to be on or before February 27, 2012. buildings built after these elevations are amended as follows: * Elevation in feet (NGVD) + Elevation in feet (NAVD) # Depth in feet above State City/town/county Source of flooding Location ** ground ∧ Elevation in meters (MSL) Existing Modified Unincorporated Areas of Mono County, California California ............... Unincorporated Blind Spring Valley ........... At the Spring Canyon Creek Benton con- None +5354 Areas of Mono fluence. County. VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:19 Nov 28, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\29NOP1.SGM 29NOP1 pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 73538 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules * Elevation in feet (NGVD) + Elevation in feet (NAVD) # Depth in feet above State City/town/county Source of flooding Location ** ground ∧ Elevation in meters (MSL) Existing Modified Approximately 4.3 miles upstream of the None +5738 Spring Canyon Creek Benton con- fluence California ............... Unincorporated Shallow flooding ............... Approximately 2.3 miles southeast of the None #1 Areas of Mono intersection of White Mountain Ranch County. Road and State Route 6. California ............... Unincorporated Shallow flooding ............... Approximately 2.7 miles southeast of the None #2 Areas of Mono intersection of White Mountain Ranch County. Road and State Route 6. California ............... Unincorporated Shallow flooding ............... Approximately 3.0 miles northeast of the None #1 Areas of Mono intersection of Goolsby Ranch Road County. and State Route 6. California ............... Unincorporated Shallow flooding ............... Approximately 2.9 miles northeast of the None #1 Areas of Mono intersection of Chidago Way and Piute County. Lane. California ............... Unincorporated Shallow flooding ............... Approximately 2.9 miles southeast of the None #3 Areas of Mono intersection of White Mountain Ranch County. Road and State Route 6. California ............... Unincorporated Spring Canyon Creek Approximately 3.4 miles downstream of None +5226 Areas of Mono Benton. Goolsby Ranch Road. County. Approximately 1.3 miles upstream of None +5483 Snipes Ranch Road. California ............... Unincorporated Spring Canyon Creek Approximately 3.1 miles upstream of the None +4233 Areas of Mono Chalfant. Inyo County boundary. County. Approximately 7.8 miles upstream of the None +4366 Inyo County boundary California ............... Unincorporated Spring Canyon Creek Approximately 3.1 miles downstream of None +4531 Areas of Mono Hammil. the Willow Creek Aqueduct. County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of State None +4722 Route 6 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ∧ Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter. ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the ref- erenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. Send comments to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emer- gency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472. ADDRESSES Unincorporated Areas of Mono County Maps are available for inspection at the Mono County Department of Public Works, 74 North School Street, Bridgeport, CA 93517. City of Carson City, Nevada Nevada .................. City of Carson City Ash Canyon Creek ........... Approximately 1,460 feet west of the #2 #1 intersection of Ash Canyon Road and Wellington West Road. Approximately 110 feet upstream of None +4761 Ormsby Boulevard Nevada .................. City of Carson City King Canyon Creek .......... Approximately 356 feet northeast of the None #2 intersection of Kings Canyon Road and Canyon Drive. Approximately 142 feet upstream of Can- None +4760 yon Park Court Nevada .................. City of Carson City Shallow flooding ............... Approximately 657 feet northeast of the None #1 intersection of Mountain Street and Tahoe Drive. Nevada .................. City of Carson City Shallow flooding ............... Approximately 324 feet east of the inter- None #1 section of Plaza Street and Ann Street. VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:19 Nov 28, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\29NOP1.SGM 29NOP1 pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules 73539 * Elevation in feet (NGVD) + Elevation in feet (NAVD) # Depth in feet above State City/town/county
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Cobb County, Georgia and Incorporated Areas
    VOLUME 1 OF 4 Cobb County COBB COUNTY, GEORGIA AND INCORPORATED AREAS COMMUNITY NAME COMMUNITY NUMBER ACWORTH, CITY OF 130053 AUSTELL, CITY OF 130054 COBB COUNTY 130052 (UNINCORPORATED AREAS) KENNESAW, CITY OF 130055 MARIETTA, CITY OF 130226 POWDER SPRINGS, CITY OF 130056 SMYRNA, CITY OF 130057 REVISED: MARCH 4, 2013 FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 13067CV001D NOTICE TO FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY USERS Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program have established repositories of flood hazard data for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes. This Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report may not contain all data available within the Community Map Repository. Please contact the Community Map Repository for any additional data. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) may revise and republish part or all of this FIS report at any time. In addition, FEMA may revise part of this FIS report by the Letter of Map Revision process, which does not involve republication or redistribution of the FIS report. Therefore, users should consult with community officials and check the Community Map Repository to obtain the most current FIS report components. Initial Countywide FIS Effective Date: August 18, 1992 Revised Countywide FIS Effective Date: December 16, 2008 Revised Countywide FIS Effective Date: March 4, 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Purpose of Study 1 1.2 Authority and Acknowledgments 1 1.3 Coordination 3 2.0 AREA STUDIED 5 2.1 Scope of Study 5 2.2 Community Description 10 2.3 Principal Flood Problems
    [Show full text]
  • Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation for Fifty-Eight Stream Segments in the Coosa River Basin for Fecal Coliform
    Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation for Fifty-Eight Stream Segments in the Coosa River Basin for Fecal Coliform Submitted to: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4 Atlanta, Georgia Submitted by: The Georgia Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Division Atlanta, Georgia January 2004 Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation January 2004 Coosa River Basin (Fecal coliform) Table of Contents Section Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. iv 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Watershed Description......................................................................................................1 1.3 Water Quality Standard.....................................................................................................9 2.0 WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT ...................................................................................... 15 3.0 SOURCE ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................... 16 3.1 Point Source Assessment ............................................................................................... 16 3.2 Nonpoint Source Assessment........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 250/Monday, December 31
    76916 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 250 / Monday, December 31, 2012 / Rules and Regulations Location and case Date and name of newspaper Effective date of Community State and county No. where notice was published Chief executive officer of community modification No. Texas: Tarrant City of Keller (11– June 24, 2011, July 1, 2011, The Honorable Pat McGrail, Mayor, City October 31, 2011 ........... 480602 (FEMA Docket 06–2181P). The Fort Worth Star-Tele- of Keller, 1100 Bear Creek Parkway, No.: B–1225). gram. Keller, TX 76248. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. ADDRESSES: The final BFEs for each 10, Environmental Consideration. An 97.022, ‘‘Flood Insurance.’’) community are available for inspection environmental impact assessment has at the office of the Chief Executive not been prepared. James A. Walke, Officer of each community. The Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood Acting Deputy Associate Administrator for respective addresses are listed in the elevation determinations are not within Mitigation, Department of Homeland table below. Security, Federal Emergency Management the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Agency. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, a regulatory Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering [FR Doc. 2012–31348 Filed 12–28–12; 8:45 am] flexibility analysis is not required. Management Branch, Federal Insurance BILLING CODE 9110–12–P Regulatory Classification. This final and Mitigation Administration, Federal rule is not a significant regulatory action Emergency Management Agency, 500 C under the criteria of section 3(f) of Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND Executive Order 12866 of September 30, (202) 646–4064, or (email) SECURITY 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • 137 CHAPTER 5 NATURAL RESOURCES ELEMENT What Are
    Chapter 5 Natural Resources Element (June 20, 2005 Draft) 137 Roswell, Georgia, Comprehensive Plan 2025 CHAPTER 5 NATURAL RESOURCES ELEMENT What are the natural features which make a township handsome? A river, with its waterfalls and meadows, a lake, a hill, a cliff or individual rocks, a forest, and ancient trees standing singly. Such things are beautiful; they have a high use which dollars and cents never represent. If the inhabitants of a town were wise, they would seek to preserve these things, though at a considerable expense… Henry David Thoreau, Journal, 1861 (Quoted in Dramstad, Olson, and Forman 1996) The Natural Resources Element provides the City with the opportunity to inventory natural and environmentally sensitive resources; to consider the issues, problems and opportunities associated with those resources; and to develop goals, policies and strategies for their appropriate use, conservation and protection that are consistent with those established for other Plan elements. An assessment of natural resources must be conducted to consider how they can most wisely and responsibly be utilized, developed, managed or preserved in order to yield maximum long- range benefits to the community. The assessment should also consider the potential vulnerability of the community's natural resources to land development and other human activities and evaluate whether protecting them is important to the future health and economic well being of the community. Levels of community support for conservation of various natural resources should also be considered. The results of this assessment should be considered in the development of needs and goals and an associated implementation strategy that sets forth any special treatment or protection to be provided these resources over the planning period.
    [Show full text]
  • Cobb County, Georgia and Incorporated Areas
    VOLUME 4 OF 4 Cobb County COBB COUNTY, GEORGIA AND INCORPORATED AREAS COMMUNITY NAME COMMUNITY NUMBER ACWORTH, CITY OF 130053 AUSTELL, CITY OF 130054 COBB COUNTY 130052 (UNINCORPORATED AREAS) KENNESAW, CITY OF 130055 MARIETTA, CITY OF 130226 POWDER SPRINGS, CITY OF 130056 SMYRNA, CITY OF 130057 REVISED: MARCH 4, 2013 FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 13067CV004C NOTICE TO FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY USERS Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program have established repositories of flood hazard data for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes. This Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report may not contain all data available within the Community Map Repository. Please contact the Community Map Repository for any additional data. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) may revise and republish part or all of this FIS report at any time. In addition, FEMA may revise part of this FIS report by the Letter of Map Revision process, which does not involve republication or redistribution of the FIS report. Therefore, users should consult with community officials and check the Community Map Repository to obtain the most current FIS report components. Initial Countywide FIS Effective Date: August 18, 1992 Revised Countywide FIS Effective Date: December 16, 2008 Revised Countywide FIS Effective Date: March 4, 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Purpose of Study 1 1.2 Authority and Acknowledgments 1 1.3 Coordination 3 2.0 AREA STUDIED 5 2.1 Scope of Study 5 2.2 Community Description 10 2.3 Principal Flood Problems
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Planning Area 3 1.2 Persons Responsible for the Plan 3 1.3 Topographic Information/Unique Features 4 1.4 Population 4 1.5 Seasonal Population Variation 4 1.6 Number of Households 5 1.7 Economic Activity 5 Section 2 WASTE DISPOSAL STREAM ANALYSIS 2.1 Disposal Rates 5 2.2 Inventory of Waste Disposed 6 2.3 Waste Characterization 6 2.4 Unique Conditions and/or Seasonal Variations 6 2.5 Waste Generating Disasters 6 2.6 Projections of Waste to be Disposed 7 2.7 Per Capita MSW Disposal Reduction Goal 7 Section 3 WASTE REDUCTION ELEMENT 3.1 Inventory of Waste Reduction Programs 8 3.2 Source Reduction Programs 9 3.3 Recycling Programs and Facilities 10 3.4 Yard Trimmings Programs & Facilities 10 3.5 Items Requiring Special Handling 10 3.6 Contingency Strategy 10 3.7 Assessment of Waste Reduction Programs 11 3.8 Needs and Goals 11 Section 4 COLLECTION ELEMENT 4.1 Inventory of Existing Programs 11 4.2 Drop-Off Convenience Centers/Curbside Collection 12 4.3 Yard Trimmings and Bulk Item Collection 13 4.4 Illegal Dumping/Littering 13 4.5 Contingency Strategy/Natural Disaster-Emergency Situation 13 4.6 Assessment of Collection Programs 14 4.7 Needs and Goals 14 Section 5 DISPOSAL ELEMENT 5.1 Inventory of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities 14 5.2 Assurance of Ten Year Capacity 15 5.3 Contingency Strategy/Natural Disaster-Emergency Situation 15 5.4 Needs and Goals 15 Section 6 LAND LIMITATION ELEMENT 6.1 Natural Environmental Limitations 16 - 1 - 6.2 Land Use & Zoning Limitations 18 6.3 Plan Consistency Process
    [Show full text]
  • 222 CHAPTER 8 URBAN DESIGN ELEMENT Urban Design Has Been
    Chapter 8 Urban Design Element (June 20, 2005 Draft) 222 Roswell, GA, Comprehensive Plan 2025 CHAPTER 8 URBAN DESIGN ELEMENT Urban design has been a key public policy concern in Roswell for more than three decades. The architectural design of development within the Historic District has been reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation Commission (see Chapter 6 of this Comprehensive Plan), formerly established as an Civic Design Commission before the Historic Preservation Act of 1980. In addition, for more than two decades, a Design Review Board has reviewed the architecture, site design, landscaping. Long before the adoption of design guidelines was the “trendy” thing for proactive municipalities to do, Roswell prepared, adopted, and implemented design guidelines for selected areas of the City. Together, these programs of architectural and site design review have helped Roswell to preserve its past, ensure quality development, and guide its future in a way that maintains and enhances its character. An Urban Design Element is not required by State rules for local planning, but given it’s past emphasis on urban design, Roswell prepared and adopted an Urban Design Element in 2000, as a part of its 2020 Comprehensive Plan. In 2000, the need to recognize all adopted design guidelines was the primary concern of the Urban Design Element. Another concern at that time related to the character and design of the City as a whole. Having divided the City into different design districts, there was some concern that the City and its Design Review Board might be losing sight of its character as a whole.
    [Show full text]
  • Community Work Program Appendix 3 Appendix 3 November 2017
    COMMUNITY WORK PROGRAM APPENDIX 3 APPENDIX 3 NOVEMBER 2017 2040 COMMUNITY WORK PROGRAM The purpose of the Community Work Program is to identify specific implementation actions the local government, or other entities, intend to undertake over the course of the next five (5) year planning period. This includes, but is not limited to, new facilities, expansion of facilities, new ordinances, revisions of existing ordinances, administrative actions, community improvements or investments, infrastructure, financing arrangements, or other programs or initiatives to be put in place to implement the plan. To facilitate the division of work among various County Divisions, the community work program is segmented by the following elements: Land Use, Transportation, Housing, Community Facilities, Natural and Historic Resources, Human Services, Economic Development, Public Safety, Disaster Resilience, Intergovernmental Coordination, Military Compatibility, and Place-Making. The following are abbreviations that are used throughout the Community Work Program ACFB Atlanta Community Food Bank EMA Emergency Management Agency ACS American Cancer Society ESG Emergency Solutions Grant AHA American Heart Association GDOT Georgia Department of Transportation ALA American Lung Association HOME Home Investment Partnership Act ARC Atlanta Regional Commission HPC Historic Preservation Commission BOC Board of Commissioners IS Information Services CAO County Attorney’s Office KCB Keep Cobb Beautiful CCES Cobb County Extension Services KSU Kennesaw State University CCID
    [Show full text]
  • Rezoning Application Analysis
    Department of Development Services 205 Lawrence Street Marietta, Georgia 30060 Rusty Roth, AICP, Director REZONING APPLICATION ANALYSIS ZONING CASE #: Z2017-19 LEGISTAR: #20170455 LANDOWNERS: White Street LLC Richard N. Hubert John J. Smith, Manager 944 Lullwater Road 2295 Towne Parkway Atlanta, GA 30307 Suite 116-215 Woodstock, GA 30189 APPLICANT: Jeremy Rutenberg & Associates, Inc. 214 Greekstone Ridge Woodstock, GA 30188 AGENT: J. Kevin Moore, Esq. Moore, Ingram, Johnson, & Steele, LLP 326 Roswell Street Marietta, GA 30060 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 223 & 271 White Street PARCEL DESCRIPTION: 16 10140 0290 & 16 10140 0250 AREA: ±1.45 acres COUNCIL WARD: 4B EXISTING ZONING: OI (Office Institutional) & R-2 (Single Family Residential – 2 units / acre) REQUEST: PRD-SF (Planned Residential Development – Single Family) FUTURE LAND USE: CSI (Community Service & Institutional) REASON FOR REQUEST: The applicant is proposing to construct eighteen (18) single family townhomes on 1.45 acres. PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING: Tuesday, June 6th, 2017 – 6:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL HEARING: Wednesday, June 14th, 2017 – 7:00 p.m. 1 Z2017-19 White St 223 & 271.docx 05/17/2017 Department of Development Services 205 Lawrence Street Marietta, Georgia 30060 Rusty Roth, AICP, Director MAP 2 Z2017-19 White St 223 & 271.docx 05/17/2017 Department of Development Services 205 Lawrence Street Marietta, Georgia 30060 Rusty Roth, AICP, Director FLU MAP 3 Z2017-19 White St 223 & 271.docx 05/17/2017 Department of Development Services 205 Lawrence Street Marietta, Georgia 30060 Rusty
    [Show full text]
  • Comprehensive System-Wide Recreation Master Plan 2001 - 2010
    COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM-WIDE RECREATION MASTER PLAN 2001 - 2010 For The CITY OF ROSWELL RECREATION COMMISSION JANUARY 2001 Prepared By ROBERT G. BETZ AICP, INC. Lilburn, Georgia INTRODUCTION The Roswell recreation system is an excellent example of what can be accomplished through the application of sound planning principles, the timely expenditure of acquisition and development dollars and the exercise of diligence in system-wide operation and maintenance practices. It is truly one of the finest systems in the southeastern United States. This, the Comprehensive System-Wide Recreation Master Plan is the fifth update to the original Action Plan for Recreation, prepared in 1969. With the exception of the 1992 Update to the Master Recreation Plan that covered an eight-year period, updates have been prepared at roughly five-year intervals. Each update has focused on the identification of land acquisition needs, making improvements to existing parks and facilities and establishing development priorities for new parks. A system-wide recreation master plan is an expression of a community's objectives, needs and priorities for leisure space, facilities, programs and service delivery. As such, it provides guidance for municipal policy formulation and the decision-making process as relates to the quality and location of recreation opportunities. It is therefore the intent of the 2000 Update to the Master Recreation Plan to accurately reflect community desires while presenting imaginative new recreational opportunities that are both functional and realistic and practical to implement. The preparation of the Comprehensive System-Wide Recreation Master Plan (the 2000 Plan) encompasses the ten-year period beginning in fiscal year 2001.
    [Show full text]
  • HUC-8, HUC-10, HUC-12 Hierarchy
    Attachment 10: Metro Water District HUC-8, HUC-10, HUC-12 Hierarchy River System Major River Basin HUC‐8 River Basin HUC‐8 # HUC‐10 Name HUC‐10 # HUC‐12 Name HUC‐12 # Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint (ACF) Chattahoochee Upper Chattahoochee River 3130001 Chattahoochee River‐Mossy Creek 313000103 White Creek‐Chattahoochee River 31300010301 Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint (ACF) Chattahoochee Upper Chattahoochee River 3130001 Chattahoochee River‐Mossy Creek 313000103 Mossy Creek 31300010302 Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint (ACF) Chattahoochee Upper Chattahoochee River 3130001 Chattahoochee River‐Mossy Creek 313000103 Mud Creek 31300010303 Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint (ACF) Chattahoochee Upper Chattahoochee River 3130001 Chattahoochee River‐Mossy Creek 313000103 Flat Creek‐Chattahoochee River 31300010304 Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint (ACF) Chattahoochee Upper Chattahoochee River 3130001 Chattahoochee River‐Mossy Creek 313000103 Limestone Creek‐Lake Sidney Lanier 31300010305 Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint (ACF) Chattahoochee Upper Chattahoochee River 3130001 Little River‐Wahoo Creek 313000104 Wahoo Creek 31300010401 Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint (ACF) Chattahoochee Upper Chattahoochee River 3130001 Little River‐Wahoo Creek 313000104 West Fork Little River 31300010402 Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint (ACF) Chattahoochee Upper Chattahoochee River 3130001 Little River‐Wahoo Creek 313000104 East Fork Little River 31300010403 Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint (ACF) Chattahoochee Upper
    [Show full text]
  • Roswell City Comprehensive Plan Community Assessment 2010
    Community Assessment DRAFT September 30, 201 0 Ce Community Assessment Comprehensive Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………...……..i People………………………………………………………………………………………...…………...I Land Use…………………………………………………………………………………...…………......II Economic Development……………………………………………………………………………...III Housing……………………………………………………………………………………...…………...IV Natural and Cultural Resources………………………………………...……………...…………....V Community Facilities…………………………………………………………..………...……………VI Intergovernmental Coordination……………………………………………………...…………...VII Transportation……………………………………………………………….…………...…………...VIII Quality Community Objectives…………………………………………………………………......IX Technical Appendix Attached Community Assessment Comprehensive Plan INTRODUCTION: ROSWELL TODAY AND TRENDS FOR TOMORROW During 2010 and 2011, the City of Roswell will undertake updating its Comprehensive Plan and plan to the year 2030. Different stakeholders will be considering a variety of questions: What can we anticipate regarding the environment, the economy and our infrastructure systems in the future? Who are we today and who are our neighbors? How do we live, work and move in and around our communities and the region? Who will our neighbors be in 20 years and what will our different needs be then? The Community Assessment and its Technical Appendix presents key data and information to help answer these kinds of questions, so that the City of Roswell’s community members and other stakeholders can prepare a vision and a 20-year plan for the future. As part of
    [Show full text]