Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />.(- <br />I" <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I" <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />27. Page 23. Pilot Channels. Stare the purpose of the iaJet aod 0UlIet sttuClIUeI (e.,.,1O <br />resulate the amount of water flowm, into tbe ehule or to pzeve.1ll c:aptlIIe of die riw:r by the <br />chute, etc.) <br /> <br />28. Paae 23, Grade Control Strucbues. oEM 1110-2.1601, US AmrJ Corps of F-nal-, <br />1991' is shown in the References Cited section u have a dale of 1uly 19'10. Need 10 comet. <br /> <br />29. Paae 23, BackwallrlWetlml Complex. C!wIp 'wiDbe' aod 'willhaveolO 'would be' <br />IIlCI 'would have', zapectively. in sevtral placea. <br /> <br />30. Paae 23, Pmnits. Second to last seDteDee, cbaDae .then.1I) "1baJlo. <br /> <br />31. Pa.e 24, Table 4. Insert "Altematives" over .A,S, C m1 D'. <br /> <br />32. Page 24, A few sentenca should be added liD indit;ate that die ~~ewioIl plan is <br />conceptual and additioDa1 consultation between the CoIpI and Stall ageD:ies will take pJace. <br />The followa eollU1leDES shaJI be u.:otporated lDfo the final DPll. <br /> <br />a. The coDCept of pl"nriI!a all of tile forested area sbould be JeOOo15;J....ed. Over time <br />all tbe selected species would naIlIra1ly re~lish wiJh the exeeptioll OJ Ibc Wbi1e Oat. <br /> <br />b. Page 25, para. 1. The 70 percenl re~ sl10ukt be reduced 8Dd stale <br />foresters should be eomacted for recoJDIDeDdatioDl. <br /> <br />c. Page 25, para. 2, There is doubt the tbe liv~'" ac:lQ would Deed to be pJauted <br />at all. Slafe foresters should be contacted for reeommeDlIatioD. <br /> <br />33. Page 2S and exhibit 6, The reforestation plan should be D>>1ifjecf iDto strips of trees <br />tbar nm l'lIflI11e1 rn the general flow of the river. 1bis will reduce COI1VeyIDCe ~ ' also <br />a more detailed discussion of Ibe reasons for placing tbe fill where it ia should be included. <br /> <br />34. Exhibits 6, 7 IIId 3 are Dk:e. Please remove the bIaDt pap IIIIDbcr 26,_ Plll~F <br />Il"m.....u on all exh11rils. <br /> <br />35. Pase'1:1, The "NoAc:tioIlo al1mIative deseripcion sbouIcl be ups"""'" liD~ wbat <br />is lite1y to ha,ppea (i.e. natual revegetation, eonti...-f fanDiDg, $.). 'Ibit wiD be discussed <br />at Ibe COIlfereoce calL <br /> <br />36. The discllSsiOD in the evaluation of altematives should include flood plaiD impacrs. A <br />recap of the analysis U all that U nectssary. <br /> <br />37. Page 30, Table 6. Por "CcJmlruWuD Cost", I b't see the rca50D for ratiDa the 2S- IIId <br />SO-foot cha~Js tile same, siD:e there is a $358,000 difl'Itleuce bet... Ibc QlIII of d1cse <br />two alle111llives, but there Is only a $235,000 differeGc6 betweal the 10- IIId 2S-foot <br />cbanDeJs, and those twO bave ratings of Sand 4, RSpCCtiYely. The raIiDc for the SO-foot <br />,,".n-1 should be a 3. <br />