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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Feature 2002 RSEIS RSEIS 2 Borrow Pits Additional Mitigation Techniques Not quantified Construct 387 acres that would benefit floodplain fish Additional reforestation Not analyzed Up to 3,000 acres Increase Flood Durations on Reforested Areas Not analyzed Up to 2,326 acres Creation/Restoration/ Enhancement of Large Waterbodies Not analyzed Up to 680 acres Restoration of Small Waterbodies Not analyzed To be determined Creation of a fish spawning and Not analyzed Up to 2,000 acres rearing pool *To be determined during the formulation of detailed site-specific mitigation plans with input from the interagency mitigation team. S.2 NEED FOR ACTION During a State of Missouri WQ Certification Appeals process and a Federal court proceeding, an inconsistency was recognized with regard to the method of calculation of mitigation impacts and credits. The inconsistency is in the form of a transposition of units between an interim step in the impact analysis, and the calculation of mitigation requirements. Specifically, ADFAs were used to quantify impacts to mid-season fish rearing habitat. However, ADFAs were not used in calculating overall mitigation requirements. Additionally, other issues were raised concerning several aspects of the 2002 RSEIS. These concerns are listed in Section 1.4.3. The ROD was withdrawn due to the inconsistency and the additional concerns. The Corps is committed to fully mitigating the unavoidable impacts of the project. This RSEIS 2 clarifies the inconsistency and addresses the issues of concern. The fisheries resource bears the greatest impact, and as such, requires the greatest amount of mitigation. However, more effective techniques for fisheries mitigation are explored in addition to a basic mitigation feature in this RSEIS 2. S.3 PROJECT OVERVIEW Construction of the St. Johns Bayou – New Madrid Floodway Project would significantly decrease headwater flooding in the St. Johns Bayou Basin and Mississippi River backwater flooding in the New Madrid Floodway. Agriculture is the primary economic resource within the project and accounts for 86 percent of the total land use in the two basins. The flood of record at the New Madrid gauge occurred in 1937. The most significant flood event since 1937 occurred in 1973, when over 56,500 acres of agricultural land in the New Madrid Floodway were inundated. According to recent data, the 2-year backwater flood occurrence in the New Madrid Floodway inundates 17,316 acres, of which 11,843 acres are agricultural lands. At high Mississippi River stages, the St. Johns Basin control gates are closed to prevent backwater Draft RSEIS 2 v
flooding. However, closing the gates prevents interior drainage and leads to headwater flooding. The 2-year headwater flood event under these circumstances inundates approximately 10,056 acres, of which 6,312 acres are agricultural lands. Construction of the flood damage reduction project would provide an annual benefit of $6,772,000 to the region and nation as well as locally to East Prairie, Pinhook, and other communities. Unavoidable impacts to fish and wildlife resources would be incurred by the reduction of flooding. Environmental concerns include impacts to the following: • 102 acres of jurisdictional wetlands due to channel enlargement and levee closure, • jurisdictional status to up to 520 acres of farmed wetlands due to a decrease in flooding, • 536 acres of forested areas due to clearing necessary for construction, • shorebird habitat due to a likely change in agricultural practices, • waterfowl habitat during February and March in the New Madrid Floodway due to a reduction in flooding, • in-stream fish habitat due to channel widening, and • fish spawning and rearing habitat due to a reduction in flooding. Compensatory mitigation entails a basic mitigation feature and a variety of additional techniques that would fully compensate for all significant impacts to fish and wildlife resources from project construction. The basic mitigation feature includes the following: • Supply Big Oak Tree State Park with Mississippi River surface water. Big Oak Tree State Park is experiencing drier hydrologic conditions due to adjacent facilitated drainage. Restoring hydrology to the park would require construction of culverts through the Mississippi River Mainline Levee System, water control structures at the park, and a canal. This action would restore historic vegetation and prevent additional damages to existing vegetation. • Reforest 1,293 acres of cropland within the St. Johns Bayou Basin. There are currently 2,210 acres of forested wetlands below an elevation of 300 feet NGVD (300 feet NGVD has been determined to be the upper limit of backwater inundation, which is greater than the 30-year flood event) in the St. Johns Bayou Basin. Reforesting 1,293 acres of cropland would increase forested wetlands by 59% in areas below 300 feet NGVD. • Reforest 4,126 acres of cropland within the New Madrid Floodway, including 1,800 acres of cropland surrounding Big Oak Tree State Park. There are currently 3,854 acres of forested wetlands below an elevation of 300 feet NGVD in the New Madrid Floodway. Reforesting 4,126 acres of cropland would increase forested wetlands by 107% in areas below 300 feet NGVD. Additionally, reforesting 1,800 acres of cropland surrounding Big Oak Tree State Park would triple the size of existing bottomland hardwoods within the park. • Construct 765 acres of moist soil units. There are currently 1,391 acres of herbaceous wetlands within the St. Johns Bayou Basin and the New Madrid Floodway below an Draft RSEIS 2 vi
Page 1 and 2: Memphis District December 2005 Draf
Page 3 and 4: Compensatory mitigation entails a b
Page 5: Feature 2002 RSEIS RSEIS 2 Pumping
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 and 44: • Create a 266-acre wildlife corr
Page 45 and 46: 2.6.1.2 Shorebird Areas The USFWS C
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 ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?