DOCSLIB.ORG

Baker County Transportation System Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Baker County Transportation System Plan FINAL Baker County Transportation System Plan Prepared for Baker County, Oregon and Oregon Department of Transportation Prepared by H. Lee & Associates June 30,2005 This project was finded by a grant from the Transportation and Growth Management Program (TGM), a jointprogram of the Oregon Department of Transportation and the Department of Land Conservation and Development. TGM grants rely on federal Internodal Sui$ace Transportation Eficiency Act and Oregon Lottely Funds. The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the State of Oregon. BAKER COUNTY FINAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN Prepared for: Baker County and Oregon Department of Transportation Prepared by: H. Lee & Associates P.O. Box 1849 Vancouver, WA 98668 (360) 567-3002 June 30,2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1 .WTRODUCTZON ................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Requirements ................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Planning Area ................................................................................................................ 1-4 1.3 Planning Process ........................................................................................................... 1-7 1.4 Other Planning Considerations ..................................................................................... 1-9 2-1 SECTlON 2 .TRANSPORTATION . GOALS AND POLICIES .................................................... 2.1 Goal 1 .Mobility ........................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Goal 2 .Efficiency ........................................................................................................ 2-2 2.3 Goal 3 .Safety ............................................................................................................. 2-3 2.4 Goal 4 .Equity .............................................................................................................. 2-3 2.5 Goal 5 .Environmental ............................................................................................. 2-4 2.6 Goal 6 .Alternative Modes of Transportation ............................................................. 2-4 2.7 Goal 7 .Maintain MuK-3urisdictional Coordination ................................................... 2-5 2.8 Goal 8 .Roadway Functional Classification .............................................................. 2-6 2.9 Goal 9 .Transportation Financing ............................................................................... 2-7 2.10 Goal 10 .Pedestrian and Bicycle Traffic...................................................................... 2-7 2.1 1 Goal 11 .Refinement Studies ....................................................................................... 2-9 SECTION 3 .EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Study Area ..................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.3 Road Classification ..................................................................................................... 3-1 3.4 Bridges ................................................................................................................... 3-14 3.5 Intersection Traffic Control and Lane Channelization............................................... 3-17 3.6 A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour Traffic... Volumes ............................................................... 3-17 3.7 Pedestrian and Bicycle Fac~litles............................................................................. 3-22 3.8 Rail Service ................................................................................................................. 3-22 3.9 Public Transportation .................................................................................................. 3-23 3.10 Air Transportation ....................................................................................................... 3-25 3.1 1 Water Transportation... .................................................................................................. 3-26 3.12 Pipeline Faalitles ........................................................................................................ 3-27 SECTION 4 .EXISTING CONDITIONS AND DEFICIENCIES ................................................. 4-1 4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Intersection Levels of Service and vlc Ratio Analysis ................................................. 4-1 4.3 High Crash Locations.................................................................................................... 4-6 4.4 Existing Intersection Capacity Improvement Needs .................................................. 4-10 4.5 Safety Improvement Needs ......................................................................................... 4-10 4.6 Bridges ............................................................................................................................ 4-10 4.7 Pedestrian and Bicycle Faallties ................................................................................ 4-11 SECTION 5 .2025 TRAVEL FORECAST AND FUTURE DEFICIENCIES.............................. 5-1 5.1 Travel Demand Forecast Methodology ....................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Travel Demand Forecast Employed. for Baker County Study Area ............................. 5-2 5.3 2025 Traffic Volume Projecbons.................................................................................. 5-2 5.4 Future Intersection and Roadway Capacity Deficiencies........................................... 5-11 SECTION 6 .TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ALTERNATWES ANALYSIS .......................... 6-1 6.1 ODOT STIP Projects .................................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 Intersection Improvement at Hughes Lane/US 30 ....................................................... 6-4 6.3 Safety Improvements ............................................................................................. 6-5 6.4 Baker County Road Department Projects ..................................................................... 6-5 6.5 Other Improvement Projects ......................................................................................... 6-7 SECTION 7 .TRANSPORTATION MODAL PLANS .................................................................. 7-1 7.1 Road Plan ....................................................................................................................... 7-1 7.2 Pedestrian and Bicycle System Plan ........................................................................... 7-22 .......................................................................................... 7.3 Public Transportation. Plan. 7-27 7.4 Air, Rail, Water. Pipelme Plan ................................................................................. 7-29 SECTION 8 .FINANCE PLAN ....................................................................................................... 8-1 8.1 Transportation Improvement Revenue Needs .............................................................. 8-1 8-2 Transportation Revenue Outlook.............................................................................. 8-1 8-3 Revenue Sources and Financing Options ..................................................................... 8-1 APPENDIX LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1 . Structurally Deficient or Functionally Obsolete Baker County Bridges ...................... 3-17 Table 3.2 . Community Connections Annual Ridership FY 1998 - FY 2000 ............................... 3-25 Table 4.1 . Maximum Volume-to-Capacity Ratios for Peak Hour Operating Conditions Through A Planning Horizon for State Highway Sections Located Outside the Portland. Metropolitan Area Urban Growth Boundary................................................... 4-2 Table 4.2 . Exlstmg Levels of Service .............................................................................................. 4-4 Table 4-3 . Intersection Crash Summary ........................................................................................... 4-6 Table 4-4. Mid-Block Crash Summary .......................................................................................... 4-7 Table 5-1. Annual Historical Growth Rates along State Highways in Baker County.................... 5-6 Table 5-2. Annual Growth Factors Applied to Study Area Intersections........................................ 5-8 Table 5.3 . Year 2025 Levels of Service........................................................................................... 5-9 Table 7-1 . Access Management Standards ...................................................................................... 7-5 Table 7.2 . Local Road Network Plan Improvement Projects .................................................... 7-16 Table 7-3 . Roadway Capital Improvement List and Cost .............................................................. 7-16 Table 7-4. Bicycle and Pedestrian Capital Improvement List and Cost .......................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • State Highway Department
    Description of WOrk of the State Highway Department in the Counties of the State 1923 -1924 BAKER COUNTY There was less activity in highway constructjon in Baker County dur- ing the biennium just past than in previousyears. However, the main trunk line highway known as the Old Oregon Trailwas completed during this period, and some work was doneon the Baker-Cornucopia and the Baker-Unity Highways. The work on the Baker-Cornucopia Highway involved theconstruction of the grade down the Powder River Canyon, which eliminated the high Sparta summit and materially improved existing communicationbetween the Eagle and Pine Valleys and Baker.However, there still remains a very bad section between Middle Bridge and Love Bridge, and the section between Black Bridge and Richland, through the Dry Gulch country, is impassable to automobile traffic during the spring of theyear. On the Baker-Unity Highway the gradeon both sides of Dooley Moun- tain was completed. Those who were forced to travel the old mountain grade, which was narrow, crooked, and in places reacheda gradient of 22 per cent, will appreciate traveling over thenew highway now open to traffic. The total length of grading completed in Baker County during the past biennium was 18.11 miles, of which 8.95 mileswere surfaced. in addition to this work there were 25.90 miles surveyed. The Baker County bond issue of 1918, amounting to $500,000,was in- sufficient to meet the State in cooperating to complete the state highways through the county, and on November 4, 1924,an additional $500,00G was voted to complete the Baker-Cornucopia and the Baker-Unity High- ways.
    [Show full text]
  • Sutton Mountain Painted Hills Pat's Cabin
    visitors guide sutton mountain pat’s cabin painted hills proposed wilderness areas oregon natural desert association John Day River area (photo © Tyler Roemer) area facts Plant Communities Welcome to Sutton Mountain, Pat’s Cabin, Sutton Mountain, Pat’s Cabin, and Painted Hills are all dominated by big sagebrush, Painted Hills Proposed Wilderness Areas native bunchgrasses, and western juniper, Located near Mitchell, Oregon, and surrounding the Painted Hills National Monument, Sutton providing important habitat and forage for Mountain, Pat’s Cabin, and Painted Hills Proposed Wilderness Areas provide spectacular vistas of native wildlife. The sagebrush-juniper wood- the John Day River, Bridge Creek valley and surrounding landscape. These unique wild areas offer lands that characterize these unique areas recreational opportunities for hikers, horseback riders, hunters, botanists and other outdoor enthu- provide vital habitat for the sensitive species siasts. The proposed wilderness areas encompass Arrowleaf thelypody and Peck’s milkvetch. a diversity of habitat types including grasslands, riparian areas, sagebrush shrub steppe, wood- Wildlife lands, and forests. They also provide important This unique area provides essential habitat habitat for threatened summer steelhead and for a variety of wildlife, such as Western Chinook salmon. toads, lizards, snakes, Pygmy rabbits, bobcats, coyotes, cougar, mule deer, California bighorn Sutton Mountain The John Day River winds lazily around the sheep, and elk. A large number of birds base of Sutton Mountain, an iconic gem of also frequent the areas, including pileated the John Day Basin. This 29,000-acre potential woodpeckers, white-headed woodpeckers, wilderness area towers over steep ravines, native red-naped sapsuckers, ferruginous hawks, grasslands, and dramatic clay formations.
    [Show full text]
  • Baker Resource Area Resource Management Plan (RMP)
    BLM Vale District Vale Baker Field Office Draft Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management Volume 3 Appendices, Literature Cited, Glossary, Abbreviations and Acronyms October 2005 October 2011 As the Nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering the wisest use of our land and water resources, protecting our fish and wildlife, preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places, and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to assure that their development is in the best interest of all our people. The Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in Island Territories under U.S. administration. Prepared by Baker Resource Area Vale District October 2011 Edward W. Shepard State Director. Oregon/Washington Don Gonzalez District Manager Vale District Office Ted Davis Field Manager Baker Resource Area Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Table of Contents Table of Contents VOLUME 3 List of Appendices Chapter 1 Appendix 1.1. Laws, Regulations, And Policies that Apply to all Alternatives Chapter 2 Appendix 2.1. Best Management Practices Appendix 2.2. Aquatic and Riparian Management Strategy Appendix 2.3. Livestock Grazing Systems Appendix 2.4. Sagebrush Structure and Canopy Closure Appendix 2.5. Determining Stocking Carrying Capacity Appendix 2.6. Process for Relinquishment Of Preference Appendix 2.7. Recreation Management Areas Appendix 2.8.
    [Show full text]
  • Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA)
    Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA) 07/01/2018 to 09/30/2018 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest This report contains the best available information at the time of publication. Questions may be directed to the Project Contact. Expected Project Name Project Purpose Planning Status Decision Implementation Project Contact R6 - Pacific Northwest Region, Regionwide (excluding Projects occurring in more than one Region) Regional Aquatic Restoration - Wildlife, Fish, Rare plants In Progress: Expected:12/2018 12/2018 James Capurso Project - Watershed management Scoping Start 12/11/2017 503-808-2847 EA Est. Comment Period Public [email protected] *UPDATED* Notice 08/2018 Description: The USFS is proposing a suite of aquatic restoration activities for Region 6 to address ongoing needs, all of which have completed consultation, including activities such as fish passage restoration, wood placement, and other restoration activities. Web Link: https:/data.ecosystem-management.org/nepaweb/nepa_project_exp.php?project=53001 Location: UNIT - R6 - Pacific Northwest Region All Units. STATE - Oregon, Washington. COUNTY - Adams, Asotin, Benton, Chelan, Clallam, Clark, Columbia, Cowlitz, Douglas, Ferry, Franklin, Garfield, Grant, Grays Harbor, Island, Jefferson, King, Kitsap, Kittitas, Klickitat, Lewis, Lincoln, Mason, Okanogan, Pacific, Pend Oreille, Pierce, San Juan, Skagit, Skamania, Snohomish, Spokane, Stevens, Thurston, Wahkiakum, Walla Walla, Whatcom, Whitman, Yakima, Baker, Benton, Clackamas, Clatsop, Columbia, Coos, Crook, Curry, Deschutes, Douglas, Gilliam,
    [Show full text]
  • Gilliam County Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan
    Gilliam County MULTI-JURISDICTION NATURAL HAZARDS MITIGATION PLAN Gilliam County City of Arlington City of Condon REVIEW CityCOPY of Lonerock Effective {DATE} 2018 through {DATE}, 2023 Gilliam County Multi-jurisdictional Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan Gilliam County and the Cities of Arlington, Condon, and Lonerock Report for: Gilliam County City of Arlington City of Condon City of Lonerock Prepared by: University of Oregon’s Institute for Policy Research and Engagement (the Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience), Resource Assistance for Rural Environments and Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development September 2018 The 2018 Gilliam County Multi-Jurisdictional Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan is a living document that will be reviewed and updated periodically. Comments, suggestions, corrections, and additions are enthusiastically encouraged to be submitted from all interested parties. For further information and to provide comments, contact: Chris Fitzsimmons, Emergency Manager GilliamREVIEW County COPY 211 South Oregon Street, Oregon 97823 Telephone: 541-384-2851 Email: [email protected] Special Thanks & Acknowledgements Gilliam County developed this Multi-Jurisdictional Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan through a regional partnership funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program. FEMA awarded the grant to support the update of natural hazards mitigation plans for eight counties in the region. The region’s planning process utilized a four- phased planning process and plan development support provided by the University of Oregon’s Institute for Policy Research and Engagement (IPRE) which includes the Resource Assistance for Rural Environments (RARE), and the Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience (OPDR). This project would not have been possible without technical and financial support provided by the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD).
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Appraisal Study Report Eastern Oregon Water Storage Appraisal Study for Burnt River, Powder River, and Pine Creek Basins
    Draft Appraisal Study Report Eastern Oregon Water Storage Appraisal Study for Burnt River, Powder River, and Pine Creek Basins U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Pacific Northwest Region Snake River Area Office Boise, Idaho April 2011 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR PROTECTING AMERICA’S GREAT OUTDOORS AND POWERING OUR FUTURE The U.S. Department of the Interior protects America’s natural resources and heritage, honors our cultures and tribal communities, and supplies the energy to power our future. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. Draft Appraisal Study Report Eastern Oregon Water Storage Appraisal Study for Burnt River, Powder River, and Pine Creek Basins U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Pacific Northwest Region Snake River Area Office Boise, Idaho April 2011 Summary Introduction and Background The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) in cooperation with eastern Oregon stakeholders is studying the potential to improve water supplies in the Burnt River, Powder River, and Pine Creek basins. About this Report This appraisal-level report is prepared in compliance with requirements of the Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resource Implementation Studies (U.S. Water Resources Council, 1983) (P&Gs). It presents a discussion of the formulation of alternatives, a description of the appraisal level designs and cost estimates for the alternatives considered, and the results of the P&G-specific analyses. Information in this report is based on a variety of studies.
    [Show full text]
  • Chromite Deposits of Grant County, Oregon
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Harold L. Ickes, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY W. C. Mendenhall, Director Bulletin 922-D CHROMITE DEPOSITS OF GRANT COUNTY, OREGON BY T. P. THAYER Strategic Minerals Investigations, 1940 (Pages 75-113) UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1940 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D. C. ....... Price 45 cents CONTENTS Page Abstract............................................... 75 Introduction........................................... 75 History and production............................. 76 Previous work...................................... 77 Field work and acknowledgments..................... 77 Geology................................................ 78 General features................................... 78 Basement complex................................... 78 Mesozoic sedimentary rocks,........................ 79 Ultramafic rocka................................... 79 Character...................................... 79 Distribution................................... 83 Age............................................ 84 Gaboroic banded rocks and pegmatites............... 84 Tertiary and Quaternary rocks...................... 85 Structure.......................................... 86 Ore bodies............................................. 87 Mineralogy......................................... 87 Structural character............................... 90 Relations of ore bodies to enclosing rocks......... 92 Origin............................................. 94 Distribution......................................
    [Show full text]
  • Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Invasive Plants Treatment DEIS
    Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Invasive Plants Treatment Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Changes between the DEIS and FEIS for Section 3.1 Section 3.1 has been rewritten for clarity based on public comments and internal review. The original information from the DEIS remains, although may be numbered differently. This section adds 3.1.3 Incomplete and Unavailable Information, Section 3.1.2 Basis for Cumulative Effects - This section is reworded to describe the incremental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, both on National Forest System lands and other adjacent federal, state, or private lands. 3.1 Introduction This chapter describes both the existing conditions of the project area, and the environmental effects of implementing the alternatives described in Chapter 2. Effects are defined as: • Adverse and/or beneficial direct effects occur at the same time and in the same general location as the activity causing the effects. • Adverse and beneficial indirect effects are those that occur at a different time or location from the activity causing the effects. Both types of effects are described in terms of increase or decreases, intensity, duration, and timing. • Cumulative Effects result from the incremental impacts of the Proposed Actions/alternatives when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, both on the Forest and Wild and Scenic River corridor as well as other adjacent federal, state, or private lands. Effects include ecological (such as the effects on natural resources and on the components, structures, and functioning of affected ecosystems), aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, or health, whether direct, indirect, or cumulative (40 CFR 1508.7 and 1508.8).
    [Show full text]
  • Milebymile.Com Personal Road Trip Guide Oregon State Highway #19
    MileByMile.com Personal Road Trip Guide Oregon State Highway #19 Miles ITEM SUMMARY 0.0 Intersection Intersection Interstate Highway #84 just north of Arlington, Oregon, on the bank of Columbia River (Oregon side), It's here Oregon Route #19 starts its southerly journey. Altitude: 305 feet 1.0 Arlington, Oregon Arlington, Oregon, a city in Gilliam County, Oregon, located on Oregon Route #19, south of Columbia River Altitude: 381 feet 1.1 Airport Road Airport Road, Arlington Municipal Airport, a public airport located northeast of Arlington, Oregon, in Gilliam County, Oregon, Altitude: 381 feet 7.0 Cedar Springs Lane Cedar Springs Lane, Community of Shutler, Oregon Altitude: 722 feet 7.5 Montague Road Montague Road, Eightmile Canyon Road, Altitude: 741 feet 16.7 Upper Rock Creek Road Upper Rock Creek Road, Olex Road, Olex, Oregon, a community in Gilliam County, Oregon, Altitude: 961 feet 16.8 Middle Rock Creek Road Middle Rock Creek Road, to Community of Rock Creek, Oregon, Altitude: 981 feet 22.7 Clem Road Clem Road, Clem, Oregon, a community in Gilliam County, Oregon, Altitude: 1923 feet 24.9 Speece, Oregon Community of Speece, Oregon Altitude: 2339 feet 26.5 Pennngton Road Pennington Road, to Community of Clem, Oregon, Altitude: 2484 feet 28.5 Wolf Hollow Road Wolf Hollow Road, Spring Hollow Road, Altitude: 2533 feet 29.4 Gwendolen, Oregon Community of Gwendolen, Oregon Altitude: 2516 feet 32.4 Gwendolen Road Gwendolen Road, Dry Fok Road, Altitude: 2657 feet 37.2 Condon Airport Road Condon Airport Road, Condon State Airport, (also known
    [Show full text]
  • City of John Day Comprehensive Plan
    CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT The John Day City Planning Commission is the City’s Committee for Citizen Involvement (CCI) and has been since the City’s earliest involvement in the Oregon planning process. Cities and counties were required to establish Citizen Involvement Committees (CICs) to aid in the planning process by ensuring the public had the opportunity to participate in the formulation and adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and Implementing Ordinances. The process has now evolved to a point where there are formalized notice processes for most land use actions, including Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments contained within the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance, including such things as variances, conditional uses, partitions, and subdivisions. Legislative amendments are normally broadly advertised in the local newspaper and other media venues to provide an opportunity for the general public to be involved in the planning process. All public hearings, both legislative and quasi judicial, and Planning Commission workshops are open public meetings and subject to the Oregon Open Public Meeting law. The policies of citizen involvement remain the same. 1. To conduct periodic community surveys as deemed necessary to ascertain public opinion and collect information. 2. To provide the opportunity for people to attend and participate in Planning Commission and City Council meetings and hearings and provide ample public notice thereof. 3. To establish citizen advisory committees as deemed necessary or advisable to study community problems and make recommendations for their solution. 4. To make future Comprehensive Plan changes and revisions available for public review and comment. 5. To make technical reports available for public inspection.
    [Show full text]
  • 4. Inventory of Existing Activities (Private, Local, State, Federal)
    DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT 3.6.5.1 Aquatic Habitat for High Priority Protection The QHA analysis resulted in a list of priorities for habitat protection (Figure 28; Appendix 4, Table 32). The rankings are based on the greatest value gained by protecting a given reach. In other words, the highest ranked reach is the reach in the best overall condition resulting in the greatest benefit from protecting it. The South Fork Burnt River 2 was the reach with the highest protection ranking in the subbasin. It was followed by South Fork Burnt River 1, West Fork Camp Creek (Burnt R.), North Fork Burnt River 4 and Pritchard/Lawrence Creek to round out the top 5. 3.6.5.2 Aquatic Habitat to Reestablish Access Several of the subbasin’s reaches would benefit from reestablishment of access for fish. Notably, Clark’s Creek, Burnt River 7, Auburn Creek, Big Creek, Camp Creek East Fork (Burnt R.), Burnt River 8, Job Creek, Middle Fork Burnt River, North Fork Burnt River 2 & 3 and Trout and Camp Creeks were rated at 25% of optimum or less and would benefit from efforts to reestablish access. 3.6.5.3 Aquatic Habitat for Restoration The QHA analysis resulted in a list of priorities for habitat restoration (Figure 28; Appendix 4, Table 32). The rankings are based on the greatest habitat value gained by conducting restoration activities. Based on this ranking, the highest priority reach for habitat restoration in the subbasin is Clark’s Creek. It was followed by Sisely and Jordan Creeks, North Fork Burnt River 3, Alder Creek 1, and Pritchard and Lawrence Creeks.
    [Show full text]
  • Burnt River Subbasin Plan
    DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Burnt River Subbasin Plan May 28, 2004 Prepared for the Northwest Power and Conservation Council Lead Writer M. Cathy Nowak, Cat Tracks Wildlife Consulting Subbasin Team Leader Doni Clair, Baker County Association of Conservation Districts DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Burnt River Subbasin Plan Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary................................................................................................................. 8 2. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 11 2.1 Description of Planning Entity ...................................................................................... 11 2.2. List of Participants......................................................................................................... 11 2.3. Stakeholder Involvement Process.................................................................................. 13 2.4. Overall Approach to the Planning Activity ................................................................... 13 2.5. Process and Schedule for Revising/Updating the Plan.................................................. 14 3. Subbasin Assessment ............................................................................................................ 14 3.1. Subbasin Overview........................................................................................................ 15 3.1.1. General Description..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]