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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

elevation of 300 feet NGVD. Constructing 765 acres of moist soil units would increase herbaceous wetlands by 55% and moist soil units can be managed to maximize benefits to shorebirds and waterfowl. • Provide vegetated buffer strips along 64 miles of New Madrid Floodway channels. Intense agricultural production to top bank of existing channels is a common occurrence throughout the New Madrid Floodway. These intense farming practices result in a lack of available habitat for local fish and wildlife populations and decreases in water quality. Decreases in water quality are attributed to increases in suspended sediments and nutrient loads. Providing buffer strips along 64 miles of channels would provide additional fish and wildlife habitat, improve existing runoff water quality, would benefit detrital input (leaves, twigs, branches), and provide shading in the littoral zone of streams and ditches. • Create a wildlife corridor that connects Big Oak Tree State Park to the Ten Mile Pond Conservation Area. Due to intense farming in the area, local wildlife populations are isolated to relatively small tracts of bottomland hardwoods. There is little to no movement of wildlife between tracts. Creation of a wildlife corridor would connect two of the most significant isolated tracts of forested areas in the New Madrid Floodway. Over time, this action would enhance populations of game animals such as white-tailed deer and wild turkey, as well as populations of migratory songbirds. • Construct 387 acres of borrow pits that would benefit floodplain fish. There are currently 721 acres of open water habitat below elevation 300 feet NGVD within the St. Johns Bayou Basin and New Madrid Floodway. Constructing 387 acres of borrow pits would result in an increase to open water habitat by 54% and would also provide additional hunting and fishing opportunities to the local area. The basic mitigation feature fully compensates impacts to all significant resource categories except for impacts to mid-season fish rearing habitat within the New Madrid Floodway. Therefore, additional techniques would be implemented to compensate for the remaining losses. This RSEIS 2 is not recommending one particular technique over another. Additional techniques that supplement the basic mitigation feature are as follows: • Additional reforestation within the St. Johns Bayou Basin, New Madrid Floodway, or batture areas. This action would provide additional mid-season fish rearing credit by restoring bottomland hardwoods (higher habitat value for fish) on cropland (low habitat value for fish). • Increase flood durations on reforested areas during the period April 1 to May 15. This action would result in greater benefits to mid-season fish rearing habitat by providing higher habitat due to reforestation and increasing ADFAs. • Creation, restoration, or enhancement of large waterbodies. This would be accomplished by taking advantage of the numerous opportunities to restore floodplain lakes in the project area. Riley Lake is used as an example throughout this RSEIS 2. Restoring floodplain lakes would benefit mid-season fish rearing habitat by increasing habitat value (large permanent waterbodies offer the highest value to Draft RSEIS 2 vii
floodplain fish) and maximizing ADFAs (permanent waterbodies remain inundated during April 1 to May 15 and beyond). • Restoration of small waterbodies. Small waterbodies would be restored by removing existing drainages and/or plugging existing ditches. This action would benefit midseason fish rearing habitat by increasing habitat value and maximizing ADFA. • Creation of a spawning and rearing pool. Modifications could be made to the operation of the outlet gates in the St. Johns Bayou and the New Madrid Floodway to hold water during the period of April 1 to May 15. This action would result in benefits to mid-season fish rearing habitat by increasing habitat value (permanent waterbody) and maximizing ADFAs. It is anticipated that implementation of the basic mitigation feature and additional techniques that supplement it would entail a minimum of 8,375 acres acquired in fee. With the exception of the basic mitigation feature, this RSEIS 2 does not recommend one specific technique that compensates for the remaining impacts to mid-season fish rearing habitat. However, this RSEIS 2 evaluates and recommends implementing a whole host of additional mitigation techniques that demonstrate that impacts to significant fish and wildlife resources are fully mitigated and that the project remains economically justified. Mitigation credits would be calculated during the development of site-specific detailed mitigation plans. These plans would be fully coordinated with the interagency mitigation team (made up of MDNR, MDC, and the USFWS), the local sponsor, and adjacent landowners. Cultural resources surveys would also be conducted on mitigation lands during the development of the site-specific plans. These surveys would be coordinated with the Missouri State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and Federally Recognized Indian Tribes. The mitigation goal would ultimately be reached when habitat values are appropriately replaced, not when a certain quantity of acres is procured and mitigation features implemented. Compensatory mitigation would occur concurrently with construction of flood damage reduction features. The New Madrid portion of the project or the St. Johns Bayou portion of the project shall not be operated until all mitigation lands for the respective portion of the project are acquired and all detailed mitigation plans approved by MDNR. Mitigation sites would be monitored after the project is operating to ensure success. Mitigation would be revised based on monitoring results. S.4 CONCLUSIONS Conclusions of this RSEIS 2 are provided in Table S.2. Draft RSEIS 2 viii
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: flooding. However, closing the gate
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 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?