DOCSLIB.ORG

Escambia County RESTORE Project Proposal Summary (2015)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Escambia County RESTORE Project Proposal Summary (2015) Project Title Category Project Request Project Match Project Total Primary Activity 11 Mile Creek Basin Environment $4,024,000 $1,510,000 $5,534,000 Restore and protect natural resources The Eleven Mile Creek Project involves the creation of eleven pond and/or floodplain creation sites that are intended to alleviate flooding, preserve infrastructure, improve water quality and reduce nonpoint source pollution, within the Eleven Mile Creek Watershed. Site one (1) is a pond near the Green Hills Road Tributary which would be designed and constructed in year one. The remaining ten (10) pond/stream restoration sites in the Eleven Mile Creek basin are being rated for land acquisition purposes from a pool of 19 possible locations. A study addressing the Green Hills pond siting and the remaining 10 pond siting ratings and acquisition requirements is attached. One of the broader goals of this project is to reduce downstream stormwater flow rates and improve overall water quality for the downstream outfall locations. The Green Hills site consists of construction of pond and/or floodplain restoration site upstream of the Green Hills Road culvert crossing. Sigma Consulting Group (SIGMA) developed a pond siting report for the Green Hills Tributary to the Eleven Mile Creek Watershed after the April 2014 storm event which highlighted the need for flood control within the Basin. An immediate benefit is that Green Hills Road will not be subject to roadway flooding (water overtopping the road due to excessive stormwater runoff) during a 25-year storm event. Construction of eleven ponds will reduce roadway flooding and improve motorist safety throughout the Eleven Mile Creek basin. Improved roadways increase traffic, encourage travel and tourism, and ultimately stimulate the economy. Ponds 2 through 11 are stormwater ponds/floodplain creation sites that will similarly improve the Eleven Mile Creek Watershed downstream of the Green Hills Road culvert crossing. Construction of the attenuation sites recommended within the attached pond rating matrix will directly improve water quality, reduce downstream flooding, promote safety in the Eleven Mile Creek Watershed and has the potential to further improve water quality by measurably reducing the amount of sedimentation and pollutants that enter Perdido Bay. Ashland Park Sewer Infrastructure $2,033,000 $917,000 $2,950,000 Infrastructure projects for local economy Expansion/Stormwater Improvement The Ashland Park Subdivision project area encompasses approximately 195 acres within the upper reaches of the Clear Creek watershed, which flows into Escambia River and Escambia Bay. The project area includes approximately 210 single-family residential properties that are currently served by septic tanks, which impact nutrient levels in Clear Creek and the Escambia Bay system. The ECUA and Escambia County have coordinated to develop a joint project that will result in stormwater management improvements in the project area, as well as the construction of a wastewater collection system that will allow the provision of central wastewater service throughout the project area. These infrastructure improvements will serve to improve general water quality characteristics in Clear Creek and the Escambia Bay sysrem through the reduction of nutrient levels. Bayou Chico Restoration Environment $22,828,151 $0 $22,828,151 Restore and protect natural resources Bayou Chico has been on the 303D List of Impaired Waters since the lists inception in 1971, a year before the Clean Water Act was ratified by Congress in 1972. Bayou Chico has been on this list longer than any other body of water in the United States. The EPA is currently under Federal Court Order to improve the water quality in Bayou Chico to a point that it may be removed from the 303D list. The EPA has tasked the FDEP to create a BMAP (Basin Management Action Plan) for Bayou Chico. The BMAP includes this restoration project in its plan as a possible contribution to help increase the water quality of Bayou Chico. Water quality of Bayou Chico must be improved in order to comply with Federal Court order and Clean Water Act. The overall goal of this project is to, not only bring the water quality into compliance with the Clean Water Act, but restore the water quality to its original natural condition not found since the 1800’s when waterfront industry first started polluting the Bayou. The largest single contributor to poor overall water quality is bacteria and other pollutants that are suspended in the decomposing sediment blanketing the sugar white sand natural bottom that hasn’t been exposed for over a hundred years. Rain events, as well as recreational, and commercial boating, disturbs the sediment on the bottom frequently releasing bacteria. Reference below http://uwf.edu/liebens/report_chico_withmaps.pdf http://www.uwf.edu/rsnyder/reports/PBWMG.pdf http://www.uwf.edu/rsnyder/reports/bayourpt.pdf Millions of dollars have been and continue to be spent preventing both non-point and point sources of pollution from entering Bayou Chico. Reference Bayou Chico BMAP http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/watersheds/docs/bmap/bayou-chico-bmap.pdf To date all efforts to clean up Bayou Chico have concentrated on pollutants entering the Bayou but have not addressed the largest contributing factor which is the bacteria and other pollutants suspended in the sediment that lies on the bottom. This true restoration project aggressively addresses the removal of polluted sediment and would restore the water quality and water flow of Bayou Chico to a level not seen for 150 years. Bayou Chico has been tested and studied in great detail for decades. We have extensive data and a clear base line of information compiled in the BMAP that will allow us to measure the effects of this restoration and document the increased water quality. Once this restoration project is completed, other than monitoring, no additional resources will be needed to maintain the project. This project is a true restoration project, restoring Bayou Chico to its pristine condition not seen since the American Indians and early settlers used the Bayou for fishing and a source of fresh water BAYWALK PROMENADE Infrastructure $300,000 $0 $300,000 Planning assistance Hurricane Ivan and other storms have taught our region a hard lesson. The Pensacola waterfront was devastated; from the terrible costs associated with the failure of the Waste Water Treatment Plant, to the multiple breaches and destruction of the coastline, the loss of much of our tree canopy, the displacement of our citizens and now the impact caused by the DWH oil spill. This BAYWALK PROMENADE project is designed to be a hybrid infrastructure enhancing the resilience of our coastal community, the local economy and the ecosystem by bringing the public closer to nature. The project in the downtown corridor from the Three Mile Bridge to Bartram Park then on to the Sanders Beach Community Center and will incorporate many structures already built and proposed. It will address coastline protection issues by hardening the shoreline with the placement of a wide concrete promenade hiding the rock surfaces in place from the land to the shoreline high water mark and the planting of emergent plants along the seaward edge of the BAYWALK PROMENADE will provide protection to our coastline and community and become an educational opportunity for old and young alike. It will also become a regional economic engine, a catalyst, encouraging real estate developments, initially creating discernible economic advantages and as tourists and locals embrace this venue the economic impact generated throughout the region will be major and growing. The public demand placed in this venue can encourage the formation of new businesses and put additional demand on established businesses; creating new jobs. The opportunities may include the creation of a mini transportation hub, food/drink, theatre, sunsets, urban art, museum, music, festivals, birding, creating experiences, educational, etc. We have developed this project with a long term vision, composed of four phases to ensure greatest success. Each phase will develop documents as deliverables that support the next funding request. In this way each installment of the funds can be measured and monitored. Beach Haven S & NE Environment $18,000,000 $2,000,000 $20,000,000 Restore and protect natural resources Escambia County has identified the Beach Haven Drainage and Sanitary Sewer Project as a qualified Resources, Ecosystems Sustainability, Tourist Opportunities and Revived Economies (RESTORE) of the Gulf Coast States Act (passed in 2012) project based on the multiple qualifying activities that are satisfied by this project. The project scope includes drainage enhancements; replacement of unsafe deep roadside ditches; prevention of roadway flooding, roadway shoulder pooling, and adjacent lot flooding; roadway reconstruction and resurfacing improvements; constructing of a community wastewater collection system, and phase-out of septic tanks within the Bayou Chico and Bayou Grande watersheds of Pensacola Bay. Considering this project covers an area of 861- acres, the design and construction has been broken down into several zones and phases to reduce construction inconveniences to the public. During Phase I, design engineers will incorporation recommendations presented in the Beach Haven Sewer and Drainage Master Plan (MP dated 2003). Due to its large size, the project area will be divided
Recommended publications
  • Florida Audubon Naturalist Summer 2021

    Florida Audubon Naturalist Summer 2021

    Naturalist Summer 2021 Female Snail Kite. Photo: Nancy Elwood Heidi McCree, Board Chair 2021 Florida Audubon What a privilege to serve as the newly-elected Chair of the Society Leadership Audubon Florida Board. It is an honor to be associated with Audubon Florida’s work and together, we will continue to Executive Director address the important issues and achieve our mission to protect Julie Wraithmell birds and the places they need. We send a huge thank you to our outgoing Chair, Jud Laird, for his amazing work and Board of Directors leadership — the birds are better off because of your efforts! Summer is here! Locals and visitors alike enjoy sun, the beach, and Florida’s amazing Chair waterways. Our beaches are alive with nesting sea and shorebirds, and across the Heidi McCree Everglades we are wrapping up a busy wading bird breeding season. At the Center Vice-Chair for Birds of Prey, more than 200 raptor chicks crossed our threshold — and we Carol Colman Timmis released more than half back to the wild. As Audubon Florida’s newest Board Chair, I see the nesting season as a time to celebrate the resilience of birds, while looking Treasurer forward to how we can protect them into the migration season and beyond. We Scott Taylor will work with state agencies to make sure the high levels of conservation funding Secretary turn into real wins for both wildlife and communities (pg. 8). We will forge new Lida Rodriguez-Taseff partnerships to protect Lake Okeechobee and the Snail Kites that nest there (pg. 14).
  • The Quarterly Journal of the Florida Native Plant Society

    The Quarterly Journal of the Florida Native Plant Society

    Volume 28: Number 1 > Winter/Spring 2011 PalmettoThe Quarterly Journal of the Florida Native Plant Society Protecting Endangered Plants in Panhandle Parks ● Native or Not? Carica papaya ● Water Science & Plants Protecting Endangered Plant Species Sweetwater slope: Bill and Pam Anderson To date, a total of 117 listed taxa have been recorded in 26 panhandle parks, making these parks a key resource for the protection of endangered plant species. 4 ● The Palmetto Volume 28:1 ● Winter/Spring 2011 in Panhandle State Parks by Gil Nelson and Tova Spector The Florida Panhandle is well known for its natural endowments, chief among which are its botanical and ecological diversity. Approximately 242 sensitive plant taxa occur in the 21 counties west of the Suwannee River. These include 15 taxa listed as endangered or threatened by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 212 listed as endangered or threatened by the State of Florida, 191 tracked by the Florida Natural Areas Inventory, 52 candidates for federal listing, and 7 categorized by the state as commercially exploited. Since the conservation of threatened and endangered plant species depends largely on effective management of protected populations, the occurrence of such plants on publicly or privately owned conservation lands, coupled with institutional knowledge of their location and extent is essential. District 1 of the Florida Sarracenia rosea (purple pitcherplant) at Ponce de Leon Springs State Park: Park Service manages 33 state parks encompassing approximately Tova Spector, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 53,877 acres in the 18 counties from Jefferson County and the southwestern portion of Taylor County westward.
  • Pensacola Bay System EPA Report

    Pensacola Bay System EPA Report

    EPA/600/R-16/169 | August 2016 | www.epa.gov/research Environmental Quality of the Pensacola Bay System: Retrospective Review for Future Resource Management and Rehabilitation Office of Research and Development 1 EPA/600/R-16/169 August 2016 Environmental Quality of the Pensacola Bay System: Retrospective Review for Future Resource Management and Rehabilitation by Michael A. Lewis Gulf Ecology Division National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory Gulf Breeze, FL 32561 J. Taylor Kirschenfeld Water Quality and Land Management Division Escambia County Pensacola, FL 32503 Traci Goodhart West Florida Regional Planning Council Pensacola, FL 32514 National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory Office of Research and Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Gulf Breeze, FL. 32561 i Notice The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through its Office of Research and Development (ORD) funded and collaborated in the research described herein with representatives from Escambia County’s Water Quality and Land Management Division and the West Florida Regional Planning Council. It has been subjected to the Agency’s peer and administrative review and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. This is a contribution to the EPA ORD Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program. The appropriate citation for this report is: Lewis, Michael, J. Taylor Kirschenfeld, and Traci Goodheart. Environmental Quality of the Pensacola Bay System: Retrospective Review for Future Resource Management and Rehabilitation. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf Breeze, FL, EPA/600/R-16/169, 2016. ii Foreword This report supports EPA’s Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program.
  • Florida State Parks Data by 2021 House District

    Florida State Parks Data by 2021 House District

    30, Florida State Parks FY 2019-20 Data by 2021 House Districts This compilation was produced by the Florida State Parks Foundation . FloridaStateParksFoundation.org Statewide Totals • 175 Florida State Parks and Trails (164 Parks / 11 Trails) comprising nearly 800,000 Acres • $2.2 billion direct impact to Florida’s economy • $150 million in sales tax revenue • 31,810 jobs supported • 25 million visitors served # of Economic Jobs Park House Districts Parks Impact Supported Visitors 1 Salzman, Michelle 0 2 Andrade, Robert Alexander “Alex” 3 31,073,188 436 349,462 Big Lagoon State Park 10,336,536 145 110,254 Perdido Key State Park 17,191,206 241 198,276 Tarklin Bayou Preserve State Park 3,545,446 50 40,932 3 Williamson, Jayer 3 26,651,285 416 362,492 Blackwater Heritage State Trail 18,971,114 266 218,287 Blackwater River State Park 7,101,563 99 78,680 Yellow River Marsh Preserve State Park 578,608 51 65,525 4 Maney, Thomas Patterson “Patt” 2 41,626,278 583 469,477 Fred Gannon Rocky Bayou State Park 7,558,966 106 83,636 Henderson Beach State Park 34,067,312 477 385,841 5 Drake, Brad 9 64,140,859 897 696,022 Camp Helen State Park 3,133,710 44 32,773 Deer Lake State Park 1,738,073 24 19,557 Eden Gardens State Park 3,235,182 45 36,128 Falling Waters State Park 5,510,029 77 58,866 Florida Caverns State Park 4,090,576 57 39,405 Grayton Beach State Park 17,072,108 239 186,686 Ponce de Leon Springs State Park 6,911,495 97 78,277 Three Rivers State Park 2,916,005 41 30,637 Topsail Hill Preserve State Park 19,533,681 273 213,693 6 Trumbull, Jay 2 45,103,015 632 504,860 Camp Helen State Park 3,133,710 44 32,773 St.
  • Soil Survey of Escambia County, Florida

    Soil Survey of Escambia County, Florida

    United States In cooperation with Department of the University of Florida, Agriculture Institute of Food and Soil Survey of Agricultural Sciences, Natural Agricultural Experiment Escambia County, Resources Stations, and Soil and Water Conservation Science Department; and the Service Florida Department of Florida Agriculture and Consumer Services How To Use This Soil Survey General Soil Map The general soil map, which is a color map, shows the survey area divided into groups of associated soils called general soil map units. This map is useful in planning the use and management of large areas. To find information about your area of interest, locate that area on the map, identify the name of the map unit in the area on the color-coded map legend, then refer to the section General Soil Map Units for a general description of the soils in your area. Detailed Soil Maps The detailed soil maps can be useful in planning the use and management of small areas. To find information about your area of interest, locate that area on the Index to Map Sheets. Note the number of the map sheet and turn to that sheet. Locate your area of interest on the map sheet. Note the map unit symbols that are in that area. Turn to the Contents, which lists the map units by symbol and name and shows the page where each map unit is described. The Contents shows which table has data on a specific land use for each detailed soil map unit. Also see the Contents for sections of this publication that may address your specific needs.
  • Biological Opinion for Johnson Beach Area Project

    Biological Opinion for Johnson Beach Area Project

    Executive Summary We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), have evaluated the impacts of the proposed Gulf Islands National Seashore/Johnson Beach Area (GINS) parking lot improvement project to be developed on the east end of Perdido Key in Escambia County, Florida. GINS encompasses 1,041 acres with high visitor use, primarily beach and Gulf of Mexico access. Coastal dune habitat can be found adjacent to the open beach. It is this habitat that supports the federally endangered Perdido Key beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus trissyllepsis) (PKBM). Gulf Islands National Seashore is one of three core population areas for PKBM. These core areas support the main population of PKBM and without them extinction would likely be near. GINS operates under a General Management Plan that supports management for PKBM and other protected species and their habitat. This parking lot expansion project aims to focus visitor use of the beaches to and through specific corridors to avoid critical and sensitive habitat. Currently the main parking lot holds 323 vehicles with additional roadside parking along both sides of the 1.2 mile paved park road. This road routinely gets covered in sand and requires regular maintenance to plow and remove. The focus of this expansion project is to remove the roadside parking, expand the main parking lot, and add three additional small parking lots along the park road. The entry way will also be expanded from a single entry and exit road to double entry/exit lanes. Removing and replacing dune walkovers, installing split rail fence and post and rope will direct pedestrian use from these parking areas to the open beach with limited disturbance to the habitat and species in the area.
  • Gulf of Mexico Estuary Program Restoration Council (EPA RESTORE 003 008 Cat1)

    Gulf of Mexico Estuary Program Restoration Council (EPA RESTORE 003 008 Cat1)

    Gulf Coast Gulf-wide Foundational Investment Ecosystem Gulf of Mexico Estuary Program Restoration Council (EPA_RESTORE_003_008_Cat1) Project Name: Gulf of Mexico Estuary Program – Planning Cost: Category 1: $2,200,000 Responsible Council Member: Environmental Protection Agency Partnering Council Member: State of Florida Project Details: This project proposes to develop and stand-up a place-based estuary program encompassing one or more of the following bays in Florida’s northwest panhandle region: Perdido Bay, Pensacola Bay, Escambia Bay, Choctawhatchee Bay, St. Andrews Bay and Apalachicola Bay. Activities: The key components of the project include establishing the host organization and hiring of key staff, developing Management and Technical committees, determining stressors and then developing and approving a Comprehensive Plan. Although this Estuary Program would be modeled after the structure and operation of National Estuary Programs (NEP) it would not be a designated NEP. This project would serve as a pilot project for the Council to consider expanding Gulf-wide when future funds become available. Environmental Benefits: If the estuary program being planned by this activity were implemented in the future, projects undertaken would directly support goals and outcomes focusing on restoring water quality, while also addressing restoration and conservation of habitat, replenishing and protecting living coastal and marine resources, enhancing community resilience and revitalizing the coastal economy. Specific actions would likely include,
  • Seagrass Integrated Mapping and Monitoring for the State of Florida Mapping and Monitoring Report No. 1

    Seagrass Integrated Mapping and Monitoring for the State of Florida Mapping and Monitoring Report No. 1

    Yarbro and Carlson, Editors SIMM Report #1 Seagrass Integrated Mapping and Monitoring for the State of Florida Mapping and Monitoring Report No. 1 Edited by Laura A. Yarbro and Paul R. Carlson Jr. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Fish and Wildlife Research Institute St. Petersburg, Florida March 2011 Yarbro and Carlson, Editors SIMM Report #1 Yarbro and Carlson, Editors SIMM Report #1 Table of Contents Authors, Contributors, and SIMM Team Members .................................................................. 3 Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................... 4 Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... 5 Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. 7 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 31 How this report was put together ........................................................................................... 36 Chapter Reports ...................................................................................................................... 41 Perdido Bay ........................................................................................................................... 41 Pensacola Bay .....................................................................................................................
  • Gulf Islands PWC Environmental Assesment

    Gulf Islands PWC Environmental Assesment

    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Gulf Islands National Seashore Florida/Mississippi GULF ISLANDS NATIONAL SEASHORE Personal Watercraft Use Environmental Assessment Printed on recycled paper National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Gulf Islands National Seashore Florida/Mississippi GULF ISLANDS NATIONAL SEASHORE Personal Watercraft Use Environmental Assessment March 2004 SUMMARY Gulf Islands National Seashore was established in 1971, “In order to preserve for public use and enjoyment certain areas possessing outstanding natural, historic and recreational values…” The seashore stretches approximately 160 miles from Cat Island in Mississippi to the eastern tip of Santa Rosa Island in Florida. There are snowy-white beaches, sparkling blue waters, fertile coastal marshes, and dense maritime forests. Visitors can explore 19th century forts, enjoy shaded picnic areas, hike on winding nature trails, and camp in comfortable campgrounds. In addition, Horn and Petit Bois islands located in Mississippi are federally designated wilderness areas. Nature, history, and recreational opportunities abound in this national treasure. All areas of Gulf Islands National Seashore in the Florida District and the Davis Bayou area in the Mississippi District are reachable from Interstate 10. The Mississippi District barrier islands are only accessible by boat. The purpose of and the need for taking action is to evaluate a range of alternatives and strategies for managing personal watercraft (PWC) use at Gulf Islands National Seashore to ensure the protection of park resources and values while offering recreational opportunities as provided for in the national seashore’s enabling legislation, purpose, mission, and goals. Upon completion of this process, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Park Service (NPS) may either take action to adopt special regulations to manage PWC use, or it may not reinstate PWC use at this park unit.
  • Seagrass Status and Trends in the Northern Gulf of Mexico: 1940–2002

    Seagrass Status and Trends in the Northern Gulf of Mexico: 1940–2002

    Seagrass Status and Trends in the Northern Gulf of Mexico: 1940–2002 Edited by L. Handley,1 D. Altsman,2 and R. DeMay3 Abstract Introduction Over the past century, seagrass habitats from the The Gulf of Mexico provides a wide array of valuable bays of Texas to the gulf shores of Florida have decreased. natural resources to the nations that border its shores. As Seagrass beds, which are highly dependent on water quality the value of the gulf coastal environment continues to be and clarity for survival, are home to a multitude of aquatic recognized, it becomes increasingly important to invest in the plants and animals and a source of economic activity through conservation of those resources. Reductions in both abundance commercial and recreational fishing and ecotourism. The U.S. and diversity of various organisms and habitats emphasize a Environmental Protection Agency’s Gulf of Mexico Program critical need to protect these natural assets, many of which (GMP) and its partners have made a commitment to restore, serve important ecological functions. In response to increasing enhance, and protect this important ecosystem. As seagrass trends in habitat degradation, several organizations and habitats decrease, the need for information on the causes and institutions have begun to act together with local residents to effects of seagrass loss, current mapping information, and address these issues. One such effort, facilitated by the U.S. education on the importance of seagrassess becomes greater. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Gulf of Mexico This report is the initial effort of the GMP’s research and Program, will integrate the efforts of a wide range of scientific restoration plan for seagrasses.
  • National List of Beaches 2004 (PDF)

    National List of Beaches 2004 (PDF)

    National List of Beaches March 2004 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington DC 20460 EPA-823-R-04-004 i Contents Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1 States Alabama ............................................................................................................... 3 Alaska................................................................................................................... 6 California .............................................................................................................. 9 Connecticut .......................................................................................................... 17 Delaware .............................................................................................................. 21 Florida .................................................................................................................. 22 Georgia................................................................................................................. 36 Hawaii................................................................................................................... 38 Illinois ................................................................................................................... 45 Indiana.................................................................................................................. 47 Louisiana
  • Escambia County Design Standards Manual

    Escambia County Design Standards Manual

    Escambia County Design Standards Manual LEGEND Blue Highlight Federally Required Red Highlight State Required - Green Highlight Previously Adopted Ordinances *(concepts/standards unchanged) Yellow Highlight Director’s Recommendations *The overall concept was not changed however revisions were made to the language for clarity. In addition in some cases the process was streamlined. 11/2014 1 Design Standards Manual 2 3 4 Chapter 1, Engineering 5 6 Article 1 Stormwater 7 8 Sec. 1-1 Stormwater Management Systems 9 Sec. 1-1.1 Stormwater Quality (treatment) 10 Sec. 1-1.2 Stormwater Quantity (attenuations) 11 Sec. 1-1.3 Stormwater Ponds and Impoundments 12 Sec. 1-1.4 Conveyance Systems 13 Sec. 1-1.5 Exemptions 14 Sec. 1-1.6 Other Agency Approvals 15 16 Sec. 1-2 Stormwater Management Plans 17 Sec. 1-2.1 Methods 18 Sec. 1-2.2 Content 19 20 Article 2 Transportation 21 22 Sec. 2-1 Roadway Design 23 Sec. 2-1.1 Minimum Right-of-way widths 24 Sec. 2-1.2 Minimum pavement widths 25 Sec. 2-1.3 Intersections 26 Sec. 2-1.4 Slopes 27 Sec. 2-1.5 Roadway Elevations 28 Sec. 2-1.6 Street Layout 29 Sec. 2-1.7 Traffic Control Devices 30 31 Sec. 2-2 Access Management 32 Sec. 2-2.1 Access Location 33 Sec. 2-2.2 Pedestrian Access 34 Sec. 2-2.3 Traffic Control 35 Sec. 2-2.4 Modification of Existing access 36 Sec.2-2.5 internal Site Access Design 37 Sec. 2-2.6 Commercial Traffic in Residential Areas 38 39 Article 3 Parking 40 41 Sec.