It is instructive to note that the primary benefits from the New Madrid Floodway project component will be to farmlands within the current 2 year flood plain. These are the lands at the downstream end of the floodway in the vicinity of the gap itself (Figure 2). Closing the gap would make it possible for these farmers to impose more intensive, more profitable, cropping regimes on their land. Interestingly, immediately adjacent to the gap, some 50% or more of the land is owned by members of (or trusts of) the R.D. James family of New Madrid. In addition to his being an extensive landowner in the affected area, R.D. James is also a member of the Mississippi River Commission. This body is composed of federally appointed civilians and Corps representatives; it supervises and monitors the activities of the Corp of Engineers which manages the river. Given the lobbying opportunities enjoyed by Mr. James, there is little surprise that the Commission supports the project and accords minimal attention to the environmental and conservation hazards it will pose.

Erratum:

In Part One, I incorrectly reported annual benefits from the project. I indicated that the division of the $885,000 in annual economic benefits between the two-part project were divided with $113,000 coming from the New Madrid Floodway component, and $772,000 from the St. Johns Basin component. Upon review, I realized this was incorrect, and that the division of benefits is actually reported as follows: the net annual benefit for the floodway levee closure component (MRL) is $113,000 while for the two pumping stations and channel widening component (Phase I), it is $772,000.

On the basis of my incorrect assessment, I suggested that it would have been appropriate for the USA-COE to give more consideration to their Alternative 5, St. Johns Basin Component only, since this would involve just one pumping station and channel modifications in that basin – leaving the new Madrid Floodway as is.

According to the economic analysis,provided by the Corps,,the St Johns Basin component alone offers a net annual benefit to cost ratio of 1.08 with an annual benefit of $203,000. The reason it was rejected, it appears, is "because it does not address flood protection for agricultural areas in the New Madrid Floodway" (Final EIS, June 2002). It was also rejected because "it severely limits the potential to improve [East Prairie's] quality of life and [offer] new economic development" and because it "does not address the purpose to reduce the duration and frequency of backwater flooding in the New Madrid Floodway." (ditto).

Although my earlier simplistic economic reasoning for suggesting that the St. Johns Basin only alternative is worthy of consideration was based on a misinterpretation of the data, the economic analysis presented by the Corps, in combination with the reality that most wildlife concerns would result from the New Madrid Floodway component, still suggest that Alternative 5 deserves far greater attention than it was given.

---

Current Status:

As previously reported, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources refused ‘clean water’ certification of the St. Johns Basin-New Madrid Floodway Project. Following this sane act, where they served as the last standing guardians of the waterways and wetlands of Missouri against the juggernaut of the Corps of Engineers, Mississippi and new Madrid County landowners, and state and federal politicians, tremendous pressure was brought to bear on all manner of state employees by state and federal representatives exerting political clout. The corps then appealed the decision of the state DNR to the Missouri Clean Water Commission; this body has the ability to overturn or modify DNR water quality certification decisions. The state DNR then re-visited the project and developed a set of conditions which, if met by the Corps, would lead to project certification. Although there were fears within conservation and environmental circles that DNR would cave in under pressure, to their credit they did not. Rather, they developed a proposal that they then submitted to the Corps of Engineers. The proposal contained a set of stipulations that, if met, would result in DNR granting conditional certification to the project. The term ‘conditional’ is because several elements of the proposal contain the caveat that monitoring is required, and should this monitoring indicate a failure in the future to continue to meet the requirements, DNR would “review, suspend, modify, or withdraw this certification.” I infer that this language means that the Corps is on notice that any failure on their part to develop and demonstrably sustain the promised conditions could result in the project being de-certified. Although this presumably would not result in the destruction of the 1500 ft. levee closure, I infer that it could require modification in the operation of gravity gates to reassert connectivity between river and floodplain and restore flooding to the area.

The conditions of the DNR proposal are summarized below:

1) Big Oak Tree State Park would be protected by the purchase as a matter of high priority, of approximately 1800 acres of frequently flooded land surrounding the park. These acres would then be re-forested with seed from locally native individuals of species naturally growing in the park. Success in this mitigation effort would be acknowledged if seedling survival exceeds 70% after 5 years. Should survival fall below this criterion, additional planting would be required. To protect BOTSP, a commitment to completion of the proposed hydrology project would be required. This necessitates provision of access of Mississippi River water to the park through a levee gate and channels to the park. It also requires purchasing easements alongside the park that would allow construction of levees (or berms) to surround the park (on land outside the park itself) thus allowing water level management within. Finally, this proposal requires that the Corps provide fund design and construction of the levees.

2) Since DNR staff questioned the accuracy of the wetlands delineation methodology employed by the Corps in the area, the DNR proposal requires that agricultural wetlands be delimited according to the National Food Security Act Manual while non-agricultural wetlands should be delineated with due consideration being given to a growing season of 11.25 days, the maximum 2 year flood elevation, and areas having saturated soil for 5% of the growing season. Any additional wetlands acres judged to suffer from the project as a result of this re-calculation would need to be mitigated.

3) Rather than indicate somewhat vaguely where mitigation would be targeted, the Corps would be required to submit a mitigation plan for wetland losses pursuant to the delineation methodology defined above in # 2 prior to certification. This plan would need to incorporate clear site locations and descriptions, a guarantee as to its completion, provision for long term management and maintenance, and a monitoring plan.

4) Mitigation sites would need to have conservation deed restrictions preventing their subsequent conversion to other uses.

5) A monitoring plan covering locations where any depositions of material might be made into jurisdictional state waters would need to be approved by DNR. The monitoring plan must ensure:

i) that jurisdictional wetlands below 300 ft elevation in the St Johns Basin retain their status. Any additional wetland drainage would need to be further mitigated,

ii) that the natural biological community within the two target basins shall not be adversely impacted; this would include assuring the re-establishment of aquatic populations similar to those present prior to the project. If successful reestablishment does not occur within two years, remedial action approved by DNR would be necessary.

iii) The Corps would enforce permitting and certification processes for any future wetland conversions.

6) Any channel widening imposed on the area shall only be undertaken if all other potential methods for improving water flow are reasonably excluded.

7) If the project is constructed according to the preferred alternative (3.1B),

i) no material shall be sidecast along SJB waterways but shall be used in the project or disposed of in upland areas,

ii) artificial structures shall be constructed to create sinuous channel flow,

iii) excavation shall be limited to one bank,

iv) work shall be undertaken during low-flow seasons wherever possible.

8) Since the Clean Water Act (Section 402) requires a permit for land disturbances exceeding one acre, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan is required and shall be submitted prior to the initiation of any regulated activities.

9) If jurisdictional wetland degradation results from the project, the Corps must modify operations of gates and pumps, and undertake additional mitigation to ameliorate the impacts.

10) Machinery and pollutants shall be kept out of waterways.

The stipulations of this proposal constitute a set of reasonable conditions that would minimize the impact of the project, and ensure that any excessive damage is detected and addressed. These stipulations certainly suggest that certification could be withdrawn if foreseen or unforeseen problems are identified and not resolved. However, proposals such as this tend to generate their own momentum. It is very difficult to imagine that once constructed, DNR could enforce a roll back of operations that would restore wetland function and wildlife habitat in a timely manner. Furthermore, noble and reasonable as they are, the requirements for mitigation suggest a well-documented and technologically feasible remedy. In reality, however, there is little evidence to suggest that wetland mitigation is successful; this, of course, is the reason that mitigation often imposes a requirement upon developers that more than one acre of mitigation for each acre lost shall be undertaken. Thus, even if the Corps lives up to the requirements of delineating wetlands more accurately, and then mitigating and monitoring, there remains no guarantee that vast ecological damage will not be the final result.

Neither does this set of requirements address the fundamental problem that this project poses. In its development of the project, the Corps simply added elements to the project that were desired by the local residents as long as the project overall maintained a positive economic benefit to cost ratio. Even the economically viable option of focusing project attention on the St. Johns Basin component of the project was rejected because local residents demanded that the farmland of the New Madrid Floodway be protected.

It remains a disappointment that the Corps failed to live up to its national and regional responsibility of protecting wetlands and wildlife habitat. Instead, the Corps appears to be catering solely to the economic desires of local landowners. As a result, a vast sum of federal taxpayer dollars will potentially be expended to impose considerable ecological damage for the economic benefit of a relatively small number of already wealthy landowners.

Although this proposal largely served to require the Corps to do what it said it would do, it was rejected by the Corps and the Clean Water Commission appeal was retained. As of this date, a Hearing is scheduled in early July before an Administrative Law Judge, designated by the Commission. This judge will listen to testimony from the Corps, DNR and those entities (such as Environmental Defense and the Missouri Coalition for the Environment) which filed as Defendant Interveners along with DNR. The judge will then make recommendations to the Commission on the appropriate disposition of the appeal. As of this submission, however, there is talk of a settlement being reached between the Missouri Attorney General’s Office and the Corps with respect to this project.