Laserfiche WebLink
memo <br />5 of 6 <br />Response This boundary was reviewed with Mark Maloney on May 16, 2011 and determined to be <br />correct. Questions Mark had about the boundary on the north end of the watershed were <br />outside the GLWMO boundary and are really questions for the RCWD. <br />Comment (KE) Please make the following changes to figures throughout the document: <br />- Make sure roads (e.g. Lexington, County Road C, Victoria) don't get cut off and <br />make the labels easier to find (read) <br />- County Road D not marked <br />- Make background (area outside of the GLWMO boundary) lighter <br />- Increase road signs to make them easier to read <br />- Entire figure should be clearer <br />- Consider alternate color scheme <br />- Make all figures (maps) l lxl7's <br />Response Figures have been modified to reflect these comments <br />Comment (JM) Regarding the figures, many could be made more clear. In figure 1, if I wasn't familiar <br />with Grass Lake, I would have a hard time finding it. This could be changed to make the <br />County labels and the labels of the other watersheds smaller and change the fill of the <br />Grass Lake polygon to some bright color that is immediately apparent. <br />Response Figures have been modified to reflect these comments <br />Comment (JM) In figure 2, it looks like the contours overlay a hillshade; these give the same information <br />and only one is needed (I would prefer the hillshade as more people can relate to it that to <br />contours). <br />Response Figures have been modified to reflect these comments <br />Comment (JM) Further, in all figures showing drainage arrows, the arrows are very unclear. <br />Response Figures have been modified to reflect these comments <br />Comment (JM) I would guess that when the map was exported from ArcGIS to TIFF or PDF or JPEG it <br />was done so at the standard 100 dpi resolution. I have found that increasing the <br />resolution to 300 dpi usually improves the readability of the map (though it does increase <br />storage size). <br />Response Figures have been modified to reflect these comments <br />Comment (JM) Finally, in figure 9 it may be more clear if the ditches were digitized to polygons from the <br />old map and displayed as features rather than using the old map as a background (which <br />makes the figure rather unclear). <br />Response This request is outside of the project scope. <br />Pictures <br />Comment (KE) Replace the photo on page 48 (Snail Lake image) with an alternate image being provided <br />by Karen Eckman. Consider using the low lake level image on Snail Lake for another <br />section of the Plan where the issue of lake levels is discussed in more detail. <br />Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. <br />651 Hale Ave N, Oakdale, MN 55128 p: 651.770.8448 f: 651.770.2552 www.eorinc.com <br />