The Gap that’s far from the Mall: Part III – Project Update and Current Concerns.
The St. Johns Basin-New Madrid Floodway Project of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USA-COE Memphis District) is designed to protect certain agricultural and residential areas of Southeast Missouri from the frequent severe flooding that they currently experience. Although the project promises significant human benefits and is extremely popular in the area, it threatens considerable environmental cost. This three-part series described the nature of the project (Part I), provided an interim update (Part II) and will now (Part III) explore the current situation. I would like to acknowledge the reports regarding this project authored by Tim Searchinger, Senior Attorney with Environmental Defense upon which much of this summary is based.
by Alan R.P. Journet
Conservation Chair, Trail of Tears Group.
Current Status: As you may recall, following the initial denial of water quality certification for the St. Johns Basin – New Madrid Floodway Project by the Missouri State Department of Natural Resources, the Corps elected to appeal to the Missouri Clean Water Commission which has the authority to overturn DNR decisions. An Administrative Law Judge was appointed to hear testimony regarding this appeal (initially scheduled for July) and make recommendations to the state Clean Water Commission. The Commission was expected then to render a final verdict on the project. Environmental Defense and the Missouri Coalition for the Environment filed as Defendant Interveners in support of the state DNR and in opposition to the project. The Ozark Chapter of the Sierra Club, meanwhile, stood ready to intervene also on behalf of threatened habitats, species and the environment.
As reported in the last writing (penned in June-July), apparently in response to political pressure exerted by state and federal representatives, DNR developed a proposal (detailed in Part II) to resolve the conflict between that agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This was initially rejected by the Corps but both parties subsequently entered into negotiations. The result of these negotiations was am agreement and Memorandum of Understanding to which both sides agreed and which would allow the project to go ahead. The Commission Hearing was thus rendered moot and was cancelled.
This agreement primarily affords protection to Big Oak Tree State Park in Mississippi County (see below). However, environmental opponents of the project see the agreement as essentially ignoring many other critical environmental and conservation concerns.
As a result, the Coalition for the Environment and Environmental Defense have filed an appeal with the Clean Water Commission against certification. Not surprisingly, the Corps has been granted intervention rights in the case; presumably they and DNR will argue in favor of the agreement and certification. Some time in September a hearing date on this appeal should be scheduled. Again, we await developments.
The Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding:
Figure 2. Big Oak Tree State Park, in southern Mississippi County, represents an island remnant of bottomland hardwood and swamp forest in a sea of cropland (Photo: Alan Journet).
Big Oak Tree State Park:
Big Oak Tree State Park lies in the Mississippi lowlands that extend from forested Crowley’s Ridge (Figure 1) at Scott City to the Arkansas border. The park is an island remnant of bottomland hardwood forest in a sea of drained agricultural cropland that frequently floods during late winter and spring (Figures 2 & 3).
This park is one of the crown jewels of the Missouri State Parks system. It contains one of the few remnants of old growth bottomland hardwood and swamp forest in the southeastern United States. It is not only listed as a Missouri Natural Area, but is also a National Natural Landmark because it contains several state and national champion trees (Figure 4).
In its initial Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (1999 SEIS), the Corps so deeply misunderstood the issues affecting the bottomland hardwood and swamp forest of Big Oak Tree State Park that they argued greater flood protection would actually benefit the biological community of the park. Fortunately, in response to comments received, the Corps subsequently recognized the critical importance of flooding to the continued health of the park. By accepting the Memorandum of Understanding the Corps has finally acknowledged the value of the park. This agreement affords the park additional protection as follows:
Eighteen hundred acres of land immediately surrounding the park will be acquired from willing sellers and will be restored by planting seedlings of species known to occur in the park using regional seed sources.
A hydrology project will be undertaken based on a plan developed by DNR that involves constructing a levee system surrounding the park allowing the water level of the park to be managed. The source of floodwater for the park will be the Mississippi River, water entering via a gated culvert.
Despite research evidence suggesting that the problem faced by the natural communities of BOTSP has been that they are suffering from drying soils as a result of the extremely effective drainage system in the region, many local residents continue to argue that BOTSP is suffering because flood frequency and duration have increased recently compared to historical patterns. A possible reason for the misconception of local residents regarding flooding history can be seen in the New Madrid Interior Pool flooding data from 1943-1974 presented by the Corps in their 2002 SEIS. These data show that during this 32 year period floods extended to the 295 ft level until June once, May a further three times, and through April an additional four times. This elevation represents approximately the transition between the wet and (slightly dryer) wet mesic bottomland hardwood forest zones. Meanwhile flooding extended to the lower 290 ft level, representing the approximate transition between swamp forest and wet bottomland hardwood forest, until July once, into June four further times, into May five more times, and into April another nine times. Thus the data indicate that extended flooding into May has occurred to the lower 290 ft level in about a third (ten out of 32) of the years. However, during the 32 years of the data, there were extended periods (e.g. the 1950s and late 1960s) when flooding rarely extended beyond February even to 290 ft. Residents who grew up during periods when flooding was rare might well think that recent flood events are more frequent and severe than historically – but this may be a perception fostered by unusually low water levels occurring during their youth not currently high levels.