Flood-control project soon will be up for public comment

Another opportunity for the public to provide comment on a controversial $165 million flood control project in Southeast Missouri is expected this summer.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' final environmental impact statement on the St. John's Bayou and New Madrid Floodway Project just finished undergoing a review by an independent panel of experts, and project manager Danny Ward said a public review and comment period for the document is coming soon but not yet scheduled.

The project, which encompasses areas in New Madrid, Mississippi and Scott counties, is designed to manage flood risks to St. Johns Bayou and in the floodway.

A tentatively selected plan would close a 1,500-foot gap in the Mississippi River levee system and build a 1,500-cubic-foot-per-second pumping station in the New Madrid Floodway and a 1,000-cubic-foot-per-second pumping station in the St. John's Bayou Basin.

It also calls for modifying 23 miles of ditches in the basin and waterfowl management during waterfowl season in both basins.

Floods in the area the project would protect over 30,000 acres, 25,000 of which are agricultural lands, according to data from the Corps.

A push for the project to move forward has lagged over the last seven years as the corps has worked to draft environmental impact statements required by The National Environmental Policy Act. In the meantime, environmental groups and government representatives on the east side of the Mississippi River have joined forces against the corps' plans, which they say could harm thousands of acres of wetlands in the project area and exacerbate the risks to flood-prone communities in Illinois. The project originally started in the 1950s.

Now, with the final environmental impact statement review complete, it appears the corps could be nearing the end of the project's planning.

U.S. Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., on Wednesday welcomed the idea the corps seems to be moving ahead.

"The progress, as you know, has been excruciatingly slow, and I'm looking forward to that final impact statement being out there so it can be more fully commented on," Blunt said. "This has been years in the making now. I don't know that any facts have changed, but it will be interesting to see how the Corps interprets the facts that are out there and what the reaction's been from the other government agencies involved."

The panel -- comprised of experts on water quality; hydrologic and hydraulic engineering; economics; the Environmental Policy Act; wetland ecology and fish; waterfowl and shorebird biology -- evaluated the statement to ensure it is complete and scientifically accurate, according to a Feb. 23 review report the panel submitted to the Corps.

In the review, 26 panel comments were identified and documented, according to the report. Of those, one was identified as having high significance. Thirteen were identified as having medium/high significance, and the remaining comments had a significance ranging from medium to low.

Of high significance to the panel was there did not appear to be enough proof economic benefits from increased agricultural activity in the project area would produce benefits. The Corps has long estimated a combined cost-benefit ratio of 2-to-1 for the project because it is believed farming profits will increase as a result.

But the environmental impact statement, according to the panel, "does not include a complete description of the economic empirical model used in forecasting current and future yields and a complete explanation of how profits are determined" and in the analysis of economic benefits, "virtually all statements and conclusions, figures and assumptions are presented without supporting documentation or explanation."

The panel, according to the review report, could not assess the economic analyses and projections with the information provided by the Corps and therefore could not confirm the combined cost-benefit ratio was greater than 1.

Several issues with the Corps' plans for preventing and mitigating effects on wildlife in the project area were identified by the panel to be of medium/high significance.

Public meetings to take comments were held after the completion of the Corps' draft environmental impact statement, but whether meetings will be scheduled as part of the public comment period for the final statement hasn't been determined, Ward said.

During the public comment period for the draft statement in 2013, the Corps took about 23,000 comments, Ward said, which primarily were form letters opposing the project. Some of the comments led to analysis about potential uncertainties with mitigation, Ward said, and adjustments were made to the statement, which is typical in the planning.

After the public review and comment period, the Corps plans to submit the final statement, public comments and the Corps' response to those concerns to the Mississippi Valley commanding general, Maj. Gen. Michael Wehr. He will choose to implement the plan or to take no action.

Wehr will lead a public hearing in New Madrid on Monday, where the floodway project likely will be discussed. In addition to acting as commanding general for the corps division, Wehr is president of the Mississippi River Commission, which meets with the public to talk about water resources infrastructure needs and related issues aboard a large diesel towboat, Motor Vessel Mississippi, during an annual high-water inspection trip.

The hearing is set for 9 a.m. Monday at the city front in New Madrid.

Southeast Missourian reporter Samantha Rinehart contributed to this report.

eragan@semissourian.com

388-3632