FREE ELECTRONIC LIBRARY - Books, abstracts, thesis

Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 26 | 27 ||

«Recreation Plan Recreation Grants Branch State Parks Division 4200 Smith School Road • Austin, Texas 78744 © 2012 TPWD. PWD ...»

-- [ Page 28 ] --

___ a more equitable distribution of facilities based on geographic distribution. Please provide a map showing the current distribution of parks in your entire service area to support a need in a particular location. (4 points) ___ improves park or recreation opportunities for low income citizens based on population of the service area as evidenced by economic demographic information of the service area. (2 points) ____ improves park or recreation opportunities for minority citizens based on population of the service area. Must be supported by demographic information of the service area. (2 points) ___ improves park or recreation opportunities for elderly citizens. Activities intended to serve this population must be supported by the locally adopted master plan or other public input process.

(2 points)


___ Project involves public-public or public-private cooperation based on the percentage of the budget contributed by partners (1-5 points).

____ Number of partners involved in the project (not necessarily monetary in nature). The role of the partners must be explained. Please note that no programming-only related partnership points will be awarded.

Three partners (1 point) Four partners (2 points) Five or more partners (3 points) Texas Outdoor Recreation Plan Appendix G – Scoring Criteria

9. MASTER PLAN ___ Project Sponsor has a locally adopted and TPWD approved, parks, recreation and open space master plan that addresses outdoor recreation needs. (5 points) ___ Project meets one or more of the top five priorities as outlined by a locally adopted and TPWD approved, parks, recreation and open space master plan. (5 points) Please note that this is NOT a range, 5 points will be awarded if the project elements listed is one of the top five priorities identified in your master plan.

10. THREAT To what extent will this project reduce a threat to the public availability of a conservation or recreation opportunity?

___ No evidence presented. (0 points) ___ Minimal threat; opportunity appears to be in no immediate danger of loss in the next 36 months.

(1 point) ___ Actions under consideration could result in the opportunity becoming unavailable for public use.

(2 points) ___ Actions will be taken that will result in the opportunity becoming unavailable for future public use or a threat situation has occurred (or is imminent) and has led to a land trust acquiring rights to the land at the request of the applicant. (3 points)

Examples of threat to be discussed in the narrative:

Project acquires important conservation or recreation property that is threatened by imminent loss and/or development.

Project is taking advantage of a time sensitive economic opportunity (i.e. loss of potential funding partner if they do not act quickly) Project is addressing a significant safety hazard or needed restoration or threatened by loss of facility.



(up to 10 points) ___ Project supports the TPWD Land and Water Resources Conservation and Recreation Plan (Plan). Sponsor must specifically address how the project meets the goals of the Plan in the Project Narrative. Points will be awarded based on evidence in the project proposal of the

extent to which the proposal meets one or more of the following goals of the plan:

• Goal 1: Improve access to the outdoors.

• Goal 2: Conserve, manage, operate, and promote agency sites for recreational opportunities, biodiversity, and the cultural heritage of Texas.

• Goal 4: Increase participation in hunting, fishing, boating and outdoor recreation.

Appendix G – Scoring Criteria Texas Outdoor Recreation Plan Additional priority will also be given based on the extent to which the proposed project will stimulate sustainable economic impact, and will lead to the development or support of a conservation constituency (i.e. nature tourism participants thus creating new customers of outdoor, conservationrelated recreation).



___ Sponsor has not sufficiently addressed issues related to post completion inspections of previously funded projects (-5 points)

13. APPLICATION MATERIALS ___ A complete application was received by the application deadline (5 points)


___ Applicants have consulted with a TPWD Urban Biologist regarding the proposed site plan 30 days prior to the application deadline and comments are included in the application materials.

(5 points). Contact information for TPWD Urban Biologists is found in Appendix O.


___ Project provides park and recreation opportunities which enhance and encourage an appreciation and preservation of site-based (cultural, natural, historical and archaeological) resources through interpretation, facilities or preservation strategies. (2 points)

–  –  –

The following guidelines have been developed to help local governments prepare park, recreation, and open space master plans in accordance with the Local Park Grant Programs Manual. Points may be received through the applicable “Project Priority Scoring System” for projects which meet priorities identified in Department-acceptance, locally-endorsed parks, recreation, and open space master plans.

Please note that a master plan is not required to participate in the grant program, nor does Texas Parks & Wildlife Department acceptance of a plan guarantee that points will be awarded for any project.

At a minimum, all master plans and/or updates must meet the requirements below for acceptance. For questions or assistance, please contact the Recreation Grants office at 512/389-8175.

Submit plans and/or updates to Recreation Grants for review as early as possible, but

no later than sixty days before the application deadlines:

Because of the large number of review requests, early submission of master plans for review and approval is strongly encouraged.

It is also recommended that plans be reviewed by Recreation Grants prior to submission to the applicable governing body for final approval to preclude the sponsor from having to obtain additional approval from the governing body in the event the review finds changes to the plans are needed. Plans must be approved or submitted or postmarked in an approvable format (including resolution of adoption) by the deadlines to be eligible for project priority points.

Please provide the name and address of the contact person in the local government submitting the plan as well as the name and address of the preparer, if other than the sponsor.

The following documentation is required for acceptance by Recreation Grants:

–  –  –

Once plans are complete, the applicable governing body (city council, county commissioner’s court, district or authority board) must pass a formal resolution (or ordinance) adopting the plan and list of priority needs.


Plans must be comprehensive and include the sponsor’s entire area of jurisdiction, i.e., the entire city, county, or district, etc. Plans may be broken into planning areas, regions, districts or precincts, as needed for larger communities or counties. All planning areas, regions, districts, or precincts must be included in the plan as partial plans are unacceptable.

Plans must address the present and future needs of the community or area, not merely short-term needs. Plans that justify only one grant project will not be accepted.

Regional (multi-jurisdictional) Park, Recreation and Open Space Master Plans may be submitted to the Department for review. This plan may be utilized by those communities located within the planning region. In order for any application to be eligible for priority planning points the project sponsor must adopt the regional plan by resolution. The plan must also include all of the required master plan elements for each community wishing to utilize the regional plan; or the project sponsor must submit a supplement, by the applicable master plan deadline, that includes any required information pertaining to their community that is not included in the regional plan. Please compare the regional plan’s elements to the following plan content list to determine if supplemental information will be required by the Department.


Plans must cover at least a ten year period. Plans must be updated every five years

to remain eligible. At a minimum, updates should include a summary of:

–  –  –

Appendix H – Master Plan Guidelines Texas Outdoor Recreation Plan Priorities should be updated as high priority items are accomplished and lower priorities move up. An updated inventory will also be required. A new resolution is not required when updating priorities; however, changing the order or adding new priorities does require a new resolution.

A completely new plan is required every ten years.


All master plans must meet the following minimum requirements.


This section should discuss the unit of government for which the plan is created. Include socio-economic data; demographics on ethnicity, age, and income; current and projected population figures and their source; growth or non-growth patterns; and the government’s or agency’s role in providing parks and recreation opportunities.


Identify your parks and recreation service goals and follow with specific objectives for each goal. These should be given careful thought. State the time period of the plan.


This section is very important so that we can understand how you identified and prioritized your needs. Include who wrote the plan and when the process began. Briefly but thoroughly discuss planning committees utilized and public input received through hearings, meetings, and surveys. You must also provide public input documentation. Acceptable documentation includes a copy of the public meeting notice, sign-in sheet, and the minutes for the public meeting certified by an official sponsor representative. If a public survey is completed, an explanation of how the survey was distributed along with a copy of the survey results will be required. Please contact us if you have any questions regarding acceptable public input documentation.


This section of the plan is also very important and contributes directly to the assessment and identification of needs. You cannot properly identify needs without establishing local standards and concepts. Area/Facility standards should be determined locally. Local standards are influenced by preferences and available economic and natural resources.


Assess what parks, recreation and open space areas and facilities are currently within your system. You should also include school and private recreational facilities that are Texas Outdoor Recreation Plan Appendix H – Master Plan Guidelines open to the public. If inventory data are broken out by park, include a summary table for all parks and facilities. This inventory information is essential for assessing needs.


The following three approaches may be employed in determining parks and recreation needs: (1) demand-based, (2) standard-based, and (3) resource-based. Or a combination of these approaches may help you more accurately assess your needs.

The demand-based approach relies on information gathered from participation rates, surveys, and other information that indicates how much of the population wants certain types of facilities.

The standard-based approach uses established standards to determine facilities and park areas needed to meet the needs of a given population size. The standards may be based on demand studies, the professional judgment of park and recreation planners and designers, etc.

The resource-based approach examines the assets and resources of the area for open space, parks and recreation facilities, and defines how these resources can be utilized.

For example – the availability of a lake or river within an area is a resource which can be utilized in developing a park system.

Sponsors with large jurisdiction areas may wish to divide their jurisdiction into planning areas, regions, districts or precincts. Specific needs can then be assessed and identified within each planning unit.

Clearly identify needs and explain the methodology for determining them. Consider both outdoor and indoor recreation needs, if applicable.


A priority list of needs should be ranked in order from highest to lowest priority and state when the needs will be met.

If your plan is broken into specific planning areas, regions, districts or precincts, you may prioritize needs within each of the planning regions.

Separate priority lists may be provided for indoor and outdoor needs. Lists must be area and/or facility specific, and be ranked according to priority order. It is the option of the sponsor to present the priority lists as park/site-based or recreational element-based.

However, be aware that there are more points available in the current scoring system if priorities are compiled by recreational elements, and separated by indoor and outdoor.

Example of recreational facility-based priority lists:

–  –  –

Specific areas intended for open space acquisition and preservation should be located on a map, identified as a need, discussed, and prioritized in your plan.

Where appropriate, renovation/redevelopment needs must be discussed and may be ranked as a priority.

Renovation is defined as “to renew, make over…” Work on existing facilities to completely renew, update, or modernize such facilities so the finished product will meet present-day standards and be comparable with newly constructed similar facilities is classified as renovation.

Redevelopment means the removal of obsolete facilities and construction of new ones.

Repairs and/or maintenance may be listed as a priority, but are not eligible for grant assistance.

Identify resources for meeting your needs (e.g., city funds, in-house labor, bonds, grants, donations, etc.), and include a proposed timeline for accomplishing the plan’s priorities.


Required: City or County map, or map of jurisdiction, as appropriate.

Include maps, surveys, charts, plates, graphics, and photographs in the plan which help explain and support your planning process and conclusions.

–  –  –

Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 26 | 27 ||

Similar works:

«Birkbeck Law Review 2 – ISSUE 2 VOLUME DECEMBER 2014 Birkbeck Law Review Volume 2(2) Cover photo: © Shutterstock Inc. All rights reserved.BIRKBECK LAW REVIEW Published by the Birkbeck Law Review 14 Gower Street, London WC1E 6DP Supported by the School of Law, Birkbeck, University of London. Printed and bound in the UK by Berforts Information Press Ltd, Stevenage, Hertfordshire. All articles are © 2014 by the author(s). All other work, unless otherwise attributed, is © 2014 the Birkbeck Law...»

«#Greenbirds: Measuring Importance and Influence in Syrian Foreign Fighter Networks Joseph A. Carter Shiraz Maher Peter R. Neumann ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The research for this paper was made possible by a grant from the Government of Canada’s Kanishka Project. The authors wish to thank Dr Brett Kubicek at Public Safety Canada for his support, patience, and encouragement. The authors would also like to thank Melanie Smith for assistance with preparing the data; Jonathan Scherbel-Ball for legal...»

«SYRIA: The Trial of Human Rights Lawyer Haytham Al-Maleh Before the Second Military Court of Damascus February – July 2010 Joint Trial Observation Mission Report February 2011 Table of contents I. Summary II. Context: An adverse environment for human rights lawyers and defenders III. The case of Haytham Al-Maleh Pre-trial proceedings IV. Assessment of the trial of Haytham Al-Maleh V. The compliance of Haytham Al-Maleh’s trial with international standards of fair trial 1. The right to be...»

«Address: Multiculturalism and the Liberal State Jürgen Habermas Stanford Law Review, Vol. 47, No. 5. (May, 1995), pp. 849-853.Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0038-9765%28199505%2947%3A5%3C849%3AAMATLS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-S Stanford Law Review is currently published by Stanford Law Review. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part,...»

«Controlled Flight Into Terrain Accident Analysis Report 2014-2014 1st Edition NOTICE DISCLAIMER. The information contained in this publication is subject to constant review in the light of changing government requirements and regulations. No subscriber or other reader should act on the basis of any such information without referring to applicable laws and regulations and/ or without taking appropriate professional advice. Although every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, the International...»

«143-154 (1979) JOURNAL OF COMPUTER AND SYSTEM SCIENCES 18, Universal Classes of Hash Functions J. MARK N. WEGMAN LAWRENCE CARTER AND IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, New York 10598 Received August 8, 1977; revised August 10, 1978 This paper gives an input independent average linear time algorithm for storage and retrieval on keys. The algorithm makes a random choice of hash function from a suitable class of hash functions. Given any sequence of inputs the expected time...»

«Sydney Law School Legal Studies Research Paper No. 09/87 January 2009 Risk and Criminology Pat O’Malley This paper can be downloaded without charge from the Social Science Research Network Electronic Library at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1473572. Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1473572 RISK AND CRIMINOLOGY Pat O’Malley Introduction. While there is general agreement that risk has moved into a central issue for criminology, there is not always consistency either about...»

«May 2015 Bar Pass Rates & “Quality” Law School Education Do We Have a Nexus?-And the Remedy Stanislaus Pulle Ph.D. Former Visiting Scholar of Yale Law School and Research Fellow of the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, University of London Dean of Law Southern California Institute of Law @ Santa Barbara and Ventura I. INTRODUCTION Legal scholars have concluded that there is “no automatic correlation between raw bar passage rates and the quality of legal education provided by a law...»

«Custody, Access and Child Support in Canada REPORT ON FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL-TERRITORIAL CONSULTATIONS Fall 2001 Custody, Access and Child Support in Canada REPORT ON FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL-TERRITORIAL CONSULTATIONS Presented to the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Family Law Committee Prepared by IER Planning, Research and Management Services The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Family Law Committee....»

«Donorcycles: Motorcycle Helmet Laws and the Supply of Organ Donors Stacy Dickert-Conlin, Todd Elder and Brian Moore Michigan State University July 23, 2010 Abstract Traffic safety mandates are typically designed to reduce the harmful externalities of risky behaviors. We consider whether motorcycle helmet laws also reduce a beneficial externality by decreasing the supply of viable organ donors. Our central estimates show that organ donations resulting from fatal motor vehicle accidents increase...»

«Diversity in a united world of child support Regulation of child support under the Bulgarian Family, Procedural and Private International Law Country Report Eva S. Kaseva The subject of this report is the regulation of child support payable under Bulgarian family, procedural and private international law. Because of that, the characteristics of this type of support will be clarified by analyzing the substantive, procedural and private international law legal framework. I. Child support under...»

«EnterpriseOne Product Costing and Manufacturing Accounting 8.9 PeopleBook September 2003 EnterpriseOne Product Costing and Manufacturing Accounting 8.9 PeopleBook SKU REL9EMA0309 Copyright© 2003 PeopleSoft, Inc. All rights reserved. All material contained in this documentation is proprietary and confidential to PeopleSoft, Inc. (PeopleSoft), protected by copyright laws and subject to the nondisclosure provisions of the applicable PeopleSoft agreement. No part of this documentation may be...»

<<  HOME   |    CONTACTS
2016 www.book.xlibx.info - Free e-library - Books, abstracts, thesis

Materials of this site are available for review, all rights belong to their respective owners.
If you do not agree with the fact that your material is placed on this site, please, email us, we will within 1-2 business days delete him.