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

2.6.2 Additional Techniques That Supplement the Basic Feature and Compensate
for Remaining Impacts to Mid-Season Fish Rearing Habitat
These additional techniques are formulated to demonstrate that significant impacts to fish
and wildlife resources can be mitigated and demonstrate that the overall project is
economically justified (Figure 2). The compensatory mitigation features described in the
following paragraphs are techniques that may be utilized, but one technique is not
recommended to the exclusion of another. Mitigation plans typically incorporate a
variety of techniques to benefit different groups of organisms, improve the function and
value of the landscape and provide flexibility to address requirements of resource
agencies.
Additionally, other potential mitigation techniques that are not specifically mentioned in
this document may be explored as new lands and information become available. The
adequacy of these techniques would be coordinated with the interagency mitigation team.
There may be additional cases in which the interagency mitigation team would consider
trade-offs. Trade-offs could pursue mitigation techniques for a different resource at the
expense of the mid-season fish rearing habitat. An example would be restoring
Mississippi River side channel habitat. This action would significantly benefit
Mississippi River fishes, including adults that may eventually spawn in the floodplain.
However, it might not benefit floodplain mid-season rearing habitat of larval fish.
Another example of trade-offs would be to acquire/preserve high valued habitat that
would benefit the overall ecosystem. Bottomland hardwoods are critical to a wide variety
of fishes, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and birds. However, these tracts may be
situated in higher elevation lands where mid-season floodplain fishes cannot access.
Lack of access precludes benefits to mid-season fish rearing habitat, but there may be
indirect benefits associated with large, contiguous forests (e.g., improvement in water
quality, transport of organic carbon, and sediment retention). All additional mitigation
techniques would be fully coordinated with the interagency mitigation team. NEPA
documentation would be provided for these additional techniques, if required.
2.6.2.1 Technique 1: Additional Reforestation
Remaining impacts to mid-season fish rearing habitat that were not compensated by the
basic mitigation feature would be mitigated by additional reforestation of agricultural
areas. Additional reforested areas could take place within the St. Johns Bayou Basin, the
New Madrid Floodway, or the batture land. Gains to mid-season fish rearing habitat
would be achieved by replacing cropland (low HSI value) with bottomland hardwoods
(higher HSI value). It is anticipated that lands would be acquired in fee.
2.6.2.2 Technique 2: Mitigation Measures That Increase Flood Duration
Reforestation was the basic mitigation strategy developed during the formulation of the
2002 RSEIS. Increasing flood duration on reforested areas during the period of April 1 to
May 15 would provide additional mid-season fish rearing habitat. Increased flood
durations can be achieved by holding water for longer durations on mitigation tracts.
Draft RSEIS 2
38