I’m posting this information in its entirety that was received from the Corp this morning with the go ahead to post.
“Please emphasize that we are early in the process and the features are still conceptual and that at this point we would much rather have comments on the goals and objectives of the project – and we are receptive to public input.”
Because the files are fairly large, I’ll have to post them separately.
Catherine-Pass-Alternative-1.pdf
Catherine Pass (Katrina) #2
Catherine-Pass-Alternative-2.pdf
Wacouta Bay
Wacouta-Bay.pdf
and the details…
For questions and/or comments please email [email protected]
Conceptual-Habitat-Feature-Details.pdf
I don’t fish or travel through this specific area enough to really get the gist of the proposed plans.
I’d much rather every single penny be spent on the upstream sources of the sedimentation issues. At what point could the Corps haul some of this “sediment” back to the agricultural areas along the MN River and start dumping it on fields at the farmers’ expense?
Thanks for these types of posts BK! Informative and good stuff to know.
Oh! Let me answer that for the Corp! When we can mine bitcoin from the moon.
I know you’re serious, but there’s too many variables to dump this all on the farmers. Every parking lot and new road with or without storm sewers are to blame as well.
Will a long stretch of the imagination, since we are all benefiting from more farm products, public roads and such, the Corp is picking up the majority of the cost and of course if the Corp is picking it up, it’s taxpayer money (with strings attached).
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
