McGREGOR LAKE HABITAT REHABILITATION AND ENHANCEMENT PROJECT

Transcription

1 US Army Corps Of Engineers St. Paul District UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PROBLEM APPRAISAL REPORT Project # McGREGOR LAKE HABITAT REHABILITATION AND ENHANCEMENT PROJECT Pool 10 Upper Mississippi River Crawford County, Wisconsin Clayton County, Iowa July 2014

2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The McGregor Lake Habitat Rehabilitation and Enhancement Project (HREP) is located on the Wisconsin side of the Upper Mississippi River in middle Pool 10, near Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin (Executive Figure 1). The project area under consideration within this Problem Appraisal Report (PAR) includes McGregor Lake (approximately 200 acres) and the adjacent island and secondary channel habitat that makes a discrete island complex constrained between the Mississippi River main channel, and the East Channel (total project area approximately 1,000 acres). The site lies within the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge. This PAR is intended to characterize past and existing habitat conditions in the study area, evaluate the resource problems or environmental stressors, evaluate potential future conditions for key habitats, identify goals and objectives for desired future habitat, and identify potential management measures that could help address identified stressors and meet these desired future conditions. Executive Figure 1 Location of McGregor Lake HREP Study Area ii

3 DRAFT PROBLEM APPRAISAL REPORT McGREGOR LAKE HABITAT REHABILITATION AND ENHANCEMENT PROJECT POOL 10, UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER CRAWFORD COUNTY, WISCONSIN Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION AUTHORITY PARTICIPANTS AND COORDINATION REPORT PURPOSE PROJECT AREA GENERAL PROJECT SELECTION PROCESS ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA PROJECT SELECTION ASSESSMENT OF HISTORICAL AND EXISTING RESOURCES PHYSICAL SETTING WATER RESOURCES UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER IMPORTANT HYDROLOGIC UNITS IN IMMEDIATE PROJECT AREA TRIBUTARIES GROUNDWATER GEOLOGY AND SOIL/SUBSTRATE SEDIMENT TRANSPORT LAND COVER AND PLANVIEW CONDITIONS BATHYMETRY FLOW AND CURRENT VELOCITY WIND AND WAVE ACTION WATER QUALITY VEGETATION Floodplain forest Aquatic vegetation INVASIVE SPECIES HABITAT AQUATIC HABITAT TERRESTRIAL HABITAT FISH AND WILDLIFE FISH WILDLIFE AQUATIC INVERTEBRATES THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES iii

4 3.14 CULTURAL RESOURCES RECREATION/AESTHETIC RESOURCES SOCIOECONOMIC SETTING PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION RESOURCE PROBLEMS RESOURCE PROBLEM: reduced quality of backwater FISHERIES overwintering HABITAT RESOURCE PROBLEM: LOSS OF EMERGENT AND submergentaquatic VEGETATION RESOURCE PROBLEM: Condition and loss of floodplain forest RESOURCE PROBLEM: Island erosion FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES INSTITUTIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT GOALS UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE AND FISH REFUGE GOALS FISH AND WILDLIFE WORK GROUP GOALS AND OBECTIVES PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Lacustrine Habitat for Backwater Fish Emergent vegetation and wetlands submergent vegetation floodplain forest island erosion CONSIDERATIONS FOR FEASIBLITY PHASE PLANNING CONSTRAINTS INSTITUTIONAL ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL CULTURAL SOCIOECONOMIC/RECREATIONAL POTENTIAL MEASURES FOR FURTHER STUDY NO ACTION dredging creating EMERGENT WETLANDS/MUDFLATS ISLAND RESTORATION/CREATION bank protection ROCK SILLS Small scale drawdown MODELS FOR USE DURING FEASIBILITY FEASIBILITY DATA NEEDS BIBLIOGRAPHY iv

5 Table of Tables Table 1. Stage-Discharge Data McGregor Lake... 8 Table 2. Control Conditions at Lock and Dam No Table 3. Seasonal Water Surface Elevation for Project Area (50% Duration) Table 4. Cover Type Acreage by Year Table 5. Water depths in McGregor Lake Table 6. Water quality data (mean and range) for selected parameters in Pools 8 and Table 7. Species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act within or near the Table 8 County and State Population Trend Table 9. County and State Population Trend Table 10. Objectives, Stressors and Potential Restoration Measures Table of Figures Executive Figure 1 Location of Harpers Slough HREP Study Area... ii Figure 1. Aerial photograph of the Upper Mississippi River McGregor Lake HREP project area (2006) Figure 2. Changes in cover typecover types were excluded from the figure as acreages were minimal Figure 3. Wisconsin DNR McGregor Lake Water Quality Sample Sites... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 4. Location of the East Channel Essential Habitat Area for Higgins eye mussel in blue outline Plates Plate 1 McGregor Lake Project Area Plate 2 Land Cover/Land Use for 1890 Plate 3 Land Cover/Land Use for 1975 Plate 4 Land Cover/Land Use for 1989 Plate 5 Land Cover/Land Use for 2000 Plate 6 Land Cover/Land Use for 2010 Plate 7 Aerial Photography from 1930s (pre-lock and dam) Plate 8 Project Area Bathymetry Data Plate 9 Project Area LIDAR Data. Plate 10 Identified Backwater Overwintering Habitat Sites Plate 11 Bald Eagle Nest Locations Plate 12 McGregor Lake Future Desired Habitat Conditions (from Environmental Pool Plans) v

6 DRAFT PROBLEM APPRAISAL REPORT McGREGOR LAKE HABITAT REHABILITATION AND ENHANCEMENT PROJECT POOL 10, UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER CRAWFORD COUNTY, WISCONSIN 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 AUTHORITY Congress authorized the Upper Mississippi River System Environmental Management Program (UMRS-EMP) in Section 1103 of the 1986 Water Resources Development Act (WRDA). Over the course of its first 13 years, EMP proved to be one of this country s premier ecosystem restoration programs, combining close collaboration between Federal and State partners, an effective planning process, and a built-in monitoring process. This success led Congress to reauthorize EMP in WRDA 1999 (Public Law ). Section 509 of the 1999 Act made several adjustments to the program and established the following two elements as continuing authorities: Planning, construction, and evaluation of fish and wildlife habitat rehabilitation and enhancement projects (known as Habitat Rehabilitation and Enhancement Projects (HREPs)). Long-term resource monitoring, computerized data inventory and analysis, and applied research (known collectively as Long-Term Resource Monitoring Program (LTRMP)). 1.2 PARTICIPANTS AND COORDINATION Participants in the planning for this project included the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge and the Region 3 Offices of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); the Wisconsin and Iowa Departments of Natural Resources (Wisconsin DNR and Iowa DNR); and the St. Paul District, Corps of Engineers. The USFWS and the Wisconsin and Iowa DNRs were involved in project planning because the study area is located within the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge and within that portion of Pool 10 bounded by Wisconsin and Iowa. Congress authorized the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge by Public Law No. 268, 68 on 1

7 June 7, The USFWS is considered a cooperating agency under Federal regulations governing the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The following individuals have played an active role in project planning to date: ST. PAUL DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS Name Discipline Contribution Elliott Stefanik Fishery Biologist Plan Formulation; Environmental Derek Ingvalson Biologist Environmental Lead Tom Novak Architect HREP Program Manager Daniel Kelner Fishery Biologist Mussels, environmental analysis Randy Urich Forester Forestry analysis Vanessa Hamer Archaeologist Cultural resources analysis Jack Westman Cartographer GIS analysis Jon Hendrickson Hydraulic Engineer Hydraulic analysis Alex Le Hydraulics Hydraulics analysis Jim Noren Hydrologist Water quality analysis Luke Schmidt Civil Engineer Geotechnical analysis Kevin Nelson Geologist Sediment analysis R. Greg Fischer Civil Engineer Design and layout Leon Opatz Civil Engineer Cost Estimating Kevin Sommerland Chief, Real Estate Real Estate U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Richard King McGregor District Manager Sharonne Baylor Environmental Engineer Phil Delphey Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Twin Cities Field Office Lisa Maas Wildlife Biologist, McGregor District Stephen Winter Wildlife Biologist, Upper Mississippi River Refuge Louise Mauldin Fisheries Biologist, USFWS La Crosse FWCO WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Jeff Janvrin Mississippi River Fisheries Biologist/Habitat Specialist Patrick Short Mississippi River Fisheries Biologist Brenda Kelly Mississippi River Wildlife Biologist Sara Strassman Water Resources Management Specialist IOWA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Mike Griffin Natural Resources Biologist Karen Osterkamp Natural Resources Biologist PRIMARY POINT OF CONTACT FOR THE PROJECT Elliott Stefanik Biologist and Study Manager U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District 180 5th Street East, Suite 700, St. Paul, MN elliott.l.stefanik@usace.army.mil Phone: (651)

8 1.3 REPORT PURPOSE The purpose of this Problem Appraisal Report (PAR) is to characterize past and existing habitat conditions in the project area, identify potential resource problems or environmental stressors, evaluate potential future conditions for key habitats, identify goals and objectives for desired future habitat, and identify potential management measures that could help address identified stressors and meet these desired future conditions. 1.4 PROJECT AREA McGregor Lake is a backwater area located on the Wisconsin side of the Upper Mississippi River (UMR) in Pool 10. The 200-acre lake is at rivermile 634 and is bordered on the west by islands separating it from the main channel and on the east and south by a long peninsula that separates it from the East Channel of the Mississippi River. The proposed project area would include McGregor Lake and the adjacent terrestrial floodplain and secondary channels that make up the island complex surrounding McGregor Lake between the main and east channels (Figure 1; Plate 1). The entire project area lies within the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge. Because the project would have even broader systemic effects, an area of potential influence, which includes the project study area and an area bordering it, will also be identified for assessing habitat benefits associated with project alternatives. The project could provide overwintering habitat for fish, and thus systemic benefits, for a distance of up to approximately five miles upstream and downstream of the immediate project area. Photo: Wisconsin DNR Figure 1. Aerial photograph of the Upper Mississippi River McGregor Lake HREP project area (2006). 3

9 INSERT PLATE 1 4

10 2. GENERAL PROJECT SELECTION PROCESS 2.1 ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA In January 1986, prior to enactment of Section 1103 of WRDA 1986, the North Central Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, completed a "General Plan" for implementation of the UMRS-EMP. The USFWS, Region 3, and the five affected States (Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin) participated through the Upper Mississippi River Basin Association. Programmatic updates of the General Plan for budget planning and policy development are accomplished through Annual Addenda. Coordination with the States and the USFWS during the preparation of the General Plan and Annual Addenda led to an examination of the Comprehensive Master Plan for the Management of the UMRS. The Master Plan, completed by the Upper Mississippi River Basin Commission in 1981, was the basis for the recommendations enacted into law in Section The Master Plan report and the General Plan identified examples of potential habitat rehabilitation and enhancement techniques. Consideration of the Federal interest and Federal policies has resulted in the conclusions below: a. From the First Annual Addendum. The Master Plan report... and the authorizing legislation do not pose explicit constraints on the kinds of projects to be implemented under the UMRS-EMP. For habitat projects, the main eligibility criterion should be that a direct relationship should exist between the project and the central problem as defined by the Master Plan; i.e., the sedimentation of backwaters and side channels of the UMRS. Other criteria include geographic proximity to the river (for erosion control), other agency missions, and whether the condition is the result of deferred maintenance... b. From the Second Annual Addendum. (1) The types of projects that are definitely within the realm of Corps of Engineers implementation authorities include the following: - backwater dredging - dike and levee construction - island construction - bank stabilization - side channel openings/closures - wing and closing dam modifications - aeration and water control systems - waterfowl nesting cover (as a complement to one of the other project types) - acquisition of wildlife lands 5

11 (2) A number of innovative structural and nonstructural solutions, which address human-induced impacts, particularly those related to navigation traffic and operation and maintenance of the navigation system, could result in significant long-term protection of UMRS habitat. Therefore, proposed projects that include such measures will not be categorically excluded from consideration, but the policy and technical feasibility of each of these measures will be investigated on a case-by-case basis and the measures will be recommended only after consideration of system-wide effects. 2.2 PROJECT SELECTION Projects are nominated for inclusion in the District's habitat restoration program by a State natural resource agency or the USFWS, based on agency management objectives. To assist the District in the selection process, the States and USFWS have agreed to use the expertise of the Fish and Wildlife Work Group (FWWG) of the River Resources Forum (RRF) to consider critical habitat needs along the Mississippi River and identify projects based on ecological value. The FWWG consists of personnel responsible for managing the river for their respective agencies. Meetings are periodically held to evaluate and rank the nominated projects according to the biological benefits they could provide in relation to the habitat needs of the river system. The ranking is forwarded to the RRF for consideration of the broader policy perspectives of the agencies involved. The RRF submits the coordinated ranking to the District, and each agency officially notifies the District of its views on the ranking. The District then formulates and submits a program that is consistent with the overall program guidance as described in the UMRS-EMP General Plan and Annual Addenda and supplemental guidance provided by the Mississippi Valley Division (a successor to the North Central Division). Biologists familiar with the river have screened the potential projects. Resource needs and deficiencies have been considered on a pool-by-pool basis to ensure that regional needs are being met and that the best expertise available is being used to optimize the habitat benefits created at the most suitable locations. McGregor Lake was selected for general design (planning) in FY

12 3. ASSESSMENT OF HISTORICAL AND EXISTING RESOURCES 3.1 PHYSICAL SETTING Pool 10 is part of the 9-foot channel project on the UMRS and was created in 1937 by the construction of Lock and Dam 10. The entire pool extends almost 33 miles (river mile to 647.9). The project pool elevation is feet above mean sea level (msl 1912 adjusted), which creates a pool surface area of 17,070 acres and approximately miles of meandering shoreline (USACE 2011). Wisconsin is located on the left descending riverbank and Iowa is on the right riverbank. The pool s valley ranges in width from about 1.25 miles to over 3 miles where the Wisconsin River flows into pool 10 at Prairie du Chien, WI. The Wisconsin River enters Pool 10 less than two miles downstream of the project area, forming a large delta. While sediment from the Wisconsin River doesn t directly affect the project area, there are two physical effects that do influence the project area. First, longitudinal gradient flattening in the reach upstream of the Wisconsin River appear to be related to the effects of the Wisconsin River alluvial fan (USACE, 2000). Second, flow variation on the Wisconsin River can influence water levels in the project area increasing short-term water level variation. The majority of the pool includes a mix of habitats including main channel, side channels and island habitat. The Pool 10 floodplain includes nearly 39,900 acres, of which about 11,600 acres is wet floodplain forest and meadow, 4,000 acres is submerged and floating leaf vegetation, 3,600 acres is emergent marsh, and 11,300 acres is open water (Theiling et al., 2000). The study area is 1,064 acres that extends three miles, from river mile to It is bounded by East Channel to the south and east and by the main channel on the west (Plate 1). U.S. Highway 18 bisects the project area via the Marquette-Joliet Bridge, running west and east from Marquette, IA to Prairie du Chien, WI. The main identifiable landmarks of the study area include Island No. 172 near the upstream end of the project area and McGregor Lake at the downstream end. 3.2 WATER RESOURCES UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER Early summer (June) discharges at Lock and Dam 9 generally range from 30,000 to 60,000 cubic feet per second (cfs). By late summer, discharges usually decrease to a range of 20,000 to 40,000 cfs. Winter low flows are usually in the range of 15,000 to 25,000 cfs. Table 1 shows the discharges and stages at McGregor Lake associated with the various flow events. 7

13 Table 1. Stage-Discharge Data McGregor Lake Discharge (cfs) Percent of Time Exceeded 1 Annual Chance Flood 2 Description of Flow Condition McGregor gage Water Surface Elevation (NGVD 1912), RM , Low flow , Moderate flow 118, , Bankfull , Events , Small floods , ,000-1 Large flood Discharge duration information is based on discharge data at Lock and Dam Discharge frequency data is based on the 2004 Flow Frequency Study. 3 Lock and Dam 10 operating curves. Following lock and dam construction in 1937, Pool 10 was filled in April The project pool elevation was and still is feet msl 1912 adjusted. During the first 8 years of operation, the allowable drawdown at the dam during the growing season was 2.0 feet to elevation In 1971, operation was changed so the maximum drawdown at Lock and Dam 10 is 1.0 foot to elevation Pool 10 operation is summarized in Table 3. As river discharge rises and falls, control conditions are shifted which impacts water elevations throughout the pool. Table 3 describes the river discharge for these different control conditions, including the resulting water elevations at L&D 10, as well as Clayton Iowa at approximately River Mile 625. Table 2. Control Conditions at Lock and Dam No. 10. Approximate Control Conditions Discharge Clayton Gage Elevation Primary < 42,000 cfs ft Secondary 42,000 to 52,000 cfs ft Tertiary 52,000 to 78,000 cfs > ft Open-River > 78,000 cfs > ft Lock and Dam 10 Pool Elevation ft < ft > ft ft > 610.ft The McGregor Lake project area is over 18 miles upstream of Lock and Dam 10 and is upstream of the Wisconsin River, which is a major tributary and geomorphic control in this reach of the Upper Mississippi River. Because of its significant distance from the downstream dam, there is significant variation in water surface elevation and during the growing season, water surface elevations in this area are fluctuating between and Stage information for the water surface elevation exceeded 50% of the time (annually and monthly) is shown is provided in Table 3. 8

14 Table 3. Seasonal Water Surface Elevation for Project Area (50% Duration). Month McGregor RM (ft amsl) a a NAVD88 adjusted. L/D 10 (ft amsl) a All Year January February March April May June July August September October November December Water surface variation affects habitat conditions in the McGregor Lake project area a number of ways. Obviously, the increased water depths associated with lock and dam operation created aquatic habitat where previously it did not exist, though this effect was limited compared to areas closer to navigation dams. While pool regulation creates a minimum water surface elevation below which inundation is permanent, in this case elevation 611.0, this reach of the river still retains some of its pre- lock and dam riverine character IMPORTANT HYDROLOGIC UNITS IN IMMEDIATE PROJECT AREA The project area is found in an area where flow splits between the main channel which runs against the bluffs on the Iowa side of the floodplain; and the East Channel which runs along the Wisconsin side of the floodplain. The flow split occurs just upstream of River Mile 636, with both channels connecting back at approximately RM 633 (Plate 1). In between these two features is a mix of secondary channel, backwater and island habitats. U.S Highway 18 crosses the floodplain within this location across the middle of the project area. It also influences flow patterns across the floodplain at high flow conditions (e.g., floods). An old closing dam complex is found at the downstream extent of the project area, immediately below the downstream entrance to McGregor Lake TRIBUTARIES The Wisconsin River is a major tributary that enters the floodplain approximately two miles south of the study area, forming the Wisconsin River Delta. The Wisconsin River contributes approximately 20% of river flow to the Mississippi River at their confluence. It has a 9

15 large influence on hydrology and sediment transport for areas immediately adjacent to and downstream of the project area. The Wisconsin River also is important for biological transport in terms of fish species that move back and forth between the Wisconsin and Mississippi rivers to meet different seasonal needs. Land use/land cover in the watershed of this tributary is a mix of agriculture in the southern watershed, with more forest habitat in the headwaters of northern Wisconsin. Several major reservoirs also influence hydrology and sediment transport on the Wisconsin River GROUNDWATER Large quantities of groundwater are present in the highly permeable, surficial sand deposits. The principle aquifer for shallow wells (less than 150 feet) is the Franconia formation. Deeper wells in the northern end of the Pool 10 region may penetrate into the Galesville or Eau Claire formation, although water quality would not differ much from that of the Franconia formation. Groundwater is considerably harder than the Mississippi River in Pool 10. Given the isolated nature of McGregor Lake, direct groundwater sources such as springs could have a local impact on water quality. The potential influence of groundwater on the project area and potential alternatives will be considered later within feasibility. 3.3 GEOLOGY AND SOIL/SUBSTRATE The most significant geologic event explaining the nature of the UMR within Pool 10 occurred at the end of the Pleistocene glaciation approximately 10,000 years ago. Tremendous volumes of glacial meltwater, primarily from the Red River Valley's glacial Lake Agassiz, eroded the pre-glacial Minnesota and Mississippi River valleys. As meltwaters diminished, the deeply eroded river valleys aggraded substantially to about the present levels. Prior to impoundment, the broad floodplain of the river was depressions, secondary channels, natural levees, islands, and shallow lakes. Since impoundment, a relatively thin veneer of silts, clays, or sands has been deposited over most of the river bottom within the pool. The sedimentation of fines (clay and silt) is generally greater in the slow moving backwater areas than in the major side channels and main channel portions of the impounded area. In the bluffs of the Upper Mississippi River valley along Pool 10 are exposed Lower Paleozoic sedimentary rocks, dominantly carbonates (limestones and dolomites) and sandstones, overlain by unconsolidated materials of Quaternary (Upper Cenozoic) age loess of the earlier glacial advances. This stretch is part of the Driftless Area that was not covered by advances of the Wisconsin ice sheet. Generally, project area soils are bottomland soils of alluvial origin. Alluvial bottomlands have soils made up of layers or lenses of sand, clays and silts deposited following periodic flooding. In areas of annual flooding, there is little soil development since humus material is removed or covered annually. A grey layer (Wilde 1940) of sticky fine clay with blue-green mottling from reduced iron is present in all bottomland soils. It indicates poor internal drainage and anaerobic soil conditions. Generally, alluvial soils have been in place long enough for trees 10

16 and other plants to grow, but are located in frequently flooded areas and are subject to change. Higher lands on natural levees or outwash terraces have sandy loam soils which developed under prairie vegetation. Sediment boring data has not yet been collected from the McGregor Lake area. It is anticipated that surface sediments within McGregor Lake will be dominated by silts. Adjacent secondary channels may contain a mix of silts and sands given greater conveyance of flow at higher river discharge. From a contaminants perspective, sediment quality is generally good in Pool 10. Main channel sediments are primarily medium to coarse sands with only trace amounts (generally less than 3 percent by weight) of silts and clays. Sand, silt, and clay sediments are found within defined secondary channels, while finer silt and clay materials are found in marshy backwater areas. Levels of pesticides and other chlorinated hydrocarbons are generally below detection limits in all main channel sediments and detected at low levels in backwaters. Sullivan and Moody (1996) conducted a pre- and post-1993 flood (1991 and 1994) longitudinal (Pools 1 through 11) survey of contaminants. This study compared the data to the Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy s Sediment Quality Guidelines (Persaud et al. 1993). Nitrogen was found above Ontario s lowest effect level guideline both pre- and post-flood, but was typical of concentrations in adjacent pools. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and chlorinated pesticides were found at low levels, below Ontario s lowest effect level guideline. In comparing backwater areas for this reach to other reaches in the Upper Mississippi River, metals concentrations were found at levels within the expected ranges. The quality of sediments within the project is expected to be good. Sediment contaminant testing may be conducted during feasibility, as appropriate, to verify any potential contaminant concerns associated with dredging and placing finer substrates. 3.4 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT Sediment transport in the project area is affected by upstream sediment loads and local hydraulic conditions. Variation in upstream sediment loads occur due to seasonal patterns of river discharge and daily patterns of wind driven wave action. McGregor Lake can best be described hydraulically as a seasonally connected system. During low flow conditions, sediment can enter the lake only at its downstream end due to diffusive processes such as eddies and stage variation, however both of these processes are probably very small sources of sediment. Analysis of stage variation and the potential for sediment inputs indicates very small amounts of sediment and inspection of aerial photos doesn t indicate any tendencies for eddies to form at the downstream opening to the lake. For higher flow conditions, the natural levee that separates McGregor Lake is overtopped and sediment enters the lake advectively (ie. carried by inflows). This overtopping occurs at discharges less than a 50-percent annual flood chance. The total bed material (i.e. sand) load in this reach of the Mississippi River is approximately 130,000 tons/year (St. Paul District Sediment Budget, 2003). Downstream fining of main channel sediments occurs from lower Pool 8 to the Wisconsin River with sediments 11

17 adjacent the project area consisting of fine sands. This low bed material load and the relatively fine sediments adjacent to the project area are partly due to upstream sediment sinks including backwater deposition and dredging, but are also natural since the Wisconsin River delta created a backwater affect which reduced hydraulic energy and sediment transport in this reach of the Upper Mississippi River. The nearest significant upstream dredge cuts are 30 miles upstream near Lansing Iowa in Pool 9. The lack of significant dredging or significant channel training structures upstream of the project area are artifacts of the reduced energy regime caused by the Wisconsin River backwater. The USGS gage at McGregor Iowa is located across the river from the project area. From 1976 to 2002, the USACE St. Paul District funded the collection of water samples to determine the suspended sediment concentration (SSC) at this gage. The average growing season (May Sept) SSC at this gage was 34 mg/l over this time period. Although this is a relatively low concentration, significant variations in SSC occurred during low to moderate flow conditions, with many measured concentrations over 100 mg/l. This could reflect the effects of wind driven wave action and the resulting sediment flux from lower Pool 9. The McGregor data indicates a downward trend in both SSC and suspended sediment load during the 1976 to 2002 time period. Geomorphic processes in the project area vary in magnitude depending on location, elevation, and time frame. McHenry, et. al. (1975) found that sediments, as fines, are a continual threat to the use of backwater lakes and slack water pools as biological habitats. In Pool 10, using the radioisotope Cs-137 as a sediment marker, he found sediment deposition rates of 3.5 cm/year and 4.2 cm/year for the years 1955 to 1975, and the years 1963 to 1975 respectively and suggested that action was needed in the next quarter century for the lakes and pools to continue to function as viable habitat. This work was done over 40 years ago, and while it helped to focus attention on the problems associated with excess sediment, the deposition rates obtained seem to be implausibly high. For example, if the value of 4.2 cm/year were assumed to be correct, 5.5 feet of sediment deposition would have occurred between the years 1975 and Unfortunately, research on existing conditions for sediment deposition/erosion in the project area doesn t exist; however several studies in nearby river reaches provide some insight on deposition rates. Rogala et al. (2003) studied erosion and deposition in Pool 8, approximately 50 miles upstream of the project area, and determined a pool-wide net deposition rate of 0.27 cm/year for the years 1997 to It was noted that the deposition rates they were finding were much lower than those of previous researchers including McHenry s work in Pool 8. For the Upper Mississippi River Cumulative Effects Study (2000), net deposition rates in lower Pool 11, approximately 30 miles downstream of the project area were found to have changed from 1.56 cm/year for the time period to 0.34 cm/year for the time period Sediment Cores obtained in isolated backwater lakes, in Pool 10, approximately 10 miles downstream of the project area resulted in estimated post-impoundment sedimentation rates of 0.63 and 0.73 cm/yr (Theis and Knox, 2003). Benedetti (2000), also doing research in Pool 10 found deposition rates of 0.43 to 1.0 cm/yr for the time period 1963 to Future geomorphic change in the project area will continue to include natural levee erosion and sediment deposition; however the rate of change will be relatively low. The 12

18 decreasing sediment loads at the McGregor gage and the net deposition rates found in other nearby river reaches more recently seem to support a low and decreasing rate of sediment deposition. Reconnaissance of the area seems to support the assumption that geomorphic change is occurring very slowly. Delta formation, a common process in other reaches of the river where significant amounts of water and sediment are conveyed into backwater areas, is not apparent in the project area. This apparently is due to the reduced bed material (ie. sand) load in this reach of the river. If a net deposition rate of 0.5 cm/year were assumed for the project area, a total of 25 centimeters or 10 inches of net deposition would occur over the next 50 years. This suggests that project features such as dredging should be effective for the entire project life. 3.5 LAND COVER AND PLANVIEW CONDITIONS The U.S. Geological Survey s (USGS) Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center (UMESC) created several high-resolution land cover data sets for the Upper Mississippi River. These surveys involve the formal classification of cover types and were available for the project site and its surroundings for years 1890, 1975, 1989, 2000, and 2010 (Plates 2 thru 6). For specific details on the media and methods used, please visit resource_mapping_lcu.html. The 1975, 1989, 2000, and 2010 land cover data sets were developed from aerial photo interpolation (Table 4). A land cover map developed from the 1890 Mississippi River Commission high-resolution survey was also available but appeared too indiscriminate for valuable comparison with the land cover maps produced from aerial photos. Table 4. Cover Type Acreage by Year Open Water Submersed Aquatic Veg Rooted Floating Aquatics Sand/Mud Deep Marsh Shallow Marsh Wet Meadow Wet Forest Wet Shrub Developed Road/Levee

19 From the land cover data it appears that cover types have stayed relatively stable in the project area from 1975 to 2010 (Table 6 & Plates 3 thru 6). The two cover types that have varied to the largest extent are open water and submersed aquatic vegetation. During that time the acreage of open water decreased and was replaced primarily by submersed aquatic vegetation. However, it should be noted that land cover types such as those associated with submergent aquatic vegetation (SAV) and emergent aquatic vegetation (EAV) can vary greatly from year to year. Resource agencies biologists participating on the project team believe that typical annual SAV and EAV abundance may not be well reflected within this land cover data. They believe that SAV and EAV most typically is below that which would be ideally preferred, at least within the McGregor Lake area. Acreage Cover Type Acreage by Year Figure 2. Changes in cover type for the project area from Wet shrub, developed, and road/levee cover types were excluded from the figure as acreages were minimal. Review of basic aerial photographs suggests relatively stable land form conditions. Plate 1 provides the 2013 aerial photograph, while Plate 7 provides a photograph from the 1930s. It appears that prior to lock and dam operation, McGregor Lake may have been disconnected from the river during low-flow conditions. Similarly, the amount of aquatic habitat may be slightly greater post lock and dam, with less variability in seasonal water elevations. Since at least the 1930s the project area has included two bridges crossing through the middle just north of McGregor Lake (Figure 2). By 1990 this was reduced to a single bridge for U.S. Hwy 18. Remnants of the second bridge can still be seen immediately north of the Hwy 18 crossing. 14

20 3.6 BATHYMETRY McGregor Lake (200 acres) has an average depth of 2.4 feet (range feet) under typical low flow conditions, which includes the winter season (Plate 8). Sedimentation may have decreased depth, with maximum depths limited to only small pockets with 3 to 4 feet (less than 8% of total lake area). Most of McGregor Lake has depths of three feet or less. Almost 55% of the lake is less than 2ft deep (Table 7). Although sediment deposition has affected McGregor Lake, McGregor Lake is located in a reach of the UMR with a low sediment load, and McGregor Lake is not connected to adjacent channels for below bankfull flows. These factors suggest that future sediment deposition will be low. Potential sedimentation rates will be estimated during the feasibility evaluation. Bathymetry data from 1999 (Plate 6) is the most recent bathymetry data available for the project area. There is also little additional historical data available for project area bathymetry. Table 5. Water depths in McGregor Lake. Water Depth Categories (feet) Relative % of lake area <1 21.0% % % % 4 + 0% 3.7 FLOW AND CURRENT VELOCITY Even though impoundment has altered conditions in Pool 10, the project area still retains riverine characteristics more commonly found in the upper ends of navigation pools. Hydraulic connectivity between the project area and the adjacent channels is relatively low and is seasonal (ie. connectivity increases in the Spring when flow rates are high). However, there may be some parts of the project that are too connected and have too much flow in the winter time. This factor can be especially critical in the winter, for species adapted to quiet water conditions such as bluegill and crappie. These species cannot tolerate high current velocity in the winter, and if over-wintering areas offering refuge from current are insufficient, population levels will be adversely affected. Within the project area currents have resulted in erosion at the upstream end of the project area, as well as select spots along the main channel and east channel. Erosion along the east channel is of great concern given the thin separation that exists between McGregor Lake and the East Channel. Further erosion could result in flows breaking from the east channel into McGregor Lake. The likelihood of this is uncertain. Review of aerial photography since the 1950s (earliest photos since pool creation) suggests the isthmus between McGregor and the East Channel has remained relatively stable. However, discussion with agency partners has identified that erosion is occurring and threatens to connect these two water bodies at lower flow levels. Review of LiDAR data suggests that elevations along the isthmus are lower in a region of the northeast corner of McGregor Lake (Plate 9). This location could be the site of some 15

21 downcutting during higher flows. If erosion continues, and river currents were to break through this land separation at lower flows, the changes to habitat in McGregor Lake would be substantial. Under existing conditions, McGregor Lake has negligible current velocities under all but the highest flow conditions when the floodplain is inundated with flood waters. However, this could change substantially if the east channel breaks into McGregor Lake in the future. Secondary channels adjacent to McGregor Lake may have slightly more flow given greater level of connection to the main and east channels. The level of this connection, and influence on current velocities, will be evaluated further within the feasibility phase. 3.8 WIND AND WAVE ACTION Wind generated waves reduce the ability of aquatic vegetation to grow in some areas by exerting a physical force on the vegetation and suspending sediment in water, leading to increased turbidity and reduced light penetration. McGregor Lake appears to be relatively protected from large wind fetches but may be vulnerable to winds from the south-southwest due to the orientation of the lake opening to the main channel. Wind data from the Prairie du Chien, WI airport and Pool 10 bathymetry are available and will be used to assess potential wind fetch and sediment resuspension. Note however the wind fetch model, often used to assess winddriven sediment resuspension, will not work within this project setting. Alternative means will be needed for assessing this issue. 3.9 WATER QUALITY Mead (1995), in investigations of contaminants in the Mississippi River from 1987 to 1992, found water quality to be generally better in this reach of the Mississippi River than above Lake Pepin and in the reach downstream where tributaries that drain the Corn Belt begin to enter the Mississippi River. In 2004, 2007 and 2014, the Wisconsin DNR and in 2014, the Corps of Engineers collected winter DO (dissolved oxygen), temperature and velocity readings from McGregor Lake at multiple locations. Figure 3 shows the approximate Wisconsin DNR sample sites. Results from these three years suggest that under normal ice cover conditions, McGregor Lake has a stratified water column due to a temperature gradient. Water temperature within McGregor Lake were typically between 2 and 4 C, though some lower temperatures were observed, especially near the ice surface. Velocity measurements demonstrate there is very little or undetected water movement in McGregor Lake. DO readings were often between 3 and 5mg per liter, but periods of extremely low do (e.g., 2mg/l or less) were observed, with a minimum of 0.5 mg/l observed in Stagnant water combined with a sediment oxygen demand and shallow depths are probably the main drivers of low DO during the winter. Not often did DO levels near the sediment surface exceed the guideline of 5 milligrams per liter (mg/l) for most freshwater fisheries. 16

22 Secondary channels and off-channel aquatic habitat outside of McGregor Lake had more variable winter water quality conditions. Water temperatures in these areas (Figure 3) were more frequently less than 2 C, and also tended to have higher levels of DO, compared to McGregor Lake. This is most likely due to a greater level of connection to the Mississippi River, which results in greater water velocities, greater mixing of water, and infusion of fresh water from the main channel. Figure 3. Wisconsin DNR McGregor Lake Water Quality Sample Sites During the rest of the year, the water quality conditions for the project area are not clear due to a lack of data. In general, however, an assessment of selected parameters of water quality data in Pool 9 suggests Pool 10 water quality conditions are probably fair to good. Data collected since 1977 were obtained from the Wisconsin DNR are summarized in Table 6 for selected parameters in comparison to recommended guidelines recognized by EMP s LTRMP. Except for isolated secondary channels and backwater lakes, the dissolved oxygen (DO) content of the water remains high year round and above levels required to sustain a quality fishery. 17

23 Table 6. Water quality data (mean and range) for selected parameters in Pools 8 and 9 in comparison to established guidelines. Water quality from these locations is likely similar to that for upper Pool 10 upstream of the confluence with the Wisconsin River. TP (mg/l) Guidelines a Pool 9 e Mean 0.15 Range Chl a (µ/l) TN (mg/l) Summer TSS (mg/l) DO (mg/l) b a <25 c >5.0 d a Source of procedures described for determining this: USEPA 2000; Smith et al b Source: Dodds et al c Source: summer average; Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee d Source: Upper Mississippi River Basin Association e Source: Wisconsin DNR water quality data; (Attachment 12) VEGETATION Unlike many lower reaches in the UMR, which have become an open expanse of water due to increased stage and island erosion, much of the floodplain forest in lower Pool 10 has persisted post-impoundment. From floodplain forest cover in lower Pool 10 has experienced a 27 percent decrease. Tree species diversity within the floodplain has also significantly decreased. While this is a significant loss, it is relatively low compared to the 65 and 60 percent decrease experienced in Pools 8 and 9, respectively, over the same period of time FLOODPLAIN FOREST The predominant tree species in Pool 10 include a mixture of silver maple, ash, cottonwood, black willow, elm, and river birch. A wide variety of floodplain and riverine habitats within Pool 10 has allowed the development of a diverse vegetative assemblage under present-day conditions. River birch and swamp oak are common species at the higher elevations of the floodplain. Areas with mature floodplain forest usually consist of an overstory dominated by silver maple, cottonwood, American elm, black willow and green ash. The understory in these areas consists primarily of Canadian woodnettle, whitegrass, poison ivy, wild grape and clearweed. In transitional zones between aquatic and terrestrial habitat (e.g., sandbars and mudflat areas), dense stands of sandbar willow and buttonbush are common. The diversity of species comprising the floodplain forest has been impacted significantly since impoundment. Flood frequency, duration, and height affect species composition in floodplain forests (Menges 1986). High-elevation, infrequently flooded areas support a more diverse community of tree species (De Jager et al. 2012; Knutson et al. 1998). Under natural conditions, water levels would drop considerably after spring floodwaters subsided, allowing less 18

24 flood-tolerant species to grow within the floodplain. Lock and dam operations along the UMR has increased the water levels at low discharges, altering the frequency and duration of flooding at lower elevations in the pools. More flood-tolerant species, particularly silver maple, have become increasingly dominant. The 1890 s Mississippi River Commission map of the project area identifies willow, maple, and elm species in the upland portions of the project area. While no formal forest inventory surveys have been completed in the project area, resource managers have identified that the area currently has relatively low species diversity with large areas comprised of monotypic stands of silver maple. A forest inventory may be necessary prior to the DPR to formulate various project plans AQUATIC VEGETATION Anecdotal observations within McGregor Lake suggests the presence of submergent and emergent aquatic vegetation may be substantially less than other similar backwater lakes within the pool. High turbidity levels in the lake may be the limiting factor for aquatic vegetation INVASIVE SPECIES Invasive animals in the project area include (but are not limited to) zebra and quagga mussels, Asian carp species such as grass, bighead and silver carp; rusty crayfish, and other species. A comprehensive list of invasive fish, invertebrates and other species for the UMR basin is provided at USACE (2013). Invasive plants found in Pool 10 include reed canarygrass, common buckthorn, purple loosestrife, Eurasian water milfoil, and curly-leaf pondweed. The USFWS and State resource agencies are pursuing methods to control the spread of invasive species on lands they manage. It is unclear how many species of invasives are found within the project area. Surveys will be conducted if it is determined that they will be useful for plan formulation and project selection HABITAT Pool 10 has a high variety of terrestrial and aquatic habitat conditions that change in diversity, complexity and quality between the different areas of the pool. From a poolwide perspective, these habitats continue to support a diverse and productive fishery and provide important waterfowl nesting, feeding, and resting areas. However, the habitat quality for certain habitat types, especially overwintering fish habitat and floodplain forest, is often of poor quality across many areas of the UMR, including Pool 10. Aquatic habitat in Pool 10 includes a mix of main channel, channel border, secondary channels, backwater lakes, impounded area, and tail water. Terrestrial habitat is predominately bottomland forest. The important characteristics of these habitat types, relative to fish and wildlife uses are described below AQUATIC HABITAT 19

25 Secondary channels, shallow backwater lakes, navigation channel and channel border areas, and broad secondary channels form a dynamic mosaic of aquatic habitat in the project vicinity. McGregor Lake is the main water feature of the study area and includes about 200 acres of river backwater habitat. McGregor Lake and secondary channels in the project area support submerged and floating macrophytes such as pondweeds, wild celery, and American lotus providing habitat for many fish and wildlife species. Sturgeon Slough is the 400 acre complex of running secondary channels, shallow backwater, and floodplain forest in the northern half of the study area upstream of U.S. Highway 18. The project area is bounded on both sides by the main channel and the east channel. The main channel area includes representative main channel and channel border habitats. The East Channel is essentially a secondary channel of the Mississippi River (Wilcox 1993). The upstream portion of the East Channel is characteristic of navigation channel and channel border aquatic areas: navigated by commercial traffic, 2.7-meter minimum depths in the navigation channel, sand/silty-sand substrates, continuous currents and limited rooted aquatic vegetation. The combination of depths, sediment types and current velocities makes the East Channel an outstanding habitat for freshwater mussels. Limited commercial navigation traffic occurs through the southern end of the East Channel. Pool 10 contains main channel habitat where the majority of river discharge occurs and includes the navigation channel. This is the deepest part of the channel, which lacks rooted vegetation and varies in velocity with water stages. Sediments are usually dominated by sand. Between the navigation channel and the riverbank is the channel border. Unlike other adjacent areas of the UMR, the river around the project area has very few channel training structures (e.g., wing dams and closing dams), though one such structure is located immediately below McGregor Lake. The quality of habitat in some sections of the channel border has been degraded due to sedimentation, historic dredged material placement and effects of channel training structures TERRESTRIAL HABITAT Terrestrial habitats within the floodplain of Pool 10 include areas of forest, brush and shrub, wet and upland meadows, areas disturbed by commercial or residential development and agricultural land. Forested areas in the region are of two types: upland xeric southern forests, and lowland forests of the floodplain (over 10,200 acres in Pool 10). Based on USGS landcover data, wet meadows cover nearly 600 acres of the floodplain in Pool 10, and willows/shrubs cover just over 90 acres. These habitat types are very important to a variety of wildlife and showed significant declines in acreage when the pool was inundated. Much of these cover types were converted to deep and shallow marshes as well as large contiguous open water areas above the lock and dam. This conversion to aquatic habitat wasn t as significant a factor at the project area due to the fact that it is 18 miles upstream of the lock and dam and above the control point for Pool 10. However there was a slight upward shift in water surface elevations that will be investigated further in feasibility. Developed areas (including roads and levees)are prevalent in the floodplain of Pool 10 with over 5,100 acres. Nearly half of the developed area lies in the 20

26 community of Prairie du Chien, WI, just east of the project area. Agricultural lands (approximately 2,100 acres) include areas devoted to the production of annual crops, pastures, or landscape nurseries. The land within the project area is relatively uniform in topography, rising 2-3 feet above the normal pool elevation. Terrestrial habitat within the study area is predominantly lowland forest, and like much of the Pool 10 floodplain forest, has become dominated by silver maple. Less flood-tolerant species have declined in numbers and diminished the diversity of terrestrial habitats FISH AND WILDLIFE FISH A total of 92 fish species are reported to inhabit pool 10, 34 of which are considered common or abundant (Steuck et al. 2010). An additional 11 species were historically found in the pool but have not been recorded in recent years. Common game species include walleye, sauger, northern pike, channel catfish, largemouth and smallmouth bass, bluegill, and white and black crappie. Common nongame fish include the freshwater drum, common carp, gar, redhorse, buffalo, and a wide variety of minnows. Catfishes, buffaloes, and common carp are the primary fish of commercial interest. Within the project area, largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, bluegill, crappie and walleye use side channels and backwaters for all life functions. Northern pike, white bass, carp and buffalo use these same habitats for rearing, wintering and spawning. Within the project site, overwintering fish surveys have been conducted by the Wisconsin DNR from , 2008, 2009, as well as in A total of 28 species were sampled during the surveys. The most commonly surveyed fish species included bluegill, black and white crappie, common carp, gizzard shad, largemouth bass, and spotted sucker. Fixed electrofishing runs in the most likely overwintering sites within McGregor Lake were conducted during every year of sampling except for The average catch per unit effort (CPUE) of age 1 plus bluegill was highest in 2001 and lowest in 2005 with 287 and 13 fish per hour, respectively. The CPUE for largemouth bass was also highest in 2001 and lowest in The CPUE largemouth bass was 85 and 13 fish per hour, respectively. These numbers are generally considered low for overwintering habitat on the UMR, suggesting limited habitat value. Plate 10 was provided courtesy of Wisconsin DNR (Jeff Janvrin, WDNR, unpublished data) and identifies areas known with at least some periodic overwintering habitat in Pool 10. While this may appear to contain a number of sites, many of these are relatively small and of marginal value at best. While these sites may offer modest quality during some years, more severe winters may result in poor quality and poor overwinter survival for many species WILDLIFE 21

27 Pool 10 contains an abundance of wildlife. The area contains a rich mixture of vertebrate animals from the northern and southern United States, as well as an overlapping of eastern and western species. Floodplain forest areas in the project vicinity contain a rich assortment of mammalian species, particularly those species associated with and dependent on water. Raccoon (Pmcyon lotor) muskrat (Omibm zibethica), beaver (Cartor canadensis), river otter (Lutm canadensis) and mink (Mustela vison) are common inhabitants frequenting woodlands, marshhedge meadow areas and aquatic habitats alike. White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginimus), red fox (Vulpes fulva), gray fox (Vulpcs cinelaorpgenteus), opossum (Didelphis nimuss) striped skunk, (Mephitis mephitis), gray squirrel (Sciums cmlinensis), fox squirrel (Sciums niger), Eastern cottontail rabbit (Sylvila gusflorius) and various smaller rodent species are also found in bottomland habitats, most generally in woodland andfor marshlsedge meadow areas. Floodplain forests within Pool 10 are used extensively by nesting migratory birds including the prothonotary warbler (Protonotaria citrea), cerulean warbler (Setophaga cerulean) and American redstart (Setophaga ruticilla). The river bottomlands serve as breeding areas for many species of marsh dwelling birds as well. Extensive wood duck (Aix sponsa) nesting and brood-rearing habitat is available. Hooded mergansers (Lophodytes cucullaphrs), mallards (Anar platyrhynchos), blue-winged tea1 (Anas discors), Canada geese (Branta canadensis), whistling swans (Olor columbianus), and herons, shorebirds and marsh passerines (e.g., red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), yellowthroated blackbird (Xanthocephalus xmthocephalus)) and marsh wrens use floodplain forestand marsh areas for nesting and brood-rearing. Historically, wild celery (Vallisneria anericama) beds in McGregor Lake (UMR mile 634.0) attracted canvasback ducks. The Lower Bottoms (UMR miles ) also provide good waterfowl habitat. Dabbling ducks use shallow backwater areas, feeding on submerged pondweeds and the seeds of emergents. Diving ducks use more open water areas feeding on submerged pondweds, wild celery, mollusks and invertebrates. Many species of waterfowl use the Mississippi River strictly for roosting, feeding primarily in adjacent upland areas (i.e., cornfields, grain fields). Backwaters in the project area provide feeding habitat for wading birds from rookeries both upstream and downstream. An active nesting colony of great blue heron, double-crested cormorant, and great egret exists at approximately UMR mile 639.6, on the Wisconsin side. Garnet Lake between UMR mile and UMR mile is heavily used by wading birds feeding on fish species. Historically, Garnet Lake had heron rookeries nearby, and today it supports a black tern nesting colony. Marsh and shorebird species, passerines, aquatic furbearers, and reptiles also favor many of the same habitats. Turtle, muskrat, and beaver are commonly trapped in the biologically rich Lower Bottoms. Information on reptilian and amphibian species that inhabit the East Channel area is limited. Species of turtles water snakes, mud puppies, salamanders, frogs and toads are all commonly found in marsh/sedge meadow areas and aquatic habitats. Turtles make use of sandbar areas as nesting habitat, while life stages of mud puppies, salamanders, frogs and toads use backwaters and marshes. 22

28 Several bird species occur in Pool 10 that are of special interest because of their status or ecological importance. Foremost among these is the bald eagle (Haliaeetus lecocephalus), which was recently de-listed from the federal list of threatened species and has increased dramatically in recent years. Eagles use Pool 10 year-round. In addition, the pool is part of an important migration corridor. Five active bald eagle nests are in the general study area (Plate 11). The eagle is protected under the federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act AQUATIC INVERTEBRATES The diverse invertebrate assemblage within Pool 10 can be attributed to a wide variety of habitats available. Suitable lentic, lotic and transitional habitats are available for many different types of organisms. Also, rocks associated with wing dams and shoreline protection (as well as woody debris accumulated in backwater areas) provide a substantial amount of hard, stable substrate for many highly productive taxa. These taxa can represent a substantial dietary item for many fishes and other vertebrates. Other invertebrate taxa attach to emergent and submerged aquatic vegetation in backwater areas. Many of these taxa serve as an important food source for waterfowl. Approximately 35 species of native freshwater mussels currently inhabit pool 10, including three federally endangered Higgins eye (Lampsilis higginsii),, as well as five additional Iowa state-listed species, round pigtoe (Pleurobema sintoxia), pistolgrip (Tritogonia verrucosa), strange floater (Strophitus undulates), butterfly (Ellipsaria lineolata), and yellow sandshell (Lampsilis teres) (Kelner 2011). Few mussel surveys have occurred within the project area. However, the nearby East Channel Essential Habitat Area (EHA) for the endangered Higgins eye mussel has been sampled extensively and could be a good indicator for native mussel species in the area. Historically the East Channel EHA had been one of the most valuable mussel habitats on the entire UMR, supporting the largest known population of Higgins eye (USFWS 2004). Since 1985 thirty species of native mussels have been collected in the East Channel EHA (Mussel Coordination Team 2012). The EHA includes all aquatic areas of the main channel and the east channel within the project area. It does not include McGregor Lake or the secondary channel habitat within the island complex between the Main and East channels (Figure 4). 23

29 Figure 4. Location of the East Channel Essential Habitat Area for Higgins eye mussel in blue outline. Native mussels in pool 10 have been severely impacted by the invasive zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) since first appearing in the 1980 s. Surveys conducted within the East Channel showed that zebra mussel densities increased tenfold between 1999 and 2000, and densities greater than 10,000 zebra mussels/m 2 were observed (Miller and Payne 2001). The substrate is evidence of this population explosion with layers of zebra mussel shells several feet deep in some places. Since 2003 zebra mussel densities have been relatively low. Zebra mussels have a high reproductive rate and grow to sexual maturity very quickly and future zebra mussel population sizes are unpredictable. Fingernail clams (Musculium transversum) thrive in areas of pool 10 that have silt bottoms and adequate oxygen. They are important food items for both waterfowl, especially diving ducks, and several species of fish. Pool 10 insect fauna is dominated by immature stages of mayflies, midges, and caddisflies, indicative of high dissolved oxygen levels. Being efficient converters of detritus, 24

30 aquatic insects are an important link in the food web, providing food for fish and waterfowl THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES The pool has many species of fish, mussels, plants, birds, mammals, and others listed by the state of Wisconsin, and Iowa as endangered, threatened, or of special concern. Several federally-listed species or candidate species occur in Crawford County, Wisconsin, and Clayton County, Iowa (Table 9; USFWS 2014). However, the only federally-listed or candidate species that occurs within the project area and may be affected by the project is the Higgins eye mussel (Lampsilis higginsii). As previously mentioned, the Higgins eye, sheepnose, and spectaclecase mussels have been identified as endangered mussel species occurring in pool 10. Though Higgins eye have been found in the nearby East Channel EHA, the area within McGregor Lake and similar backwater areas typically would not be suitable habitat given the substrate and flow conditions. Additional surveys will be completed in the project area to more accurately assess any project impacts to mussel species. Table 7. Species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act within or near the project area. Common Name Scientific Name Group Status Location Listed Higgins Eye Lampsilis higginsii Clams Endangered Clayton County, IA Crawford Co, WI Sheepnose Mussel Plethobasus Clayton County, IA Clams Endangered cyphyus Crawford Co, WI Spectaclecase Cumberlandia Clayton County, IA Clams Endangered monodonta Crawford Co, WI Northern Long- Myotis Proposed Clayton County, IA Mammals Eared Bat septentrionalis Endangered Crawford Co, WI Whooping Crane Grus americana Birds Experimental, Non-Essential Crawford Co, WI Eastern Massasauga Sistrurus catenatus Reptiles Candidate Crawford Co, WI Northern Wild Aconitum Flowering Monkshood noveboracense Plants Threatened Clayton County, IA Prairie Bush- Lespedeza Flowering Clover leptostachya Plants Threatened Clayton County, IA Western Prairie Platanthera Flowering Fringed Orchid praeclara Plants Threatened Clayton County, IA Iowa Pleistocene Snail Discus macclintocki Snails Endangered Clayton County, IA The Corps will continue to evaluate impacts to Higgins eye, sheepnose, and spectaclecase mussels and consult with the USFWS under section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act if the project is determined to have possible impacts on those species. The USFWS may provide technical assistance to the Corps to make this initial determination of effect. 25

31 3.14 CULTURAL RESOURCES Cultural resources are a major component of the Upper Mississippi River Valley and are integral, nonrenewable elements of the physical landscape. Collectively, the archaeological record indicates continual human occupation along the river for approximately 13,000 years (Gibbon 2013). McGregor Lake is a backwater area located on the Wisconsin side of the Mississippi River in Pool 10. The Area of Potential Effect (APE) has been identified as McGregor Lake and the adjacent floodplain and secondary channels that make up the island complex encompassing McGregor Lake between the main and east channels (Plate 1). There are over 100 cultural sites within one mile of the project and eleven cultural resource sites and five wingdam structures within the APE (Pearson 2003, SHPO files 2013). Significant archaeological resources, like those present within the APE, contribute to our knowledge of the past. Preserving, or minimizing the degradation of these important resources is one of the responsibilities of the Corps and other agencies. The Pool 10 locality has a long history of archaeological investigations. The first known report was completed by Richard Taylor in 1838 and subsequent investigations dating to the 1800 s and early 1900 s by the Bureau of American Ethnology, Northwestern Archaeological Survey, and other groups mapped upland sites and excavated burial mounds (e.g. Taylor 1838, Thomas 1894, Lewis n.d., Orr 1927, 1936, Kolb & Boszhardt 2004). Focus on upland areas continued in the Prairie du Chien locality until the 1970s when surveys started to shift focus to floodplain areas (e.g. Halsey 1972, Benn 1978, Stoltman 1979, 2004, Kolb & Boszhardt 2004). The Corps and other agencies have sponsored several cultural resource investigations within the pool for various projects, including dredge material placement sites, flood control features, shorelines surveys, phase II archaeological investigations, erosion monitoring, and environmental management programs (e.g. Benn 1975, Wahls 1990, Holtz & Boszhardt 1995, Florin & Madigan 2000, Jalbert 2002, Stoltman 2003, 2004, Florin 2008, Scott 2010). Literature-based overviews such as geomorphological studies to assess archaeological site potential, navigational feature mapping, and shipwreck locations have also been completed (e.g. Overstreet 1984, Church 1985, Jensen 1992, Arzigian & Dowiasch 1995, Madigan & Schirmer 2001, Pearson 2003, Kolb & Boszhardt 2004, Benn & Lee 2005). Cultural resource sites within Pool 10 exist on a variety of landforms including uplands, terraces, islands, natural levees, deltas, submerged backwater lakes, and the river channel. Identified cultural resources in the pool include precontact single artifact finds, lithic and artifact scatters, village sites, archaeological districts, petroglyphs, rock shelter, burials and burial mounds and cemeteries. Historic cultural resources include fur trade sites, townsites and farmsteads, cemeteries, historic standing structures, historic debris scatters and middens, historic districts, shipwrecks, and navigational structures (e.g. wingdams) (SHPO files 2013, Madigan & Schirmer 2001). Several sites within Pool 10 are listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and over 100 sites are eligible for listing (SHPO files 2013, Madigan and Schirmer 2001). The eleven identified sites within the APE include a habitation site, a mound group, two Native American historic shell middens, two historic clamming middens, one historic clamming midden with a precontact component, and four precontact artifact scatters (Madigan and Schirmer 2001, Stoltman 2004, SHPO files 2013). 26

32 The McGregor Lake project area and nearby cultural resources sites have been impacted by submersion and erosion as a result of construction of Lock and Dam 10 in 1937 and subsequent operation and maintenance of the 9-Foot Channel Project. Most of the cultural sites in Pool 10 were identified in the 1980s by Richard Wahls, Robert Boszhardt, and James Stoltman (Stoltman & Theler 1980, Boszhardt 1982, Wahls 1990). Several cultural investigations have been conducted within the APE including Phase II investigations on site 47CR451 and 47CR354 which determined 47CR451 not eligible for listing and 47CR354 eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) (Stoltman 2004, Scott 2010). Site 47CR311 is listed on the NRHP. Until further investigation, the Corps considers all sites potentially eligible for listing on the NRHP RECREATION/AESTHETIC RESOURCES The natural character and the relatively good water quality in Pool 10 contribute to its heavy recreational use and aesthetic desirability. The area is in close proximity to Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin; and Marquette and McGregor, Iowa. Twelve of the 36 boat landings available within Pool 10 are located within a mile of the project area. The area is heavily used for fishing, boating and hunting. A commercial fishery is also active. Other important recreational activities in the pool include hiking, picnicking, camping, swimming, canoeing and trapping. A number of high quality recreational beaches, public day-use and camping recreation facilities, and private marina facilities are available. Sturgeon Slough Hiking Trail lies within the project area and offers 0.7 miles of hiking trail as well as a wildlife viewing area. This is accessible via a parking area right off U.S. Highway 18 in the middle of the project area. The State of Wisconsin operates Wyalusing State Park just downstream at the Wisconsin River Delta. The State of Iowa operates Pikes Peak State Park on the top of the bluff overlooking the project area. The National Park Service has Effigy Mounds National Monument approximately 7 miles north of the project area in Allamakee County, Iowa. This monument preserves over 200 prehistoric mounds built by Native Americans. A large amount of Federal land is in Pool 10; most of this land is managed for fish and wildlife as part of the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge SOCIOECONOMIC SETTING McGregor Lake is located within Pool 10 of the Mississippi River at River Mile 634. Across the navigation channel to the east is the town of Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin (2010 population of 5,911). Nearby smaller towns on the Iowa side include McGregor (2010 population of 871) and Marquette (2010 population of 375). Surrounding counties include Crawford and Grant on the Wisconsin side of the river and Clayton and Allamakee on the Iowa side. The area is generally rural in nature with agriculture being the major industry in the local economy. Population - Population levels in recent decades have been relatively stable for the Wisconsin counties while the state as a whole has grown steadily. The Iowa counties have experienced moderate to significant population decline while the state has grown slowly. In comparison the 27

33 nation as a whole has grown at a considerably faster pace. The trends from 1980 to 2010 are presented in Table x. Employment - Important industries in the local economy in terms of employment include agriculture and manufacturing. They employ a larger percentage of the labor force than the nation as a whole. On the other hand, industries employing a lower percentage of the labor force than the U.S. include the professional, scientific, and management services sector and the finance, insurance, and real estate sector. Recent county unemployment rates have been significantly less than national averages. During the period they averaged from 4.5% to 7.9% while the nation s unemployment rate averaged 9.3%. Income - Per capita income for the counties lags significantly behind that of their respective states and even more so behind the U.S. Interestingly, however, while the per capita income is higher, the poverty rate (for All People) is also higher than the counties. Table 8. County and State Population Trend % Change County / State Wisconsin 4,705,642 5,686,986 5,363,675 5,686, % Crawford Co. 16,556 15,940 17,243 16, % Grant Co. 51,736 49,264 49,597 51, % Iowa 2,913,808 2,776,755 2,926,324 3,046, % Clayton Co. 21,098 19,054 18,678 18, % Allamakee Co. 15,108 13,855 14,675 14, % United States 226,545, ,709, ,421, ,745, % Table 9. Per Capita Income and Poverty Rate by County / State (2010) Allamakee Clayton Iowa Crawford Grant Wisconsin U.S. Per capita Income 23,392 24,378 26,545 22,331 21,391 27,426 28,051 PCI - % of U.S. 83.4% 86.9% 94.6% 79.6% 76.3% 97.8% Poverty Rate Source: American Community Survey 5-Year estimates Transportation - Transportation corridors bound both sides of the floodplain in this vicinity of Pool 10. This includes a rail line on either side of the river and a state highway on the Wisconsin side (Hwy 35). U.S. Highway 18 runs directly through the project area. In addition, the river serves as a corridor for commercial navigation of barge traffic via the 9-foot navigation channel as authorized by Congress. Barge traffic transports a wide variety of essential goods on the UMRS. Agricultural commodities, petroleum products, and coal are the leading cargoes, with farm products accounting for approximately half the total tonnage shipped. 28

34 INSERT PLATE 2 Formal classification of cover types for the project site and its surroundings:

35 INSERT PLATE 3 Formal classification of cover types for the project site and its surroundings:

36 INSERT PLATE 4 Formal classification of cover types for the project site and its surroundings:

37 INSERT PLATE 5 Formal classification of cover types for the project site and its surroundings:

38 INSERT PLATE 6 Formal classification of cover types for the project site and its surroundings:

39 INSERT PLATE 7 Historic imagery from 1930s. 34

40 INSERT PLATE 8 Bathymetry 35

41 INSERT PLATE 9 LiDAR Data Map 36

42 INSERT PLATE 10 Overwintering map from DNR 37

43 INSERT PLATE 11 Bald Eagle Nests 38

44 4. PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION 4.1 RESOURCE PROBLEMS One of the critical steps in the initial planning process is the identification of problems and opportunities associated within the geographic scope of the project area. Problem statements are concise characterizations of the broad issue that will be addressed with the project. Opportunity statements follow each problem and consist of an array of opportunities presented by the virtue of planning and construction activities occurring at the site of the problem. Opportunities can be directly related to solving the problem at hand, but can also be ancillary to the identified problem. From the list of problems and opportunities, objectives for the project are drafted. The success of the project planning is determined by the fulfillment of the objectives through identified alternative measures. Existing information was reviewed collaboratively among resource agency partners to identify habitat deficiencies for the project area. Based on this collaboration, the following habitat problems were identified: 1) Reduced backwater fisheries overwintering habitat quality due to: a. Reduced depths due to sediment deposition b. Reduced oxygen levels in McGregor Lake due to reduced water volume, Chemical Oxygen Demand and Biological Oxygen Demand, or other factors. c. Elevated water velocities, poor depth and/or reduced temperatures in other off-channel areas. 2) McGregor Lake may have limited or reduced Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) and Emergent Aquatic Vegetation (EAV, including rooted floating plants) levels. This may be due to elevated turbidity levels, differences in substrate type, or other conditions. 3) Floodplain forest within the project area is of reduced quality. a. Includes limited species diversity b. Includes limited age diversity. c. Reduced quality may be due to topographic conditions and existing water level regimes. 4) Excessive shoreline erosion is present on the perimeter of the project area. Erosion results in loss of floodplain forest habitat, reduced quality of main channel border habitat, and reduced quality of mussel habitat. Erosion is occurring at: a. The narrow peninsula that separates McGregor Lake from East Channel. Continued erosion could result in flows breaking through into McGregor Lake, accelerating sedimentation and further reducing seasonal backwater habitat values. b. Erosion on north side of the project area, downstream of where existing rock protection stops in the main channel, possibly in the east channel as well. 39

45 4.1.1 RESOURCE PROBLEM: REDUCED QUALITY OF BACKWATER FISHERIES OVERWINTERING HABITAT. Backwater overwintering fisheries habitat is an important component of the Mississippi River ecosystem. This type of habitat has declined in the UMR with the processes of sedimentation and increased hydraulic connectivity reducing the number and quality off-channel areas that can be used by overwintering fish. Preliminary observations of water quality and bathymetry within the project area suggest poor backwater overwintering habitat conditions. Field observations from fish sampling during late-fall also confirm this general observation. Within McGregor Lake, stressors include lack of deepwater habitat, and periodic low dissolved oxygen levels. Shallow depths can result in a lack of physical space as ice depths approach and exceed 2 in thickness. Lack of depth also results in lower total backwater volume, which over the course of winter limits the amount of D.O. available. This results in poor D.O. concentrations, particularly in late winter. Off-channel aquatic areas adjacent to McGregor Lake appear to experience elevated water velocities during the winter, resulting in low water temperatures. In some locations backwater depth may also be an issue. Overwintering areas should include undetectable velocity during typical winter flow conditions RESOURCE PROBLEM: LOSS OF EMERGENT AND SUBMERGENTAQUATIC VEGETATION The emergent and submergent aquatic plant communities are integral to habitat diversity in the UMR. Anecdotal observations suggest a loss over time of these important plant types. The level to which vegetation may have declined, and associated causal factors, will be further considered during feasibility. Possible stressors include increased turbidity, activity of rough fish, and water levels that no longer are reduced to their low points during the late-summer low flow period RESOURCE PROBLEM: CONDITION AND LOSS OF FLOODPLAIN FOREST Floodplain forest in the project area appears dominated by trees that are the same species and similar age. This often is the result of initial impoundment which favored a sudden germination of certain species (e.g., silver maple) that have dominated the forest community for over 75 years. In many instances, lock and dam operation has reduced the seasonal variability in water levels and prolonged inundation which has contributed to reduced species and age diversity. Healthy floodplain forests are critical for many nesting migratory birds. Without management, a mass tree die-off could occur, resulting in establishment of invasive species and little recruitment of young trees. This would reduce habitat quality for native wildlife that depend on floodplain forest. It should be noted that the influence of dam operations on water elevations in the project area is less pronounced, and the overall influence of water elevations on floodplain forest 40

46 conditions will have to be evaluated during feasibility. Also, some floodplain forest habitat has been directly lost through erosion of the project area RESOURCE PROBLEM: ISLAND EROSION Shoreline erosion identified above threatens multiple habitat types. It results in direct loss of floodplain forest and similar terrestrial habitat. It results in degraded main channel border habitat, including habitat used by the endangered Higgins Eye mussel. Erosion also threatens to result in a breach in the existing separation of the East Channel and McGregor Lake. Such a breach would dramatically change habitat in McGregor Lake, including accelerated sedimentation and further loss of overwintering habitat. 4.2 FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS The future without project condition was characterized for the project area based on existing information and on likely future conditions. The focus was on future overwintering habitat given this is one of the primary resource interests amongst agency partners. However, this is not the only concern within the project area, and the feasibility phase will also evaluate potential for addressing concerns with turbidity, SAV and EAV, floodplain forest and habitat losses through bankline erosion. It will also evaluate general backwater fisheries habitat across all seasons (as opposed to only overwintering conditions). These habitat conditions were not quantitatively assessed given limited time and information available. The Bluegill Winter Habitat Suitability Index Model in the Upper Mississippi River (Palesh and Anderson 1990) was used to characterize future habitat conditions for McGregor Lake, as well as other off-channel aquatic habitat in the project area. This model has been approved as a Certified Planning model as required by USACE EC Ideal backwater overwintering habitat is described later in this report, but is represented with adequate surface area that is at least 4 in depth; D.O. levels at or above 3mg/l; water temperatures of 4 C, and negligible water velocities. The overwintering model considers these key variables to generate a suitability index ranging between 0.1 (minimal habitat) and 1.0 (perfect overwintering habitat). It should be noted that habitat quality can vary from year to year based on water quality differences (e.g., D.O., temperature and velocity), and marginal overwintering sites can provide habitat during some years. As such, model suitabilities also vary based on model input. For the purpose of this analysis we used temperature and velocity values that were typically observed within backwater areas. Conversely, we selected D.O. values that were representative of worst case conditions as these conditions for D.O. tend to be most limiting and results in either mortality, or fish vacating an area entirely. Model input for water depth was taken directly from existing bathymetry information. Based on existing information outlined in Section 3, McGregor Lake would have a Habitat Suitability Index score (HSI) score of 0.1 under existing conditions. This is the lowest score that can be provided by this habitat model and is primarily driven by low minimum D.O. Dissolved 41

47 oxygen has been observed at less than 1.5 mg/l which results in the lowest model output. This generally agrees with late-fall fishery surveys which suggest McGregor Lake is often a poor overwintering site. Overwintering habitat model suitability scores wouldn t be expected to improve in the future in McGregor Lake. Future sedimentation would further reduce backwater depths, reducing habitat quality through loss of physical space. The loss in backwater volume also could further reduce available dissolved oxygen in the future. This would only make habitat conditions worse, even though the overwintering model may not project these reductions given the model structure (model already projects lowest possible habitat conditions). Lastly, continued erosion along the East Channel bank increases the risk that flows could break through into McGregor Lake. Although this could increase dissolved oxygen, it would also result in colder temperatures and increased current velocity. It would likely also increase sedimentation, reducing backwater depths. Any of these changes would also reduce habitat suitability of McGregor Lake, even if the model cannot project lower habitat suitability. Overwintering habitat in adjacent off-channel aquatic areas may have slightly better habitat based on available data. The overwintering model suggests secondary channels and off-channel habitat adjacent to McGregor Lake may have an existing suitability (HSI) between 0.1 and 0.3. This suitability is probably more variable given variability in temperature and current velocities. Minimum D.O. levels may be slightly higher helping to increase this suitability relative to McGregor Lake. Suitability scores within adjacent aquatic habitat would probably drop slightly in the future without a project due to loss of depth via sedimentation, and associated changes in water quality. This also generally agrees with late-fall fishery surveys which suggest Honeymoon Slough supports limited overwintering habitat compared to McGregor Lake. 42

48 5. PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 5.1 INSTITUTIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT GOALS The following include habitat goals of the USFWS national wildlife and fish refuge, as well as the interagency Fish and Wildlife Work Group (FWWG). These goals present tremendous opportunities to line this USACE project up with the goals and objectives of agency partners. Habitat outputs from this project could help to meet these long term goals UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE AND FISH REFUGE GOALS Fish and wildlife management goals and objectives for the area fall under those defined more broadly for the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge and those designated specifically in the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (USFWS 2006). Broader objectives also come from the National Wildlife Refuge Systems Biological Integrity, Diversity and Environmental Health Policy. The management goals and objectives of the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge which apply most directly to the study area include: Environmental Health Goal: Improve the environmental health of the Refuge by working with others. First and foremost, maintain existing levels of biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health at the refuge scale. Secondarily, we will restore lost or severely degraded elements of integrity, diversity, environmental health at the refuge scale and other appropriate landscape scales where it is feasible and supports achievement of refuge purpose(s) and System mission. USFWS favor management that restores or mimics natural ecosystem processes or functions to achieve refuge purpose(s). Working with others and through a more aggressive refuge program, seek a continuous improvement in the quality of water flowing through and into the refuge in terms of parameters measured by the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program (LTRMP; DO, major plant nutrients, suspended material, turbidity, sedimentation, and contaminants). Increase efforts to control invasive plants and animals through active partnerships with States and other service programs and Federal agencies, and increase public awareness and prevention. Improve water quality and reduce and/or address sedimentation. Complete $150 million worth of habitat restoration and enhancement projects or $10 million per year compared to $2.7 million per year on Refuge from the Environmental Management Program. Wildlife and Habitat Goal: Habitat management will support diverse and abundant native fish, wildlife, and plants. 43

49 By 2021, in cooperation with various agencies and States, implement at least 30 percent of the refuge-priority Environmental Pool Plan actions and strategies in pools 4 through 14. Adopt and use the following guiding principles when designing or providing input to design and construction of habitat enhancement projects: o Management practices will restore or mimic natural ecosystem processes or functions to promote a diversity of habitat and minimize operation and maintenance costs. Mimicking natural process in an altered environment often includes active management and/or actions o Maintenance and operation costs of projects will be weighed carefully because annual budgets are not guaranteed o Terrestrial habitat on constructed islands and other areas needs to best fit the natural processes occurring on the river, which in many cases will allow for natural succession to occur. o If project features in Refuge Closed Areas serve to attract the public during the waterfowl season, spatial and temporal restrictions of uses may be required to reduce human disturbance of wildlife. o The esthetics of projects in context of visual impacts to the landscape should be considered in project design. Develop and implement monitoring and management plans for threatened and endangered species, fish, mussels, turtles, furbearers, and forest species. Increase emphasis on fishery and mussel management in cooperation with the states and Corps of Engineers. Wildlife-Dependent Recreation Goal: Manage programs and facilities to ensure abundant and sustainable hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, interpretation, and environmental education opportunities for a broad cross-section of the public. General success in maintaining or restoring biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health will produce higher quality opportunities for wildlife-dependent public use. Provide a balanced approach between the needs of the waterfowl and the public. o Provide migrating waterfowl a more balanced and effective network of feeding and resting areas. o Minimize disturbances to feeding and resting waterfowl in closed areas. o Provide waterfowl hunters with more equitable hunting opportunities over the length of the refuge. Enhance fishing opportunities on suitable areas of the refuge through habitat, access, and facilities improvements. Maintain abundant hunting and fishing opportunities, and increase opportunities for wildlife observation, photography, interpretation and environmental education. 44

50 5.1.2 FISH AND WILDLIFE WORK GROUP GOALS AND OBECTIVES The interagency Fish and Wildlife Work Group (FWWG) and River Resources Forum in 2004 developed Environmental Pool Plans (EPP). The EPP identify a desired future habitat condition toward which resource agencies and river interest can strive to attain (Plate 12). The EPP identified resource concerns and potential habitat improvement actions for the McGregor Lake/East Channel area. Concerns identified included excessive sedimentation, island bank erosion, lack of forest regeneration and stagnant water levels due to pool operation. Specific features identified for future consideration to address these concerns include: Increase water depth in approximately 28 acres in McGregor Lake, and another 20 acres in off-channel aquatic habitat elsewhere in the project area. Increase emergent vegetation by 15% (compared to 1989 conditions) Maintain coverage of submersed vegetation (compared to 1989 conditions) Island construction and stabilization Evaluate forest and vegetation management options to promote forest regeneration and diversification of upland vegetation. 5.2 PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Because the study area is within the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge, the Refuge management goals and objectives, the FWWG Desired Future Habitat Conditions, together with input from State and Federal agency natural resource managers, were used to guide the development of goals and specific project objectives. However, this study is only one part of a larger cooperative natural resource management effort on the river. The longterm effectiveness of any project will also depend on broader, system-wide management activities. Earlier sections of this report discussed in detail existing habitat conditions and problems. The habitat goals and objectives were developed as part of a coordinated effort on the part of all of the resource agencies involved in the study. The following factors were considered important in the development of the objectives: 1. Management objectives of the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge, USACOE s Systemic Forest Stewardship Plan, Fish and Wildlife Work Group, and of the Wisconsin and Iowa DNRs 2. Historic and existing fish and wildlife habitat conditions. 3. Resource problems, opportunities, and constraints. 4. Habitat deficiencies, now and in the future for Pool Species groups and individual species habitat requirements. 45

51 6. Desirable hydraulic and sediment transport conditions to sustain habitat. Broad project goals are provided. Based on the project goals, specific objectives were then established. Many of these objectives are interrelated and will assist in meeting one or more of the four main goals. Criteria for habitat associated with each objective is also provided as target for design and measure of future success. It should be noted that not all criteria must be met in order to achieve the objective; the criteria are indicators of ideal conditions. These criteria also may be modified during feasibility to further fine-tune the targets for ideal habitat LACUSTRINE HABITAT FOR BACKWATER FISH GOAL A: Improve and maintain protected lacustrine habitat for backwater fish species. Habitat conditions in the McGregor Lake area are considered suboptimal during the spawning, and growing seasons and is nonexistent in the winter for backwater fish species. Protecting and improving this habitat type is important as sedimentation and other processes has reduced the abundance of backwater overwintering habitat compared to historical conditions. Many species rely on this habitat type to survive over winter. Objective A Improve habitat quantity and quality for lacustrine fish, including creation of discrete, overwintering habitat with favorable water depth, dissolved oxygen, water temperature and water velocity. The conceptual models developed as part of Upper Mississippi River System Ecosystem Restoration Objectives report (2009) provides a variety of recommendations on performance criteria for evaluating and planning lentic fish habitat restoration. The specific criteria were developed based on the experiences of State and Federal fishery biologists as to what would be desirable to provide suitable habitat for backwater fish species. Habitat Target A1: Increase aerial coverage of overwintering habitat areas as generally described by Palesh and Anderson (1990), and HREP monitoring recently completed by agency partners. The quantity of overwintering habitat areas (number, size and spacing of such areas) will be determined and optimized during feasibility. Performance Criteria A1. Immediately after project construction, maintain existing overwintering areas, and create 1 or more overwintering sites, the specific aerial coverage of which will be determined during the next phase of feasibility. High quality overwintering areas should be less than 2 miles apart. Rationale: This assessment will evaluate the effectiveness of project features to create overwintering fish habitat. Monitoring Design. Task A1 - A detailed map of qualified overwintering sites within the study area will be developed showing pre- and post-construction conditions. This will be based on bathymetric 46

52 surveys, water quality and hydraulic data, hydraulic model results, and as-built drawings. This will be immediately after construction has been completed. Habitat Target A2: Habitat conditions conducive to overwintering habitat in backwaters during winter. Performance Criteria A2. Immediately after project construction, create overwintering sites defined as a combination of: a. Water depth greater than 4 feet in at least 50 percent of areas designated as overwintering habitat. b. DO levels as measured at mid-depth: Spring/summer/winter: greater than 5mg/l c. Water temperature (winter): 4 C 0 over 35 percent of the area, 2 to 4 C 0 over 30 percent of the area, 0 to 2 C 0 over 35 percent of the area. d. Winter current velocity less than 0.3 cm/sec over 80 percent of the backwater lake area. Rationale A2: The combination of these conditions are believed to be critical for defining fish overwintering sites. Additional thought will be given during feasibility to whether these criteria should be further modified for improvement of habitat during summer conditions, while still meeting overwintering habitat needs. Monitoring Design. Task A2 - Sampling of water quality and hydraulic data will be conducted in designated fish overwintering areas (treatment and known quality sites) during winter months. For hand measurements, this will require drilling holes in the ice at sites evenly spaced throughout the targeted area, approximately one every 200 to 300 feet in designated areas. Midwinter data will be recorded using hand instruments for DO, temperature, and water velocity throughout the water column. Alternatively, continuous data recorders also may be deployed with periodic hand monitoring to verify logger observations. If instrumentation is not sensitive enough to detect current velocities of 0.01 feet per second, surrogate measures will be used (e.g., temperature). This data may be supplemented using data loggers that record temperature throughout the winter season. A dye study or the use of soluble materials (e.g., gypsum)2 may also be considered to detect flux and the presence of eddies (Petticrew and Kalff 1991). Assessments will be done in the years 2, 5, and 10, post-construction. Habitat Target A3 : Bluegill abundance in constructed overwintering sites will increase and resemble that of known quality sites. Performance Criteria A3: Within 10 years post-construction, restore/maintain lentic fish habitat to yield desired fixed site electro-fishing catch per unit effort of age 1 plus fish in overwintering sites. Fair - Good: o 100 to 200 bluegills/hour 47

53 o 50 to 100 largemouth bass/hour Good - Excel: o 200 to 300 bluegills/hour o 100 to 150 largemouth bass/hour Excellent: o More than 300 bluegills/hour o More than 150 largemouth bass/hour Rationale A3: These relative capture rates are believed to be representative for fish using qualityoverwintering sites. Monitoring Design: Task A3 - Standard boat electrofishing surveys will be conducted after fish stage to overwintering sites during late fall. Surveys will be conducted in treatment and known quality sites. Metrics will include number of fish catch-per-unit effort and size distribution to test the null hypothesis that there is no difference in bluegill population (abundance and size distribution) between treatment and nearby known quality overwintering sites. Electrofishing surveys will be conducted annually by IDNR or WIDNR for a period of 5 years or more. Annual summary reports and a final report that includes all data will be provided within one year of the conclusion of electrofishing surveys. Habitat Target A4: Maintain habitat conditions conducive to meeting habitat needs of backwater fish assemblages for periods outside of the winter season. Performance Criteria A4. Maintain habitat conditions meeting needs for aquatic vegetation and substrate conditions for spawning a. Access to substrates of sand and/or gravel available for spawning. b. Aquatic vegetation cover in the range of 40 to 60 percent (summer) and 25 to 50 percent (winter) in off channel areas. Rationale A4: The combination of these conditions are believed to be critical for supporting fish spawning and summer habitat. Monitoring Design: Task A4 To be developed during feasibility EMERGENT VEGETATION AND WETLANDS GOAL B: Increase emergent vegetation growth. Emergent Aquatic Vegetation (EAV) is suboptimal and could be improved. EAV itself provides important plant diversity, and also adds ecological value given its use by fish and wildlife. 48

54 Objective B Increase emergent aquatic plant aerial coverage in the project area, with desirable density and species diversity. Habitat Target B: Create habitat conditions conducive to Emergent Aquatic Vegetation. Resource agency biologists have collectively suggested that a preferred EAV community would be a minimum of 50 acres in McGregor Lake. EAV in the remainder of the project area would be maintained similar to existing conditions. The level of wetland connection to open water (connected versus isolated wetlands) will be further discussed and optimized during feasibility. Performance Criteria B. Immediately after project construction, achieve habitat for emergent aquatic vegetation and emergent wetlands/mudflats that are defined as: Emergent aquatic vegetation: a. Less than 2 feet water depths for average river flows. b. Straight line wind fetch less than 3,500 feet for water depths of 2 feet. c. Secchi transparency greater than 0.8 meter on average during the June 1 - September 1 growing season in backwaters. d. Current velocities of 0.0 ft/sec is preferred; less than 0.2 ft/sec is acceptable under all but flood flows. Emergent wetlands/mudflats: a. Emergent wetlands located in proximity to land are the optimum condition. b. It is important to maintain and enhance microtopography within expanses of emergent wetlands/mudflats. c. 50 percent of emergent wetlands/mudflats should be above and below low flow summer water elevations to promote diversity of habitat types. d. Create mini wetlands by modifying islands. Rationale B: This assessment will evaluate the effectiveness of project features to create Emergent Aquatic Vegetation and related wetland habitat. Monitoring Design. Task B - To be developed during feasibility SUBMERGENT VEGETATION GOAL C: Increase submergent vegetation growth. Submergent Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) is suboptimal and could be improved. SAV itself provides important plant diversity, and also adds ecological value given its use by fish and wildlife. 49

55 Objective C Improve submergent aquatic plant density and species diversity. Habitat Target C: Create habitat conditions conducive to Submergent Aquatic Vegetation. Resource agency biologists have collectively suggested that a preferred SAV community would be a minimum of 50 acres in McGregor Lake. SAV in the remainder of the project would be maintained similar to existing conditions. Performance Criteria C. Immediately after project construction, achieve habitat for submergent aquatic vegetation defined as: a. Less than 5 feet water depths for average river flows. b. Straight line wind fetch of less than 6,000 feet for water depths of 3feet. c. Suspended sediment probability from wind wave action less than 60 percent. d. Secchi transparency greater than 0.8 meter on average during the June 1 - September 1 growing season in backwaters. e. Current velocities of 0.3 feet per second or less for all but flood flows. Rationale C: This assessment will evaluate the effectiveness of project features to create Emergent Aquatic Vegetation and related wetland habitat. Monitoring Design. Task C - To be developed during feasibility FLOODPLAIN FOREST GOAL D: Increase age and species diversity of self-sustaining floodplain forest. Floodplain forest on the UMR is typically dominated by a few species that are a similar age-class. This type of imbalance is generally unhealthy and leaves forest susceptible to invasive species. This project will aim to improve species and age diversity and, where appropriate, the quantity (aerial coverage) of forest habitat. This would include natural recruitment capable of sustaining more healthy forest communities. Floodplain forest will then provide important habitat for migratory and resident birds, and other wildlife such as aquatic mammals, turtles, and amphibians Objective D Improve ecological health of floodplain hardwood forests to levels that are sustainable. Habitat Target D: Optimize habitat conditions conducive healthy floodplain forest habitat. The levels of desired floodplain forest improvement will be determined during feasibility. Performance Criteria D. Immediately after project construction, achieve habitat for floodplain forest that is defined as: a. Overstory canopy cover 70 80% 50

56 b. Overstory Species to include swamp white oak (Quercus bicolor), red oak (Q. rubra), bur oak (Q. macrocarpa) and hickory (Carya ovate). c. Basal area ft2 per acre d. Tree stocking 50% 90% e. Emergent trees > 2 per acre f. Understory cover > 10 % g. Regeneration > 10% of area h. Coarse woody debris Present i. Small cavities 2 visible holes per acre j. Den trees/large cavities 1 visible hole per 10 acres k. Standing dead trees 2 large trees per acre l. Invasive (herbaceous) < 10% m. Invasive (woody) < 10% Rationale D: This assessment will evaluate the effectiveness of project features to create Emergent Aquatic Vegetation and related wetland habitat. Monitoring Design. Task D - To be developed during feasibility ISLAND EROSION GOAL E: Protect aquatic and terrestrial habitat by reducing erosion. Bank erosion is occurring at the upper end of the project area, as well as the peninsula that separates McGregor Lake and the east channel. This threatens backwater habitat by potential break thru flows, floodplain forest loss through erosion, and other habitat risks. This project will aim reduce erosion to protect these habitats. Objective E Minimize land loss and protect backwater habitat from potential breakthrough flows from the east channel caused by erosion of land that separates McGregor Lake and the East Channel. Also, to minimize erosion on the upstream end of the project area where erosion is occurring at the periphery of the existing shoreline protection HREP. Habitat Target E: Minimize erosion at the upstream end of the project area, as well as the isthmus separating McGregor Lake and the East Channel, relative to the most recent available aerial photographs of the project area (2014 aerials, or most recent year available relative to project construction). Performance Criteria E: Terrestrial area within the project area is >/= 2014 terrestrial area (or most recent year closest to construction with available aerial photographs). 51

57 52

58 INSERT PLATE 12 Environmental Pool Plans Desired Future Condition 53

59 6. CONSIDERATIONS FOR FEASIBLITY PHASE 6.1 PLANNING CONSTRAINTS INSTITUTIONAL The McGregor Lake project area lies within the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge and the States of Iowa and Wisconsin. Refuge and state management goals and objectives must be complied with, as well as federal, state and local laws and regulations ENGINEERING Because of shallow water depths, access for construction equipment can be difficult in many areas without extensive dredging. Equipment restrictions and construction access will need to be considered in the planning and design of habitat restoration measures ENVIRONMENTAL The endangered mussel species Lampsilis higginsii is found in adjacent main channel and east channel areas. In fact, the entire project area is surrounded by waters identified as Higgins eye Essential Habitat Area by the USFWS. Although they are no longer listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, Bald Eagles are protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Any project developed for the McGregor Lake area will need to avoid adversely affecting this species. There is the potential that the northern long eared bat could be listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act during project planning. The USFWS will publish a final listing decision no later than April 2, During feasibility the Corps will coordinate with the Service, as necessary, to determine whether or not the species may be present in the area that is likely to be affected by the project. Northern long-eared bats may be present during the summer roosting period in the general project vicinity between April 1 and September 30. The feasibility study should be prepared for this potential and consider how issues may be avoided or addressed for this species CULTURAL Eleven archaeological sites have been identified within the McGregor Lake project area. One site, 47CR311, is listed on the National Regoster of Historic Places. Phase II archaeological investigations identified site 47CR354 as eligible for listing, and site 47CR451 not eligible for 54

60 listing (Stoltman & Theler 1980, Bozhardt 1982, Stoltman 2003, 2004, Scott 2010). Although additional investigations have not been completed on the remaining sites, the Corps considers these sites as eligible for listing on the NRHP. Therefore, the design of the project must be such that the project avoids or minimizes adverse impacts on the archaeological sites SOCIOECONOMIC/RECREATIONAL In developing ecosystem restoration measures and alternatives, it was assumed that Operation and Maintenance of the 9-Foot Navigation Channel would continue, including maintaining the impounded conditions and water regulation. No other specific socioeconomic constraints have been identified. The study area is between Prairie du Chien, WI; and Marquette and McGregor, IA. The study area, and in particular areas immediately adjacent, are heavily used by recreational boaters. Safety considerations will need to be given, but do not provide an immediate constraint. Commercial fishing for catfish, buffalo and carp presently occurs in the area. 6.2 POTENTIAL MEASURES FOR FURTHER STUDY The following outlines the various measures that could be utilized to address the chemical, physical, and biological stressors that limit habitat, as outlined above. This list is not necessarily all inclusive, and additional measures could be identified and considered during feasibility. Additionally, listing of these measures does not mean they will be incorporated as a part of a final project. Rather, this is only an identification of measures that may be considered further to address habitat problems during the feasibility phase. Table 10 provides a summary and linkage between the objectives, stressors and measures identified NO ACTION The no action alternative is defined as no implementation of a project to modify habitat conditions in the study area DREDGING Adequate water depths (greater than 4 feet) will need to be provided in McGregor Lake to improve centrarchid overwintering habitat. This will provide greater physical space, as well as improving total backwater volume which should help to increase D.O. concentrations. Dredging has been proposed as a potential measure to increase water depths and overall water volume, thus improving overwintering habitat. Material excavated from dredging may be used to alter the elevation of adjacent areas to improve SAV or EAV growth, floodplain forest health and to minimize potential future erosion. Increased availability of deeper water would greatly improve wintertime habitat conditions for overwintering fish. 55

61 Table 10. Objectives, Stressors and Potential Restoration Measures. Objectives Potential Stressors Potential Restoration Measures Objective A Improve habitat quantity and quality for lacustrine Shallow depths, low D.O., cold water Dredging, structures to control flow fish, including creation of discrete, temperatures, overwintering habitat with elevated velocities favorable water depth, dissolved oxygen, water temperature and water velocity. Objective B Increase emergent aquatic plant aerial coverage in the project area, with desirable density and species diversity. Objective C Improve submergent aquatic plant density and species diversity. Objective D Increase age and species diversity of self-sustaining floodplain forest. Objective E Minimize land loss and protect backwater habitat from potential break-through flows from the east channel caused by erosion of land that separates McGregor Lake and the East Channel. Also, to minimize erosion on the upstream end of the project area where erosion is occurring at the periphery of the existing shoreline protection HREP. Wind/wave action, water clarity, substrate type. Wind/wave action, water clarity, substrate type. Erosion and land loss; topographic diversity, stable water regimes Erosion caused by turbulent currents, vessel-generated waves. Islands to reduce wind fetch; small scale drawdown; creation of shallow water or mud flats through placement of dredged fine material. Islands to reduce wind fetch; small scale drawdown; creation of shallow water or mud flats through placement of dredged fine material. Placement of dredged material to create topographic diversity; Placement of dredged material to replace floodplain lost to erosion. Planting desired species. Bank protection, island restoration 56

62 6.2.3 CREATING EMERGENT WETLANDS/MUDFLATS Emergent wetlands or mudflats could be created in the shallow aquatic areas. These would be constructed to an elevation near normal pool. This would encourage establishment of emergent vegetation or mudflat habitat in and around McGregor Lake. It would also provide placement sites for dredged material excavated for habitat purposes ISLAND RESTORATION/CREATION Island restoration/creation could serve a multiple habitat purposes in McGregor Lake. Creation of islands protects shallow areas from wind and wave action, which in turn protects existing aquatic vegetation beds and reduces wave re-suspension of sediments. This improves water clarity, which improves conditions for the growth of aquatic vegetation in other shallow areas. Islands provide terrestrial habitat and transitional wetland habitat. Restoration of existing islands could include restoring the land area between McGregor Lake and East Channel. This not only would create terrestrial and wetland habitat, but also help prevent break through flows from East Channel which would substantially degrade McGregor Lake backwater habitat. Island creation would also provide beneficial means to dispose of dredged material. Through brainstorming and coordination with resource management agencies, various island locations and configurations will be considered BANK PROTECTION Bank protection is a tool that can be used to control erosion. Generally, with habitat projects on the Upper Mississippi River, bank protection is in the form of vanes, groins, a rock layer on the bank (traditional riprap design), or a rock mound. Bank protection will be evaluated for areas with evident erosion. This is particularly the case where erosion along the East Channel threatens McGregor Lake, as well as the head of the project area where erosion is evident at the downstream end of existing rock protection ROCK SILLS Rock sills are generally structural measures designed to control or reduce flow. Rock sill structures are generally constructed with rock, though new design concepts involving the incorporation of woody material are being developed. Rock sills were identified within the Environmental Pool Plans as measures for consideration to incorporate small amounts of flow into McGregor Lake. They also could be used to control the amount of flow within the adjacent secondary channels. These rock sills are designed to passively provide flows that correspond to sill height and pool elevations. 57

63 6.2.7 SMALL SCALE DRAWDOWN A small-scale water level drawdown could be performed by temporarily isolating McGregor Lake from the UMR and using pumps to lower water elevations. This could encourage SAV and EAV to grow. Once established, SAV and EAV may regenerate in following years without subsequent drawdowns. The appropriateness and effectiveness of this measure would require thorough evaluation during the feasibility phase. 6.3 MODELS FOR USE DURING FEASIBILITY The Bluegill Winter Habitat Suitability Index Model in the Upper Mississippi River will be used to forecast winter habitat conditions for centrarchids. The broader Bluegill HEP model will be used to forecast habitat conditions for centrarchids during other seasons. Both models are approved as Certified Planning models as required by USACE EC Changes to submergent and emergent vegetation will likely be assessed during feasibility through the use of the dabbling duck HEP model. This model is currently working through the model certification process and will likely be certified by the feasibility phase. Floodplain forest conditions will be characterized with HEP models for appropriate wildlife species. The exact model(s) for use will be determined in the feasibility phase. 6.4 FEASIBILITY DATA NEEDS During the feasibility phase additional data will need to be collected to help refine the analyses leading towards selection of the recommended plan. This will likely include (but not limited to) the following: Winter water quality data for McGregor and adjacent areas (including D.O., temperature and water velocity). Summer water quality for McGregor Lake and adjacent areas, with emphasis on turbidity Updated bathymetry for McGregor Lake and adjacent areas Sediment core samples for McGregor and adjacent secondary channels Floodplain Forest Inventory within and adjacent to areas impacted by project features. The USFWS Refuge is anticipating performing these surveys in 2014, so coordination will be performed to align study need here with those of USFWS. Observations on EAV and SAV within the project area and potentially similar adjacent backwater areas. Mussel community surveys in areas where project features may overlap with Higgins eye habitat 58

64 BIBLIOGRAPHY Arzigian, C., and J. Dowiasch Inventory of Cultural Resources from Fish and Wildlife Properties in the State of Wisconsin. Reports of Investigations No Mississippi Valley Archaeology Center, LaCrosse, Wisconsin. Benedetti, M.M. (2000) Recent floods and Sediment Transport on the Upper Mississippi River. Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Department of Geography, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin. Benn, David Upper Mississippi River Dredge Disposal Survey and Testing (Pools 9 & 10). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District. Contract No. DACW37-75-C Benn David W The Woodland Ceramic Sequence in the Culture History of Northeastern iowa. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 3(2): Benn David W Erosion Monitoring Program on Archaeological Shoreline Sites along the Upper Mississippi River on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District Lands Pools 3 and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Rock Island District. Contract No. DACW25-03-D Boszhardt, Robert Archaeological Investigations in the Lowland Floodplain near Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin. Unpublished Master s Thesis, University of Wisconsin Madison, Dep. Of Anthropology. Church, P.E The Archaeological Potential of Pool No. 10, Upper Mississippi River: A Geomorphological Perspective. Conducted by Geotechnical Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, Mississippi, Prepared for the U.S. Army Engineer District, St. Paul. Church, Peter E The Archaeolgocial Potential of Pool 10, Upper Mississippi River: A Geomorphological Perspective. The Wisconsin Archaeolgist 66(3): Dodds, W. K., J. R. Jones, and E. B. Welch Suggested classification of stream trophic state: distributions of temperate stream types by chlorophyll, total nitrogen and phosphorus. Water Research 32: Ecological Specialists, Inc Final Report: Long term monitoring of native non-indigenous mussel species and Higgins eye (Lampsilis higginsii) impact assessment at the Harpers Slough Environmental Management Program Habitat Rehabilitation and Enhancement Project, Upper Mississippi River Pool 9. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District, St. Paul, MN. January. 36 pp. Florin, Frank, and Thomas Madigan Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of Ambrough Slough Environmental Management Program Project: Mississippi River Pool 10, Crawford County, Wisconsin. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District. Contract No. DACW37-99-Q Gibbon, Guy Archaeology of Minnesota: The Prehistory of the Upper Mississippi River Region. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Halsey, John R The Crawford County, Wisconsin, Archaeological and Historical Site Survey (1971). State Historical Society of Wisconsin, Madison. Holtz, Wendy and Robert Boszhardt A Phase I Archaeological Survey of Proposed Dredge Spoil Sites on Pool 10 of the Mississippi River. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District. Contract No. DAC37-93-A Jalbert, Andrew and Michael Kolb Phase I and Phase II Archaeological Investigations in Pools 9 and 10, Mississippi River, Crawford County, Wisconsin. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District. Contract No. DACW37-00-M

65 Jensen, John Gently Down the Stream: An Inquiry into the History of Transportation the Northern Mississippi River and the Potential for Submerged Cultural Resources. State Underwater Archaeology Program, State Historical Society of Wisconsin. Kelner, D Upper Mississippi River mussel species list. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District. Knutson, M.G. and E.E. Klaas Floodplain forest loss and changes in forest community composition and structure in the Upper Mississippi River: a wildlife habitat at risk. Natural Areas Journal 18, Kolb, Michael and Robert Boszhardt A Geoarchaeological Investigation and Overview of Navigation Pool 10, Upper Mississippi River. Report of Investigations No. 456, Mississippi Valley Archaeological Center, University of Wisconsin LaCrosse. Lewis, Theodore H Northwestern Archaeological Survey Lewis Notebooks, Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul. Madigan Thomas and Ronald Schirmer Geomorphological Mapping and Archaeological Sites of the Upper Mississippi River Valley, Navigation Pools 1-10, Minneapolis, Minnesota to Guttenberg, Iowa. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District. Contract No. DACW37-96-M McHenry, J. R. and J. C. Ritchie (1975). Sedimentation of Fines in the Pools and Backwater Lakes of Lock and Dam No. 4 through No. 10 on the Upper Mississippi River. Prepared for the Great River Environmental Action Team (GREAT). Mead, R. H Contaminants in the Mississippi River, U.S. Geological Survey Circular Menges, E.S Environmental correlates of herb species composition in five southern Wisconsin flooplain forests. American Midland Naturalist 115: Miller, A.C. and B.S. Payne Effects of Zebra Mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) at Essential Habitat Areas for Lampsilis higginsii in the Upper Mississippi River System, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Mussel Coordination Team Mussel Coordination Team 2012 Mussel Surveys Lampsilis higginsii East Channel Prairie du Chien Essential Habitat Area, Pool 10, Upper Mississippi River. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District, St. Paul, Minnesota. Orr, Ellison An Apparently Very Old Prehistoric Camp Site. Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Science 34: Orr, Ellison Unpublished report In: Report of Survey and Excavations of Indian Mounds, Village Sites and Cemeteries in the Valleys of the Upper Iowa and Mississippi Rivers, Volume 6. On file, Effigy Mounds National Monument. Harpers Ferry, Iowa. Overstreet, David F Cultural Resources Literature Search and Records Review Upper Mississippi River Basin. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District, Contract No. DACW37-82-C-0014, Report of Investigations, No. 151, Great Lakes Archaeological Research Center, Inc. Overstreet, D. F Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of Pool 10, Upper Mississippi River, Grant and Crawford Counties, Wisconsin, and Allamakee and Clayton Counties, Iowa. Reports of Investigation No Great Lakes Archaeological Research Center Waukesha, Wisconsin. Overstreet, David F. and Michael L. Kolb Archaeological and Geomorphological Investigations at Four (4) Proposed Dredge Disposal Sites, Navigation Pool 10, Crawford County, Wisconsin. Great Lakes Archaeological Research Center. Reports of Investigation No Milwaukee. 60

66 Palesh, G. and D. Anderson Modification of the Habitat Suitability Index Model for the Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) for Winter Conditions for Upper Mississippi River Backwater Habitats. USACE, St. Paul District. January Pearson Marjorie National Register Evaluation of the Channel Structures of the Upper Mississippi River, Pools 1-10 (From St. Paul, Minnesota, to Guttenberg, Iowa). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District. Contract No. DACW37-01-M Persaud, D., R. Jaagumagi, and A. Hayton Guidelines for the protection and management of aquatic sediment in Ontario. OMOEE. Toronto. Petticrew, E.L. & J. Kalff Calibration of a gypsum source for freshwater flow measurements. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 48: River Resources Forum Environmental Pool Plans: Mississippi River, Pools U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District, St. Paul, Minnesota. 156 pp. Rogala, J. T., P. J. Boma, and B. R. Gray Rates and patterns of net sedimentation in backwaters of Pools 4, 8, and 13 of the Upper Mississippi River. U.S> Geological Sruvey, Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center, La Crosse, Wisconsin, An LTRMP Web-based report. Scott, Branden K Phase II Testing and Evaluation of Archaeological Sites 47CR341, 47CR360, and 47CR451 in Navigation Pool 10 of the Mississippi River, Crawford County, Wisconsin. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District. Contract No. W912EK-08-D Smith, R.A., Alexander, R.B., and Schwarz, G.E., 2003, Natural background concentrations of nutrients in streams and rivers of the conterminous United States: Environmental Science and Technology, v. 37, no. 14, p Steuck, M. J., S. Yess, J. Pitlo, A. Van Vooren, and J. Rasmussen Distribution and relative abundance of Upper Mississippi River Fishes. Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Onalaska, WI. Stoltman, James B Middle Woodland Stage Communities of Southwest Wisconsin. In Hopewell Archaeology, The Chillicothe Conference, edited by David A. Brose and N omi Greber, pp The Kent State University Press, Kent. Stoltman, James B., and James L. Theler A Report on the Archaeological Survey Activities Conducted in the Upper Mississippi River Wildlife and Fish Refuge, Pool 10, Crawford County, Wisconsin. Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin, Madison. Stoltman James B A Report of Archaeological Survey at the Atlantis Site (47CR451) Crawford County, Wisconsin. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Contract No. DACW37-93-A Stoltman James B Phase II Archaeolgocial Investigations of the McGregor Lake Site (47CR354) Crawford County, Wisconsin. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District. Contract No. DACW37-93-A Sullivan J. F. and J. A. Moody Contaminants in Mississippi River bed sediments collected before and after the 1993 summer flood in Navigation Pools 1 to 11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrative Report. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. La Crosse, Wisconsin. 50 pp. Taylor, Richard C Notes Respecting Certain Indian Mounds and earthworks, in the Form of Animal Effigies, Chiefly in the Wisconsin Territory, U.S. American Journal of Science 34: Theiling, C. H., C. Korschgen, H. De Haan, T. Fox, J. Rohweder, and L. Robinson Habitat Needs Assessment for the Upper Mississippi River System: Technical Report. U.S. Geological Survey, Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center, La Crosse, Wisconsin. Contract report prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District, St. Louis, Missouri. 248 pp. + Appendixes A to AA. 61

67 Theis, L. J. and J. C. Knox (2003) Spatial and Temporal Variablity in Floodplain Backwater Sedimentation Pool Ten, Upper Mississippi River, Physical Geography, 24:4, Thomas, C Report of the Mound Explorations of the Bureau of Ethnology. Bureau of Ethnology, Washington, D.C. Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway Cumulative Effects Study (2000). Volume 1: Geomorphic Assessment. Prepared by WEST Consultants, Bellevue, Washington for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Upper Mississippi River Basin Association Upper Mississippi River water quality: The states approach to Clean Water Act monitoring, assessment, and impairment decisions. Upper Mississippi River Basin Association Report. St. Paul, Minnesota. Available online at Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee Proposed water quality criteria necessary to sustain submersed aquatic vegetation in the Upper Mississippi River. Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee. Rock Island, Illinois. 6 pp. USACE GLMRIS Focus Area 2. Aquatic Pathways Assessment Summary Report. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. May U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). (2011). USACE Geospatial Map Layer of Cultural Sites. [computer file]. Unpublished raw data. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Upper Mississippi River Land Use Allocation Plan - Master Plan for Public Use, Development and Resource Management, Part 1. USACE Upper Mississippi River System Ecosystem Restoration Objectives. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Rock Island District. Rock Island, Illinois. USACE Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway Cumulative Effects Study. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Rock Island District, June U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Nutrient criteria: Technical guidance manual: Rivers and streams. EPA 822B Washington, D.C. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Higgins eye pearlymussel (Lampsilis higginsii) recovery plan: First revision. Ft. Snelling, Minnesota. 126pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Environmental Conservation Online System. Species Reports by County. Retrieved February 26, 2014, from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Upper Mississippi River, National Wildlife and Fish Refuge. 228 pp. Wilcox, Daniel B An aquatic habitat classification system for the upper Mississippi River system. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Environmental Management Technical Center, Onalaska, Wisconsin. EMTC 93-T003. Wahls, Richard R Phase I Archaeological and Historical Survey of the Shoreline of Pool No. 10, Upper Mississippi River. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District. Contract No. DACW M Wilde, S. A The subdivision of the Gray-Brown Podzolic soils from ecological and silvicultural viewpoints. Proceedings. Soil Science Society of America 1940, publ Vol. 5 pp

68 Sunfish Lake 636! Island No. 172 Roseau Channel Prairie Du Chien East Channel 635! Crawford County WISCONSIN 18 Marquette McGregor Lake 634! Clayton County IOWA Legend East Channel Hunter Island! River Mile Navigation Sailing Line Navigation Project Depth McGregor Project Area Acres McGregor Bergman Island W:\UMRR(EMP)\10Pool_10\EMP-MVP_McGregor_Lake_WI \GIS_Support\MXD McGregor Lake - Project Area Pool 10 - Mississippi River Base Image: USDA Farm Service Agency Orthophoto ,000 4,000 Feet Plate 1.

69 Sunfish Lake! 636 Island No. 172 Roseau Channel Prairie Du Chien East Channel 635! Crawford County WISCONSIN 18 Legend! River Mile lc_1890_p10 Marquette <all other values> CLASS_15_N Agriculture Deep marsh Developed Grass/forbs Open water Road/levee Rooted floating aquatics Sand/mud Shallow marsh Shrub/scrub Clayton County IOWA Submersed aquatic vegetation Upland forest Wet forest Wet meadow Wet shrub 634! McGregor McGregor Lake Bergman Island East Channel Hunter Island W:\UMRR(EMP)\10Pool_10\EMP-MVP_McGregor_Lake_WI \GIS_Support\MXD McGregor Lake - Project Area Pool 10 - Mississippi River Project Area Land Cover/Land Use ,000 4,000 Feet Plate 2.

70 Sunfish Lake! 636 Island No. 172 Roseau Channel Prairie Du Chien East Channel 635! Crawford County WISCONSIN 18 Legend! River Mile Marquette lc_1975_proj_area_diss <all other values> CLASS_15_N Agriculture Deep marsh Developed Grass/forbs Open water Road/levee Rooted floating aquatics Sand/mud Shallow marsh Shrub/scrub Clayton County IOWA Submersed aquatic vegetation Upland forest Wet forest Wet meadow Wet shrub 634! McGregor McGregor Lake Bergman Island East Channel Hunter Island W:\UMRR(EMP)\10Pool_10\EMP-MVP_McGregor_Lake_WI \GIS_Support\MXD McGregor Lake - Project Area Pool 10 - Mississippi River Project Area Land Cover/Land Use ,000 4,000 Feet Plate 3.

71 Sunfish Lake! 636 Island No. 172 Roseau Channel Prairie Du Chien East Channel 635! Crawford County WISCONSIN 18 Legend! River Mile Marquette lc_1989_proj_area_diss <all other values> CLASS_15_N Agriculture Deep marsh Developed Grass/forbs Open water Road/levee Rooted floating aquatics Sand/mud Shallow marsh Shrub/scrub Clayton County IOWA Submersed aquatic vegetation Upland forest Wet forest Wet meadow Wet shrub 634! McGregor McGregor Lake Bergman Island East Channel Hunter Island W:\UMRR(EMP)\10Pool_10\EMP-MVP_McGregor_Lake_WI \GIS_Support\MXD McGregor Lake - Project Area Pool 10 - Mississippi River Project Area Land Cover/Land Use ,000 4,000 Feet Plate 4.

72 Sunfish Lake! 636 Island No. 172 Roseau Channel Prairie Du Chien East Channel 635! Crawford County WISCONSIN 18 Legend! River Mile Marquette lc_2000_proj_area_diss <all other values> CLASS_15_N Agriculture Deep marsh Developed Grass/forbs Open water Road/levee Rooted floating aquatics Sand/mud Shallow marsh Shrub/scrub Clayton County IOWA Submersed aquatic vegetation Upland forest Wet forest Wet meadow Wet shrub 634! McGregor McGregor Lake Bergman Island East Channel Hunter Island W:\UMRR(EMP)\10Pool_10\EMP-MVP_McGregor_Lake_WI \GIS_Support\MXD McGregor Lake - Project Area Pool 10 - Mississippi River Project Area Land Cover/Land Use ,000 4,000 Feet Plate 5.

73 Sunfish Lake! 636 Island No. 172 Roseau Channel Prairie Du Chien East Channel 635! Crawford County WISCONSIN 18 Legend! River Mile Marquette lc_2010_proj_area_diss <all other values> CLASS_15_N Agriculture Deep marsh Developed Grass/forbs Open water Road/levee Rooted floating aquatics Sand/mud Shallow marsh Shrub/scrub Clayton County IOWA Submersed aquatic vegetation Upland forest Wet forest Wet meadow Wet shrub 634! McGregor McGregor Lake Bergman Island East Channel Hunter Island W:\UMRR(EMP)\10Pool_10\EMP-MVP_McGregor_Lake_WI \GIS_Support\MXD McGregor Lake - Project Area Pool 10 - Mississippi River Project Area Land Cover/Land Use ,000 4,000 Feet Plate 6.

74 Sunfish Lake! 636 Island No. 172 Roseau Channel Prairie Du Chien East Channel 635! 18 Crawford County WISCONSIN Marquette McGregor Lake 634! Clayton County IOWA East Channel Hunter Island Legend! River Mile Navigation Sailing Line McGregor Project Area Acres McGregor Bergman Island W:\UMRR(EMP)\10Pool_10\EMP-MVP_McGregor_Lake_WI \GIS_Support\MXD McGregor Lake - Project Area Pool 10 - Mississippi River Base Image: 1930s USDA Iowa Orthophotos 0 2,000 4,000 Feet Plate 7.

75 Sunfish Lake 636! Island No. 172 Roseau Channel Prairie Du Chien East Channel 635! Crawford County WISCONSIN 18 Marquette McGregor Lake 634! Clayton County IOWA East Channel Hunter Island 1999 Bathymetry DEPTH_FT File Location Date Cartographers Initials McGregor 633! Bergman Island McGregor Lake Schmidt Island Base Image: ESRI World Imagery 0 1,350 2,700 5,400 Feet Garnet Lake Plate 8.

76 Sunfish Lake 636! Island No. 172 Roseau Channel Prairie Du Chien East Channel 635! 18 Crawford County WISCONSIN Marquette McGregor Lake 634! Clayton County IOWA McGregor East Channel Hunter Island Legend Mississippi LiDAR Elev - Feet Low ~610' High ~622' ' W:\UMRR(EMP)\10Pool_10\EMP-MVP_McGregor_Lake_WI \ GIS_Support\MXD\LiDAR.mxd JFW 633! Bergman Island McGregor Lake Schmidt Island Base Image: ESRI World Imagery 0 1,350 2,700 5,400 Feet Garnet Lake Plate 9.

77