St. Johns/New Madrid RSEIS - Endangered Species & Wetlands ...

calculated based upon HUs, which is the product of habitat suitability and ADFAs, while
mitigation was expressed in terms of frequently flooded acres and habitat suitability.
This inconsistency was recognized subsequent to the execution of August 25, 2003,
ROD.
Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) issued (Water Quality) WQ
Certification on June 9, 2003, with the Settlement Agreement and Memorandum of
Understanding for the Protection of Big Oak Tree State Park. This WQ Certification was
appealed shortly thereafter. As outlined in the 2002 RSEIS, and consistent with the WQ
Certification, an interagency mitigation team was formed to discuss potential mitigation
tracts of land that could be used to compensate unavoidable impacts to fish and wildlife
resources. The interagency team was made up of representatives from the Memphis
District, Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC), USFWS, Missouri
Department of Conservation (MDC), MDNR, and local interests. The first three tracts of
land, totaling 1,657 acres, were purchased on July 28, 2004.
Concerns have been expressed and legal challenges were filed over the amount of
mitigation acreage required in terms of ADFA. An inconsistency was identified among
the ROD, the WQ Certification, and the Administrative Record. The ROD was
withdrawn on June 23, 2005.
1.3 Decisions Needed
This RSEIS 2 serves to clarify the acreage and types of compensatory mitigation required
in terms of HU and ADFA equivalents. The purpose is not to re-evaluate the calculation
of the impacts for the fishery resource. In fact, the calculation of impacts to this resource
was stipulated as being appropriate during the Missouri State Water Quality Appeal
Hearing in December 2003. This RSEIS 2 also clarifies and further details certain
assumptions related to the impact analyses, such as the use of the 2-year floodplain.
Mitigation features that were not fully developed and quantified in the 2002 RSEIS are
developed and quantified, ensuring that both compensatory mitigation requirements for
the unavoidable impacts to fishery resource are met, as well as unavoidable impacts to
other resources, including wetlands, wildlife, shorebird, waterfowl, and mid-season fish
rearing. Finally, all issues listed in Section 1.4.3 of this RSEIS 2 are addressed.
The decision to sign a new ROD for this project will be based on the evaluation of
compensatory mitigation features, and an evaluation of the probable impact, including
cumulative impacts, of the activities on the public interest. That decision would reflect
the national concern for both protection and utilization of important resources. The
potential benefits of the activity must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable
detriments. The ROD will consider all reasonably foreseeable direct, indirect, and
cumulative effects of the activity discussed in this RSEIS 2 and/or elsewhere in earlier
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents for this project.
Draft RSEIS 2
12