Laserfiche WebLink
<br />II <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 />I <br /> <br />The proposed monitoring and evaluation plan is presented in Section 10; and operation, <br />maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation considerations and responsibilities are discussed in Section <br />11. A detailed cost estimate of al1 project features, including construction, operation, <br />maintenance, repair and rehabilitation, and monitoring, is presented in Section 12. Real estate <br />requirements or easements to construct the project are discussed in Section 13. A tentative <br />schedule for planning, design, construction, and completion of the selected plan is shown in <br />Section 14. Section 15 describes implementation responsibilities and views. Public and agency <br />coordination is discussed in Section 16. Conclusions and recommendations are summarized in <br />Section 17, Sections 18 and 19 provide a list of the DPR preparers and a draft Finding of No <br />Significant Impact (FONSI), respectively. An evaluation in accordance with EPA's Guidelines <br />for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material (40 CFR 230) is contained in <br />Section 20. Section 21 provides literature cited. Attached to the DPR are two appendices, which <br />include details regarding engineering, environmental and cost studies. Appendices are included <br />in separate volumes (Volumes n and 1lI). <br /> <br />2. SITE SELECTION PROCESS <br /> <br />a. General Eligibility Criteria: The Reaffirmation Report (U.S. Army Corps of <br />Engineers 1990) describes the various aspects of the mitigation project, including the general <br />criteria to be used in selection of non-public sites for acquisition and development. These criteria <br />are as fol1ows: (1) sites in private ownership will be acquired on a willing sel1er basis to the <br />extent possible; (2) sites will general1y have a minimum size of 100 acres; (3) the total acreage <br />acquired and/or developed in each State will be approximately 28,950 acres in Missouri, 9,600 <br />acres in Iowa, 7,200 acres in Nebraska, and 2,350 acres in Kansas; (4) areas selected must be <br />compatible with the authorized purposes of the Missouri River Bank Stabilization and Navigation <br />Project and will have no adverse effects on navigation, on the carrying capacity of the existing <br />levee systems, or on the flood-carrying capacity of the existing floodway; (5) emphasis is to be <br />given to acquiring remaining larger contiguous tracts of bottomland timber, wetlands or former <br />wetlands that can be restored, areas suitable for development of terrestrial forest and grassland, <br />and areas where chutes and backwaters can be restored; (6) acquisition of agricultural land should <br />be limited, except where the area has high potential for development or where a willing sel1er is <br />available; (7) acquisition will be confmed to the meander belt; (8) sites for chute and backwater <br />restoration will undergo an engineering, economic, and environmental feasibility determination; <br />(9) public access to areas will not be a determining factor in acquisition; (10) sites chosen for <br />chute, backwater, or wetlands restoration wilJ include enough adjacent land to allow establishment <br />of perimeter habitats; (11) sites chosen for acquisition and/or development will be based upon <br />State and Federal agency input and support; and (12) estimated operation and maintenance costs <br />wilJ also be considered in the site selection process. <br /> <br />In addition to these criteria, the States provided an initial screening and prioritization of <br />their recommended acquisition and development sites. The Kansas City (CEMRK) and Omaha <br />(CEMRO) Districts evaluated the engineering feasibility of developing certain State-owned lands <br />and ranked the sites according to the potential for success or failure. Proposed projects are <br /> <br />7 <br />