DOCSLIB.ORG

Mainedot Work Plan Calendar Years 2019-2020-2021 Maine Department of Transportation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Mainedot Work Plan Calendar Years 2019-2020-2021 Maine Department of Transportation Maine State Library Digital Maine Transportation Documents Transportation 2-2019 MaineDOT Work Plan Calendar Years 2019-2020-2021 Maine Department of Transportation Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalmaine.com/mdot_docs Recommended Citation Maine Department of Transportation, "MaineDOT Work Plan Calendar Years 2019-2020-2021" (2019). Transportation Documents. 124. https://digitalmaine.com/mdot_docs/124 This Text is brought to you for free and open access by the Transportation at Digital Maine. It has been accepted for inclusion in Transportation Documents by an authorized administrator of Digital Maine. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MaineDOT Work Plan Calendar Years 2019-2020-2021 February 2019 February 21, 2019 MaineDOT Customers and Partners: On behalf of the 2,000 valued employees of the Maine Department of Transportation (MaineDOT), I am privileged to present this 2019 Edition of our Work Plan for the three Calendar Years 2019, 2020 and 2021. Implementation of this plan allows us to achieve our mission of responsibly providing our customers with the safest and most reliable transportation system possible, given available resources. Like all recent editions, this Work Plan includes all capital projects and programs, maintenance and operations activities, planning initiatives, and administrative functions. This plan contains 2,193 individual work items with a total value of $2.44 billion, consisting principally of work to be delivered or coordinated through MaineDOT, but also including funding and work delivered by other transportation agencies that receive federal funds directly including airports and transit agencies. Although I have the pleasure of presenting this plan, it is really the product of staff efforts dating back to the summer of last year. Like all Work Plans, that process included making adjustments to projects that had already appeared in prior Work Plans, including changes to cost, schedule, scope, or available funding. Once those projects are made viable for delivery, new projects and work items are added - principally in the third year of the plan - which in this case is Calendar Year 2021. As determined during this months-long process, this Work Plan reflects three focus areas: safety, innovation, and downtown improvements. First and foremost, safety continues to be the top priority in all MaineDOT activities. Safety performance on the transportation system across the United States has been trending in the wrong direction in recent years, with vehicle crashes, injuries and fatalities increasing with the continued growth in vehicle miles traveled. To combat this trend, a new Office of Safety was created to conduct data- driven, system-wide safety analysis of our highway network to identify problem areas and develop solutions to eliminate safety hazards. The results of that analysis imbedded within the Work Plan including continued addition of rumble strips to combat lane departure, targeted outreach to communities that have experienced clusters of pedestrian crashes, upgrades to guardrail systems, spot improvements to troublesome intersections and areas identified through data collection and analysis as having a high risk of vehicles going off the road, and work on I-295 north of Portland, where crash incidence is high, including improvement projects and safety patrols. Second, innovation is not only important, but is required to help meet the needs and demands of the system and its modern-day users. MaineDOT is investing in Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) including technology to identify and communicate information to travelers relating traffic delays due from, construction, congestion, crashes, and poor road conditions due to weather. These efforts include improved changeable message signs, Amber alerts, and preparing for integration of connected or autonomous vehicles. Finally, this Work Plan makes targeted investments in downtowns around the state. The communities of Hallowell, Bar Harbor, and Ogunquit have recently undergone downtown reconstructions, while improvements in Fryeburg, Woodstock and Kingfield are funded in this Work Plan, with the help of partial funding from a recent federal BUILD grant award. In addition, MaineDOT and our partners are also investing in Active Transportation, recreational trails, improved access to schools and ADA sidewalk improvements, much of it in our downtown areas. As we transition to future Work Plans, I look forward to working with the policy makers, transportation agency partners, and industry to take a fresh look at priorities and service levels and establish updated transportation policy goals. These goals might include raising the bar to improve the system, not just treading water; maintaining Maine’s brand of safe and easy travel, which will help recruitment of new workers; minimizing the financial burden on Mainers; reducing transportation’s impact on climate; and increasing predictable, sustainable funding sources, which would allow a gradual reduction in the dependence on bonding over time. I am truly honored to be part of MaineDOT again. I am confident that we will deliver the work for our customers on time and within our means. Although we work in obscurity much of the time, there are few other teams who do so much to improve the safety, economic prosperity, and quality of life for people who live, work, and travel in our great state. Please use the Work Plan to learn what MaineDOT is doing in your community and your region. As always, I invite you to let me know what we can do to better serve you, our customers, now and into the future. Respectfully, Bruce A. Van Note Commissioner Contents Introduction The MaineDOT Work Plan - Calendar Years 2019-2020-2021 ................................................................... i Resource Assumptions and Resource Allocation ........................................................................................... i . Resource Assumptions ..................................................................................................................... i . Federal Funding ............................................................................................................................... i . State Funding ................................................................................................................................... i . Multimodal State Funding................................................................................................................. ii . Grants ............................................................................................................................................. ii . MPI/BPI Programs ........................................................................................................................... ii . VW Settlement Funds ....................................................................................................................... ii . Funding Sources and Uses ................................................................................................................ iii . Asset Management ............................................................................................................................ iv . Resource Allocation .......................................................................................................................... iv Project Prioritization and Selection ................................................................................................................ v Statewide Operations ....................................................................................................................................... v . Highway and Bridge Maintenance Operations .............................................................................. vi . Multimodal Operations ................................................................................................................... vi . Passenger Rail Operations ............................................................................................................... vi . Transit Operations ............................................................................................................................ vi . Ferry Service Operations .................................................................................................................. vii . Aviation Operations .......................................................................................................................... vii Capital Projects and Programs ....................................................................................................................... vii . Highway and Bridge Capital Work ................................................................................................ vii . Multimodal Capital Work ............................................................................................................... x . Statewide Capital Programs ............................................................................................................. x Transportation Needs and Goals .................................................................................................................... xi Reading the Work Plan ................................................................................................................................... 1 . Work Plan Tabs ..............................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Case for Reconnecting Southeast Washington DC
    1 Reimagining DC 295 as a vital multi modal corridor: The Case for Reconnecting Southeast Washington DC Jonathan L. Bush A capstone thesis paper submitted to the Executive Director of the Urban & Regional Planning Program at Georgetown University’s School of Continuing Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements for Masters of Professional Studies in Urban & Regional Planning. Faculty Advisor: Howard Ways, AICP Academic Advisor: Uwe S. Brandes, M.Arch © Copyright 2017 by Jonathan L. Bush All Rights Reserved 2 ABSTRACT Cities across the globe are making the case for highway removal. Highway removal provides alternative land uses, reconnects citizens and natural landscapes separated by the highway, creates mobility options, and serves as a health equity tool. This Capstone studies DC 295 in Washington, DC and examines the cases of San Francisco’s Embarcadero Freeway, Milwaukee’s Park East Freeway, New York City’s Sheridan Expressway and Seoul, South Korea’s Cheonggyecheon Highway. This study traces the history and the highway removal success using archival sources, news circulars, planning documents, and relevant academic research. This Capstone seeks to provide a platform in favor DC 295 highway removal. 3 KEYWORDS Anacostia, Anacostia Freeway, Anacostia River, DC 295, Highway Removal, I-295, Kenilworth Avenue, Neighborhood Planning, Southeast Washington DC, Transportation Planning, Urban Infrastructure RESEARCH QUESTIONS o How can Washington’s DC 295 infrastructure be modified to better serve local neighborhoods? o What opportunities
    [Show full text]
  • Help DSF Achieve Significant Landmarks Small Property, Big Impact
    *In-ter-vale n. [a blending of INTERVAL + VALE] [Americanism, Chiefly New England] low, flat land between hills or along a river. Webster’s New World Dictionary PROTECTING RIVERS AND WILD ATLANTIC SALMON SINCE 1982 Downeast Salmon Federation P.O. Box 201 Columbia Falls, Maine 04623 INTERVALE D OWNEAST S ALMON F E D ERATION Spring 2019 Documenting the Success of MEANDERS “Choosing to save a river is the Peter Gray Parr Project more often an act of passion than of careful calculation. You make the choice because the river has touched your life in an intimate and irreversible way, because you are unwilling to accept its loss." — David Bolling Photo credit: Keith Williams Help DSF Achieve Thank You to Our ince 2012, over 1 million fall Atlantic Salmon migrate erratic environmental Major Business parr (juvenile Atlantic Salmon) from the rivers to the sea) conditions. In 2018, the Shave been raised in the Peter populations resulting from the estimated total production Significant Landmarks Partners Gray Hatchery and released into PGPP are 4 times higher than was 0.73 smolt per unit of e have been very busy at DSF this events over the last year. There are the East Machias River. During smolt populations generated habitat, increasing from Wpast winter! From our community plans to add several more events this time period, the watershed from other stocking methods; 0.39 at the start of the PGPP; outreach events to our wild Atlantic throughout 2019. You can see experienced record-setting heat, • Age distribution of the PGPP • The neighboring Narraguagus Salmon hatcheries, we are constantly our upcoming schedule at www.
    [Show full text]
  • Kennebec Estuary Focus Areas of Statewide Ecological Significance Kennebec Estuary
    Focus Areas of Statewide Ecological Significance: Kennebec Estuary Focus Areas of Statewide Ecological Significance Kennebec Estuary WHY IS THIS AREA SIGNIFICANT? The Kennebec Estuary Focus Area contains more than 20 percent of Maine’s tidal marshes, a significant percentage of Maine’s sandy beach and associated dune Biophysical Region habitats, and globally rare pitch pine • Central Maine Embayment woodland communities. More than two • Cacso Bay Coast dozen rare plant species inhabit the area’s diverse natural communities. Numerous imperiled species of animals have been documented in the Focus Area, and it contains some of the state’s best habitat for bald eagles. OPPORTUNITIES FOR CONSERVATION » Work with willing landowners to permanently protect remaining undeveloped areas. » Encourage town planners to improve approaches to development that may impact Focus Area functions. » Educate recreational users about the ecological and economic benefits provided by the Focus Area. » Monitor invasive plants to detect problems early. » Find ways to mitigate past and future contamination of the watershed. For more conservation opportunities, visit the Beginning with Habitat Online Toolbox: www.beginningwithhabitat.org/ toolbox/about_toolbox.html. Rare Animals Rare Plants Natural Communities Bald Eagle Lilaeopsis Estuary Bur-marigold Coastal Dune-marsh Ecosystem Spotted Turtle Mudwort Long-leaved Bluet Maritime Spruce–Fir Forest Harlequin Duck Dwarf Bulrush Estuary Monkeyflower Pitch Pine Dune Woodland Tidewater Mucket Marsh Bulrush Smooth Sandwort
    [Show full text]
  • Eastern Surplus, Five-Year Review, 09-30-2006, Sdms
    Superfund Records Center SITE: £•' g*- vH J ^ p BREAK: SDMS DOCID 260018 OTHER: t FIVE-YEAR REVIEW EASTERN SURPLUS COMPANY SUPERFUND SITE MEDDYBEMPS, MAINE Prepared by: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 1 Boston, Massachusetts 0<\ /\ I Susan Studlien, Director Date ' * Office of Site Remediation and Restoration ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This is the first five-year review for the Eastern Surplus Company Superfund Site (Site). This statutory five-year review is required since hazardous contamination remains at the Site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. The review was completed in accordance with EPA guidance entitled "Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance," OSWER No. 9355.7-03B-P, June 2001. Starting in 1946, two owners, Harry Smith, Sr., and Harry Smith, Jr., used the Site as a storage and salvage yard. The area north of Route 191 at one time had debris/junk covering over 50% of the area, with thick vegetation covering the remaining areas. Some of the junk/surplus materials contained hazardous substances that were released into the site soils and further released into the groundwater. In 1985 Maine Department of Environmental Protection (Maine DEP) performed an inspection and identified the Site as an uncontrolled hazardous substance site. Maine DEP initiated a removal action to stabilize the Site, including removing approximately 120 transformers and other waste and fencing the Site. At the request of Maine DEP, EPA then took over the removal activities. Most of the liquid hazardous waste, drums, containers, and compressed gas cylinders were removed during the first EPA removal action in the 1980s.
    [Show full text]
  • Gregor Weichbrodt on the Road 0X0a
    0x0a On the Road Gregor Weichbrodt On the Road Gregor Weichbrodt 0x0a © 2014 Gregor Weichbrodt All rights reserved. www.ggor.de CONTENTS About this book ........................ 5 Chapter 1 ............................... 7 Chapter 2 .............................. 23 Chapter 3 .............................. 41 Chapter 4 .............................. 53 ABOUT THIS BOOK Based on the novel “On the Road” by Jack Kerouac and Google Maps Direction Service. The exact and approximate spots Kerouac traveled and described are taken from the book and parsed by Google Direction Service API. The chapters match those of the original book. Gregor Weichbrodt January 2014 www.ggor.de 7 CHAPTER 1 Head northwest on W 47th St toward 7th Ave. Take the 1st left onto 7th Ave. Turn right onto W 39th St. Take the ramp onto Lincoln Tunnel. Parts of this road are closed Mon–Fri 4:00 – 7:00 pm. Entering New Jersey. Continue onto NJ-495 W. Keep right to continue on NJ-3 W, follow signs for New Jersey 3 W/Garden State Parkway/Secaucus. Take the New Jersey 3 W exit on the left toward Clifton. Merge onto NJ-3 W. Slight right onto the Garden State Pkwy N ramp. Merge onto Garden State Pkwy. Take exit 155P on the left to merge onto NJ-19 N toward I-80/ Paterson. Turn left onto Cianci St. Turn right onto Market St. Head west on Market St toward Washington St. Turn left onto Main St. Turn right onto County Rd 509 S. Take the Interstate 80 E ramp. Merge onto I-80 E. Take exit 62A-62B toward Saddle 9 Brook/Saddle River Rd/Garden State Pkwy.
    [Show full text]
  • Up and Up: River Herring in Eastern Maine
    DOWNEAST FISHERIES PARTNERSHIP 2019 Up and up: River Herring in Eastern Maine PREPARED BY Anne Hayden, Medea Steinman, and Rachel Gorich This report is also available online at: downeastfisheries.org OUR PARTNERS coa.edu downeastinstitute.org mainesalmonrivers.org coastalfisheries.org mcht.org mainefarmlandtrust.org seagrant.umaine.edu manomet.org sunrisecounty.org wccog.net Contents 2 Introduction 2 Challenges for River Herring 4 What can be done? 5 What are River Herring? 6 Benefits of River Herring? 7 Managment 9 Status in 2018 11 Restoration Activities in Eastern Maine 14 Case Studies in River Herring Restoration 14 Bagaduce River 17 Patten Stream 17 Union River OUR PARTNERS 18 Narraguagus River 18 East Machias River 21 Orange River 21 Pennamaquan River 22 St. Croix River 23 Looking Ahead DOWNEAST FISHERIES parTNERSHIP / UP AND UP: RIVER HerrING IN EASTERN MAINE 1 Introduction River herring runs in eastern Maine are coming back! A string of successful projects, from the opening of the St. Croix fishway to the renewal of commercial fishing on Card Mill Stream in Franklin, have fueled growing momentum for restoration of rivers and streams, big and small. This report is an update on the status of river herring runs in eastern Maine. It describes the value of river herring and some of the many projects underway to allow river herring to swim upstream to their spawning habitat. Because river herring are a keystone species in freshwater and marine systems—and are so responsive to restoration efforts—they have become a focus of the Downeast Fisheries Partnership effort to restore fisheries in eastern Maine.
    [Show full text]
  • Recovery Plan for the Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment of Atlantic Salmon (Salmo Salar)
    Final Recovery Plan for the Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment of Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) November, 2005 Prepared by NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Silver Spring, Maryland and Northeastern Region U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Hadley, Massachusetts Recovery Plan for the Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment of Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) November, 2005 Prepared by NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Silver Spring, Maryland and Northeastern Region U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Hadley, Massachusetts Approved: Assistant Administrator for Fisheries Date NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Date DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate actions that are thought to be necessary to recover andlor protect endangered species. Recovery plans are prepared by NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and sometimes with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, state agencies and others. This Recovery Plan for the Gulf of Maine (GOM) Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) was prepared by the staff of the Northeast Regional Offices of NMFS with the assistance of the FWS and the Maine Atlantic Salmon Commission (ASC). While the State of Maine provided recommendations for this plan, it was developed using federal guidelines and policies pertaining to recovery plans for federally listed species. Recovery plans are not regulatory or decision documents. The recommendations in a recovery plan are not considered final decisions unless and until they are actually proposed for implementation. Objectives will only be attained and hnds expended contingent upon appropriations, priorities and other budgetary constraints.
    [Show full text]
  • 1998 CCSWCD Royal River Water Quality Management Plan
    " . ROYAL RIV£~ WATERSHED: A W1AT£R QUALITY .'l ·MANA6£M£NT PLAN 1 I I J \ ] ( J J J J j J Cumberland County SWCD Project Staff & Report Production Forrest Bell, Project Manager Alison Kisch, Conservation Technician Linda Johnson, Research Assistant ACKNOW'LED6.MENTS The Royal River Watershed Project and this report would not have been possible without the assistance of many individuals, groups and agencies. We would like to recognize and thank the following contributors: Royal River Watershed Advisory Committee Charlie Chandler, resident, New Gloucester Bill Ecyleshymer, resident, Yarmouth Judith Ecyleshymer, resident, Yarmouth Dottie Laber, public relations advisor, Orono Edwin Springer, resident, Brunswick Ted Teidemann, resident, North Yarmouth Royal River Watershed Technical Advisory Committee and Report Review Team Deb Aja, Maine DEP Susan Beede, US EPA John Boland, ME Inland Fish & Wildlife Lenny Brooks, New Gloucester David Chiapetta, USDA NRCS Ross Cudlitz, CCSWCD Chris Curtis, Yarmouth Water District Cliff Curtis, Maine DOT Lee Doggett, Maine DEP Betty Farley, CCSWCD Melissa Gormley Florence Grosvenor, Maine DEP Katherine Groves, Casco Bay Est. Project Sherry Hanson, Casco Bay Est. Proj. Phoebe Hardesty, Andy Valley SWCD Mary Holman, Friends of Royal River Bob Houston, North Yarmouth resident John Jemison, UMaine Coop. Exten. Don Kale, Maine DEP Steve Linnell, Greater Portland COG Greg & Lisa Taylor Lord, Americorps Janet Mclaughlin, Town of Yarmouth Wayne Munroe, USDA NRCS Steve Ranney, City of Auburn Diane Switzer, US EPA Leon Tsomides, Maine DEP Peter Wagner, UMaine Coop. Extension Lois Winter, US Fish & Wildlife Serv. Don Witherill, Maine DEP Diane Yorke, US Forest Service Project sponsors/partners and their roles • Cumberland County Soil and Water Conservation District (CCSWCD) is the main sponsor of the Royal River Watershed 104(b)(3) Planning Project.
    [Show full text]
  • 308 Harbor Waterfront and Boat Ordinance
    CHAPTER 308 HARBOR, WATERFRONT AND BOAT ORDINANCE Town of Yarmouth, Maine Recodified: 1/15/98 Repealed and Replaced: 2/15/01 Amended: 4/19/01 Amended: 5/17/01 Repealed and Replaced: 2/20/03 Amended: 11/20/03 Repealed and Replaced: 2/17/05 Amended: 4/20/06 Amended: 8/17/06 Revised with Corrections: 7/1/08 Amended: 1/15/09 Amended: 4/15/10 Amended: 8/21/14 Amended: 3/21/19 Amended: 5/20/21 CHAPTER 308 HARBOR, WATERFRONT AND BOAT ORDINANCE Table of Contents ARTICLE I ..................................................................................................................................... 1 A. TITLE ................................................................................................................................... 1 B. PURPOSE ........................................................................................................................... 1 C. AUTHORITY ....................................................................................................................... 1 D. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED ................................................................................... 1 ARTICLE II .................................................................................................................................... 3 A. APPOINTMENT OF HARBOR MASTER ...................................................................... 3 B. TERM OF OFFICE............................................................................................................. 3 C. APPOINTMENT OF DEPUTY ........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Resources Chapter
    Natural Resources Chapter (For review – September 8, 2015) Vision: Richmond residents are responsible stewards of our natural resources, including open space, forest, water bodies and wetlands. We balance growth and development with the preservation, promotion and continued accessibility of our resources for recreation, wildlife habitat, agriculture, and scenic values. Introduction This chapter provides a summary about the natural systems which comprise Richmond’s physical environment. The following areas will be discussed to determine how our natural features relate to the overall health and vitality of the town and its future development and land use patterns: geology, topography, soils, surface and ground water, land cover, and unique natural areas and wildlife habitat. A realistic assessment and appreciation of our environmental features will allow us to both identify constraints on development and to identify areas appropriate for development where negative impacts to natural resources are minimal and costs are lower for construction. The town’s natural resources are regulated by a combination of federal, state and local laws and regulations and often address the same feature. Some resources require multiple levels of review and approval before land development may occur while others are less restrictive. The information provided in this chapter is designed to help the community understand its natural resources and make sure land use planning and development occurs in such a way that future generations can enjoy the values and beauty of the town. Watersheds Richmond is divided into eight major watersheds, each with its own physical characteristics, natural environments and patterns of development. All of the land area within the town eventually drains into the Kennebec River.
    [Show full text]
  • Fishery Bulletin of the Fish and Wildlife Service V.53
    'I', . FISRES OF '!'RE GULF OF MAINE. 101 Description.-The hickory shad differs rather Bay, though it is found in practically all of them. noticeably from the sea herring in that the point This opens the interesting possibility that the of origin of its dorsal fin is considerably in front of "green" fish found in Chesapeake Bay, leave the the mid-length of its trunk; in its deep belly (a Bay, perhaps to spawn in salt water.65 hickory shad 13~ in. long is about 4 in. deep but a General range.-Atlantic coast of North America herring of that length is only 3 in. deep) ; in the fact from the Bay of Fundy to Florida. that its outline tapers toward both snout and tail Occurrence in the Gulf oj Maine.-The hickory in side view (fig. 15); and in that its lower jaw shad is a southern fish, with the Gulf of Maine as projects farther beyond the upper when its mouth the extreme northern limit to its range. It is is closed; also, by the saw-toothed edge of its belly. recorded in scientific literature only at North Also, it lacks the cluster of teeth on the roof of the· Truro; at Provincetown; at Brewster; in Boston mouth that is characteristic of the herring. One Harbor; off Portland; in Casco Ba3T; and from the is more likely to confuse a hickory shad with a shad mouth of the Bay of Fundy (Huntsman doubts or with the alewives, which it resembles in the this record), and it usually is so uncommon within position of its dorsal fin, in the great depth of its our limits that we have seen none in the Gulf body, in its saw-toothed belly and in the lack of ourselves.
    [Show full text]
  • Surface Water Supply of the United States 1954
    Surface Water Supply of the United States 1954 Part 1 -A. North Atlantic Slope Basins, Maine to Connecticut GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1331 Prepared in cooperation with the States of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont, and with other agencies Surface Water Supply of the United States 1954 Part 1 -A. North Atlantic Slope Basins, Maine to Connecticut Prepared under the direction of ]. V. B. WELLS, Chief, Surface Water Branch GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1331 Prepared in cooperation with the States \ of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont, and with other agencies UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1957 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FRED A. SEATON, Secretary * GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas B. Nolan, Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D. C. - Price $1,00 (Paper cover) CONTENTS Page Scope of work........................................................................ 1 Cooperation.......................................................................... 1 Division of work..................................................................... 2 Definition of terms and abbreviations................................................ 2 Downstream order of listing gaging stations.......................................... 3 Explanation of data.................................................................. 3 Accuracy of field data and computed results.........................................
    [Show full text]