DOCSLIB.ORG

1986 Comprehensive Plan, 1989 Reprint

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1986 Comprehensive Plan, 1989 Reprint THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA This document consists of the Area II Plan, adopted August 26, 1975, and all amendments adopted through October 27,1986. Any subsequent amend­ ments are available from Maps and Publications Sales, Massey Building, Fair­ fax, Virginia 246-2974. The Board of Supervisors has established a regular Annual Plan Review and updating process to insure the continuing relevance of the Plan. For infor­ mation regarding the Annua! Plan Review, please call 246-1200. This document, which is to be used in conjunction with the Area Plan maps, provides background information and planning policy guidelines for Fairfax County, as required by the Code of Virginia, as amended. 1986 EDITION (As Amended Through October 27th, 1986) 1989 REPRINT (Including, bound at the rear of this volume, the complete text and map for each amendment pertaining to this volume adopted through July 24, 1989) Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan, 1986 Edition, 1989 Reprint - Area II BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Audrey Moore, Chairman Martha V. Pennine Centreville District Vice Chairman Joseph Alexander, Lee District Katherine K. Hanley, Providence District Sharon Bulova, Annandale District Gerry Hyland, Mount Vernon District Thomas M. Davis, III, Mason District Elaine McConnell, Springfield District Lilla Richards, Dranesville District J. Hamilton Lambert, County Executive PLANNING COMMISSION Peter F. Murphy, Jr., Springfield District Chairman John R. Byers, Mt. Vernon District Maya A. Huber, At-Large David P. Bobzien, Centreville District William M. Lockwood. At-Large Patrick M. Hanlon, Providence District Carl L. Sell, Jr., Lee District Suzanne F. Harsel, Annandale District Henry E. Strickland, Mason District Stephen J. Hubbard, Dranesville District Alvin L. Thomas. At-Large James C. Wyckoff. Jr., Executive Director 246-2865 OFFICE OF COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING James P. Zook, Director D. Wayne Pumphrey, Assistant Director Barbara A. Byron, Director Zoning Evaluation Division Jane W. Gwinn, Director Zoning Administrative Division Richard G. Little, Director Planning Division OFFICE OF TRANSPORTATION Shiva K. Pant, Director 246-1100 FOR GENERAL PLAN INFORMATION, PLEASE CALL 246-1200 Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan, 1986 Edition, 1989 Reprint - Area II THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA Area II Table of Contents Page Area Plans 11 1 Overview 114 Short Term Forecasts II 6 Stable Areas " 7 McLean Planning District II 9 Vienna Planning District II 28 Fairfax Planning District II 45 Complex Areas " 59 Tysons Corner Area 11 61 Metro Station Complex Areas II 78 West Falls Church "80 Dunn Loring II 100 Vienna H 101 Gallows Road-Route 50 Complex Area II 103 Pickett Road-Fairfax Circle Complex Area II 104 Residential Infill " 105 Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan, 1986 Edition, 1989 Reprint - Area II Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan, 1986 Edition, 1989 Reprint - Area II AREA PLANS The plan has been developed in response to • growth of planned development centers; tainment of commercial expansion, and the pro­ citizen preferences, public policy guidelines, • implementation of environmental and heritage tection of environmentally valued resources. economic realities, and legitimate private sector resource protection and preservation programs; To further ensure compatible infill, special excep­ concerns and intersects. A broad, generalized, • development of economic growth areas; and tion/special permit uses should be assessed on a case- land use pattern does emerge which serves as the • creation of a responsive transportation by-case basis (except where otherwise noted in specific context for the more detailed land use and func­ network. community sector text), and considered compatible with tional recommendations. Subsequent amendments to the Comprehen­ existing development if there are no adverse impacts New compatible residential infill and the pres­ sive Plan will further address the achievement of on the transportation system, the environment, and the ervation of existing stable neighborhoods are the these objectives through the time phasing of surrounding community. major planning policies for the eastern part of the development. County—Planning Areas I, II, and IV. In the less Planned Development Centers developed Area III, west of Difficult Run in the Up­ The planned development center, a concept per Potomac Planning District and South Run in General Land Use Classifications that was successfully pioneered in Reston, is a the Pohick Planning District, the residential pat­ The Comprehensive Plan, by incorporating the means of clustering and concentrating growth in tern changes dramatically, stable neighborhoods four area plans, contains detailed land use evalua­ order to achieve a balance between new develop­ are still preserved, but in the western part of the tions and recommendations. Identification of land ment and protection of the environment. It offers a County, apart from planned development centers, areas into stable, complex, and option areas mixture of housing types and densities, rather the dense residential and commercial develop­ shapes the major policy framework of the plans. than the usual low-density sprawl, and encour­ ment that characterizes the closer-in areas does All infill shall be of a type and density which is ages a coordinated mixture of land uses including not appear. Also, many western County stable compatible with the affected area. All buffering open space, public facilities, and commercial de­ areas such as Great Falls include large tracts of measures between different uses and densities velopment. The concept encourages the expan­ undeveloped land and areas of environmental con­ shall consist of preserving, maintaining, and utiliz­ sion of job opportunities and less reliance on the servation. ing natural vegetation, particularly trees, as buf­ automobile for long-distance commuting, thus re­ Growth centers, generally referred to as planned fers to the maximum extent physically possible ducing noise and air pollution, and contributing to development centers, are strategically located and whatever other measures are necessary. the quality of living. throughout the County and are designed to house Large undeveloped areas in the eastern part of the increased population which is not absorbed by Stable Areas the County, such as the Chiles and Lehigh tracts, infill of stable areas. In the eastern part of the Stable areas cover most of the County where the Fairfax Center Area and the area near Tysons County, these planned development centers are existing residential and commercial development Corner, are often treated as potential planned large undeveloped areas usually enclosed by ex­ make infill with compatible land uses an appropri­ development centers with a mixture of land uses isting surrounding development, such as the ate planning solution. The recognition that an at relatively high densities. Development centers Tysons Corner quadrangle. In the west, the land area is stable does not mean a policy of inaction. in the western part of the County consist of the designated for planned development centers is by Actions such as infill density control, buffer re­ major ones at Reston/Herndon and Centreville and large presently undeveloped with substantial quirements, and public facility provision must be and less extensive developments at Chantilly and areas nearby which are planned for environmental taken to insure that this stability is maintained. Burke. However, it is estimated that the residen­ conservation and very low-density residential tial stable infill in Area II outside of development Reston is already developing as a planned devel­ Complex Areas centers will absorb much of the projected popula­ opment center and by 1990 is expected to have a Complex areas are those faced with many land tion growth prior to 1990, since the planned devel­ population of 75,000. use problems at once, where commercial or indus­ opment centers, with the exception of Reston, will By 1990, roughly 100,000 more people will be trial development pushes against residential sec­ be in the early stages of development. employed in Fairfax County. Nonetheless, the tions, or where pressure for high-density develop­ region's core will continue to be the dominant ment threatens an environmentally sensitive area Planned Development Housing employment location for Fairfax County resi­ or would require major new public facilities. The Whereas a planned development center re­ dents. Major planned industrial development, es­ Plan establishes policy guidelines and make sig­ quired hundreds and even thousands of acres, pecially in the western portions of the county, nificant recommendations. Decisions in most planned development housing (PDH) is a county locates future basic employment activity where it complex areas must be made soon, before it is too goal that can be accomplished within a compar­ will have less impact on the congested eastern late for choosing. Complex area development atively small area. In PDH zoning, just as in the parts of the County. This location will encourage must provide for effective and suitable traditional larger planned development centers, construction reverse commuting in the opposite direction of ex­ uses within the complex area as it relates to sur­ is clustered so as to leave greater open space isting rush-hour traffic and will tend to intercept rounding stable communities. than is possible with conventional single-family and tap the labor force in the Routes 7, 50, I-66, development.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Table of Contents
    Photo by King Montgomery. by Photo Table of Contents 7 Foreword 8 Fly Fishing Virginia 11 Flies to Use in Virginia 17 Top Virginia Fly Fishing Waters 19 Accotink Creek 21 Back Creek 25 Big Wilson Creek 29 Briery Creek Lake 33 Chesapeake Bay Islands Beasley. Beau by Photo 37 Conway River 41 Dragon Run 43 Gwynn Island 47 Holmes Run Beasley. Beau by Photo 51 Holston River, South Fork 53 Jackson River, Lower Section 59 Jackson River, Upper Section 63 James River, Lower Section 67 James River, Upper Section 71 Lake Brittle 75 Lynnhaven River, Bay, & Inlet 79 Maury River 4 Photo by Eric Evans. Eric by Photo 83 Mossy Creek 87 New River, Lower Section 91 New River, Upper Section 95 North Creek 97 Passage Creek 99 Piankatank River 101 Rapidan River, Lower Section Beasley. Beau by Photo 105 Rapidan River, Upper Section 109 Rappahannock River, Lower Section 113 Rappahannock River, Upper Section 117 Rivanna River 121 Rose River 125 Rudee Inlet 129 Shenandoah River, North Fork Photo by Beau Beasley. Beau by Photo 133 Shenandoah River, South Fork 137 South River 141 St. Mary’s River 145 Whitetop Laurel Creek Chris Newsome. by Photo 148 Private Waters 151 Resources 155 Conservation 156 Other No Nonsense Guides 158 Fly Fishing Knots 5 Arlington 81 66 Interstate South U.S. Highway River 95 State Highway 81 Other Roadway 64 64 Richmond Virginia Boat Launch 64 460 Fish Hatchery Roanoke Hampton 81 95 To Campground 77 58 Hermitage 254 To Grottoes To 340 Staunton ay rkw n Pa ema Hop 254 ver Ri 250 h ut So 340 340 1 Waynesboro To 2 Staunton 2 3 664 64 624 To Charlottesville 250 er iv R h ut 64 So 624 To 1 Constitution Park–Home of Charlottesville Virginia Fly Fishing Festival 2 Good Wading 3 Low water dam South River 136 South River outh River is one of the most underrated fisheries in the Old Dominion.
    [Show full text]
  • 1986 Comprehensive Plan
    THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA This document consists of the Area i Plan, adopted June 16,1975, and all amend­ ments adopted through October 27, 1986. Any subsequent amendments are available from Maps and Publications Sales, Massey Building, Fairfax, Virginia 691-2974. The Board of Supervisors has established a regular Annual Plan Review and updating process to insure the continuing relevance of the Pian. For informa­ tion regarding the Annual Plan Review, please call 691-2641. This document, which is to be used in conjunction with the Area Plan maps, provides background information and planning policy guidelines for Fairfax County, as required by the Code of Virginia, as amended. 1986 EDITION (As Amended Through October 27th, 1986) Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan, 1986 Edition, Area I BOARD OF SUPERVISORS John F. Herrity, Chairman Mrs. Martha V. Pennino, Centreville District Vice Chairman Joseph Alexander, Lee District Nancy K. Falck, Dranesville District Thomas M. Davis, Mason District Katherine K. Hanley, Providence District T. Farrell Egge, Mount Vernon District Elaine McConnell, Springfield District Audrey Moore, Annandale District J. Hamilton Lambert, County Executive Denton U. Kent, Deputy County Executive for Planning and Development PLANNING COMMISSION George M. Lilly, Dranesville District Chairman John R. Byers, Mt. Vernon District Peter F. Murphy, Jr., Springfield District Patrick M. Hanlon, Providence District Carl L. Sell, Jr., Lee District Suzanne F. Harsel, Annandale District Robert R. Sparks, Jr., Mason District Ronald W. Koch, At-Large John H. Thillmann, Centreville District William M. Lockwood, At-Large Alvin L. Thomas, At-Large James C. Wyckoff, Jr., Executive Director OFFICE OF COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING James P.
    [Show full text]
  • Native Vascular Flora of the City of Alexandria, Virginia
    Native Vascular Flora City of Alexandria, Virginia Photo by Gary P. Fleming December 2015 Native Vascular Flora of the City of Alexandria, Virginia December 2015 By Roderick H. Simmons City of Alexandria Department of Recreation, Parks, and Cultural Activities, Natural Resources Division 2900-A Business Center Drive Alexandria, Virginia 22314 [email protected] Suggested citation: Simmons, R.H. 2015. Native vascular flora of the City of Alexandria, Virginia. City of Alexandria Department of Recreation, Parks, and Cultural Activities, Alexandria, Virginia. 104 pp. Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................................ 2 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 2 Climate ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Geology and Soils .................................................................................................................... 3 History of Botanical Studies in Alexandria .............................................................................. 5 Methods ............................................................................................................................................ 7 Results and Discussion ....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Pohick Creek Watershed Management Plan Are Included in This Section
    Watershed Management Area Restoration Strategies 5.0 Watershed Management Area Restoration Strategies The Pohick Creek Watershed is divided into ten smaller watershed management areas (WMAs) based on terrain. Summaries of Pohick Creek’s ten WMAs are listed in the following WMA sections, including field reconnaissance findings, existing and future land use, stream conditions and stormwater infrastructure. For Fairfax County planning and management purposes the WMAs have been further subdivided into smaller subwatersheds. These areas, typically 100 – 300 acres, were used as the basic units for modeling and other evaluations. Each WMA was examined at the subwatershed level in order to capture as much data as possible. The subwatershed conditions were reviewed and problem areas were highlighted. Projects were proposed in problematic subwatersheds. The full Pohick Creek Draft Watershed Workbook, which contains detailed watershed characterizations, can be found in the Technical Appendices. Pohick Creek has four major named tributaries (see Map 3-1.1 in Chapter 3). In the northern portions of the watershed two main tributaries converge into Pohick Creek stream. The Rabbit Branch tributary begins in the highly developed areas of George Mason University and Fairfax City, while Sideburn Branch tributary begins in the highly developed area southwest of George Mason University. The confluence of these two headwater tributaries forms the Pohick Creek main stem. The Middle Run tributary drains Huntsman Lake and moderately-developed residential areas. The South Run tributary drains Burke Lake and Lake Mercer, as well as the low-density southwestern portion of the watershed. The restoration strategies proposed to be implemented within the next ten years (0 – 10-year plan) consist of 90 structural projects.
    [Show full text]
  • Authorization to Discharge Under the Virginia Stormwater Management Program and the Virginia Stormwater Management Act
    COMMONWEALTHof VIRGINIA DEPARTMENTOFENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Permit No.: VA0088587 Effective Date: April 1, 2015 Expiration Date: March 31, 2020 AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE VIRGINIA STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND THE VIRGINIA STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ACT Pursuant to the Clean Water Act as amended and the Virginia Stormwater Management Act and regulations adopted pursuant thereto, the following owner is authorized to discharge in accordance with the effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in this state permit. Permittee: Fairfax County Facility Name: Fairfax County Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System County Location: Fairfax County is 413.15 square miles in area and is bordered by the Potomac River to the East, the city of Alexandria and the county of Arlington to the North, the county of Loudoun to the West, and the county of Prince William to the South. The owner is authorized to discharge from municipal-owned storm sewer outfalls to the surface waters in the following watersheds: Watersheds: Stormwater from Fairfax County discharges into twenty-two 6lh order hydrologic units: Horsepen Run (PL18), Sugarland Run (PL21), Difficult Run (PL22), Potomac River- Nichols Run-Scott Run (PL23), Potomac River-Pimmit Run (PL24), Potomac River- Fourmile Run (PL25), Cameron Run (PL26), Dogue Creek (PL27), Potomac River-Little Hunting Creek (PL28), Pohick Creek (PL29), Accotink Creek (PL30),(Upper Bull Run (PL42), Middle Bull Run (PL44), Cub Run (PL45), Lower Bull Run (PL46), Occoquan River/Occoquan Reservoir (PL47), Occoquan River-Belmont Bay (PL48), Potomac River- Occoquan Bay (PL50) There are 15 major streams: Accotink Creek, Bull Run, Cameron Run (Hunting Creek), Cub Run, Difficult Run, Dogue Creek, Four Mile Run, Horsepen Run, Little Hunting Creek, Little Rocky Run, Occoquan Receiving Streams: River, Pimmit run, Pohick creek, Popes Head Creek, Sugarland Run, and various other minor streams.
    [Show full text]
  • Creating a Pedestrian Friendly Tysons Corner
    CREATING A PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY TYSONS CORNER By RYAN WING A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2010 1 © 2010 Ryan Wing 2 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my chair, Joseli Macedo, and cochair, Richard Schneider, for their time, encouragement and recommendations to help this become a better, more complete document. Just when you think everything is done and you have a completed thesis, they come back to tell you more that they want to see and ways to improve it. I would like to thank my parents for their constant encouragement and support. Throughout the research and writing process they were always urging me along with kind and motivating words. They would be the constant reminder that, despite having seven years to finish the thesis once the program is started, that I was not allowed to take that long. 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................. 3 LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... 6 ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................... 8 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 10 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ...........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Stouffer's Starts Running Morss Hall Food Service
    NEWSPAPEROF THE UNDERGRADUATES OF THE ASSACHUSETTS INSTITUE OF TECHNLOGY OFFICIAL .. NWSPPEROF THE UNDERGRADUATES OF THE MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY OL. LXKVII NOo. I CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS, FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1957 5 CENT i r i -4 -- , - I -- , ry Library Guards Stouffer's Starts Running o Curb Book Thefts aut Chief Woe Is $s Morss Hall Food Service "I honestly don't lknow of any food- about the deterioration of Commons "We are the last major urban in- meals, Mr. Maclaurin said that about itution to initiate such a plan," service company which serves as good food at such low prices." In this way, the only appreciable change made tes Professor W. N. Locke, Direc- was in limiting the number of bev- r of the Institute Libraries, of the R. Colin Maclaurin, Director of Gen- eral Services, describes Stouffer's, elages served on Commons to one in- ew library "Book checking" policy. stead of three, as previously. This -ting. the inconvenience to Institute the firm which will manage the din- ing service in Morss Hall and Pritch- and the other minor changes in the udents and faculty of the some five food were necessary in view of the ousand odd dollars of "missing" et Lounge this term. In a few weeks, Stouffer's recipes rising costs of food and labor within oks which plague the system annu- the last few years. For example, the ly, Locke emphasized the "frustrat- will be used to prepare the food serv- ed in Walker Memorial, and the firm salaries of the employees were re- g" nature of book disappearances cently raised by 10%.
    [Show full text]
  • Shuttle Services at Metro Facilities August 2011
    Shuttle Services at Metro Facilities August 2011 Shuttle Services at Metro Facilities Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Office of Bus Planning August 2011 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Office of Bus Planning Jim Hamre, Director of Bus Planning Krys Ochia, Branch Manager 600 5th Street NW Washington, DC 20001 Parsons Brinckerhoff Brian Laverty, AICP, Project Manager Nicholas Schmidt, Task Manager 1401 K Street NW, Suite 701 Washington, DC 20005 Contents Executive Summary ES-1 Existing Conditions ES-1 Policies and Procedures ES-2 Future Demand ES-3 Recommendations ES-4 Introduction 1 Study Process 3 Coordination 3 On-Site Observations 3 Operating Issues 3 Future Demand 4 Permitting and Enforcement 4 Existing Conditions 7 Key Observations 8 Operating Issues 9 Policies and Procedures 17 Permitting 17 Enforcement 19 Future Demand 25 Methodology 25 Results 28 Recommendations 33 Facility Design 34 Demand Management 37 Permitting 39 Enforcement 42 Contents | i Figures Figure ES-1: Future Shuttle Demand Estimate ES-4 Figure 1: Location of Peer U.S. Transit Agencies 4 Figure 2: Study Stations 7 Figure 3: Vehicles in Tight Turning Areas May Block Bus Bay Entrances (New Carrollton Station) 11 Figure 4: Long Kiss & Ride Queue (New Carrollton Station) 11 Figure 5: Pedestrian Shortcut (Southern Avenue Station) 11 Figure 6: Shuttle Blocking Kiss & Ride Travel Lane (King Street Station) 12 Figure 7: Shuttle Blocking Bus Stop (Anacostia Station) 13 Figure 8: Typical Signs Prohibiting Non-Authorized Access to Station Bus Bays
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Resources Technical Report
    TRANSFORM 66 OUTSIDE the Beltway I-66 CORRIDOR 66 IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT Multimodal Solutions - 495 to Haymarket Tier 2 Draft Environmental Assessment 193 Town of Natural Resources TechnicalTown of Report Middleburg Herndon LOUDOUN FAUQUIER 50 267 Washington Dulles McLean International Airport 309 28 286 Tysons Corner West Falls Church 7 Chantilly Dunn Loring FALLS 123 CHURCH 29 Vienna LOUDOUN Fair Lakes 50 FAIRFAX CO. 66 15 FAIRFAX CITY Centreville 286 29 236 Manassas National Battlefield Park Haymarket Fairfax Station Springfield 66 Gainesville 234 28 MANASSAS PARK PRINCE WILLIAM 29 FAUQUIER 234 123 286 215 Ft. Belvoir MANASSAS MAY 12, 2015 Tier 2 Draft Environmental Assessment Natural Resources Technical Report Draft – May 12, 2015 I-66 Corridor Improvements Project – Natural Resources Technical Report May 12, 2015 Table of Contents Chapter 1 – Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Project Description ..................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Methods ...................................................................................................................................... 1-2 Chapter 2 – Affected Environment ......................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Water Resources ......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Arlington County, Virginia (All Jurisdictions)
    VOLUME 1 OF 1 ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA (ALL JURISDICTIONS) COMMUNITY NAME COMMUNITY NUMBER ARLINGTON COUNTY, 515520 UNINCORPORATED AREAS PRELIMINARY 9/18/2020 REVISED: TBD FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 51013CV000B Version Number 2.6.4.6 TABLE OF CONTENTS Volume 1 Page SECTION 1.0 – INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 The National Flood Insurance Program 1 1.2 Purpose of this Flood Insurance Study Report 2 1.3 Jurisdictions Included in the Flood Insurance Study Project 2 1.4 Considerations for using this Flood Insurance Study Report 2 SECTION 2.0 – FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT APPLICATIONS 13 2.1 Floodplain Boundaries 13 2.2 Floodways 17 2.3 Base Flood Elevations 18 2.4 Non-Encroachment Zones 19 2.5 Coastal Flood Hazard Areas 19 2.5.1 Water Elevations and the Effects of Waves 19 2.5.2 Floodplain Boundaries and BFEs for Coastal Areas 21 2.5.3 Coastal High Hazard Areas 21 2.5.4 Limit of Moderate Wave Action 22 SECTION 3.0 – INSURANCE APPLICATIONS 22 3.1 National Flood Insurance Program Insurance Zones 22 SECTION 4.0 – AREA STUDIED 22 4.1 Basin Description 22 4.2 Principal Flood Problems 23 4.3 Non-Levee Flood Protection Measures 24 4.4 Levees 24 SECTION 5.0 – ENGINEERING METHODS 27 5.1 Hydrologic Analyses 27 5.2 Hydraulic Analyses 32 5.3 Coastal Analyses 37 5.3.1 Total Stillwater Elevations 38 5.3.2 Waves 38 5.3.3 Coastal Erosion 38 5.3.4 Wave Hazard Analyses 38 5.4 Alluvial Fan Analyses 39 SECTION 6.0 – MAPPING METHODS 39 6.1 Vertical and Horizontal Control 39 6.2 Base Map 40 6.3 Floodplain and Floodway Delineation 41 6.4 Coastal Flood Hazard Mapping 51 6.5 FIRM
    [Show full text]
  • Program to Recognize Excellence in Student Literary Magazines, 1985. Ranked Magazines. INSTITUTION National Council of Teachers of English, Urbana
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 265 562 CS 209 541 AUTHOR Gibbs, Sandra E., Comp. TITLE Program to Recognize Excellence in Student Literary Magazines, 1985. Ranked Magazines. INSTITUTION National Council of Teachers of English, Urbana, PUB DATE Mar 86 NOTE 88p. PUB TYPE Reference Materials - General (130) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC04 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Awards; Creative Writing; Evaluation Criteria; Layout (Publications); Periodicals; Secondary Education; *Student Publications; Writing Evaluation IDENTIFIERS Contests; Excellence in Education; *Literary Magazines; National Council of Teachers of English ABSTRACT In keeping with efforts of the National Council of Teachers of English to promote and recognize excellence in writing in the schools, this booklet presents the rankings of winning entries in the second year of NCTE's Program to Recognize Excellence in Student Literary Magazines in American and Canadian schools, and American schools abroad. Following an introduction detailing the evaluation process and criteria, the magazines are listed by state or country, and subdivided by superior, excellent, or aboveaverage rankings. Those superior magazines which received the program's highest award in a second evaluation are also listed. Each entry includes the school address, student editor(s), faculty advisor, and cost of the magazine. (HTH) ***********************************************w*********************** * Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best thatcan be made * * from the original document. * *********************************************************************** National Council of Teachers of English 1111 Kenyon Road. Urbana. Illinois 61801 Programto Recognize Excellence " in Student LiteraryMagazines UJ 1985 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) Vitusdocument has been reproduced as roomed from the person or organization originating it 0 Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction Quality.
    [Show full text]
  • Feeder List SY2016-17
    Region 1 Elementary School Feeder By High School Pyramid SY 2016-17 Herndon High School Pyramid Aldrin ES Herndon MS - 100% Herndon HS - 100% Armstrong ES Herndon MS - 100% Herndon HS - 100% Clearview ES Herndon MS - 100% Herndon HS - 100% Dranesville ES Herndon MS - 100% Herndon HS - 100% Herndon ES Herndon MS - 100% Herndon HS - 100% Hutchison ES Herndon MS - 100% Herndon HS - 100% Herndon MS Herndon HS - 100% Langley High School Pyramid Churchill Road ES Cooper MS - 100% Langley HS - 100% Colvin Run ES Cooper MS - 69% / Longfellow MS - 31% Langley HS - 69% / McLean HS - 31% Forestville ES Cooper MS - 100% Langley HS - 100% Great Falls ES Cooper MS - 100% Langley HS - 100% Spring Hill ES Cooper MS - 67% / Longfellow MS - 33% Langley HS - 67% / McLean HS - 33% Cooper MS Langley HS - 100% Madison High School Pyramid Cunningham Park ES Thoreau MS - 100% Madison HS - 76% / Marshall HS - 24 % Flint Hill ES Thoreau MS - 100% Madison HS - 100% Louise Archer ES Thoreau MS - 100% Madison HS - 100% Marshall Road ES Thoreau MS - 63% / Jackson MS - 37% Madison HS - 63% / Oakton HS - 37% Vienna ES Thoreau MS - 97% / Kilmer MS - 3% Madison HS - 97% / Marshall HS - 3% Wolftrap ES Kilmer MS - 100% Marshall HS - 61% / Madison HS - 39% Thoreau MS Madison HS - 89% / Marshall HS - 11% Based on September 30, 2016 residing student counts. 1 Region 1 Elementary School Feeder By High School Pyramid SY 2016-17 Oakton High School Pyramid Crossfield ES Carson MS - 92% / Hughes MS - 7% / Franklin - 1% Oakton HS - 92% / South Lakes HS - 7% / Chantilly - 1% Mosby
    [Show full text]