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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Mitigation Measure Table 2.2. Expected Benefits of Basic Mitigation Feature Wetlands Wildlife Habitat Waterfowl Shorebird SJB Fish NM Fish Acres FCU 1 AAHU DUD AAHU AAHU AAHU Project Impacts -622 -964 -2,059 -204,039 -761 -1884 -2329 Reforestation SJB – 1,293 acres (fee) 1,293 5,701 1,846 296,097 0 312 0 Reforestation NM – 2,326 acres (fee) 2,326 10,255 3,321 532,654 0 0 38 Modified Moist Soil Unit – 765 acres (fee) 765 TBD 0 793,305 761 TBD TBD Vegetated Buffers – 671 acres (easement) 671 2,958 958 104,005 0 0 9 Wildlife Corridor – 266 acres (easement) 266 1,173 380 60,914 0 0 4 BOTSP Water Supply 0 TBD 0 0 0 0 TBD BOTSP Perimeter Land Acquisition – 1,800 acres (fee) 1,800 7,936 2,570 162,000 0 0 TBD Borrow Pits – 387 acres (fee) 0 0 0 0 0 1,571 0 TOTAL Basic Mitigation 7,121 28,023 9,075 1,948,975 761 1,884 51 NET CHANGE 6,499 27,059 7,016 1,744,936 0 0 -2,278 1 Represents the sum of all functional categories SJB – St. Johns Bayou Basin NM – New Madrid Floodway BOTSP – Big Oak Tree State Park TBD – To be determined during the development of site-specific mitigation plans 2.6.1.1 Reforestation Approximately 1,293 and 2,326 acres of cropland would be reforested within the St. Johns Bayou Basin and the New Madrid Floodway, respectively. This is in addition to 1,800 acres of land that would be reforested in the vicinity of Big Oak Tree State Park. Reforesting this amount of land would yield an increase of 312 and 38 mid-season fish rearing AAHUs in the St. Johns Bayou Basin and the New Madrid Floodway, respectively. Specific calculations are found in Section 5.4.2.1 of this RSEIS 2. It is anticipated that lands would be acquired in fee. Reforestation would include, preparing the site (deep disking, sub-soiler), restoring hydrology, planting trees, annual maintenance (mowing, weed control, etc.), and monitoring to ensure survival. These activities would be described in site-specific detailed mitigation plans that would be fully coordinated with the interagency mitigation team. Specific species of trees to be planted, seeding/seedling rates, and survivorship rates would also be addressed in the site-specific plans. If suitable, each tract would be planted with at least 15% RPM trees. Draft RSEIS 2 32
2.6.1.2 Shorebird Areas The USFWS CAR (2000) stated that flooding cropland (209 acres in the St. Johns Bayou Basin and 1,314 in the New Madrid Floodway) or flooding herbaceous wetlands (105 acres in the St. Johns Bayou Basin, 660 acres in the New Madrid Floodway) would fully compensate for impacts to shorebird habitat from project construction. The 2002 RSEIS recommended flooding herbaceous wetlands to compensate for the impacts to shorebird habitat (104 Shorebird AAHUs in the St. Johns Bayou Basin and 657 Shorebird AAHUs in the New Madrid Floodway) from project construction. These areas could be used to offset a small portion of the habitat impacts to fisheries and waterfowl, depending on water depth and access to the area (USFWS CAR, 2000). It is anticipated that lands would be acquired in fee. Moist soil units (flooded herbaceous wetlands) are typically used to mange shorebird and waterfowl resources in the project area. Moist soil unit construction basically involves building perimeter levees around the site, installing a water control device to precisely manage water levels (e.g., stop log structure), and providing a source of water usually through the use of groundwater pumps. This method of moist soil unit construction would largely reduce or eliminate fisheries access to the site. Construction of moist soil units can be modified to allow fish access to the site. These modifications include locating potential areas adjacent to permanent water that supports aquatic life (e.g., ditch, bayou, stream, etc.) and degrading portions of the perimeter levee to allow surface water (and fish) to enter during flood events. Moist soil units would remain flooded during portions of the year. It is highly likely that portions of these areas would remain flooded from April 1 to May 15. Therefore, it is likely that these areas would provide mid-season fish rearing habitat. However, benefits to mid-season fish rearing habitat are not quantified for the purpose of this RSEIS 2 because of uncertainties. These uncertainties include but are not limited to the amount of flooding on tracts, fish usage, and dissolved oxygen concentration. The Corps intends to monitor the sites for fish usage. Benefits to mid-season fish rearing habitat would be quantified if monitoring reveals evidence of fish usage. Creation of modified moist soil units have the potential to yield an increase of 75 and 238 mid-season fish rearing AAHUs in the St. Johns Bayou Basin and the New Madrid Floodway, respectively. Further discussion on the potential benefits to mid-season fish rearing habitat from the construction of shorebird areas is found in Section 5.4.2.2 of this RSEIS 2. 2.6.1.3 Vegetated Buffer Strips The 2002 RSEIS incorporated vegetated buffer strips along 64 miles of New Madrid Floodway channels. The 2002 RSEIS calculated habitat gains of buffer strips for instream fish habitat. However, no calculations were made for the potential benefit to midseason fish rearing habitat when riparian zones are flooded. Forested riparian zones provide habitat for floodplain-spawning fishes similar to larger tracts of bottomland Draft RSEIS 2 33
Page 1 and 2: Memphis District December 2005 Draf
Page 3 and 4: Compensatory mitigation entails a b
Page 5 and 6: Feature 2002 RSEIS RSEIS 2 Pumping
Page 7 and 8: flooding. However, closing the gate
Page 9 and 10: floodplain fish) and maximizing ADF
Page 11 and 12: ACRONYMS 2000 FSEIS September, 2000
Page 13 and 14: TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PURPOSE OF AN
Page 15 and 16: 4.2.2.3 Restoration of Millions of
Page 17 and 18: 5.7 Freshwater Mussels ............
Page 19 and 20: LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1. Environme
Page 21 and 22: 1.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION
Page 23 and 24: features of the St. Johns Bayou and
Page 25 and 26: 1.4 Scoping Process The scoping pro
Page 27 and 28: 2.0 OPTIONS CONSIDERED 2.1 Introduc
Page 29 and 30: Following a thorough review of soil
Page 31 and 32: Construction of the flood damage re
Page 33 and 34: A plan to monitor the effects of pr
Page 35 and 36: RSEIS 2, impacts and gains to mid-s
Page 37 and 38: T1 = first target year of time inte
Page 39 and 40: 2.5 Techniques Not Retained for Det
Page 41 and 42: atio. The recommended closure locat
Page 43: • Create a 266-acre wildlife corr
Page 47 and 48: The Corps is designing a water deli
Page 49 and 50: material obtained from enlargement
Page 51 and 52: Increased flood durations would be
Page 53 and 54: Table 2.4. Expected Surface acres o
Page 55 and 56: Table 2.5. Fish AAHU gains for alte
Page 57 and 58: habitat in the New Madrid Floodway.
Page 59 and 60: Madrid Floodway by modifying the op
Page 61 and 62: Scenario B Modified Gate - NMF 284.
Page 63 and 64: Table 3.1. Landcover Types in St. J
Page 65 and 66: Table 3.4. Land Cover Type-Stage Ar
Page 67 and 68: 3.1.2 Water Resources 3.1.2.1 Wetla
Page 69 and 70: Business QuickFacts New Madrid Coun
Page 71 and 72: Fall migration of waterfowl begins
Page 73 and 74: committed to continued implementati
Page 75 and 76: duration, which is the governing hy
Page 77 and 78: Table 4.1. Wetland impacts and loss
Page 79 and 80: • Determine the area of impact
Page 81 and 82: difference in ADFAs for each partic
Page 83 and 84: 4.3.1.4 Impact Quantification The 2
Page 85 and 86: mitigation tracts and areas will be
Page 87 and 88: diversity such as scrub/shrub or cy
Page 89 and 90: Approximately 89,758 DUDS, are avai
Page 91 and 92: existing conditions. However, this
Page 93 and 94: events and ephemeral ponding will s
Page 95 and 96:
time is the proper rate for evaluat
Page 97 and 98:
Furthermore, the calculations of be
Page 99 and 100:
The standards that private develope
Page 101 and 102:
Regarding a compensatory mitigation
Page 103 and 104:
Table 5.1. Gain in functional capac
Page 105 and 106:
A condition of the WQ Certification
Page 107 and 108:
5.2.2.1 Reforestation Forested wetl
Page 109 and 110:
elevation would back into St. James
Page 111 and 112:
It is anticipated that areas within
Page 113 and 114:
Table 5.3. Estimated Nutrient Loads
Page 115 and 116:
As an example, suppose there is a 1
Page 117 and 118:
5.4.2.2 Shorebird Areas To compensa
Page 119 and 120:
Approximately 4 mid-season fish rea
Page 121 and 122:
5.4.2.7 Borrow Pits Borrow pits wou
Page 123 and 124:
Many areas within the batture lands
Page 125 and 126:
Numerous floodplain lakes, such as
Page 127 and 128:
5.4.3.5 Technique 5: Modified Gate
Page 129 and 130:
Table 5.7. Mitigation Scenarios tha
Page 131 and 132:
Table 5.8. AAHUs per 100 acres of r
Page 133 and 134:
Table 5.10. Duck-Use Days per Acre
Page 135 and 136:
For this RSEIS 2, project costs hav
Page 137 and 138:
Table 5.13. Annual Benefit-Cost Sum
Page 139 and 140:
Table 5.15. Annual Benefit-Cost Sum
Page 141 and 142:
5.9 Cultural Resources 5.9.1 No Fed
Page 143 and 144:
authorization but limits post autho
Page 145 and 146:
6.6 Long Term Management All tracts
Page 147 and 148:
8.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 8.1 Scoping
Page 149 and 150:
Ms. Deanne Bahr, Tribal Representat
Page 151 and 152:
Mr. James E. French, President, Fre
Page 153 and 154:
However, due to concerns, the Corps
Page 155 and 156:
e approximately 250 feet in length,
Page 157 and 158:
highly modified through previous fl
Page 159 and 160:
Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Ac
Page 161 and 162:
11.0 LITERATURE CITED Aggus, L. R.,
Page 163 and 164:
Neely, W.W. 1956. How long do duck
Page 165:
FIGURES USED Draft RSEIS 2 153
Page 170 and 171:
EnviroFish was developed to incorpo
Page 172 and 173:
Appendix A Figure 2. Example of Imp
Page 174 and 175:
The Scoping process for the RSEIS 2
Page 176 and 177:
Ms. Joyce Greenwood, NAGPRA Represe
Page 178 and 179:
Mr. David Brewer, Wyatt, MO Dr. Chr
Page 180 and 181:
Interagency Meeting A coordination
Page 182 and 183:
[Federal Register: July 22, 2005 (V
Page 184 and 185:
the St. Johns Basin and 2,329 HU in
Page 186 and 187:
ATTACHMENT 2 Missouri Coalition for
Page 188 and 189:
ATTACHMENT 3 Eastern Shawnee Tribe
Page 190 and 191:
ATTACHMENT 4 Sac and Fox Nation of
Page 192 and 193:
ATTACHMENT 5 Osage and Quapaw Tribe
Page 194 and 195:
ATTACHMENT 6 Memorandum For Record
Page 196 and 197:
4. Major issues brought forth in th
Page 198 and 199:
State of Missouri. However, before
Page 200 and 201:
Draft RSEIS 2 188
Page 202 and 203:
Draft RSEIS 2 190
Page 204 and 205:
Draft RSEIS 2 192
Page 206 and 207:
Quantification of Mid-Season Fish R
Page 208 and 209:
New Madrid Floodway 10-Year Transit
Page 210 and 211:
Calculation 3: Fish benefits of mod
Page 212 and 213:
Without Mitigation: Cumulative: (50
Page 214 and 215:
St. Johns Bayou-New Madrid Floodway
Page 216 and 217:
Variable Subindex 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6
Page 218 and 219:
likely overstate the actual situati
Page 220 and 221:
Backwater models and reference data
Page 222 and 223:
FCI FCI FCI Detain Floodwater 1.0 0
Page 224 and 225:
FARMED WETLAND S FORESTED WETLANDS
Page 226 and 227:
TABLE 4: LOSS AND GAIN OF FUNCTIONA
Page 228 and 229:
APPENDIX E Cost Estimates Cost esti
Page 230 and 231:
ITEM DESCRIPTION ACRES Corps of Eng
Page 232 and 233:
ITEM DESCRIPTION ACRES Corps of Eng
Page 234:
ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT
show all

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?