Laserfiche WebLink
<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 />I <br /> <br />12. Palle 19, Land Use. Describe the laDd manasement of the area by the Iowa Department <br />of Natural Resources. <br /> <br />13. Page 22. lest paraaraph. Anny Corps of EnSincen uno if DOt ineludeod ill the Rtfereoc:ts <br /> <br />14. Pase 23, 1st Parapph . What discharge Is nquired to reach elevation 996.01 Include in <br />report as this is important. Only one alltmative appean to be discussed, ratbcr Chan two, please <br />correct. Whal is seepage ralt through me sill SttIICNre from bactwater area? <br /> <br />IS. Page 23, ust Paragraph. State the discbarae at which chute would DOt be active. <br /> <br />16. Discussion of Evaluation of Alternatives. There seems to be some 4~ies in Table <br />4 with what is presented in !be text. Listed below are concerns: <br /> <br />a. Estimated Useful Lite. Why are allernatives C, D, and E rated so high? They <br />should be rated lower !hat the pilot channels because the pilot channels are nollikely to silt in <br />soon, while the backwater areas will continue to Sill in. Alternative P should probably not rate <br />a 10 either, since backwater will continue to convert 10 upland. Suggesl rating Alternatives C, <br />D, E. an F the same and lower than Alternative B in lhis /:aleeoT)'. Alternative B should be <br />rated higher. <br /> <br />b. Annualized Construction t:osts. Wily include when constrUCtion COsts are already <br />factored in table? This doubly penalizes expensive options. Please delete this line from Table <br />4. <br /> <br />c. Fish and Wildlife Impacts - Scores shown 40 not seem to be consistet1t with ratinis <br />in Table 7, Page 32. Are tIlese unpacts tile same or different, please clartt)'. <br /> <br />17. Page 29 . ~ 'No Action" alternative will conrinue to aurade in the overbank. but it <br />should be no worse than for any of the backwater alternatives, bUI this is DOt clearly spelled out <br />in text. <br /> <br />18. Page 32. Table 7 . Why are alternatives A, B, and D given "0" ratings for <br />physiography/topography? They don't seem any worse than the other alternatives. please <br />clarify . <br /> <br />19. Page 32, Table 7. Under Terrestrial Resources, riparian tim~r, lh~ ~huu1\l ~ iI "0' {ve <br />Alternative C instead of a "0.. Allemative C would affecl over 10 acres. <br /> <br />20. Page 33, Aquatic Resources. Also state that the area would not be accessible to riverine <br />fislt. Only those fisb that get trapped in the area will use it for spawning and uursery purposes. <br /> <br />21. Page 34, second paragraph under Bald Eagle. .Stalmaster 1978" is not included in the List <br />of References. <br /> <br />2 <br />