Lock and Dam 9 Hydroelectric Project FERC PROJECT No. 13392

Transcription

PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT (PAD)
Lock and Dam 9 Hydroelectric Project
FERC PROJ ECT No. 13392
© Lock +TM Hydro Friends Fund II, LLC
Prepared by:
141 Main Street
Pittsfield, ME 04967
www.KleinschmidtUSA.com
August 2011
LOCK AND DAM 9 HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
FERC PROJECT NO. 13392
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEFINITIONS OF TERMS, ACRONYMS, AND ABBREVIATIONS ........................................1
1.0
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1-1
2.0
PROCESS PLAN AND SCHEDULE [§ 5.6 (D)(1)] ...................................................... 2-1
2.1
TIME FRAMES FOR PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION, INFORMATION
GATHERING, AND STUDIES ..................................................................................... 2-1
2.2
PROPOSED PROCESS MILESTONES ......................................................................... 2-2
2.3
PROPOSED LOCATION AND DATE FOR JOINT AGENCY MEETING AND FOR THE
SITE VISIT [§ 5.8 (B)(3)(VIII)] ................................................................................ 2-2
3.0
PROJECT LOCATION, FACILITIES, AND OPERATIONS [§ 5.6 (D)(2)] ................ 3-1
3.1
CONTACT INFORMATION OF EACH PERSON AUTHORIZED TO ACT AS AGENT
FOR APPLICANT (EXACT NAME, BUSINESS ADDRESS, AND PHONE NUMBER) ........... 3-1
3.2
MAPS OF LAND USE WITHIN PROJECT BOUNDARIES (TOWNSHIP, RANGE AND
SECTION, STATE, COUNTY, RIVER, RIVER MILE, AND CLOSEST TOWN) AND, IF
APPLICABLE, FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS, AND LOCATION OF PROPOSED
FACILITIES ............................................................................................................. 3-1
3.3
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED FACILITIES ................................................ 3-2
3.3.1 COMPOSITION, DIMENSIONS, AND CONFIGURATION OF DAMS,
SPILLWAYS, PENSTOCKS, POWERHOUSES, TAILRACES, ETC. PROPOSED
3.4
3.5
TO BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE PROJECT OR CONNECTED DIRECTLY
TO IT.......................................................................................................... 3-2
3.3.2 RESERVOIR NORMAL MAXIMUM WATER SURFACE AREA AND
ELEVATION AND GROSS STORAGE CAPACITY ............................................. 3-2
3.3.3 NUMBER, TYPE AND CAPACITIES OF TURBINES AND GENERATORS,
AND INSTALLED (RATED) CAPACITY OF PROPOSED TURBINES OR
GENERATORS............................................................................................. 3-3
3.3.4 NUMBER, LENGTH, VOLTAGE, AND INTERCONNECTIONS OF ANY
PRIMARY TRANSMISSION LINES PROPOSED TO BE INCLUDED AS PART
OF THE PROJECT ........................................................................................ 3-3
3.3.5 ENERGY PRODUCTION ............................................................................... 3-4
PROPOSED PROJECT OPERATION, INCLUDING ANY DAILY OR SEASONAL
RAMPING RATES, FLUSHING FLOWS, RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AND FLOOD
CONTROL OPERATIONS .......................................................................................... 3-5
A DESCRIPTION OF ANY NEW FACILITIES OR COMPONENTS TO BE
CONSTRUCTED, PLANS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OR REHABILITATION
OF THE PROJECT, AND CHANGES IN PROJECT OPERATION. ...................................... 3-5
3.5.1 REFERENCES ............................................................................................. 3-5
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT’D)
4.0
EXISTING ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE IMPACTS [§ 5.6 (D)(3)(I)] ............ 4-1
4.1
GEOLOGY AND SOILS [§ 5.6 (D)(3)(II)] ................................................................. 4-1
4.1.1 DESCRIPTION OF GEOLOGICAL FEATURES, INCLUDING BEDROCK
LITHOLOGY, STRATIGRAPHY, STRUCTURAL FEATURES, GLACIAL
FEATURES, UNCONSOLIDATED DEPOSITS, AND MINERAL RESOURCES ........ 4-1
4.1.2 DESCRIPTION OF SOIL TYPES, OCCURRENCE, PHYSICAL AND
CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS, ERODABILITY AND POTENTIAL FOR
MASS SOIL MOVEMENT, AND SOIL CHARACTERISTICS ................................ 4-2
4.1.3 DESCRIPTION OF RESERVOIR SHORELINES AND STREAMBANKS,
INCLUDING: ............................................................................................... 4-6
4.1.4 POTENTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS AND ISSUES .............................................. 4-7
4.1.5 PROPOSED MITIGATION AND ENHANCEMENT MEASURES ......................... 4-7
4.1.6 REFERENCES ............................................................................................. 4-7
4.2
WATER RESOURCES [§ 5.6 (D)(3)(III)] ................................................................... 4-8
4.2.1 DRAINAGE AREA ....................................................................................... 4-8
4.2.2 THE MONTHLY MINIMUM, MEAN, AND MAXIMUM RECORDED FLOWS
4.3
IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND OF THE STREAM AT THE POWERPLANT
INTAKE, SPECIFYING ANY ADJUSTMENTS MADE FOR EVAPORATION,
LEAKAGE, MINIMUM FLOW RELEASES, OR OTHER REDUCTIONS IN
AVAILABLE FLOW ...................................................................................... 4-8
4.2.3 A MONTHLY FLOW DURATION CURVE INDICATING THE PERIOD OF
RECORD AND THE LOCATION OF GAUGING STATION, INCLUDING
IDENTIFICATION NUMBER, USED IN DERIVING THE CURVE; AND A
SPECIFICATION OF THE CRITICAL STREAMFLOW USED TO DETERMINE
THE PROJECT'S DEPENDABLE CAPACITY................................................... 4-10
4.2.4 EXISTING AND PROPOSED USES OF PROJECT WATERS FOR
IRRIGATION, DOMESTIC WATER SUPPLY, INDUSTRIAL AND OTHER
PURPOSES ................................................................................................ 4-11
4.2.5 EXISTING INSTREAM FLOW USES OF STREAMS IN THE PROJECT AREA
THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED BY PROJECT CONSTRUCTION AND
OPERATION; INFORMATION ON EXISTING WATER RIGHTS AND WATER
RIGHTS APPLICATIONS POTENTIALLY AFFECTING OR AFFECTED BY
THE PROJECT ........................................................................................... 4-11
4.2.6 RELEVANT FEDERALLY-APPROVED WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
APPLICABLE TO PROJECT WATERS ........................................................... 4-11
4.2.7 PROJECT EFFECTS ON SEASONAL VARIATION OF WATER QUALITY
DATA ....................................................................................................... 4-13
4.2.8 RESERVOIR SURFACE AREA, VOLUME, MAXIMUM DEPTH, MEAN
DEPTH, FLUSHING RATE, SHORELINE LENGTH, SUBSTRATE
COMPOSITION .......................................................................................... 4-21
4.2.9 GRADIENT FOR AFFECTED DOWNSTREAM REACHES ................................ 4-21
4.2.10 POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS AND ISSUES ............................................ 4-21
4.2.11 PROPOSED MITIGATION AND ENHANCEMENT MEASURES ....................... 4-22
4.2.12 REFERENCES ........................................................................................... 4-23
FISH AND AQUATIC RESOURCES [§ 5.6 (D)(3)(IV)] ............................................... 4-25
4.3.1 OVERVIEW .............................................................................................. 4-25
4.3.2 IDENTIFICATION OF EXISTING FISH AND AQUATIC COMMUNITIES ............ 4-25
4.3.3 IDENTIFICATION OF ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT AS DEFINED UNDER
THE MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND
ii
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
MANAGEMENT ACT AND ESTABLISHED BY THE NATIONAL MARINE
FISHERIES SERVICE ................................................................................. 4-28
4.3.4 TEMPORAL AND SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF FISH AND AQUATIC
COMMUNITIES AND TRENDS: ................................................................... 4-28
4.3.7 REFERENCES ........................................................................................... 4-35
WILDLIFE AND BOTANICAL RESOURCES [§ 5.6 (D)(3)(V)] ................................... 4-38
4.4.1 UPLAND HABITAT IN THE PROJECT VICINITY, INCLUDING THE
PROJECT'S TRANSMISSION LINE CORRIDOR OR RIGHT-OF-WAY AND A
LISTING OF PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES THAT USE THE HABITAT............ 4-38
4.4.2 TRANSMISSION LINE CORRIDOR – UPLAND HABITAT ............................. 4-39
4.4.3 TEMPORAL OR SPECIAL DISTRIBUTION OF COMMERCIALLY,
RECREATIONALLY, OR CULTURALLY IMPORTANT SPECIES....................... 4-39
4.4.6 REFERENCES ........................................................................................... 4-40
FLOODPLAINS, WETLANDS, RIPARIAN, AND LITTORAL HABITAT [§
5.6(D)(3)(VI)]...................................................................................................... 4-41
4.5.1 MAP OF WETLANDS, RIPARIAN AND LITTORAL HABITAT.......................... 4-41
4.5.2 A LIST OF PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES, INCLUDING INVASIVE
SPECIES, THAT USE THE WETLAND, LITTORAL, AND RIPARIAN
HABITAT .................................................................................................. 4-43
4.5.5 REFERENCES ........................................................................................... 4-45
RARE, THREATENED, AND ENDANGERED SPECIES [§ 5.6 (D)(3)(VII)] ................. 4-46
4.6.1 DESCRIPTION OF LISTED RARE, THREATENED AND ENDANGERED,
CANDIDATE, OR SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES IN THE PROJECT VICINITY. ...... 4-46
4.6.2 IDENTIFICATION OF HABITAT REQUIREMENTS ......................................... 4-47
4.6.3 REFERENCES TO KNOWN BIOLOGICAL OPINION, STATUS REPORTS, OR
RECOVERY PLANS PERTAINING TO A LISTED SPECIES ............................... 4-47
4.6.4 EXTENT AND LOCATION OF FEDERALLY-DESIGNATED CRITICAL
HABITAT OR OTHER HABITAT FOR LISTED SPECIES IN THE PROJECT
AREA ....................................................................................................... 4-49
4.6.5 TEMPORAL AND SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE LISTED SPECIES
WITHIN THE PROJECT VICINITY ................................................................ 4-49
4.6.8 REFERENCES ........................................................................................... 4-52
RECREATION AND LAND USE [§ 5.6 (D)(3)(VIII)] ................................................ 4-54
4.7.1 EXISTING RECREATIONAL FACILITIES, TYPE OF ACTIVITY SUPPORTED,
LOCATION, CAPACITY, OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT .......................... 4-54
4.7.2 RECREATIONAL USE OF LANDS AND WATERS COMPARED TO FACILITY
OR RESOURCE CAPACITY ......................................................................... 4-55
4.7.3 EXISTING SHORELINE BUFFER ZONES WITHIN THE PROJECT
BOUNDARY.............................................................................................. 4-55
4.7.4 CURRENT AND FUTURE RECREATION NEEDS FROM EXISTING STATE
OR REGIONAL PLANS ............................................................................... 4-56
iii
4.7.5
4.7.6
4.8
4.9
4.10
4.11
4.12
CURRENT SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLAN OR POLICY ............................ 4-56
A DISCUSSION OF WHETHER THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN OR
ADJACENT TO A: ...................................................................................... 4-56
4.7.7 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT LANDS UNDER STUDY FOR INCLUSION IN
THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM OR AS A WILDERNESS AREA ................. 4-57
4.7.8 REGIONALLY OR NATIONALLY IMPORTANT RECREATION AREAS ............. 4-57
4.7.9 NON-RECREATIONAL LAND USE AND MANAGEMENT WITHIN THE
PROJECT BOUNDARY ............................................................................... 4-58
4.7.10 RECREATIONAL AND NON-RECREATIONAL LAND USE AND
MANAGEMENT ADJACENT TO THE PROJECT BOUNDARY ........................... 4-59
4.7.13 REFERENCES ........................................................................................... 4-61
AESTHETIC RESOURCES [§ 5.6 (D)(3)(IX)] .......................................................... 4-62
4.8.3 REFERENCES ........................................................................................... 4-63
CULTURAL RESOURCES [§ 5.6 (D)(3)(X)] ............................................................ 4-63
4.9.1 IDENTIFICATION OF ANY HISTORIC OR ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE IN THE
PROPOSED PROJECT VICINITY, WITH PARTICULAR EMPHASIS ON SITES OR
PROPERTIES EITHER LISTED IN, OR RECOMMENDED BY THE STATE HISTORIC
PRESERVATION OFFICER OR TRIBAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER FOR
INCLUSION IN, THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES .............. 4-65
4.9.2 EXISTING DISCOVERY MEASURES, SUCH AS SURVEYS, INVENTORIES, AND
LIMITED SUBSURFACE TESTING WORK, FOR THE PURPOSE OF LOCATING,
IDENTIFYING, AND ASSESSING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF HISTORIC AND
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES THAT HAVE BEEN UNDERTAKEN WITHIN OR
ADJACENT TO THE PROJECT BOUNDARY .................................................. 4-65
4.9.3 IDENTIFICATION OF INDIAN TRIBES THAT MAY ATTACH RELIGIOUS
AND CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE TO HISTORIC PROPERTIES WITHIN THE
PROJECT BOUNDARY OR IN THE PROJECT VICINITY; AS WELL AS
AVAILABLE INFORMATION ON INDIAN TRADITIONAL CULTURAL AND
RELIGIOUS PROPERTIES, WHETHER ON OR OFF OF ANY FEDERALLYRECOGNIZED INDIAN RESERVATION. ....................................................... 4-66
4.9.6 REFERENCES ........................................................................................... 4-67
SOCIO-ECONOMIC RESOURCES [§ 5.6 (D)(3)(XI)] ................................................ 4-67
4.10.1 POPULATION PATTERNS .......................................................................... 4-67
4.10.2 HOUSEHOLD/FAMILY DISTRIBUTION AND INCOME ................................. 4-69
4.10.3 PROJECT VICINITY EMPLOYMENT SOURCES ........................................... 4-69
4.10.4 THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER CORRIDOR’S REGIONAL ECONOMY ........ 4-70
4.10.6 REFERENCES ........................................................................................... 4-71
TRIBAL RESOURCES [§ 5.6 (D)(3)(XII)] ............................................................... 4-71
4.11.1 REFERENCES ........................................................................................... 4-72
RIVER BASIN DESCRIPTION [§ 5.6 (D)(3)(XIII)] ................................................... 4-72
4.12.1 AREA OF RIVER BASIN AND SUB-BASIN AND LENGTH OF STREAM
REACHES ................................................................................................. 4-72
iv
4.12.2 MAJOR LAND AND WATER USE IN PROJECT AREA .................................... 4-72
4.12.3 ALL DAMS AND DIVERSION STRUCTURES IN THE BASIN OR SUBBASIN, REGARDLESS OF FUNCTION .......................................................... 4-74
4.12.4 TRIBUTARY RIVERS AND STREAMS, THE RESOURCES OF WHICH ARE
OR MAY BE AFFECTED BY PROJECT OPERATIONS ..................................... 4-76
4.12.5 REFERENCES ........................................................................................... 4-77
5.0
PRELIMINARY ISSUES AND STUDIES LIST FOR EACH RESOURCE
AREA [§ 5.6 (D)(4)] ........................................................................................................ 5-1
5.1
ISSUES PERTAINING TO THE IDENTIFIED RESOURCES ............................................. 5-1
5.2
POTENTIAL STUDIES AND INFORMATION GATHERING REQUIREMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE IDENTIFIED ISSUES; ........................................................... 5-1
5.3
RELEVANT QUALIFYING FEDERAL AND STATE OR TRIBAL COMPREHENSIVE
WATERWAY PLANS ................................................................................................ 5-4
5.4
RELEVANT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS ........................................................ 5-6
5.4.1 REFERENCES ............................................................................................. 5-7
6.0
SUMMARY OF CONTACTS [§ 5.6 (D)(5)] .................................................................. 6-1
7.0
PURPA BENEFITS [§ 5.6 (E)] ....................................................................................... 7-1
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 4-1.
TABLE 4-2.
TABLE 4-3.
TABLE 4-4.
TABLE 4-5.
TABLE 4-6.
TABLE 4-7.
TABLE 4-8.
TABLE 5-1.
TABLE 5-2.
RIVER FLOW DATA AT LOCK AND DAM 9 ON THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND 14 MILES
DOWNSTREAM AT USGS GAGE 05389500 ............................................................ 4-9
IOWA AND WISCONSIN WATER QUALITY STANDARDS ....................................... 4-12
IOWA TEMPERATURE CRITERIA MAXIMUM LIMITS............................................. 4-13
ESTIMATES OF PROJECT VICINITY WETLAND AND RIPARIAN ACREAGES. ............. 4-42
NOTABLE STATE MANAGEMENT AREAS ............................................................. 4-60
POPULATION STATISTICS FOR WINONA AND HOUSTON COUNTIES AND MINNESOTA .
............................................................................................................................ 4-68
LARGEST EMPLOYMENT SECTORS AS OF 2002 .................................................... 4-69
MAJOR TRIBUTARIES TO THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER ..................................... 4-76
LIST OF QUALIFYING FEDERAL AND STATE COMPREHENSIVE WATERWAY PLANS
POTENTIALLY RELEVANT TO THE LOCK AND DAM 9 PROJECT.............................. 5-4
LIST OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS POTENTIALLY RELEVANT TO THE LOCK
AND DAM 9 PROJECT ............................................................................................ 5-6
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 3-1.
FIGURE 4-1.
FIGURE 4-2.
FIGURE 4-3.
FIGURE 4-4.
FIGURE 4-5.
FIGURE 4-6.
PRELIMINARY INTERCONNECTION MAP ................................................................ 3-4
SOIL MAP OF THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ................... 4-3
POOL ELEVATIONS FOR 2010 AT USACE LOCK AND DAM 9 ................................ 4-9
TAILWATER ELEVATIONS FOR 2010 AS RECORDED AT USACE LOCK AND DAM 9 ....
............................................................................................................................ 4-10
DISSOLVED OXYGEN LEVELS IN POOL 8 (1958 – 1996) ...................................... 4-14
TEMPERATURES AT LOCK AND DAM 9 (2000-2010) ........................................... 4-15
TEMPERATURES AT LOCK AND DAM 9 (2010)..................................................... 4-16
v
FIGURE 4-7.
FIGURE 4-8.
FIGURE 4-9.
FIGURE 4-10.
FIGURE 4-11.
FIGURE 4-12.
FIGURE 4-13.
PH IN POOL 8 (1958 – 1996) ............................................................................... 4-17
TOTAL NITROGEN IN POOL 8 (1958 – 1996)........................................................ 4-18
TOTAL PHOSPHOROUS IN POOL 8 (1958 – 1996) ................................................. 4-19
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS IN POOL 8 (1958 – 1996) ......................................... 4-20
PROJECT VICINITY WETLAND AND RIPARIAN HABITAT. ....................................... 4-42
LAND USE OF THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN ........................................... 4-73
LOCKS AND DAMS OF THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER ......................................... 4-75
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A:
APPENDIX B:
APPENDIX C:
APPENDIX D:
APPENDIX E:
APPENDIX F:
APPENDIX G:
APPENDIX H:
APPENDIX I:
APPENDIX J:
Maps
Flow Duration Curves
Distribution List
Agency Consultation and Correspondence
Fish Species of Pools 9 and 10
List of Reptile and Amphibian Species
List of Native Mussel Species in the Upper Mississippi River
List of Upland Habitat Plants and Wildlife Common to the Region
List of Wetland Habitat Botanical and Wildlife Species Common to the Region
List of Threatened, Endangered, and Special Status Species by State and County
J:\1535\006\Docs\Set One PADS (MM and Gumby)\Gumby
\FINAL PAD NOI and COVER LETTER\001-Gumby FINAL PAD (8-22-11).doc
vi
DEFINITIONS OF TERMS, ACRONYMS, AND ABBREVIATIONS
af
APE
Applicant
BIA
BLM
CADD
CFR
cfs
Commission
CWA
DLA
DO
DOE
DOI
EA
EAP
EFH
EIS
EL
ESA
FEA
FERC
FLA
FPA
FWCA
GIS
GWh
Hp
Hz
IDNR
ILP
InstalledCapacity
Interested Parties
kW
kWh
kV
License
Application
Licensee
Licensing
Licensing
Participants
acre-foot, the amount of water needed to cover one acre to a depth of one
foot.
Area of Potential Effect as pertaining to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act.
Lock +TM Hydro Friends Fund II, LLC
Bureau of Indian Affairs, an agency of the DOI
Bureau of Land Management, an agency of the DOI
computer aided drafting and design
Code of Federal Regulations
cubic feet per second
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Clean Water Act
Draft License Application
dissolved oxygen, generally expressed in units of parts per million (ppm)
US Department of Energy
US Department of Interior
Environmental Assessment
Emergency Action Plan
Essential Fish Habitat
Environmental Impact Statement
elevation
Federal Endangered Species Act
Final Environmental Assessment
Final License Application
Federal Power Act
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
Geographic Information Systems
gigawatt-hour (equals one million kilowatt-hours)
horsepower
hertz (cycles per second)
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Integrated Licensing Process
The nameplate MW rating of a generator or group of generators.
The broad group of individuals and entities that have an interest in a
proceeding.
kilowatt
kilowatt-hour
kilovolts
Application for an Original License submitted to FERC. See DLA and FLA.
Lock +TM Hydro Friends Fund II, LLC
The process of acquiring an original FERC license for a new proposed
hydropower project.
Individuals and entities that are actively participating in the licensing
proceeding.
1
MW
MWh
NEPA
NGO
NMFS
NOAA
NPDES
NPS
NOI
Normal Operating
Capacity
NWI
PAD
PDF
PLP
PM&E
PMF
Project
Project Area
Project Boundary
Project Vicinity
Resource
Affected Area
RM
RTE Species
SD
Service List
SHPO
Tailrace
TLP
UMR
UMR NWFR
USACE
USDA
EPA
megawatt
megawatt-hour
National Environmental Policy Act
Non-governmental organization
National Marine Fisheries Services, also known as NOAA Fisheries
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, including NMFS
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
National Park Service
Notice of intent to file an application for license
The maximum MW output of a generator or group of generators under
normal maximum head and flow conditions
National Wetlands Inventory
Pre-Application Document
Portable Document Format
Preliminary Licensing Proposal
Protection, Mitigation and Enhancement Measures
Probable Maximum Flood
Lock and Dam 9 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 13392)
Zone of potential, reasonably direct project impacts. The Project Area is
located within the FERC project boundary.
The boundary line defined in the project license issued by FERC that
surrounds those areas needed for operation of the Project.
The general geographic area in which the Project is located. For this PAD,
the project vicinity is the counties of Crawford, Wisconsin and Allamakke,
Iowa and the town of Lynxville, Wisconsin.
The geographic area in which a specific resource is potentially affected by
the Project.
river mile
Rare, threatened, endangered, and special status species, which for purposes
of this PAD is defined to include (1) all species (plant and animal) listed,
proposed for listing, or candidates for listing under the Federal and state
Endangered Species Acts and those listed by the USFWS or state agencies
as sensitive, special status or watch list.
Scoping Document
A list maintained by FERC of parties who have formally intervened in a
proceeding. There is no Service List until the license application is filed and
accepted by FERC. Once FERC establishes a Service List, any documents
filed with FERC must also be sent to those entities on the Service List.
State Historic Preservation Officer
Channel through which water is discharged from the turbines
Traditional Licensing Process
Upper Mississippi River
Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge
US Army Corps of Engineers
US Department of Agriculture
US Environmental Protection Agency
2
USFS
USFWS
USGS
WIBFM
WIBFL
WIDF
WDNR
WIDOT
WIGNHS
WISP
WQC
US Forest Service, an agency of the USDA
US Fish and Wildlife Service, an agency of the DOI
US Geological Survey
Wisconsin Bureau of Fisheries Management, part of the WDNR
Wisconsin Bureau of Facilities and Lands, part of the WDNR
Wisconsin Division of Forestry, part of the WDNR
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Wisconsin Department of Tourism
Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey
Wisconsin State Parks, part of the WDNR
Water Quality Certification, issued under Section 401 of the Federal Clean
Water Act
3
LOCK AND DAM 9 HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
FERC PROJECT NO. 13392
PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT
1.0
INTRODUCTION
Lock +TM Hydro Friends Fund II, LLC (HFF II or Applicant) prepared this Preliminary
Application Document (PAD) and the accompanying Notice of Intent (NOI) for the licensing of
the proposed Lock and Dam 9 Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 13392 (Project). The proposed
Project is located at Lock and Dam 9 on the Mississippi River near the town of Lynxville, WI, in
the counties of Allamakee, IA and Crawford, WI. As determined by the Federal Power Act, the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) administers hydroelectric
licensing. The Commission issued HFF II a 3-year Preliminary Permit for the proposed Project
on December 22, 2009. HFF II intends to file a license application in early to mid 2012. HFF II
is a project specific development entity owned wholly by Hydro Green Energy, LLC (HGE), a
privately-held renewable energy development company which maintains headquarters in
Westmont, IL.
HFF II proposes to utilize technology provided by HGE. HGE possesses proprietary hydropower
technology and is focused on the development of new hydropower generation at existing nonpowered dams in an environmentally responsible and cost-competitive fashion. The technology
for deployment at Lock and Dam 9 is known as Lock +TM and is based on over 130 years of
hydropower production in the United States, as well as methods and designs commonly used for
fabrication and installation of modular offshore oil, gas, and liquefied natural gas systems. The
Lock +TM power generating system is comprised almost entirely of components that are “offthe-shelf,” dramatically reducing product development time and increasing operational integrity.
The systems are modular in nature, which simplifies installation and maintenance.
More specifically, the proposed Project will deploy hydropower turbines within a “Large Frame
Module” (LFM) that will be deployed immediately downstream from the existing incomplete
auxiliary lock at Lock and Dam 9. This technology eliminates the need for a traditional
powerhouse and provides for the development of hydropower generation in a manner that
minimizes the civil work, costly installation processes, and potentially significant environmental
1-1
effects of conventional hydropower. The proposed Project footprint is small, with the Project
structures located entirely within the USACE security zone found at the dam and immediately
downstream from the existing unused lock. Furthermore, the proposed technology is designed to
be installed and operated without interfering with USACE’s navigational mission or placing
direct loading on the USACE infrastructure. HGE’s hydrokinetic power project in Hastings, MN
(FERC P-4306) successfully demonstrated this modular hydropower technology.
This PAD was prepared in accordance with §5.5 and §16.8 of the Commission’s regulations at
18 CFR. In accordance with regulations, the Applicant exercised due diligence in preparation of
this PAD by contacting appropriate governmental agencies, non-governmental organizations
(NGOs), Native American tribes, and others potentially having relevant information by
distributing a PAD Questionnaire designed specifically to identify existing, relevant, and
reasonably available information related to the Project. The Applicant developed and distributed
the questionnaire on May 23, 2011 (See Appendix D for Agency Consultation).
In addition to contacting agencies and stakeholders, the Applicant also conducted its own due
diligence, including a site visit and meeting with USACE officials. The Applicant researched
other FERC jurisdictional hydroelectric projects at USACE projects and contacted specific
organizations and agencies to find relevant studies conducted in the Upper Mississippi River
watershed. This PAD provides existing, relevant, and reasonably available information to the
Commission and interested stakeholders to enable these entities to identify issues and related
information needs, develop study requests and study plans (to the extent they are necessary and
related to direct project impacts), and prepare documents analyzing any license application that
may be filed with the Commission.
1-2
2.0
PROCESS PLAN AND SCHEDULE [§ 5.6 (D)(1)]
2.1
TIME FRAMES FOR PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION, INFORMATION GATHERING, AND
STUDIES
Concurrent with the filing of this PAD, HFF II is requesting use of a Traditional Licensing
Process (TLP) with enhanced scoping in accordance with the Commission’s regulations at 18
CFR § 5.3. Customarily, the TLP has 3 stages (18 CFR 4.38). The first stage involves
coordination between the Applicant, resource agencies, affected Indian tribes, and the public. It
includes the sharing of project information, notification of interested parties, and study planning
and implementation using the PAD. The second stage involves study implementation (to the
extent pre-filing studies are necessary) and additional data gathering, as well as development of a
draft license application (DLA) and review of the application by resource agencies and,
optionally, FERC. The third stage commences with filing the final license application (FLA),
whereby FERC initiates its own review and public comment process, ultimately issuing a license
for the Project. HFF II is requesting that elements of the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) be
incorporated into the traditional 3-stage process; more specifically, the up-front scoping of issues
by FERC. HFF II has outlined a schedule below that takes this into account.
HFF II is requesting the use of the TLP with enhanced scoping for several reasons: the proposed
Project is small and located at an existing USACE Lock and Dam with a substantially limited
project area within the project boundary of 1 to 2 acres (as this Project is still in the design phase,
the project boundaries may adjust slightly). Given the use of previously existing structures, a
proposed “run of river” operation, and an extremely limited footprint, the Applicant anticipates
only minor issues related to installation and operation of the Project. The Applicant also believes
that using a TLP with enhanced scoping will assist FERC in issuing a timely license for this
small, low impact hydropower project, which is aiming to take advantage of expiring Federal tax
credits for new hydropower capacity at existing non-powered dams.
Although the Applicant has requested the TLP with enhanced scoping as a preferred licensing
approach, the Applicant intends to provide adequate opportunities to involve all interested
parties, as in an ILP. The Applicant will carefully document the entire licensing process,
including any information received from the interested parties, as well as records of
communications (Appendix D). The Applicant will maintain records of licensing and other
2-1
information that will be publicly available at the clerk’s offices in Crawford, Wisconsin,
Lynxville, Wisconsin, and Allamakee, Iowa as well as on its licensing website at:
http://hgenergy.com/mississippi_river_lock_and_dam_9.html.
The Process Plan and Schedule anticipates actions by FERC, the Applicant, and other
participants in the licensing process through the License Application filing. The Applicant plans
early and frequent coordination with state and federal resource agencies to identify potential
issues and possible field studies early in the licensing process. The Applicant wishes to begin
project operations in 2013 so that it qualifies for federal renewable energy incentives, which will
improve the terms of the Project’s debt financing package. To meet this timeline, the Applicant
must adopt an aggressive schedule for document production and consultation with the agencies.
However, given the low-impact and small nature of the Project, the Applicant believes this
schedule is certainly achievable.
Comments on the request to use a TLP are due within 30 days, making them due on or before
September 22, 2011. The Commission will act on the request to use a TLP on or before October
24, 2011.
2.2
PROPOSED PROCESS MILESTONES
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
2.3
Submit PAD and NOI to FERC and agencies – August 2011
Begin traditional licensing process with combined Joint Agency Meeting and FERC
Scoping Meeting – September 2011
Initial consultation with agencies – October 2011
Receive agency study requirements – December 2011
Conduct any required studies – January 2012
Submit draft license application to agencies for comment – Jan 2012
Receive agency comments on draft license – March2012
Submit final license application to FERC – April 2012 (at the latest)
PROPOSED LOCATION AND DATE FOR JOINT AGENCY MEETING AND FOR THE SITE VISIT
[§ 5.8 (B)(3)(VIII)]
If FERC approves the use of the TLP with enhanced scoping, HFF II will host a joint agency and
public meeting (JAM) and site visit of the Lock and Dam 9 Project per 18 CFR § 16.8 (b)(A)
within 30 days of the TLP approval. HFF II will also invite FERC to begin early up-front
scoping of issues at this meeting, as well. The purpose of the meeting is to provide the
2-2
opportunity for stakeholders to visit the Project and discuss information presented in the PAD, as
well as to identify project-related issues. The exact meeting date and location will be determined
in consultation with jurisdictional agencies and interested licensing participants following
FERC’s decision on approval for the Applicant’s use of a TLP process with enhanced scoping.
2-3
3.0
PROJECT LOCATION, FACILITIES, AND OPERATIONS [§ 5.6
(D)(2)]
3.1
CONTACT INFORMATION OF EACH PERSON AUTHORIZED TO ACT AS AGENT FOR
APPLICANT (EXACT NAME, BUSINESS ADDRESS, AND PHONE NUMBER)
Wayne F. Krouse
Managing Partner
Lock+ TM Hydro Friends Fund II
5090 Richmond Avenue #390
Houston, TX 77056
Mark R. Stover
Designated Representative
Lock+ TM Hydro Friends Fund II
Vice President of Corporate Affairs
Hydro Green Energy, LLC
900 Oakmont Lane, Suite 310
Westmont, IL 60559
877-556-6566 x 711
mark@hgenergy.com
3.2
MAPS OF LAND USE WITHIN PROJECT BOUNDARIES (TOWNSHIP, RANGE AND SECTION,
STATE, COUNTY, RIVER, RIVER MILE, AND CLOSEST TOWN) AND, IF APPLICABLE,
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS, AND LOCATION OF PROPOSED FACILITIES
The proposed Project is located on the Mississippi River mile 647.9 at USACE Lock and Dam 9,
about 3 miles south of Lynxville, Wisconsin, bordering the counties of Allamakee, Iowa and
Crawford, Wisconsin. The project boundary encompasses the auxiliary lock from the upstream to
the downstream side, certain land for the provisioning of the switchyard and control room, and
transmission line. The Applicant anticipates entering into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
with the USACE to obtain sufficient rights to construct the Project and to maintain project
structures and facilities for project operation.
Appendix A to this PAD contains the following maps of the proposed Project: (1) A
Topographic Map of the Project Vicinity and (2) An Aerial Map of the Project Vicinity.
3-1
3.3
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED FACILITIES
3.3.1
COMPOSITION, DIMENSIONS, AND CONFIGURATION OF DAMS, SPILLWAYS, PENSTOCKS,
POWERHOUSES, TAILRACES, ETC. PROPOSED TO BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE PROJECT
OR CONNECTED DIRECTLY TO IT
With the exception of minor infrastructure to deliver power to the local electrical grid, the
proposed Project will have limited to no effect on any structures or facilities at Lock and Dam 9
other than the incomplete auxiliary lock. Accordingly, the following description of the Lock and
Dam are for reference purposes only. Lock and Dam 9 consists of a dam with moveable gates, an
earth dike, and overflow spillway; an active navigational lock; and an unused bay originally
designed as an auxiliary lock, which is currently inoperable. The dam is an 811-foot-long
concrete structure with 5 roller gates measuring 80 feet wide by 20 feet high and 8 tainter gates
measuring 35 feet wide and 15 feet high. In addition, there is a 9,800-foot-long earth
embankment with a 1,350-foot-long grouted overflow spillway. The 600-foot-long by 100-footwide active lock consists of walls and floors of reinforced concrete that are founded on wood
pilings in sand, gravel, and broken rock. The auxiliary lock measures 360 feet long by 110 feet
wide, but does not form a complete chamber because, though upper gates are installed, there are
no lower gates (FFP, 2011).
The Project will consist of one horizontal array of 10 hydropower turbines, installed in a single
row in a new door immediately downstream from the incomplete auxiliary lock. The system
includes two sets of moveable panels that can open and close off flow to the units during an
event requiring the suspension of generation. After passing through the turbines in the auxiliary
lock, the water will flow directly back into the Mississippi River.
3.3.2
RESERVOIR NORMAL MAXIMUM WATER SURFACE AREA AND ELEVATION AND GROSS
STORAGE CAPACITY
The existing Lock and Dam 9 forms Pool 9; however, there is no useable storage capacity at the
site for hydro generation, and the USACE will continue to control reservoir levels. As the Project
will use existing facilities at the Lock and Dam and operate in a run-of-river mode, it will not
impound additional water or result in additional storage capacity.
3-2
3.3.3
NUMBER, TYPE AND CAPACITIES OF TURBINES AND GENERATORS, AND INSTALLED
(RATED) CAPACITY OF PROPOSED TURBINES OR GENERATORS
The Project will utilize a ten-turbine LFM deployed in the downstream portion of the incomplete
auxiliary lock. The turbines will be designed and manufactured by Hydro Green Energy. Each of
the 7.8-foot-diameter turbines will have a nameplate capacity of 358 kW, for a total of 3.58 MW.
Given that the HGE turbine is undergoing additional design work at the present time, the
capacity may change. The final nameplate capacity will be known during the preparation of the
license application. Additionally, HGE is exploring the use of OEM turbines, the use of which
may also result in slight changes to nameplate capacity.
3.3.4
NUMBER, LENGTH, VOLTAGE, AND INTERCONNECTIONS OF ANY PRIMARY
TRANSMISSION LINES PROPOSED TO BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE PROJECT
The generated power will connect to the electric grid with the installation of a new transformer in
a new switchyard. Currently, the proposed transmission line corridor is under review; however,
the Applicant has conducted a preliminary interconnection survey. A 69 kV line has been
identified approximately 4.25 miles from the dam on the east side of the river. The line runs
approximately 8 miles north to the Seneca substation as shown in Figure 3-1. Though a potential
connection has been found, the Project is still in the design phase and transmission alternatives
are still being considered; therefore, future licensing documents will provide additional detail.
3-3
FIGURE 3-1.
3.3.5
PRELIMINARY INTERCONNECTION MAP
ENERGY PRODUCTION
The Applicant developed an energy model to estimate potential Project production. The model
assumed downtime during a portion of the year for station service and outages in the spring due
to high water (loss of head), and approximately 95% power train efficiency. Based on this
modeling, the expected net average annual generation for the proposed Project is 22,164 MWh.
The expected net average monthly energy production is as follows:
MONTH
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
MWH
2465.45
1571.71
824.06
631.30
824.42
1376.92
2384.55
2761.07
2247.58
2318.47
2272.33
2476.01
3-4
3.4
PROPOSED PROJECT OPERATION, INCLUDING ANY DAILY OR SEASONAL RAMPING RATES,
FLUSHING FLOWS, RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AND FLOOD CONTROL OPERATIONS
The proposed Project will operate in run-of-river mode, generating power using the head
differential of the USACE’s dam without affecting the USACE locking and flood control
operations. A computerized operating system will assure a consistent run-of-river operation. It is
anticipated that HGE staff will be on site daily. The Applicant intends to provide USACE with
operational override capabilities in the event of emergencies or flow control issues.
3.5
A DESCRIPTION OF ANY NEW FACILITIES OR COMPONENTS TO BE CONSTRUCTED, PLANS
FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OR REHABILITATION OF THE PROJECT, AND CHANGES IN
PROJECT OPERATION.
The proposed Project will include the LFM and appurtenant transmission and substation
facilities, described above.
The Applicant has no plans for future development or installation at the auxiliary lock area
beyond that associated with the proposed development described above at this time.
3.5.1 REFERENCES
Free Flow Power (FFP). 2011. Pre-Application Document: Mississippi River Lock and Dam 9 –
Auxiliary Lock Water Power Project. March 25, 2011.
3-5
4.0
EXISTING ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE IMPACTS [§ 5.6
(D)(3)(I)]
While the Project presents a minimal footprint and no modifications to water levels or flow
regimes, there is a potential for limited Project installation and operational effects. Accordingly,
the Applicant has reviewed available information related to potentially affected resources, as
required by FERC. The following sections provide a discussion of the existing environmental,
cultural, and socioeconomic resources of the project vicinity. The “project vicinity” is considered
to be the general geographic area in which the Project is located for the purposes of establishing
an environmental baseline within licensing documents. For this PAD, the project vicinity has
been assumed to be a radius of 10 miles surrounding the Project. However, due to the limited
size and environmental footprint of the Project, the area potentially affected by project
construction and operations is substantially smaller. Each resource section discusses potential
Project effects and proposed protection, mitigation, and enhancement (PM&E) measures.
4.1
GEOLOGY AND SOILS [§ 5.6 (D)(3)(II)]
4.1.1
DESCRIPTION OF GEOLOGICAL FEATURES, INCLUDING BEDROCK LITHOLOGY,
STRATIGRAPHY, STRUCTURAL FEATURES, GLACIAL FEATURES, UNCONSOLIDATED
DEPOSITS, AND MINERAL RESOURCES
The proposed Project is located within the Driftless Area of the Upper Mississippi River Basin
(UMR). This area is a prehistorically non-glaciated portion of central North America with
minimal amounts of glacial deposits or “drift.” This area includes parts of southwest Wisconsin,
southeast Minnesota, northeast Iowa, and northwest Illinois. The lands within this region are also
termed “Blufflands” or the “Paleozoic Plateau” due to the sedimentary rock formations
containing dolomite, sandstone, and shale, accumulated under inland seas approximately 400 to
600 million years ago. The scouring and sediment deposition that occurred in the UMR basin
following periods of glaciation helped to shape the river valley. The sand terraces bordering the
Mississippi are remnants of these events. Further prehistoric natural events aided in the
formation of other landscape features, including a combination of steep, exposed bluffs flanking
eroded ravines (USFWS, 2006).
Bedrock within the project area primarily consists of Cambrian period quatzose and glauconitic
sandstone, along with lesser amounts of dolomite shale (FFP, 2011).
4-1
4.1.2
DESCRIPTION OF SOIL TYPES, OCCURRENCE, PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL
CHARACTERISTICS, ERODABILITY AND POTENTIAL FOR MASS SOIL MOVEMENT, AND
SOIL CHARACTERISTICS
The Project is located in the Northern Mississippi Valley Loess Hills. Glacial wind scour
contributed to the basin’s loess soils (FFP, 2011). The soils and resulting topography of the
immediate project vicinity consist of steep, stony and rocky lands, also termed Fayette-DubuqueStonyland. The Fayette Dubuque-Stonyland series is susceptible to erosion due to its generally
steep slopes and high percentage of shallow limestone. These areas are bordered by moderately
eroded Fayette silt loam uplands with 12 to 30 percent slopes (Figure 4-1) (USFWS, 2006a;
NRCS, 2011). Siltation is characteristic of the USACE project’s upper pool (Pool 9). Sediment is
delivered to the system from the Upper Iowa River and results in the siltation of surrounding
channels and backwaters (USFWS 2006).
4-2
FIGURE 4-1.
SOIL MAP OF THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
4-3
4-4
4-5
4.1.3
4.1.3.1
DESCRIPTION OF RESERVOIR SHORELINES AND STREAMBANKS, INCLUDING:
STEEPNESS, COMPOSITION (BEDROCK AND UNCONSOLIDATED DEPOSITS), AND
VEGETATIVE COVER
Udorthents and Brodale cobbly loam primarily comprise the shorelines bordering the USACE
Lock and Dam 9. These areas support a community of wetland and terrestrial vegetation. Levees,
both man-made and natural, are present between floodplain and upland areas, thus increasing
bank steepness in those areas. Furthermore, shorelines within the project vicinity are subject to
anthropogenic disturbances. These include roadways near the waterline, structures to support
recreational and commercial boating, and agricultural influences (FFP, 2010; USGS, 2011).
River shorelines are armored with concrete embankments supporting other USACE structures
necessary for operation of the navigational locks within the project area. Steep slopes of stone
and rock, transitioning into Fayette silt loams of 12-30% slope surround Lock and Dam 9. The
proposed Project itself will not affect the riverbanks of the existing Pool 9 impoundment
shoreline or streambank conditions.
4.1.3.2
EXISTING EROSION, MASS SOIL MOVEMENT, SLUMPING, OR OTHER FORMS OF
INSTABILITY, INCLUDING IDENTIFICATION OF PROJECT FACILITIES OR OPERATIONS
THAT ARE KNOWN TO OR MAY CAUSE THESE CONDITIONS
The soils within the project area, Fayette Dubuque-Stonyland, are susceptible to erosion;
however, the proposed run-of-river Project is located at an existing man-made structure and will
have no effect on water level, flow, or adjacent shorelines. Operation of the Project will have no
effect on erosion or soil instability and the Applicant has no ability to control the degree of
erosion that is currently occurring or may take place along the shore of the upper pool
subsequent to installation. Furthermore, the Upper Iowa River largely delivers sediment to the
system, contributing backwater and channel siltation in the project vicinity (FFP 2011; USFWS
2006). Because the proposed Project will re-route a approximately 25 percent of discharges from
the dam to the auxiliary lock when running at full capacity, there is a potential for limited,
temporary river bottom scour directly downstream of the tailrace.
4-6
4.1.4
POTENTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS AND ISSUES
Construction of the existing USACE Lock and Dam 9 and access roads disturbed the land
surrounding the proposed Project. Site preparation and installation activities would use existing
road surfaces, previously developed staging areas, and barges for in-river installation. Project
installation and operation pose no or very minimal and temporary effect to soils in the Project
area.
Proposed installation activities have the potential to include limited dredging of material within
the auxiliary lock. Initial operations may cause limited scour immediately downstream of the
proposed Project. Sediment removal from within the auxiliary lock may also cause some minor
sediment disturbance, temporarily increasing turbidity downstream of the proposed Project.
These effects are likely to be less than occurs under normal spring run-off conditions. Because
the proposed Project will re-route some discharges from the dam through the auxiliary lock,
there is a potential for limited changes in the scour basin established below the dam directly
downstream of the tailrace. There may also be limited silt movement from upstream of the
auxiliary lock until equilibrium conditions are reestablished.
4.1.5
PROPOSED MITIGATION AND ENHANCEMENT MEASURES
In order to measure and evaluate proposed Project effects on scouring and deposition of
sediments within the project area, the Applicant proposes conducting a Desktop Hydraulic
Modeling and Sediment Transport Study. Section 5.2 includes further details regarding this as
well as other proposed studies. The Applicant and its contractors would undertake site
preparation and installation in accordance with plans developed in consultation with the USACE
and local, state, and federal agencies. The Applicant will remove or relocate dredge spoils in a
USACE approved manner. The Applicant will also install concrete mats and rip-rap in the
tailrace to reduce scour and sediment transport as warranted.
4.1.6
REFERENCES
4-7
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006. Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and
Fish Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). [Online] URL:
http://www.fws.gov/midwest/planning/uppermiss/index.html. Accessed May 17, 2011.
US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2011. Web
Soil Survey. [Online] URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx.
Accessed May 20, 2011.
4.2
WATER RESOURCES [§ 5.6 (D)(3)(III)]
Water resources of the UMR are designated for the purposes of commercial and recreational
fishing, industrial cooling and water supply, boating, hunting, commercial shipping and waste
assimilation uses. The water quality standards designated within the Project area, and discussed
in the following sections, have been put in place to meet these designated uses (WDNR 2004).
4.2.1
DRAINAGE AREA
The UMR basin serves as the major contributor to the Mississippi and extends from Minnesota
to Illinois. In total, the UMR basin includes approximately 800 river miles, covering
approximately 189,189 square miles (USFWS, 2006).
The drainage area at USGS Gage No. 05389500, Mississippi River at McGregor Iowa (about 15
miles downstream of Lock and Dam 9) is approximately 67,500 square miles (USGS, 2011). At
the proposed Project, the drainage area is approximately 66,695 square miles (calculated using
GIS with the USGS National Hydrography Dataset).
4.2.2
THE MONTHLY MINIMUM, MEAN, AND MAXIMUM RECORDED FLOWS IN CUBIC FEET PER
SECOND OF THE STREAM AT THE POWERPLANT INTAKE, SPECIFYING ANY ADJUSTMENTS
MADE FOR EVAPORATION, LEAKAGE, MINIMUM FLOW RELEASES, OR OTHER
REDUCTIONS IN AVAILABLE FLOW
In addition to USGS data, the USACE St. Paul District collects discharge, pool elevations, and
tailwater elevations, among other variables, at Lock and Dam 9. Table 4-1, below, presents
discharge data as collected at both the USGS gage 05389500 and the USACE Lock and Dam 9.
The period of record for this analysis is October 1, 2000, through September 30 2010. The period
of record utilized is based upon the availability of verified data from USGS. Provisional data was
not utilized for this analysis. (USGS, 2011; USACE, 2011b).
4-8
TABLE 4-1.
RIVER FLOW DATA AT LOCK AND DAM 9 ON THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND 14
MILES DOWNSTREAM AT USGS GAGE 05389500
DATA COLLECTION
RIVER
MEAN
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
LOCATION
MILE
RECORDED
RECORDED
RECORDED
FLOW (CFS)
FLOW
FLOW
USACE Water Control Center 648
38,999
3,900
242,800
Data at Lock and Dam 9
USGS Gage 05389500
633
37,829
2,970
248,000
The Pool 9 impoundment is 52,166 acres in surface area and extends approximately 32.5 miles
upstream near Reno, Minnesota (USACE, 2004a). The tailwater elevation averages 617 feet msl
(USACE, 2011b). These elevations are depicted in Figure 4-2 and Figure 4-3, below.
FIGURE 4-2.
POOL ELEVATIONS FOR 2010 AT USACE LOCK AND DAM 9
Source: USACE 2011b
4-9
FIGURE 4-3.
TAILWATER ELEVATIONS FOR 2010 AS RECORDED AT USACE LOCK AND DAM
9
Source: USACE 2011b
4.2.3
A MONTHLY FLOW DURATION CURVE INDICATING THE PERIOD OF RECORD AND THE
LOCATION OF GAUGING STATION, INCLUDING IDENTIFICATION NUMBER, USED IN
DERIVING THE CURVE; AND A SPECIFICATION OF THE CRITICAL STREAMFLOW USED TO
DETERMINE THE PROJECT'S DEPENDABLE CAPACITY
Appendix B contains Flow Duration Curves. Development of these curves used data collected at
USGS Gage No. 05389500, Mississippi River at McGregor Iowa, along with data collected by
the USACE at Lock and Dam 9. Data indicates that the period of critical streamflow occurs in
August (USGS, 2011).
4-10
4.2.4
EXISTING AND PROPOSED USES OF PROJECT WATERS FOR IRRIGATION, DOMESTIC
WATER SUPPLY, INDUSTRIAL AND OTHER PURPOSES
The primary role of the USACE Lock and Dam 9 and Pool 9 is for commercial navigation. The
USACE operates the facility in a run-of-river mode, and the navigational pool provides no
storage (USACE, 2004b). The proposed Project will have no water uses other than for generating
electricity from excess water supply from USACE and any generation would take a secondary
role to navigation.
4.2.5
EXISTING INSTREAM FLOW USES OF STREAMS IN THE PROJECT AREA THAT WOULD BE
AFFECTED BY PROJECT CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION; INFORMATION ON EXISTING
WATER RIGHTS AND WATER RIGHTS APPLICATIONS POTENTIALLY AFFECTING OR
AFFECTED BY THE PROJECT
The Mississippi River is used for commercial and recreational fishing, industrial and cooling
water supply, boating, hunting, commercial shipping and waste assimilation (WDNR, 2004).
Waters of Pool 9 also provide habitat as part of the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife
and Fish Refuge (UMR NWFR). There are no streams in the project area, other than the
mainstem of the Mississippi River that would be affected by Project operation. The proposed
Project has no potential to affect other existing water rights or uses.
4.2.6
RELEVANT FEDERALLY-APPROVED WATER QUALITY STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO
PROJECT WATERS
As the proposed Project is bounded by two states, Iowa and Wisconsin, both the Iowa
Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
(WDNR) exercise the responsibility of enacting water quality standards for the their respective
stretches of the Mississippi. However, because the proposed Project is located on the Wisconsin
side of the river, WDNR will be the entity issuing the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 401
Water Quality Certification (WQC).The WDNR designates the waters of the project area as
Recreation and Fish and Aquatic Life Uses (WDNR, 2004). Similarly, IDNR designates the
reach of the Mississippi within the Project area for Warm-water Aquatic Life Use, Primary
Contact Recreation and Human Health. Table 4-2 provides water quality standards for both
states.
4-11
TABLE 4-2. IOWA AND WISCONSIN WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
WATER
WISCONSIN WATER QUALITY
IOWA WATER QUALITY
QUALITY
STANDARDS
STANDARDS
PARAMETER
Dissolved
Not less than 5 mg/l at any time.
Not less than 5 mg/l at any time
Oxygen (DO)
Fecal coliform
Shall not exceed a geometric mean The membrane filter fecal coliform
(E. coli)
value of 126 organisms/100 ml or a count may not exceed 200 per 100
sample maximum value of 235
ml as a geometric mean based on
organisms/100 ml.
not less than 5 samples per month,
nor exceed 400 per 100 ml in more
than 10% of all samples during any
month.
pH
Shall not be less than 6.5 nor
No values below 6.0 nor above 9.0,
greater than 9.0. The maximum
with no change greater than 0.5
change permitted as a result of a
units outside the estimated natural
waste discharge shall not exceed
seasonal maximum and minimum.
0.5 pH units.
Temperature
No heat shall be added to the
No more than 5°F above natural
Mississippi River that would cause temperature at the mixing zone; not
an increase of more than 3°C. The
to exceed 89°F at any time, not to
rate of temperature change shall not exceed 84 °F from June through
exceed 1°C per hour. The water
August.
temperature within the project area
shall not exceed the maximum
limits in the table below during
more than 1 percent of the hours in
the 12-month period ending with
any month. Moreover, at
no time shall the water temperature
at such locations exceed the
maximum limits in the table below
by
more than 2°C.
Turbidity
The turbidity of the receiving water While no standard for turbidity is
shall not be increased by more than specified, Total Suspended Solids
25 Nephelometric
are not to exceed a daily maximum
of 30 mg/L for aquatic life uses.
turbidity units by any point source
discharge.
Mercury
The acute toxicity critiera for warm The acute toxicity criteria for cold
water aquatic life is 1.64 ug/L. The water, warm water sportfish, warm
chronic toxicity criteria for this
water forage, and limited forage
designation is 0.90 ug/L. Because
fish is 0.83 ug/L of recoverable
it is designated as Aquatic Life Use mercury. The chronic toxicity
and Human Health there is a limit
criteria for the same organisms is
of 0.15 ug/L.
0.44 ug/L.
Source: WDNR, 2008a; WDNR, 2008b; IAC, 2011
4-12
TABLE 4-3.
MONTH
IOWA TEMPERATURE CRITERIA MAXIMUM LIMITS
MAXIMUM LIMIT THAT SHALL NOT BE EXCEEDED
AS DESCRIBED ABOVE
January
4°C
February
4°C
March
12°C
April
18°C
May
24°C
June
29°C
July
29°C
August
29°C
September
28°C
October
23°C
November
14°C
December
9°C
Source: IAC, 2011
In addition to the specific criteria listed above, the IDNR and the WDNR employ antidegradation
standards in state waters. Both states have allowances that take into account the social or
economic results regarding adverse effects to water quality (WDNR, 1997; IAC 2011).
4.2.7
4.2.7.1
PROJECT EFFECTS ON SEASONAL VARIATION OF WATER QUALITY DATA
EXISTING WATER QUALITY WITHIN THE PROJECT VICINITY
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as well as the USGS and respective Iowa and
Wisconsin State monitoring programs, monitor water quality within the UMR. Among these
programs the USGS’ Long Term Resource Monitoring Program (LTRMP) (1999), and Upper
Mississippi River Water Quality Assessment Reports, published by the USGS (2000) and the
EPA (2002), provide the most appropriate data regarding water quality in the project vicinity.
Pool 8, located at river mile 679.2, approximately 32 miles upstream of the proposed Project, is
among the list of representative pools that have been historically monitored for various
parameters as part of the LTRMP.
In addition to LTRMP efforts, the data used to characterize conditions upstream of the proposed
Project in the EPA’s Upper Mississippi River Water Quality Assessment Reports were collected
from RM 698, within Pool 8. Data was collected from 1958 to 1996, with fewer than 5% of the
points collected prior to 1974 (EPA, 2002).
4-13
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
Results of the previous monitoring efforts indicate summer DO concentrations generally range
from about 5 to 12 mg/L in the UMR (Figure 4-4). In the 1990s, DO concentrations in this reach
improved noticeably, primarily because of advanced wastewater treatment technology (Johnson
and Aasen, 1989; EPA, 2000, as referenced in EPA, 2002). DO concentrations exceeding 15
mg/L were apparent upstream of the proposed Project in Pool 8 between 1990 and1994. This
likely reflects periods of high photosynthetic activity. DO concentrations in the open river
reaches were generally lower and less variable. This may indicate higher, water temperatures
(lower DO saturation), increased biochemical oxygen demand and decreased photosynthetic
activity (EPA, 2002). The LTRMP data for 1988-93 show oxygen concentrations upstream of St.
Louis to be close to saturation (USGS, 1999).
FIGURE 4-4.
DISSOLVED OXYGEN LEVELS IN POOL 8 (1958 – 1996)
Source: EPA, 2002
4-14
WATER TEMPERATURE
The USACE collects water temperature data at Lock and Dam 9. For the period of record from
January 2001 through December 2010, water temperatures typically ranged from approximately
60 to 80 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) during the summer season (Figure 4-5). Figure 4-6 depicts
water temperatures experienced in 2010. Temperatures increase about 9 °F from the upper to the
lower reaches of the UMR, consistent with climatic differences along this longitudinal gradient
(EPA, 2002).
FIGURE 4-5.
TEMPERATURES AT LOCK AND DAM 9 (2000-2010)
Source: USACE, 2011b
4-15
FIGURE 4-6.
TEMPERATURES AT LOCK AND DAM 9 (2010)
Source: USACE, 2011b
PH
Most summer pH values in the UMR ranged from 7 to 9 units, normally supporting full fish and
aquatic life standards (Figure 4-7). During several periods of record, summer pH values
exceeded 9.0 in the UMR, including in Pool 8. These elevated pH values were likely the result of
high levels of photosynthetic activity (EPA, 2002).
4-16
FIGURE 4-7.
PH IN POOL 8 (1958 – 1996)
Source: EPA, 2002
NITROGEN
Total nitrogen concentrations in the UMR increase markedly upstream of the proposed Project in
Pool 2 (RM 847.5 to RM 815) as a result of agricultural inputs from the Minnesota River Basin
and point source contributions from the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. Studies found that
concentrations decreased downstream due to dilution from tributaries with lower nitrogen levels,
nutrient assimilation by aquatic plants, denitrification, and sedimentation of particulate organic
nitrogen. Concentrations upstream of the proposed Project ranged from 0.6 mg/L to 5.5 mg/L
(Figure 4-8). Based on Pool 2 data collected over a 20-year period, total nitrogen levels were
higher in the 1990s than in the 1980s (EPA, 2002). Nitrogen inputs are generally implicated in
causing algal blooms and hypoxic conditions in the lower Mississippi River (EPA, 2002).
4-17
FIGURE 4-8.
TOTAL NITROGEN IN POOL 8 (1958 – 1996)
Source: EPA, 2002
PHOSPHOROUS
Total phosphorus concentrations are high throughout the entire UMR, with values greater that
0.5 mg/L at many sites; although on average, values were below 0.5 mg/L (Figure 4-9). In
general, wastewater treatment plant discharges and urban and agricultural nonpoint source inputs
are major sources of phosphorus. In particular, agricultural watersheds contributing high
concentrations of sediment are especially important, since phosphorus is commonly bound to
sediment particles. Maximum phosphorus concentrations exceeded 1 mg/L at many sites during
the most recent period (1995 to 1999) as compared to the previous monitoring periods, which
had lower concentrations.
4-18
FIGURE 4-9.
TOTAL PHOSPHOROUS IN POOL 8 (1958 – 1996)
Source: EPA, 2002
SEDIMENT
Sediment sources for the UMR main stem include both the sediment carried by runoff from the
landscape and in-stream sources. These runoff and in-stream processes also contribute sediment
to UMR tributaries, which in turn carry the sediment to the river’s main stem (UMRBA, 2011).
The Upper Iowa River, specifically, delivers sediment to Pool 9, upstream of the proposed
Project, subsequently causing siltation in the pool’s backwaters and channels (USFWS, 2006).
Agricultural practices elevate sedimentation as a result of runoff and erosion of the soils;
however, the implementation of better land management practices has made significant strides to
reduce sedimentation (USGS, 1999).
EPA studies have shown that within the UMR, Lake Pepin (RM 764.5), a 25-mile long natural
riverine lake located in Minnesota and Wisconsin in Pool 4, acts as an effective sediment trap for
the basin. Subsequently, the total suspended solids (TSS) at the sampling station at Lock and
Dam 8 were relatively low during the period of record (Figure 4-10). However, this lake is
rapidly losing depth due to increased sediment deposition at a rate about ten times faster than
4-19
pre-cultural conditions (Engstrom and Almendinger, 1998 as cited in EPA, 2002). Large flood
events, such as that as is occurring currently in 2011, can reverse previously documented
depositional patterns.
FIGURE 4-10. TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS IN POOL 8 (1958 – 1996)
Source: EPA, 2002
Sediment is a water quality concern as chemical pollutants such as polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs) and mercury bond to sediment particles, bioaccumulating in the tissues of fish. As a
result, there are presently fish consumption advisories within the UMR in the reach of the
proposed Project (WDNR, 2011). River sediments may also carry nutrients such as phosphorus,
increasing productivity within river reaches where sediment accumulates and potentially
resulting in the non-attainment of water quality parameters (FFP, 2010).
The USACE routinely removes sediment within navigation channels at Lock and Dam facilities.
Typically, the USACE maintains a 9-foot navigation channel by removing material that settles in
the channel area. The USACE places this material in designated areas along the river. Some of
these areas are beneficial use placement areas. Beneficial use of dredged material is the
4-20
productive use of the material by the public or private sectors such as upland habitat
development, wetland creation, aquatic habitat enhancement, creation of areas for bird nesting,
beach nourishment, winter road maintenance, levee repair and improvement, aggregate for
concrete, lining fly ash pits, bank protection and general purpose fill (USACE, 2011b).
4.2.7.2
EFFECTS OF PROJECT OPERATIONS ON EXISTING WATER QUALITY
The proposed Project will not affect water quantity and quality in Pool 9, as it will not change
Project operations at Lock and Dam 9. However, the proposed Project has the potential to
temporarily, albeit minimally, affect water quality immediately downstream. Section 4.2.10
contains a discussion of these potential effects.
4.2.8
RESERVOIR SURFACE AREA, VOLUME, MAXIMUM DEPTH, MEAN DEPTH, FLUSHING RATE,
SHORELINE LENGTH, SUBSTRATE COMPOSITION
There is no reservoir associated with the proposed Project. However, Pool 9, created by the
USACE project, extends directly upstream approximately 32 miles and encompasses 52,166
acres in surface area.
4.2.9
GRADIENT FOR AFFECTED DOWNSTREAM REACHES
The USACE typically maintains water level elevations of the Pool at USACE Lock and Dam 10
at 611 feet msl, approximately 9 feet lower than Pool 9. The average gradient from the tailwater
of Lock and Dam 9 (approximately 620 feet msl) to the tailwater of Lock and Dam 10
(approximately 609 feet msl; roughly 32 miles downstream) is approximately 0.34 feet/mi
(USACE, 1998; USACE 2011b; USACE 2011e).
4.2.10 POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS AND ISSUES
WATER QUANTITY
The proposed Project will not affect water quantity in Pool 9; as the Project will be operated in
run-of-river mode ( i.e., the volume of incoming water will equal the outgoing water), and will
not affect the water surface elevation in Pool 9. Accordingly, it would have no effect on the
occurrence or extent of flooding in the project vicinity. The Project will pass flows through the
new turbines below the auxiliary lock in a range of 1,000 and 10.000 cfs. River flows will exceed
the hydraulic capacity of the Project approximately 98 percent of the time annually on average
4-21
(see Flow Duration Curves in Appendix B). This redistribution of flows will result in higher
water velocities directly downstream of the auxiliary lock and lower velocities downstream of
the existing gates under lower flow conditions. To reduce problems related to scour and
sedimentation, the Applicant will deploy scour mats, and/or rip-rap, immediately downstream of
the Project.
WATER QUALITY
During initial consultation, the IA DNR identified potential issues pertaining to water quality
impacts in the tailwaters below the dam. Available data indicate that water quality standards are
currently met in the project vicinity (EPA, 2002). Project operation is not expected to degrade
water quality below the existing standards. As a portion of incoming flows will be divereted
through the new turbines in the auxillary lock, spill over the Lock and Dam under current
operating conditions may be lessened. Spillway flows may provide limited increases in DO
concentrations by aerating the water downstream; however, as the data show that the river is
often near saturation, little change is expected. The Applicant expects that existing DO levels of
incoming flows augmented by the aeration provided by the low-RPM turbines will maintain DO
concentrations above the state standards downstream of the dam. The Applicant does not have
any ability to control DO concentrations in Pool 9.
Installation-related activities including possible minor dredging in the immediate vicinity of the
auxiliary lock may temporarily increase turbidity downstream of the Project. There may also be
temporary and minimal sediment redistribution from upstream to downstream associated with
initial Project operation. Furthermore, increased turbidity and sediment redistribution in the
Mississippi River as a result of the installation and operation of the proposed Project is
anticipated to be temporary and generally less than that experienced under normal operation of
the Lock and Dam 9 tainter gates and under USACE dredging operations.
4.2.11 PROPOSED MITIGATION AND ENHANCEMENT MEASURES
To address potential concerns regarding erosion, scour, and possible pollutants in the sediments
within the project area, the Applicant proposes to conduct a Desktop Hydraulic Modeling and
Sediment Transport Study and a Sediment Quality and Quantity Study to determine the effects of
4-22
a new flow pattern on sedimentation rates and potential water quality issues associated with
sediment disturbance. Desktop models are sufficient to determine the Project’s effects.
In addition, as discussed in Section 5.0, the Applicant proposes to conduct a desktop analysis of
existing water quality data to characterize trends in DO, water temperature, and turbidity. The
Applicant will develop protocols and Best Management Practices (BMPs), in consultation with
agencies, related to the removal, use, transport, and disposal of all dredged materials to minimize
the release of sediments. The Applicant will address details regarding the volume, composition,
location, and BMPs related to the required dredging and spoil disposal in the federal and state
required construction permits. The Applicant will also undertake those measures required by the
Section 401 Water Quality Certificate issued for the proposed Project.
The Applicant anticipates developing operational guidelines to minimize and avoid any effects to
navigation during low flow conditions in consultation with the USACE. The Applicant plans to
develop these protocols as part of its anticipated MOA with the USACE. Furthermore, the
Applicant anticipates consultation with resource agency regarding potential minimum flows for
other resource areas.
4.2.12 REFERENCES
Iowa Administrative Code (IAC). 2011. Chapter 61 Water Quality Standards. [Online]. URL:
http://www.legis.state.ia.us/aspx/ACODOCS/DOCS/567.61.pdf. Accessed May 27, 2011.
Upper Mississippi River Basin Association (UMRBA). 2011. Publications and Policies.
[Online]. URL: http://www.umrba.org/publications.htm. Accessed May 31, 2011.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2011a. St. Paul District Water Control Center: Real
Time Water Resources Data. [Online]. URL: http://www.mvp-wc.usace.army.mil/dcp/.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2011b. Mississippi River at Lynxville Dam 9, DCP
Real Time Data. [Online]. URL: http://www.mvp-wc.usace.army.mil/dcp/LYNW3.html.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2011c. St Paul District Water Control Center District
Projects. [Online]. URL: http://www.mvp-wc.usace.army.mil/projects/. Accessed May
27, 2011.
4-23
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2011d. St Paul District Mississippi Locks and Dams.
[Online]. URL: http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/navigation/default.asp?pageid=145.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2011e. Mississippi River at Guttenberg Dam 10, DCP
Real Time Data. [Online]. URL: http://www.mvp-wc.usace.army.mil/dcp/GTTI4.html.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2004a. Environmental Pool Plans. Mississippi River
Pools 1-10. Fish and Wildlife Work Group River Resources Forum. [Online]. URL:
http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/rrf/eppfinal.pdf. Accessed May 27, 2011.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2004b. Mississippi Locks and dams. [Online] URL:
http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/navigation/default.asp?pageid=145. Updated December
16, 2004. Accessed May 27, 2011.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1998. St Paul District Water Control Center Mississippi
River Locks and dams Elevation Information. [Online] URL: http://www.mvpwc.usace.army.mil/projects/general/ld_elev_data.html. Accessed May 27, 2011.
Fish Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan. July, 2006. [Online] URL:
http://www.fws.gov/Midwest/planning/uppermiss/CCP/CCP.pdf. Accessed May 25,
2011.
US Geological Survey (USGS). 2011. USGS 05389500 Mississippi River at McGregor, IA.
[Online] URL:
http://waterdata.usgs.gov/wi/nwis/dvstat/?referred_module=sw&site_no=05389500&por
_05389500_2=776163,00060,2,1936-08-16,2010-09-30&start_dt=2001-0901&end_dt=2010-08-31&format=html_table&stat_cds=mean_va&date_format=YYYYMM-DD&rdb_compression=file&submitted_form=parameter_selection_list. Accessed
May 27, 2011.
US Geological Survey (USGS). 1999. Ecological status and trends of the Upper Mississippi
River System 1998: A report of the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program. U.S.
Geological Survey, Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center, La Crosse,
Wisconsin. April 1999. LTRMP 99-T001. 236 pp. [Online] URL:
http://www.umesc.usgs.gov/documents/reports/1999/status_and_trends/99t001_frntmatlr.
pdf. Accessed May 27, 2011.
Western Iowa River Basin Index. 2011. [Online]. URL:
http://www.iowadnr.gov/water/standards/files/swcdoc2.pdf. Accessed May 27, 2011.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2011. Fish Consumption Advisories.
[Online]. URL: http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/consumption/. Accessed May 27, 2011.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2004. Uses and Designated Standards.
Chapter 104. Register, February 2004, No. 578. [Online] URL:
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/rsb/code/nr/nr104.pdf. Accessed May 27, 2011.
4-24
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 1997. Water Quality Antidegradation.
Chapter 207. Register, August 1997. [Online] URL:
http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/water/wm/wqs/codes/nr207.pdf. Accessed May 27, 2011.
4.3
FISH AND AQUATIC RESOURCES [§ 5.6 (D)(3)(IV)]
4.3.1
OVERVIEW
Generally, the navigation pools of the UMR system have been delineated into three distinct
ecologic zones. The lower reach of the pools closest to the dams (formerly marshes with high
ground islands) are generally impounded areas containing the deepest waters of the pool. The
middle zones of the pools contain extensive backwater marshes and shallow lakes interspersed
with tree stump fields where former forests, wet meadows and marshes occurred within the
floodplain. The upper pool zones extend downstream of the upstream dams and are generally
comprised of braided channels and forested islands (USFWS, 2006).
Pool 9 is a lotic system with a main channel used primarily for navigation extending upstream
32.5 miles, near Reno, Minnesota (USACE 2004).
4.3.2
4.3.2.1
IDENTIFICATION OF EXISTING FISH AND AQUATIC COMMUNITIES
FISH SPECIES
The UMR provides habitat for up to 125 fish species, including northern pike, yellow perch,
smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, buffalos, crappie, bluegill, bullheads, sauger and walleye
(USGS, 1999). The physical complexities of Pool 9 provide a wide range of aquatic areas (i.e.,
channels, backwater lakes) and an array of habitats for fishes in the UMR system (USFWS,
2006). Please refer to Appendix E Fish Species of Pools 9 and 10, for a complete list of fish
species that may occur upstream (Pool 9) and downstream (Pool 10) of the proposed Project.
4-25
A federally sponsored Pool 9 Habitat Rehabilitation and Enhancement Project has been
implemented with the help of state and federal resources agencies upstream of Lock and Dam 9
to restore habitat conditions within portions of Lake Winneshiek, along with other segments of
the UMR within Pool 9. As a result, approximately 400 acres of Lake Winneshiek are protected
from wave action, providing for increases in aquatic vegetation. Plans for continued renewal of
Pool 9 include strategies to reverse the impacts of sedimentation in backwater lakes and
channels, island formation, and subsequent reductions in wave action (USACE, 2004).
The Harper’s Slough Area of Pool 9 (river mile 648-655) is in the immediately adjacent to the
proposed Project. This area includes several islands and vegetation beds. A submerged secondary
channel is evident on bathymetric maps and provides fishery resources. This area is also known
to support significant freshwater mussel populations; however, the introduction of the non-native
zebra mussel is threatening mussel populations throughout Pool 9. Significant Habitat/Island
Forming improvement projects are being considered and/or implemented within this area of Pool
9 by resource agencies (EPP, 2004).
4.3.2.2
HERPTILE SPECIES AND HABITATS
Approximately 35 species of reptiles and amphibians have been recorded along the UMR. Please
refer to Appendix F, for a list of reptile and amphibian species found in the UMR.
Section 4.6, Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species [§ 5.6 (d)(3)(vii)]discusses threatened
and endangered reptiles and amphibians, if they occur in the project vicinity.
4.3.2.3
MACROINVERTEBRATE SPECIES AND HABITATS
The UMR, particularly in the northern section, has historically supported a diverse assemblage of
benthic macroinvertebrates: however, municipal and industrial wastes from the Minneapolis-St.
Paul metropolitan area have severely stressed the benthic macroinvertebrate communities
downstream (Elstad, 1986). The effects of upstream pollution from the Minneapolis-St. Paul
metropolitan area is ameliorated at the navigation pools upstream of the Project. During previous
studies, benthic production and macroinvertebrate density was generally greater in the more
eutrophic areas, though these areas supported fewer taxa overall. Eutrophic areas generally
supported more pollution-tolerant organisms capable of burrowing into depositional-type
4-26
substrates. More taxa and greater numbers of EPT (caddisflies, mayflies, stoneflies), were
collected from less eutrophic areas (Elstad, 1986).
Most macroinvertebrate surveys to date on the UMR have focused on mayflies, fingernail clams,
and freshwater mussels. The USFWS’ Long Term Resource Monitoring Program (LTRMP) has
focused on six study reaches, one of which is Pool 8 immediately upstream of the Project, and
Pool 13, downstream of the Project. Data was collected at 6 study areas, including pools 8 and
13, over the course of 10 years. The survey found that mayflies and fingernail clams were most
prevalent within the upper-most pools of the study area (pools 4, 8, and 13). Most study areas
exhibited high occurrences of midges and aquatic worms and leeches (SAUER, 2004).
Further studies of macroinvertebrates within Pool 9 were performed by James Eckbald of Luther
College in Decorah Iowa. Results from his sampling efforts depicted that fingernail clam
densities have increased since previous studies. This is also supported by the observations of
UMR Wildlife Refuge staff members (SAUER, 2004).
Historically, 53 freshwater mussel species have been documented in the UMR, but only 44
mussel species have recently been documented. Decline in populations are likely caused by
habitat alteration, commercial navigation, overharvest and invasion of the zebra mussel
(USFWS, 2006).
Some species are rare either because of naturally small populations or population decline in the
area (SAUER, 2004; Wilcox, et. al., 2004). Common and relatively abundant mussels species
include: Amblema plicata (threeridge), Fusconaia flava (wabash pigtoe), Quadrula pustulosa
(pimpleback), Lampsilis cardium (plain pocketbook), Obliquaria reflexa (threehorn wartyback),
Obovaria olivaria (hickorynut), Potamilus alatus (pink heelsplitter), and Truncilla truncate
(deertoe) (Wilcox, et. al., 2004). Please refer to Appendix G for a list of native mussel species
likely to occur within the project area and their corresponding fish host.
4.3.2.4
INVASIVE AQUATIC SPECIES
An "invasive species" is one that is non-native to the ecosystem and that causes or is likely to
cause environmental harm. Although often overlooked as an invasive species, carp species are
4-27
not indigenous to United States waters. The common carp reportedly inhabit the Mississippi
River upstream and downstream of the Lock and Dam 9 Project (USFWS, 2008).
The zebra mussel, Dreissena polymorpha, was first reported in the United States in 1988 in Lake
St. Clair, and established populations in the Mississippi River were reported in 1992. This
species of mussels is highly prolific and can dominate native mussel populations (USFWS,
2008). USGS reports (1997) that densities of over 25,000 per square yard have been reported
within Pool 9 (USGS, 1998).
4.3.3
IDENTIFICATION OF ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT AS DEFINED UNDER THE MAGNUSONSTEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT AND ESTABLISHED BY THE
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Pursuant to the amended Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act,
Congress mandated that habitats essential to federally managed commercial fish species be
identified, and that measures be taken to conserve and enhance habitat. Essential fish habitat is
only applicable to federally managed commercial fish species that live out at least one
component of their lifecycle in marine waters (USC, 2006). All fish in Pool 9 are freshwater
species that are not federally managed; therefore, there is no designated essential fish habitat in
Pool 9 of the project area.
4.3.4
4.3.4.1
TEMPORAL AND SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF FISH AND AQUATIC COMMUNITIES AND
TRENDS:
FISH SPECIES TEMPORAL/LIFE HISTORY INFORMATION
Pool 9 and Pool 10 provide both lotic and lentic habitats. Fish species adapted to lotic habitats in
the UMR system include walleye, paddlefish, sturgeon, and catfish. Species that require lentic,
slack-water habitats in the system include bass, northern pike and sunfish. Sport fish of the UMR
include walleye; sauger; bluegill; white, largemouth, and smallmouth bass; northern pike;
crappies; catfish; and buffalo (USFWS, 2006).
Sauger and walleye are two popular sport fish that are likely widely distributed in the main
channel of the river and in the backwaters of Pool 9. Specifically, walleye are likely abundant in
the main stem of Pool 9 as they are less tolerant to turbidity whereas sauger are likely abundant
in the flowing channels of Pool 9, particularly along the side of dam walls and in the tailwaters
4-28
of Lock and Dam 9. Walleye spawning occurs from mid-April to early May in shallow, silt
substrate flats and may typically be found throughout the backwater complexes of Lake
Winneshiek (Mecozzi, 1989). Sauger typically spawns in April to early May in rocky tailwater
areas (WDNR, 2004). During summer, autumn and winter, walleye and sauger are likely limited
to the habitat in Lake Winneshiek.
Other sport fish such as bluegill, crappie, yellow perch and black bass are present in Pool 9,
typically in the backwaters (USFWS, 2006). Largemouth bass prefer shallow backwater lakes
and sloughs that feature an abundance of aquatic vegetation and wood debris. Black crappies
likewise prefer backwater lakes and sloughs and white crappies are generally found in slowmoving side channels and running sloughs. White crappies are more tolerant of turbid waters and
both species prefer sunken trees and stump fields. Bluegills congregate in the aquatic vegetation
and woody debris of shallow backwater bays, lakes and moderately running sloughs (WDNR,
2004). Northern pike are another popular sport fish in the UMR. The northern pike fishery is
considered strong but small in the UMR (MNDNR, 2009).
Catfish support a recreational fishery in the UMR. The most abundant ictalurid species occurring
in the UMR is the channel catfish (USGS, 1999). The channel, blue and flathead catfish prefer
clear, slow-moving waters and likely occur in channels and backwaters of Pool 9. These species
of catfish are found on substrates of gravel, rubble or sand, but prefer mud bottoms (WDNR,
2004). These species feed on snails, crayfish and aquatic invertebrates. In general, catfish will
spawn over submerged log jams and root wads in quiet, slow moving waters (WDNR, 2004).
Unlike flathead catfish, channel catfish prefer to move upstream during summer months into
smaller tributaries (MNDNR, 2009c).
Smallmouth buffalo are found in low velocity areas, such as pools and backwater areas of Pool 9.
Smallmouth buffalo typically spawn during April-May in shallow waters with moderate flow
over aquatic weeds and gravel bottoms. Becker (1983) suggests this species may require flooded
terrestrial areas for spawning. Buffalo species are one of the most abundant fish in the Project
vicinity because they are resistant to the partial and often severe winter kills that occur regularly
(USGS, 1999).
4-29
The paddlefish was historically an abundant fish species in the UMR in the early 1900’s, but
over harvesting and the construction of dams has caused populations to decline. Iowa and
Wisconsin list the paddlefish as threatened (see Section 4.6.1, (A) Description of listed rare,
threatened and endangered, candidate, or special status species in the project vicinity.). The
northern limit of this species’ distribution along the UMR occurs along the Minnesota-Wisconsin
border (USFWS, 2006). During the spring, paddlefish will migrate into tributaries or concentrate
below dams in search of spawning habitat, which includes moderate flowing water over gravel
and/or rock substrate (USGS, 2007). Paddlefish have been documented to move both upstream
and downstream of the locks and dams of the UMR. According to Steuck et al. (2010),
paddlefish were uncommon in Pools 9 and 10. Paddlefish may move through Lock and Dam 9
during spring months. Zigler et. al (2004) documented 53 passages through dams on the
Mississippi River, specifically during the spring flood pulses, when gates are raised allowing the
river to flow freely.
Historically, the shovelnose sturgeon was abundant in the Mississippi River, but the construction
of navigational dams and overharvesting has caused a decline in population. Presently, the
shovelnose sturgeon is commercially harvested on the UMR, where commercial fisherman use
trammel nets, setlines, buffalo nets, and baitlines to catch large numbers of this species (WDNR,
2008). The shovelnose sturgeon frequently inhabits flowing water over sandy bottoms or near
rocky points or bars. Spawning generally occurs in the spring at temperatures between 17-21˚C
in channels of strong current over rocky and gravel bottoms. This species does not have a
restricted home range and is capable of rapid, long-distance movements. Hurley et. al (1987)
reported greatest movements rates to be in May in the UMR. Shovelnose sturgeon are reported to
inhabit Pool 9. Koch et. al (2009) reports that lengths, weights and ages of shovelnose sturgeon
in the upper pools (Pools 4, 7, 9, and 11) are generally greater than downstream pools.
The American eel is the only catadromous fish species known to occur in Pool 9; however, it is
considered “rare”. WDNR lists the American eel as a state species of concern (WDNR, 2011)
(see Section 4.6.1). The American eel is able to tolerate a range of habitats, which include warm
freshwater rivers and reservoirs, coastal brackish waters and cold water streams (FishBase,
2006). The American eel has a catadramous life cycle that involves several migrations and
metamorphosis. Although, little is known about their specific spawning habitat, the American eel
migrates to the Sargasso Sea where it spawns and then dies.
4-30
There have been no anadromous fish species reported in Pool 9. The construction of 29 locks and
dams on the Mississippi River has restricted fish movement since the early 1900’s; however,
operation of the locks at the dams allows fish to move both upstream and downstream. Most
upriver fish passage occurs through the gated sections of the dam, where as downriver passage
likely occurs through the locks, through the gated section of the dams and over spillways (USGS,
1999).
4.3.4.2
HERPTILE SPECIES TEMPORAL/LIFE HISTORY INFORMATION
FROGS AND TOADS
Frogs and toads (anurans) require a variety of habitats for breeding, egg deposition, larval
development and life as an adult. Anurans generally occur in wetland areas, however toads are
less restricted to permanent wetlands. Habitat preferences vary among species, ranging from
permanent bodies of water to more open semi-permanent wetlands (USGS, 2006). Some require
permanent bodies of water, including ponds, lakes, and slow moving streams (HerpNet, 2011).
SALAMANDERS
Salamanders, like frogs and toads, also undergo a complex life cycle from egg to larvae to adult.
Salamanders generally remain underground in burrows, or under rotting logs. Typically,
salamanders require landscapes with moist soils and water-filled depressions, however some
species like the Tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum) can occur in more developed habitat
including open fields, prairies, cultivated fields, pastures, and open forest. The Common
mudpuppy (Necturus maculosus) is the only salamander in the project vicinity that retains its
external gills into adulthood, restricting the species to a permanent aquatic environment. These
fully aquatic salamanders, are found in medium to large rivers and lakes with all bottom types
(HerpNet, 2011). Breeding typically takes place during the spring; however mudpuppies breed
during the fall (WDNR, 2006).
TURTLES
Most turtles require an aquatic environment, such as the Common map turtle (Graptemys
geographica) which prefers lakes and oxbows or slow moving rivers. However, some species
may occur in shallow marshes, ponds, or similar wetlands with lots of emergent vegetation and
little to no current. Turtles typically breed and lay eggs between April and late-June as water
4-31
levels rise and stabilize. Turtles typically nest in riparian sites but may nest up to ½ mile away
from shore, preferring gravel/sand substrate near water but high above water level. Turtles also
require areas of partially submerged logs and rocks for basking and temperature regulation
(Degraaf and Rudis, 1986; HerpNet, 2011).
4.3.4.3
MACROINVERTEBRATE SPECIES TEMPORAL/LIFE HISTORY INFORMATION
Burrowing mayflies are indicators of good water quality simply because of their relatively long
life cycles. Mayfly distribution indicates what water quality conditions have been like for
prolonged periods of time. Three species of burrowing mayfly may be found along much of the
Mississippi River: Haxagenia bilineata, Hexagenia limbata, and Pentagenia vittigera. The H.
bilineata are considered abundant in the majority of the navigational pools of the UMR, while
large populations of H. limbata may be present in early spring. H. bilineata and H. limbata do
well in silted impoundments and prefer tributary rivers, streams and lakes in which there are
sufficient oxygenated waters, while nymphs of P. vittigera apparently inhabit swift waters
(Fremling, 1964).
Sphaeriids or fingernail clams occur in lakes, ponds creeks and rivers, including ephemeral
ponds and intermittent streams through most of the U.S. Fingernail clams are widely distributed
along the Mississippi River, but diversity and distribution are not well known (Williams et al
2008). The majority of fingernail clams prefer soft bottoms that consist of silt and detritus. They
prefer slow current velocities or standing waters. Other fingernail clams prefer greater water
velocities and attach to hard substrates such as concrete, stone or gravel (Bodis et. al. 2006).
UNIONIDS
Wabash pigtoe, pimpleback, threehorn wartyback, hickorynut, pink heelsplitter, and deertoe are
fairly common within the UMR (Wilcox, et. al., n 2004; USFWS, 2003). These species prefer
moderate to slow velocities with a substrate of mud, gravel and/or sand (Kelner, 2002). The
wabash pigtoe is a reservoir tolerant species. There are no known fish hosts for this species
(Williams et al, 2008).
Pimpleback species prefer large creeks to large rivers, particularly, in shoals, runs and pools in
substrates ranging from clean gravel to sand and gravel with a silt layer (Williams et. al 2008).
4-32
Host fish species for the pimpleback include shovelnose sturgeon, channel catfish and flathead
catfish (Wilcox et. al 2004).
The threehorn wartyback may occur in large rivers, reservoirs and medium to large tributaries. It
usually colonizes along overbanks and prefers a variety of substrates, ranging from gravel to
sand to mud. Similarly, the hickorynut species also prefer large to medium rivers and may occur
in reservoir systems. These species prefer sand and gravel substrates in depths usually exceeding
two meters (William et. al, 2008). Fish host for this species includes shovelnose sturgeon
(Wilcox et. al, 2004).
The pink heelsplitter occur primarily in slack water habitats of creeks and rivers, which may
include overbank areas of reservoirs. This species may also be found in shoals and sometimes
tailwaters of dams. It prefers a variety of substrates, including gravel, sand and mud and is
considered to be tolerant to silted areas (Williams et. al, 2008). Host fish species include
freshwater drum (Wilcox et. al, 2004).
The deertoe occur in flowing water of creeks and small to medium rivers. The deertoe may also
be found in large rivers, specifically, in the tailwaters of dams. It may be found in overbank
habitats of reservoirs in areas with firm substrates, which include sand, gravel and sometimes
firm mud (Williams et. al, 2008). Host fish species for deertoe include sauger and freshwater
drum (Wilcox et. al, 2004).
Threeridge mussel is one of the most widespread and abundant species that occurs in the
Mississippi River and its tributaries (USFWS, 2003). The threeridge uses several species of fish
to complete its life cycle, which include black and golden redhorse, northern hogsucker,
largemouth bass, northern pike, flathead and channel catfish, white bass, sauger and freshwater
drum. The threeridge mussel prefer habitat of shallow runs with moderate current (Wilcox, et.
al., 2004; Kelner 2002).
The plain pocketbook occurs in large creeks to large rivers, which include tailwaters of dams. It
may be found in flowing water or pools but is particularly found in overbank habitats of
reservoirs. This species may occur in riffles with strong current with substrates consisting of
large stones, loosely piled over each other, with fine material packing the stones together. In
4-33
tailwaters, it usually occurs in mixtures of sand and gravel, in which it is likely, buried (Williams
et. al, 2008). Host fish species include smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, sauger and walleye
(Wilcox et. al, 2004).
4.3.5
POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS AND ISSUES
The proposed Project will have minimal to no net effect on aquatic resources in the project
vicinity. As discussed in the above Sections, the proposed Project will operate in run-of-river
mode and will have no effect on elevations in Pool 9. Likewise, the Project will not affect flow
rates at Lock and Dam 9. Accordingly, effects to downstream aquatic resources and habitats are
limited to minor of flow re-routing immediately downstream of the auxiliary lock. Project
installation and operation in the existing auxiliary lock may have temporary effects to habitats in
the immediate tailrace area in Pool 10, downstream of the auxiliary lock.
Initially Project operation may temporarily increase turbidity of the water downstream of the
dam. The resulting change in water quality may affect macroinvertebrate communities. The
Applicant expects these temporary effects will be less than the turbidity that occurs during high
water events and that macroinvertebrates will reestablish themselves post installation.
The Applicant proposes to dredge the soft, fine sediments in the auxiliary lock that have settled
on the top of the existing concrete floor of the lock. The species expected to use this sediment are
the sludgeworms and bloodworms that are characteristic of poor water quality and species
diversity. The result would be some temporary impacts to habitat in the auxiliary lock.
During initial consultation, the IA DNR identified potential issues regarding fish entrainment and
mortality. As with other hydropower projects, the Project may potentially entrain and/or
impingement fish. The Applicant proposes to install trash racks at the Project to exclude a
significant number of fish. Study measures to address this potential issue are discussed below.
Additionally, the IA DNR indicated concern about project impacts to fish migration. The Project
will be located at an already existing USACE dam structure and will cause no additional impacts
to fish migration.
4-34
4.3.6
To better assess the above describe potential impacts with regards to fishery resources, the
Applicant proposes to implement a Desktop Entrainment/Impingement Study, a Desktop
Sediment Quality and Quantity Study, a Desktop Water Quality Study, a Desktop Hydraulic
Modeling and Sediment Transport Study, and a Mussel Survey. Section 5.2 summarizes
Applicant proposed studies for potentially affected resources areas.
4.3.7
REFERENCES
Becker, G. C. 1983. Fishes of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison. 1052 pp.
Boides, E. & Oertel, N. (2006): Mussel fauna (Corbiculidae, Dreissendae, Sphaeriidae) in the
water-System of Hungarian Danube. – Hungarian Danube Research Station of the
Hungarian Academy of Sciences, H-2131 Göd, Jávorka S. u. 14, Hungary, (in
Hungarian).
Degraaf, R.M. and D.D. Rudis. 1986. New England Wildlife: Habitat, Natural History, and
Distribution. General Technical Report NE-108. US Department of Agriculture, US
Forest Service (USFS). Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Broomall, PA. 491 pp.
Elstad, Catherine, A. 1986. Macrobenthic distribution and community structure in the upper
navigation pools of the Upper Mississippi River. Journal Hydrobiologia. Volume 136,
No. 1. June 1986. Pp 85 – 100.
FishBase. 2006. Species Summary: Anguilla rostrata. [Online] URL:
http://www.fishbase.org/Summary/SpeciesSummary.php?id=296. Updated May 2, 2006.
Accessed June 1, 2011.
Fremling, C. R. 1964. Mayfly distribution indicates water quality on the Upper Mississippi
River. Science 146:1164–1166.
HerpNet. 2011. Field Guide to Iowa Reptiles and Amphibians. [Online]. URL:
http://herpnet.net/Iowa-Herpetology/. Accessed June 1, 2011.
Johnson, B. L., and K. H. Hagerty, editors. 2008. Status and trends of selected resources of the
Upper Mississippi River System. U.S. Geological Survey, Upper Midwest Environmental
Sciences Center, La Crosse, Wisconsin, December 2008. Technical Report LTRMP
2008-T002. 102 pp + Appendixes A–B. [Online] URL:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/mis/LTRMP2008-T002/. Accessed June 1, 2011.
4-35
Kelner, D.. 2002. Final Report: Mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidia) survey of the Mississippi National
River and Recreation Area Corridor, 2000-01. Prepared for the National Park ServiceMississippi National River and Recreation Area. [Online] URL:
http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/eco/nongame/projects/consgrant_reports/2002/2002_kelner_da
vis.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2011.
Koch, J. D., and M. C. Quist. 2009. Effects of Commercial Harvest on Shovelnose Sturgeon in
the Upper Mississippi River. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 29:84–
100.
Malcom H.L., A.J.K. Calhoun, and M. McCollough. 1999. Maine Amphibians and Reptiles. The
University of Maine Press, Orono, Maine. 251 pp.
Mecozzi, Maureen. 1989. Walleye, Stizostedion vitreum vitreum. 6pgs. [Online] URL:
http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/pubs/walleye.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2011.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR). 2009a. Nature
Snapshots/Fish/Northern Pike. [Online] URL:
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/snapshots/fish/northernpike.html. Accessed June 1, 2011.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR). 2009b. Nature Snapshots/Fish/Channel
Catfish. [Online] URL:http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/snapshots/fish/channelcatfish.html.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR). 2009c. Nature Snapshots/Fish/Flathead
Catfish. [Online] URL:http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/snapshots/fish/flatheadcatfish.html.
Minnesota Herpetology. 2009. On-line Field Guide to Minnesota’s Amphibians and Reptiles.
[Online] URL: http://herpnet.net/Minnesota-Herpetology/. Accessed June 1, 2011.
Sauer, J. 2004. Multiyear synthesis of the macroinvertebrate component from 1992 to 2002 for
the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program. 2004. Final report submitted to U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers from the U.S. Geological Survey, Upper Midwest Environment
Sciences Center, La Crosse, Wisconsin, December 2004. Technical Report LTRMP
2004-T005. 31 pp. + Appendixes A–C.
Schmidt. K. P. 2004. Paddlefish (Polyodon spathula) Survey Results in the Mississippi River
from St. Paul to Red Wing. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.
Steuck, M.J., S. Yess, J. Pitlo, A. Van Vooren, and J. Rasmussen. 2010. Distribution and relative
abundance of Upper Mississippi River Fishes. Upper Mississippi River Conservation
Committee, Onalaska, WI.
United States Code (USC). 2006. 16 USC Chapter 38 – Fishery Conservation and Management.
[Online]. URL: http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/16C38.txt. Accessed June 2, 2011.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2004. Environmental Pool Plans. Mississippi River
Pools 1-10. Fish and Wildlife Work Group River Resources Forum. [Online]. URL:
http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/rrf/eppfinal.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2011.
4-36
US Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2008. National Invasive Species Information Center:
What is an Invasive Species? [Online] URL:
http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/whatis.shtml. Updated December 2, 2008. Accessed
June 1, 2011.
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan. [Online] URL:
http://www.fws.gov/Midwest/planning/Trempealeau/index.html. Accessed June 1, 2011.
http://www.fws.gov/Midwest/planning/uppermiss/CCP/CCP.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2011.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. Reptiles & Amphibians of the Upper Mississippi River
National Wildlife and Fish Refuge. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Unpaginated.
Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online.
http://www.npwrc.usgs.govupmsrept.htm (Version 22MAY98).
US Geological Survey (USGS). 2007. Paddlefish Study Project. October, 2007. [Online] URL
http://www.umesc.usgs.gov/aquatic/fish/paddlefish/main.html:. Accessed June 1, 2011.
US Geological Survey. 1999. Ecological status and trends of the Upper Mississippi River System
1998: A report of the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program. U.S. Geological Survey,
Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center, La Crosse, Wisconsin. April 1999.
LTRMP 99-T001. 236 pp. [Online] URL:
http://www.umesc.usgs.gov/documents/reports/1999/status_and_trends/99t001_frntmatlr.
pdf. Accessed June 1, 2011.
Wilcox, D.B., E.L. Stefanik, D.E. Kelner, M.A. Cornish, D.J. Johnson, I.J. Hodgins, and S.J.
Zigler. 2004. Improving fish passage through navigation dams on the Upper Mississippi
River System. Interim Report for the Upper Mississippi River - Illinois Waterway
Navigation Study ENV Report 54. Rock Island District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Rock Island Illinois.
Williams, J. D., A. E. Bogan, Garner, J.T. 2008. Freshwater mussels of Alabama and the mobile
basin in Georgia, Mississippi, and Tennessee. The University Alabama Press, Alabama.
816 pages.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2011. Endangered, Threatened, and
Special Concern Plants and Animals and Native Natural Communities in Crawford
County. [Online] URL:
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/er/nhi/CountyElements/pdfs/Crawford.pdf. Accessed June 1,
2011.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2008. Wisconsin’s Sturgeon. [Online]
URL: http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/sturgeon/ssturgeon_illustration.html. Updated February
2008. Accessed June 1, 2011.
4-37
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2006. Amphibians and Reptiles of
Wisconsin’s Lakes. [Online] URL:
http://vilaslandandwater.org/land_resources_pages/land_resources_wildlife/insects_n_am
phibians/wi%20lakes%20convention%202006%20herps.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2011.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Fisheries Management and Habitat
Protection (WDNR). 2004. Fishing and Boating on the Mississippi River. [Online] URL:
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/gmu/mississippi/pdf%20files/Mississippi_%20book.pdf. Accessed
June 1, 2011.
Zigler, S. J., M. R. Dewey, B. C. Knights, A. L. Runstrom, and M. T. Steingraeber. 2004.
Hydrologic and hydraulic factors affecting passage of paddlefish through dams in the
upper Mississippi River. Transactions of the American Fisheries 133: 160-172.
4.4
WILDLIFE AND BOTANICAL RESOURCES [§ 5.6 (D)(3)(V)]
4.4.1
UPLAND HABITAT IN THE PROJECT VICINITY, INCLUDING THE PROJECT'S TRANSMISSION
LINE CORRIDOR OR RIGHT-OF-WAY AND A LISTING OF PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES
THAT USE THE HABITAT
The Project occurs is the Western Coulees and Ridges ecological region (WDNR, 2011a). The
Western Coulees and Ridges region is characterized by gentle slopes and hills with well drained
soils (Omernik et al., 2008). Land use in the region is predominantly mixed
agriculture/woodland, with most of the agriculture occurring on the lowlands and more level
hilltops. The upland habitats of the Western Coulees and Ridges region is dominated by broadleaved deciduous forests, mixed deciduous-coniferous forest, and interspersed with areas of
shrubland and grassland (Omernik et al., 2008).
The broad-leaved deciduous forest is the most dominant upland habitat in the project vicinity
(WDNR, 2011b). This forest type can be further classified as oak-hickory or maple-basswood,
based on the dominant cover species present.
The mixed deciduous-coniferous forest is the second most dominant upland habitat in the project
vicinity (WDNR, 2011b). The hardwood canopy species of this forest type are similar to the
broad-leaved deciduous forest, but also include birch species (Betual sp.). Shrublands are not
widespread in the project vicinity, and occur on a more transitional gradient from upland areas to
wetland areas (WDNR, 20011b). These areas are dominated by persistent woody vegetation that
do not exceed 20 feet in height. In addition, there is less than 10 percent of tree cover
interspersed in the shrublands (WDNR, 2011b).
4-38
Grassland habitat, which also includes pastures and idle agriculture lands is the least dominant
upland habitat in the project vicinity and only occurs as small patches (WDNR, 2011b). Please
refer to Appendix H for a list of upland habitat botanical and wildlife species common to the
region.
4.4.2
TRANSMISSION LINE CORRIDOR – UPLAND HABITAT
The Applicant has conducted a preliminary interconnection survey. A 69 kV line has been
identified approximately 4.25 miles from the dam on the east side of the river. The line runs
approximately 8 miles north to the Seneca substation. This 4.25 mile connection would be made
with the use of an overhead distribution line through terrain that may be rough. As this
alternative is still under investigation, upland habitat effects will be analyzed within future
licensing documents.
4.4.3
TEMPORAL OR SPECIAL DISTRIBUTION OF COMMERCIALLY, RECREATIONALLY, OR
CULTURALLY IMPORTANT SPECIES
Many of the species that have the potential to occur within the project vicinity may only inhabit
those lands at certain times of the year. As the Project will occupy no upland habitats there are
no effects to species within these areas.
4.4.4
The Applicant does not expect Project installation or operation to affect potentially occurring
wildlife that may use the upland habitats in the project vicinity due to the limited Project
footprint. In addition, as a run-of-river operation, the Project will not affect USACE operations
of the navigational lock or the dam, and will not change pool elevations or tailwater flows from
existing conditions. The Project infrastructure will be located on currently developed sites that
are already devoid of vegetative cover.
During initial consultation, the IA DNR identified potential issues pertaining to transmission line
impacts to migrating birds. As transmission line alternatives are still being considered, the need
for transmission line surveys will be determined through consultation once a final transmission
route has been determined.
4-39
4.4.5
The Applicant will consult with resource agencies regarding the need for native vegetation
restoration related to project installation disturbance. The Applicant proposes no additional
PM&E measures at this time.
4.4.6
REFERENCES
eBird. Common bird species of Crawford County Wisconsin and Allamakee County, Iowa.
[Online] URL:
http://ebird.org/ebird/wi/GuideMe?step=saveChoices&getLocations=counties&parentStat
e=USWI&bMonth=01&bYear=1900&eMonth=12&eYear=2011&reportType=location&count
ies=US-WI-023&continue.x=75&continue.y=9. Accessed on May 26, 2011.
Hoffman, Randy. 2002. Wisconsin’s Natural Communities: How to Recognize Them, Where to
Find Them. The University of Wisconsin press. Madison, Wisconsin.
Omernik, James M., Shannen S. Chapman, Richard A. Lillie, and Robert T. Dumke. Ecoregions
of Wisconsin. [Online] URL:
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/water/swims/datasets/omernik_eco/index.htm. Accessed on May
27, 2011.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2011a. Wisconsin DNR WebView –
Ecological Landscapes layer. [Online] URL:
http://dnrmaps.wi.gov/imf/imf.jsp?site=webview. Accessed on May 27, 2011.
WDNR. 2011b. Wisconsin DNR WebView – WISCLAND Landcover layer. [Online]
http://dnrmaps.wi.gov/imf/imf.jsp?site=webview. Accessed on May 27, 2011.
URL:
WDNR. 2009. Feasibility Study, Master Plan, and Environmental Impact Statement for the
Southwest Wisconsin Grassland & Stream Conservation Area. [Online] URL:
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/facilities/SWGrassland/documents/SWGSCA.pdf. Accessed on
May 27, 2011.
WDNR. 2003. Wisconsin Forest Management Guidelines. [Online] URL:
http://dnr.wi.gov/forestry/publications/guidelines/toc.htm. Accessed on May 27, 2011.
4-40
Wisconsin Natural Heritage Inventory (WNHI). 2011. Recognized Natural Communities.
[Online] URL:
http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/er/communities/pdfs/communities.pdf. Accessed on
May 27, 2011.
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2011a. Lower Pool 9 Restricted Hunting Areas.
[Online] URL: http://www.fws.gov/midwest/uppermississippiriver/Documents/LP92010.pdf. Accessed on May 26, 2011.
USFWS. 2011b. Upper Mississippi River Refuge Wildlife Spectacles by Season and Location.
[Online] URL: http://www.fws.gov/midwest/UpperMississippiRiver/Wildlife.html.
Accessed on May 27, 2011.
USFWS. 2006. Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge Comprehensive
Conservation Plan. [Online] URL:
http://www.fws.gov/midwest/planning/uppermiss/index.html. Accessed on May 26,
2011.
USFWS. 1924. Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge, Established 1924
Compatibility Determination. [Online] URL:
http://www.fws.gov/midwest/planning/uppermiss/cd/Hunting%20Migratory%20Birds.pd
f. Accessed on May 27, 2011.
US Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2011. Upland botanical species of Crawford County
Wisconsin and Allamakee County, Iowa. [Online] URL:
http://plants.usda.gov/checklist.html. Accessed on May 26, 2011.
4.5
FLOODPLAINS, WETLANDS, RIPARIAN, AND LITTORAL HABITAT [§ 5.6(D)(3)(VI)]
4.5.1
MAP OF WETLANDS, RIPARIAN AND LITTORAL HABITAT
The USFWS maintains the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) that provides reconnaissance
level information on the location, type, and size of wetlands and deepwater habitats (USFWS,
2011). The NWI indicates that a variety of wetland and deepwater habitats occur in the Project
vicinity (Figure 4-11). These wetland types include freshwater emergent, forested and shrub
wetlands, freshwater ponds and lakes, and riverine habitat.
4-41
FIGURE 4-11. PROJECT VICINITY WETLAND AND RIPARIAN HABITAT.
Source: (USFWS, 2011)
The most abundant wetland habitats in the project vicinity are lakes totaling approximately 53,
647 acres and riverinie habitat which accounts for approximately 53, 292 acres of wetland
habitat (Table 4-4). Freshwater ponds and scrub shrub wetlands make up the least amount of
wetland habitat in the project vicinity, 322 and 168 acres, respectively.
TABLE 4-4. ESTIMATES OF PROJECT VICINITY WETLAND AND RIPARIAN ACREAGES.
WETLAND TYPE
ACRES
PERCENT OF TOTAL WETLAND
HABITAT
53,647
47%
Freshwater Lake
53,292
47%
Riverine
3,889
3%
Forested Wetland
2%
Freshwater Emergent Wetland 2,144
322
0%
Freshwater Pond
168
0%
Scrub Shrub
113,462
Total
Source: (USFWS, 2011a)
4-42
4.5.1.1
LAKES
The freshwater lake habitat in the project vicinity is mostly comprised of sloughs and riverine
lakes created by the USACE Lock and Dam system on the Mississippi River. Pool 9 located
upstream of the Project includes Harpers Slough, Capoli Slough, Lafayette Slough, Winneshiek
Slough, and Lake Winneshiek. Downstream of the Project is Pool 10, which includes McGregor
Lake.
Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) constitutes the greatest plant biomass in the lakes and
slough habitat. Please refer to Appendix I for a list of wetland habitat botanical and wildlife
species common to the region.
4.5.2
A LIST OF PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES, INCLUDING INVASIVE SPECIES, THAT USE THE
WETLAND, LITTORAL, AND RIPARIAN HABITAT
Please refer to Appendix I for a complete list of wetland botanical and wildlife species, including
invasive species, common to the region.
4.5.2.1
RIVERINE
The UMR primarily represents the riverine habitat in the project vicinity. The riverine system in
the project vicinity is characterized by a low gradient and slow water velocity. There is no tidal
influence in the riverine system, and the substrate consists mainly of sand and mud (USFWS,
2011b). The vegetation cover in the riverine habitat is less than 30 percent. Vegetation is limited
to submergent, floating, and floating-leaved aquatic macrophytes and does not include terrestrial
shoreline vegetation (Table 4-4). The water depth in the riverine portions of Pool 9 is
approximately 9 feet, which does not allow for the accumulation of emergent species. Appendix
I includes species occurring within the riverine system.
4.5.2.2
FORESTED WETLAND
Forested wetlands make up a significantly lower portion (approximately 3,889 acres) of the
project vicinity wetland habitats (Table 4-4). Forested wetlands are characterized by woody
vegetation that is 6 meters tall or taller (USFWS, 2011b). In addition, surface water is present for
brief periods during the growing season, but the water table usually lies well below the soil
4-43
surface for most of the growing season. Plants that grow in both uplands and wetlands may be
characteristic of this water regime (USFWS, 2011b).
In the project vicinity, forested wetlands mostly occur in floodplains that have developed along
Pool 9 especially where major tributaries enter. Appendix I includes wetland species and wildlife
species that may occur in this habitat.
4.5.2.3
FRESHWATER EMERGENT WETLAND
Freshwater emergent wetlands make up approximately 2 percent of the wetland habitat in the
project vicinity (Table 4-4). In general, freshwater emergent wetlands are closely associated with
the shorelines of major tributaries to Pool 9 such as Rush Creek. This wetland type includes
littoral fringes, wet meadows, and marshes (USFWS, 2011a).
Erect, rooted, herbaceous hydrophytes, excluding mosses and lichens characterize freshwater
emergent wetlands. This vegetation is present for most of the growing season in most years.
Perennial plants usually dominate these wetlands (USFWS, 2011b). Emergent wetlands typically
occur as a transition from riverine habitat to forested or scrub shrub wetland habitat. In the most
inundated zone of some emergent wetlands, an aquatic bed may occur that is dominated by
submerged aquatic plants. Appendix I includes plant and wildlife species potentially occurring
within this habitat.
4.5.2.4
FRESHWATER POND
Approximately 322 acres of wetland habitat in the project vicinity is classified as freshwater
pond (Table 4-5). Freshwater ponds include all wetlands and deepwater habitats with a substrate
of at least 25% cover of particles smaller than stones (less than 6-7 cm), and a vegetative cover
of less than 30% (USFWS, 2011b). In general, freshwater ponds mostly occur sporadically
throughout the upland areas of the project vicinity. The distribution of these ponds appears to
correlate with agricultural areas in the project vicinity, which most likely indicates they are manmade and likely used for irrigation purposes. It is unlikely that these ponds function as a
significant source of habitat to wildlife or native plants, although some species such as mallards
and Canada geese may occur.
4-44
4.5.2.5
SCRUB SHRUB WETLAND
Approximately 168 acres of wetland habitat in the project vicinity is classified as scrub shrub
(Table 4-5.). Scrub shrub wetlands include areas dominated by woody vegetation less than 6 m
(20 feet) tall (USFWS, 2011b). These wetlands are closely associated with the forested wetlands
in the project vicinity, occurring along transitional gradients. Appendix I includes plant species
and wildlife species that may occur within this habitat.
4.5.3
The vast majority of the project infrastructure will be located on previously developed facilities
that are already devoid of vegetative cover and wetlands. The Applicant does not anticipate any
potential adverse impacts or issues to floodplains, wetlands, riparian, and littoral habitat due to
installation activities or operation of the proposed Project.
4.5.4
The Applicant will consult with agency representatives regarding the need to restore native
vegetation or wetlands disturbed by the installation process.
4.5.5
REFERENCES
Wisconsin Bird Conservation Initiative (WBCI). 2011. Wisconsin All-Bird Conservation Plan.
[Online] URL: http://www.wisconsinbirds.org/plan/habitats/InlandWater.htm. Accessed
on June 1, 2011.
eBird. Common bird species of Crawford County Wisconsin and Allamakee County, Iowa.
[Online] URL:
http://ebird.org/ebird/wi/GuideMe?step=saveChoices&getLocations=counties&parentStat
e=USWI&bMonth=01&bYear=1900&eMonth=12&eYear=2011&reportType=location&count
ies=US-WI-023&continue.x=75&continue.y=9. Accessed on May 26, 2011.
Mossman, Michael J. 1988. Birds of Southern Wisconsin Floodplain Forests. [Online] URL:
http://images.library.wisc.edu/EcoNatRes/EFacs/PassPigeon/ppv50no04/reference/econat
res.pp50n04.mmossman2.pdf. Accessed on June 1, 2011.
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2011a. National Wetlands Inventory Mapper –
Crawford County Wisconsin, and Allamakee County, Iowa. [Online] URL:
http://137.227.242.85/wetland/. Accessed on May 31, 2011.
USFWS. 2011b. National Wetlands Inventory Wetland Decoder. [Online] URL:
http://137.227.242.85/Data/interpreters/wetlands.aspx. Accessed on May 31, 2011.
4-45
USFWS. 2006. Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge Comprehensive
Conservation Plan. [Online] URL:
http://www.fws.gov/midwest/planning/uppermiss/index.html. Accessed on May 26,
2011.
US Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2011. Wetland botanical species of Crawford County
Wisconsin and Allamakee County, Iowa. [Online] URL:
http://plants.usda.gov/checklist.html. Accessed on May 26, 2011.
4.6
RARE, THREATENED, AND ENDANGERED SPECIES [§ 5.6 (D)(3)(VII)]
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) grants particular botanical and wildlife species
threatened or endangered status, providing species protection and habitat conservation under the
law. In addition, states provide listing and management objectives for species that are considered
threatened, endangered, or of special concern within the context of presence and habitat
availability within the state.
4.6.1
DESCRIPTION OF LISTED RARE, THREATENED AND ENDANGERED, CANDIDATE, OR
SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES IN THE PROJECT VICINITY.
The Applicant requested an RTE species review from both Wisconsin and Iowa to determine
whether federally and/or state-listed species occur in the project vicinity. The July 11, 2011
results from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) identify that the
federally-endangered Higgins eye mussel (Lampsilis higginsii) is known to occur within the
project site. Additionally, the WDNR reports that 23 state-listed species are known to occur
within the project site; five species are known to occur in the surrounding 1-mile buffer, and
three species are found in the surrounding 5-mile buffer (see Appendix J).
During initial consultation in May 2011, the IA DNR identified potential issues pertaining to
Project impacts to RTE species. However, in an August 18, 2011 letter, the Iowa Department of
Natural Resources (IA DNR) indicated that its record search for rare species and significant
natural areas in the project area found no site-specific records that would be impacted by this
Project.
While no longer federally listed, the bald eagle is monitored under the 2010 Post-Delisting
Monitoring Plan for Bald Eagle and protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection and the
Migratory Bird Treaty Acts (USFWS, 2009).
4-46
4.6.2
4.6.2.1
IDENTIFICATION OF HABITAT REQUIREMENTS
AQUATIC
HIGGINS’EYE PEARLYMUSSEL
This is a large river species that occupies stable, sandy substrates varying from sand to boulders,
and correlates with a firm, coarse sand substrate. They prefer a swift moving current and occur
most often in the main channel border or an open flowing side channel. Higgins’ eye usually
occurs in large, stable mussel beds with relatively high species density and age diversity. Known
host fish species include walleye. Sauger, large and smallmouth bass, white bass, freshwater
drum, black crappie, northern pike, green sunfish, bluegill, and yellow perch (USFWS, 2004;
FFP, 2011).
4.6.2.2
WILDLIFE
BALD EAGLE
While no longer federally listed, both Iowa and Wisconsin consider bald eagles a species of
concern. Bald eagles typically nest within 0.25 to one mile of large bodies of open water such as
lakes and large rivers. Eagles nest in large, super-canopy trees or snags often in late-successional
forest. They prefer a nest site at the edge of the forest, near foraging areas, unobstructed views,
and little human disturbance (McGarigal, et al. 1991). In Iowa, eagles most often select red pines
(Pinus resinosa), white pines (Pinus strobes), large eastern cottonwoods (Populus deltoides), and
aspen (Populus spp.) for nesting. Most eagles forage primarily on fish, with lesser quantities of
waterfowl, carrion, and small mammals (Gough, et al. 1998).
4.6.3
REFERENCES TO KNOWN BIOLOGICAL OPINION, STATUS REPORTS, OR RECOVERY PLANS
PERTAINING TO A LISTED SPECIES
The UMR NWFR, in which Lock and Dam 9 is located, is managed by a Comprehensive
Conservation Plan, which is designed to guide the management and administration of the refuge
in relation to the overall mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. This plan is also
designed to protect and enhance federally listed threatened, endangered, and candidate species
and their habitats (USFWS, 2006).
4-47
In 2000, the USFWS presented a Biological Opinion for the Operation and Maintenance of the 9Foot Navigation Channel on the UMR System. The opinion determined that continued operation
of the 9-foot Navigation Channel project would jeopardize the continued existence of the
Higgins’ Eye Pearlymussel and other threatened and endangered species in the UMR system.
The opinion also provides alternatives to offsetting the adverse impacts to the Higgins’ Eye
while providing for the continued operation of the navigation channel, including the Mussel
Relocation Plan discussed below (USFWS, 2000).
4.6.3.1
SPECIES-SPECIFIC PLANS
Higgins’ Eye Pearlymussel (Lampsilis higginsii) is managed under a federal recovery plan,
which was revised in May 2004 (USFWS, 2004). The Higgins Eye Pearlymussel Recovery Team
prepared the plan. Its focus is on conservation of the species in identified essential habitat areas.
The plan also recommends developing a protocol for collection of information about the species.
Of highest priority is addressing the impacts and threats posed by zebra mussels on the Higgins’
Eye species (USFWS, 2004).
The Higgins’ Eye Mussel Relocation Plan aims to establish five new populations of the Higgins’
eye, and stems from the 2000 USFWS Biological Opinion (discussed above), which indicated
that continued operation of the 9-foot Navigation Channel project on the UMR would jeopardize
the continued existence of the Higgins’ eye (USACE, 2002). The plan involves relocating the
species from areas that are heavily infested by zebra mussels and moving them to locations with
low zebra mussel infestation (USACE, 2002). In addition to this relocation plan, the USACE is
studying the long-term feasibility of measures to control zebra mussel populations in the UMR
system. A Mussel Coordination Team (MCT) made up of nine federal and state government
agencies and one non-profit, is working to implement the relocation plan in addition to other
mussel-related activities (USACE 2002).
On July 9, 2007 the Bald eagle was removed from protection under the ESA, but is still protected
by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (72 FR 3734537372). Following this change in status, the USFWS wrote the National Bald eagle Management
Guidelines to provide recommendations to landowners about how to avoid disturbing bald eagle
and therefore avoid legal prosecution for violating the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and
4-48
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (USFWS, 2007). Additionally, the 2009 Post-delisting Monitoring
Plan will monitor the status of the bald eagle over a 20-year period by collecting data about
occupied nests every 5 years (USFWS, 2009).
4.6.4
EXTENT AND LOCATION OF FEDERALLY-DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT OR OTHER
HABITAT FOR LISTED SPECIES IN THE PROJECT AREA
There are no known federally designated critical habitat areas for the RTE species described
herein; however, the USFWS has designated portions of Pools 9 and 10 as essential habitat for
the Higgins’ eye mussel. The five relevant areas to the Project are listed below.
In addition, the UMR NWFR (also referred to as the Refuge) provides wildlife management and
refuge near Pools 4-14 as one of several management entities on the Mississippi River. The
Refuge provides a stronghold for bottomland forests and wetlands that are vital to breeding
migrating fish and wildlife (USFWS, 2006; FFP, 2011).
The Wisconsin State Natural Areas Program of the WDNR has designated two State Natural
Areas in the project vicinity, the Great River Trail Prairies and the Holland Sand Prairie. The rare
poppy mallow (Callirhoe triangulate) occurs in the Great River Trail Prairies State Natural Area
and the state-threatened Hill’s thistle (Cirsium hillii) can be found in the Holland Sand Prairie
(WDNR, 2011b). Neither of these locations is adjacent to or within the project area.
4.6.5
TEMPORAL AND SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE LISTED SPECIES WITHIN THE PROJECT
VICINITY
Below is a discussion of the federally-listed species that are known to, or have potential to, occur
within the Project. In addition to the following federally-listed species, the WDNR identified 21
state-listed aquatic species as known to occur within and surrounding the Project (see Appendix
J).
4.6.5.1
AQUATIC SPECIES
HIGGIN’S EYE MUSSEL
Lampsilis higginsii, also known as the Higgins eye pearlymussel, was federally listed as
endangered in 1976 (USFWS, 2004). This species historically occurred in the UMR from below
St. Anthony Falls to Pool 24 and its major tributaries. This species was historically abundant in
4-49
the Mississippi River, but changes in habitat such as water flow patterns, substrate characteristics
and host fish habitat has caused a decline in this species population (USFWS, 2006). The zebra
mussel poses a great threat to the survival of the Higgins’ eye mussel. Most of the remaining
habitat is on the UMR within the 9-foot Navigation Project. Five of the ten identified essential
habitat areas that are believed to contain viable reproducing populations are found within the
UMR NWFR, in which the proposed Project is located. Those specific locations include sections
of Pool 9 and Pool 10. In its RTE review results, the WDNR identified the Higgins’ eye as
occurring within the Project. The five essential habitat areas within the Refuge are (USFWS,
2006):
•
•
•
•
•
4.6.5.2
Wisconsin River (River Mile 0 - 0.2)
Upper Mississippi River at Whiskey Rock, Ferryville, Wisconsin, Pool 9 (River Mile
655.8 -658.4)
Upper Mississippi River at Harpers Slough, Pool 10 (River Mile 639.0 - 641.4); Upper
Mississippi River Main and East Channels at Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin, and
Marquette, Iowa, Pool 10 (River Mile 633.4 - 637)
Upper Mississippi River at McMillan Island, Pool 10 (River Mile 616.4 - 619.1)
Upper Mississippi River at Cordova, Illinois, Pool 14 (River Mile 503.0 - 505.5)
WILDLIFE
BALD EAGLE
Though the bald eagle was removed from the federal list of threatened and endangered species, it
is currently listed as a state species of concern in Iowa. It has been present in the Refuge since
1972. As of 2005, 167 active territories produced an estimated 279 young, 98 more than in 2004.
Nesting territories occur throughout the length of the Refuge and are most numerous in the
McGregor District where the proposed Project is located. Over a 19-year period, there has been a
31fold increase in bald eagle reproduction (USFWS, 2006). In 1997, the American Bird
Conservancy designated the Refuge a Globally-Important Bird Area due to the number of Bald
eagle breeding pairs and other avian species. Peak numbers of bald eagle are common during the
month of March when ice-out exposes an abundance of carcasses from the most recent winter
fish kill (USFWS, 2006).
4.6.6
Given the small and limited footprint of the proposed Project, the Applicant does
4-50
not anticipate any significant issues concerning wildlife or plant RTE species within the project
boundary. As previously mentioned, the Applicant has conducted a preliminary interconnection
survey; however, alternatives are still being contemplated. As transmission line alternatives are
still being considered, the need for transmission line surveys will be determined through
consultation once a final transmission route has been determined. The IA DNR expressed
additional concern about potential impacts to bald eagle nesting areas during May 2011
consultation. The Applicant will follow USFWS National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines,
which provide recommendations about how to avoid disturbing bald eagle nesting sites during
installation and operation.
The proposed action will have minimal, and perhaps no, long-term effect on aquatic RTE
resources in the project vicinity. As discussed previously, the proposed Project will operate in
run-of-river mode and will have no effects on elevations in Pool 9. Likewise, flows passing at
Lock and Dam 9 will continue at the same rate. Accordingly, effects to aquatic resources and
habitats are limited to the minor effects of flow re-routing through the conduit adjacent to the
dam.
Installation and initial operation of the LFM at the existing auxiliary lock may have temporary
effects to RTE resources in the immediate areas above and below the dam through increased
water turbidity although the effects are expected to be minor and less than high water events
experienced during the spring. This determination is pending additional resource agency
information. Furthermore, as with other hydropower projects, there is the potential for the
entrainment and impingement of fish species at the Project. The Applicant also understands that
Pools 9 and 10 in the project vicinity are designated as essential habitat for the endangered
Higgins’ eye mussel. Measures to address these potential issues are discussed below.
4.6.7
The Applicant is proposing to operate the Project using existing flows, which provide existing
baseline downstream water quality and aquatic habitat. As discussed in Section 5.2 Potential
Studies and Information Gathering Requirements Associated with the Identified issues, the
Applicant is proposing several studies to assess potential impacts resulting from Project
installation and/or operation.
4-51
The LFM will be equipped with upstream trashracks spaced appropriately to prevent and
mitigate impingement and entrainment as much as possible. As discussed further in Section 5.2,
the Applicant will conduct a desktop entrainment/impingement study to determine potential risk
to the state-listed RTE fish species by identifying whether they are potentially subject to
impingement and entrainment, and then by assessing likelihood of mortality based on the design
parameters of the turbine array with respect to intake profiles and approach velocities. The
Applicant will undertake this work in consultation with USFWS, WDNR, and IA DNR.
Although the Applicant does not anticipate that Project installation or operation will have an
adverse effect on this species, the Applicant will consult with resource agencies to determine if
existing information is available to address mussels within the project area, and if a mussel
survey is necessary. Further discussion on this is included within Section 5.2.
Standard Terms and Conditions Article 11 provides for the construction and development of
facilities for the conservation of fish and wildlife resources, as may be prescribed by the
Commission or upon recommendation of the Secretary of the Interior. Additionally, the
Applicant shall undertake the construction of the switchyard under the conditions specified in the
Standard Terms and Conditions Article 15 and shall consult with USACE and other agencies to
minimize environmental and social effects from any clearing and installation activities. The
Applicant proposes no additional PM&E measures.
4.6.8
REFERENCES
Gough, G.A., J.R. Sauer, and M. Iliff. 1998. Patuxent Bird Identification Infocenter. Version
97.1. Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. Laurel, Maryland. [Online] URL:
http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/Infocenter/infocenter.html. Accessed May 22, 2009.
Iowa Department of Natural Resources. (IDNR). 2011. Natural Areas Inventory Allamakee
County Summary of Species Report. [Online] URL:
https://programs.iowadnr.gov/naturalareasinventory/pages/RepDistinctSpeciesByCounty.
aspx?CountyID=3. Accessed May 26, 2011.
McGarigal, K., R.G. Anthony and F.B. Isaacs. 1991. Interactions of Humans and Bald eagles on
the Columbia River Estuary. Wildl. Monogr. V:115. 47 pp.
4-52
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) St Paul District. 2002. Final July 2002 Definite Project
Report and Environmental Assessment for Relocation Plan for the Endangered Higgins’
Eye Pearlymussel (Lampsilis higginsii). Upper Mississippi River and Tributaries
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Illinois. Prepared in Cooperation with the Mussel
Relocation Team. 122 pp.
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2011a. Endangered Species Program Species By
County Report, Crawford, Wisconsin. [Online] URL:
http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/countySearch!speciesByCountyReport.action?fips=55023
Updated May 26, 2011. Accessed May 26, 2011.
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2011b. Endangered Species Program Species By
County Report, Allamakee, Iowa. [Online] URL:
http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/countySearch!speciesByCountyReport.action?fips=19005
Updated May 26, 2011. Accessed May 26, 2011.
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2009. Post-delisting Monitoring Plan for the Bald
Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) in the Continguous 48 States. US Fish and Wildlife Service,
Divisions of Endangered Species and Migratory Birds and State Programs, Midwest
Regional Office, Twin Cities, Minnesota. 75 pp.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008a. Trempealeau National Wildlife
Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan. [Online] URL:
http://www.fws.gov/midwest/planning/Trempealeau/index.html. Accessed May 20, 2009.
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. National bald eagle management guidelines.
Washington, D.C. pp. 23.
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2004. Higgins Eye Pearlymussel (Lampsilis higginsii)
Recovery Plan: First Revision. Ft. Snelling, Minnesota. 126 pp. [Online] URL:
http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/040714.pdf. Accessed May 27, 2011.
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002. Status Report for the Sheepnose, Plethobasus
cyphus, Occurring in the Mississippi River System (US Fish and Wildlife Service
Regions 3,4, and 5). [Online] URL:
http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/clams/pdf/sheepnose-sa.pdf. Accessed May 27,
2011.
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2000. Final Biological Opinion for the Operation and
Maintenance of the 9-foot Navigation Channel on the Upper Mississippi River System.
April 2000. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Region 3, Fort Snelling, MN. 240pp.
4-53
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1996. Platanthera praeclara (Western Prairie Fringed
Orchid) Recovery Plan. Us Fish and Wildlife Service, Ft. Snelling, Minnesota.
Vi+101pp. [Online] URL: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/960930a.pdf.
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1988. Lespedeza leptostachya Recovery Plan. US Fish
and Wildlife Service, Twin cities, Minnesota. 41 pp. [Online] URL:
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1983. Recovery Plan for the Northern Monkshood
(Aconitum noveboracense). Prepared by R.H. Read and J.B. Hale, Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources. Madison, WI. 83 pp. [Online] URL:
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2011. Endangered, Threatened, and
Special Concern Plants and Animals and Native Natural Communities in Crawford
County. [Online] URL:
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/er/nhi/CountyElements/pdfs/Crawford.pdf. Accessed May 26,
2011.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2011b. State Natural Areas Program
Information. [Online] URL: http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/er/sna/info.htm. Accessed May 27,
2011.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2006. Wisconsin Whooping Crane
Management Plan. [Online] URL:
http://dnr.wi.gov/ORG/LAND/ER/birds/wcrane/pdfs/WC_Mgmt_Plan.pdf. (Accessed
May 27, 2011).
4.7
RECREATION AND LAND USE [§ 5.6 (D)(3)(VIII)]
4.7.1
EXISTING RECREATIONAL FACILITIES, TYPE OF ACTIVITY SUPPORTED, LOCATION,
CAPACITY, OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT
The Project will be wholly within a secure area maintained by the USACE. The site will remain
owned by the USACE and will be leased to the Applicant. Given the limited project boundary
for the proposed Project, there will be absolutely no recreation sites or commercial, residential,
or municipal developments associated with or affected by the Project.
The USACE Lock and Dam 9 impounds Pool 9 containing Lake Winneshiek. The navigation
season runs from mid-March to mid-December, during which time various vessels use the lock
to navigate the river. The 9-foot vertical lift provides passage for vessels ranging from canoes to
barges, and allows over 18 million tons of cargo to pass through each year. In addition to
4-54
commercial transportation, the locks accommodate recreational use, with over 7,000 recreational
crafts utilizing the lock annually (FFP, 2011).
The USACE maintains an observation platform and restrooms open to the public from April to
November at Lock and Dam No, 9. In addition, the USACE manages a public use area at the site
and other sites such as Bad Axe Landing, Blackhawk Park, and Millstone Landing. These sites
offer a variety of opportunities for recreation including boat ramps, picnic areas, camping
facilities, fishing facilities, and swimming areas (FFP, 2011).
Other opportunities in the project vicinity are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Heytman’s Landing
Cold Spring’s Landing
Lynxville Landing
Blackhawk Boat Harbor
Hoothchie II
Gordon’s Bay Landing
Harper’s Ferry Landing
Babe’s Boat Landing
Boardman’s Marina
Delphey Brother’s Landing
End of the Line Marina
Yellow River State Forest, and
Waukon Junction Wildlife Management Area
The UMR NFWR, discussed in further detail below, also provides recreational facilities both
above and below Lock and Dam 9, such as resorts, marinas and facilities for fishing and hunting
(FFP, 2011).
4.7.2
RECREATIONAL USE OF LANDS AND WATERS COMPARED TO FACILITY OR RESOURCE
CAPACITY
There are no recreational facilities or opportunities associated with the proposed Project. The
proposed Project will not affect or alter recreational uses of lands or nearby waters.
4.7.3
EXISTING SHORELINE BUFFER ZONES WITHIN THE PROJECT BOUNDARY
The proposed Project does not include an impoundment and thus no shoreline buffer zones exist
within the proposed project boundary.
4-55
4.7.4
CURRENT AND FUTURE RECREATION NEEDS FROM EXISTING STATE OR REGIONAL
PLANS
As discussed above, there are no recreation facilities associated with the proposed Project, and
there will be no additional facilities or changes to existing conditions of Pool 9 or Pool 10, Lake
Winneshiek, or the Mississippi River. None of the following plans identifies any planning issues
or related recommendations that would bear relevance to the proposed Project lands or the
installation or operation of the proposed Project.
•
•
•
•
4.7.5
Wisconsin Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP), 2011-2016
Iowa Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP), 2006
Crawford County, Wisconsin Comprehensive Plan, 2010
Allamakee County, Iowa Comprehensive Plan, 2001
CURRENT SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLAN OR POLICY
The proposed Project will not utilize or create a reservoir, and therefore, will not have any effect
on current shoreline uses or management. While there are no state shoreline management plans,
states manage the recreational and shoreline resources of the UMR, including Pool 9 associated
with Lock and Dam 9, through their Departments of Natural Resources. In addition, the USACE
and organizations such as the UMR NWFR and the Upper Mississippi River Conservation
Commission (UMRCC) direct and manage shoreline and recreation issues in proximity to the
Project.
4.7.6
4.7.6.1
A DISCUSSION OF WHETHER THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN OR ADJACENT TO A:
DESIGNATED OR UNDER STUDY FOR INCLUSION IN THE NATIONAL WILD AND SCENIC
RIVER SYSTEM
No designated National Wild and Scenic Rivers are located within or adjacent to the project area.
The St. Croix National Scenic Riverway joins the Mississippi River below Lock and Dam 2.
That designation ends at the confluence of the St. Croix and the Mississippi well outside the
project vicinity.
The UMR is designated an American Heritage River through Iowa, Illinois, Missouri,
Minnesota, and Wisconsin. American Heritage Rivers Initiative is a relatively new program to
4-56
help communities develop and implement plans for restoring and protecting the environmental,
economic, and cultural values of rivers and riverfronts (EPA, 2009).
4.7.6.2
A STATE-PROTECTED RIVER SEGMENT
No state-protected river segments are in or affected by the proposed Project.
4.7.7
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT LANDS UNDER STUDY FOR INCLUSION IN THE NATIONAL
TRAILS SYSTEM OR AS A WILDERNESS AREA
No project lands are under study for inclusion in the National Trails System or as a Wilderness
Areas.
4.7.8
REGIONALLY OR NATIONALLY IMPORTANT RECREATION AREAS
THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE AND FISH REFUGE
The UMR NWFR is the largest river refuge in the continental United States, encompassing
approximately 240,000 acres of the Mississippi River floodplain in an almost continuous stretch
of 261 river miles from Wabash, Minnesota to near Rock Island, Illinois (USFWS, 2006). The
Refuge contains Pools 4 through 14, which includes the proposed Project site. Lock and Dam 9
is in the McGregor District of the UMR NWFR, which is generally located in the middle of the
Refuge (USFWS, 2011).
The Refuge provides a multitude of recreational opportunities including hunting, wildlife
observation and photography, fishing and boating, swimming and sunbathing, picnicking, hiking,
and camping. Waterfowl hunting makes up approximately 87 percent of recreational hunting,
while fishing brings over a million visitors each year to the Refuge. Hunting opportunities in the
vicinity of the Project are located primarily in Lake Onalaska, directly northeast of the Lock and
Dam facilities. The Refuge is located within a larger area called the Mississippi Flyway. Many
species of birds use this flyway twice a year during their migrations, drawing bird watchers to
the area year-round. Throughout the refuge, there are 15 observation decks for wildlife
observation and photography. Approximately 275,000 visitors frequent the Refuge annually for
waterfowl hunting and over a million visitors fish the Refuge throughout the year (USFWS,
2006). There are 26 USFWS managed boat landings with 700 parking spaces throughout the
Refuge (USFWS, 2006). The landings can generally accommodate flat-bottom boats, v-bottom
4-57
fishing boats, runabouts, powerboats, pontoon boats, canoes, and kayaks. Walk-in sites and
roadside pull-off areas also provide access to the Refuge (USFWS, 2006).
EFFIGY MOUNDS NATIONAL MONUMENT
The Effigy Mounds National Monument (Monument), established in 1949, is located
approximately 6 miles south of the proposed Project in Iowa, between Allamakee and Clayton
Counties. The National Park Service (NPS) governs the area, which encompasses 2,526 acres
(FFP, 2011). The site is listed in the Iowa National Register sites of the National Register of
Historic Places (NRHP) (Iowa, 2011). Woodland-period Indians built the mounds starting at
about 500 B.C and lasting until the early European contact period, though many of the mound
sites were lost when European settlers plowed the fields for agriculture (FFP, 2011, NPS, 2011).
THE GREAT RIVER ROAD
A 3,000-mile network of federal, state, and county roads makes up the Great River Road
National Scenic Byway, which parallels the Mississippi River on both sides from Lake Itasca,
Minnesota to the Gulf of Mexico (FFP, 2011). The Great River Road runs through 10 states,
providing access to a variety of recreational options as well as the chance to learn about the
river’s history and the blending of cultures along the waterway (FFP, 2011).
MISSISSIPPI RIVER TRAIL SYSTEM
The Mississippi River Trail, Inc., a non-governmental entity that works with local, state, and
federal agencies to find the funding to complete trail projects managed the Mississippi River
Trail (MRT). The MRT follows along the Mississippi River, providing approximately 3,000
miles of on-road bikeways and pedestrian and bicycle paths from Lake Itasca, Minnesota to the
Gulf of Mexico. The MRT is completing the system of trails and greenways that link together 17
National Parks and other trails (FFP, 2011). The proposed Project would not affect this effort.
4.7.9
NON-RECREATIONAL LAND USE AND MANAGEMENT WITHIN THE PROJECT BOUNDARY
Because of the small footprint of the Project, all non-recreational land use and management is
expected to remain within USACE jurisdiction. The proposed project boundary will encompass
the entire auxiliary navigational lock from the upstream to the downstream side as well as certain
land on the westerly side of the navigational locks for the provisioning of the switchyard and
4-58
control room. The USACE owns, operates, and securely maintains the facilities and property in
accordance with operations of its navigational locks.
The Applicant proposes to develop the Project in coordination with the USACE, which controls
access to, and facilities of, Lock and Dam 9. The Applicant will lease lands within the project
boundary from the USACE, enter into a formal MOA with the USACE, and develop an
Operation Plan in coordination with the USACE for the proposed Project.
Several laws, such as the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, the Clean Water Act, and the Marine
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, contain provisions for USACE regulation and
management of shoreline development and navigable waters alterations. Per USACE’s
Regulatory Program Regulations (33 CFR 320-331), permits are issued by the USACE for any
activities on the Mississippi River involving dredging, wetlands, or waterway structures such as
docks or piers (USACE, 2011).
The USACE has the authority to issue regional General Permits, and sanction specific activities
without an individual permit requirement. A number of permits will be required for this project.
Under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, a USACE permit is required to do any work in,
over or under a Navigable Water of the U.S. or to do any work that affects the course, location or
condition of the waterbody in such a manner as to impact on its navigable capacity (USACE,
2011). Under Section 404, a Corps permit is required for the discharge of dredged or fill material
into waters of the U.S., which include wetlands (USACE, 2011). Section 408 of the Rivers and
Harbors Act requires the USACE Chief of Engineers approve any modification of a USACE
structure. The Applicant will pursue both of these permits and others that may be required as part
of the Project.
4.7.10 RECREATIONAL AND NON-RECREATIONAL LAND USE AND MANAGEMENT ADJACENT TO
THE PROJECT BOUNDARY
The USACE’s Lock and Dam 9 spans the Mississippi between the counties of Crawford in
Wisconsin and Allamakee in Iowa, which are approximately 573 and 640 square miles,
respectively (US Census, 2011a; US Census 2011b). Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources includes Crawford County in what is known as Region 8. In comparison to the state of
Wisconsin overall, Region 8 is largely more agricultural, with a lot less residential and
4-59
commercial property. Forestland is also dominant in the region, but there is very little
conservation land (WDNR, 2010). Likewise, Allamakee County is largely rural with the majority
of land use being agricultural or recreational. In general, urban development takes a secondary
role to agriculture and recreation (Allamakee, 2001). Both Crawford and Allamakee Counties
have comprehensive management plans to guide planning, development, and land use (Crawford,
2010; Allamakee, 2001).
The USACE is primarily responsible for managing the UMR navigation channel, including the
locks and dams and adjacent recreational areas. Adjacent to the proposed Project site, some state,
federal, and local agencies have managing authority. The UMR NWFR manages recreational
land adjacent to the site and the states manage some parks and forests in addition to some
wildlife management areas both along the UMR and within the project vicinity. Table 4-5
provides notable management throughout the states of Wisconsin and Iowa.
TABLE 4-5. NOTABLE STATE MANAGEMENT AREAS
LOCATION
AREA
(ACRES)
Wisconsin
Tiffany Bottoms Wildlife Area
12,740
Whitman Dam Wildlife Area
2,173
Merrick State Park
320
Perrot State Park
1,270
Van Loon Wildlife Area
3,981
Rush Creek State Natural Area
2,265
Wyalusing State Park
2,628
Wyalusing Unit Lower Wisconsin State Riverway 690
Total for Wisconsin
26,067
Great River State Trail
24 miles
Iowa
Pool Slough Wildlife Management Area
555
Fish Farm Mounds Wildlife Management Area
576
Village Creek Area
52
Yellow River State Forest
8,503
Pike’s Peak State Park
970
Mines of Spain State Recreation Area
1,387
Bellevue State Park
770
Green Island Wildlife Management Area
3,722
Princeton Wildlife Management Area
1,208
Total for Iowa
17,743
Source: USFWS, 2006
4-60
During initial consultation, the IA DNR identified potential issues pertaining to Project impacts
to tailwater recreation use. However, the Applicant proposes to operate the Project in a run-ofriver mode with no affect to USACE operations of the navigational lock or the dam, and no
change to pool elevations or tailwater flows from existing conditions. Additionally, the proposed
Project’s limited footprint will not affect existing recreation access near the Lock and Dam.
A Draft Desktop Hydraulic Modeling and Sediment Transport Study Plan will provide necessary
information to determine how the proposed Project may alter flow patterns and eddying and, if
there is altered habitat, where it is likely to reestablish.
4.7.12 PROPOSED MITIGATION AND ENHANCEMENT MEASURES
Several standard license articles outline PM&E measures required by the project license.
Standard Terms and Conditions Article 13 provides for public access to project lands and waters
for recreation. The proposed Project will not occupy any shoreline areas and will be located on
USACE lands and waters, which are fully restricted from public access. Recreation facilities are
not appropriate within these secured areas. The Applicant will file a public safety plan for the
Project with the Commission and the USACE.
4.7.13 REFERENCES
Allamakee County Planning and Zoning Commission. 2001. Allamakee County Comprehensive
Plan.
Crawford County. 2010. Crawford County Comprehensive Plan 2009-2029.
National Park Service (NPS). 2011. Effigy Mounds. [Online] URL:
http://www.nps.gov/efmo/planyourvisit/index.htm. Accessed May 20, 2011.
State Historical Society of Iowa (Iowa). 2011. National Register Sites in Iowa. [Online] URL:
http://www.iowahistory.org/historic-preservation/national-register-of-historicplaces/properties-in-iowa.html. Accessed May 23, 2011.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), St. Paul District. 2011. Overview of Corps’ Permit
Programs. [Online] URL:
http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/regulatory/default.asp?pageid=740. Accessed May 17,
2011.
4-61
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006a. Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006b. Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and
Fish Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Comprehensive Conservation
Plan. [Online] URL: http://www.fws.gov/midwest/planning/uppermiss/feis/FinalEIS.pdf.
US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge
Maps. [Online] URL: http://www.fws.gov/midwest/UpperMississippiRiver/maps.html.
Updated December 28, 2010. Accessed May, 18, 2011.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2010. Regional Profile: Region 8,
Buffalo County, Crawford County, Grant County, La Crosse County. Monroe County,
Richland County, Trempealeau County, Vernon County. July 2010.
4.8
AESTHETIC RESOURCES [§ 5.6 (D)(3)(IX)]
In July 1937, construction was complete on Lock and Dam 9, and it went into operation.
Between 1989 and 2006, it underwent a major rehabilitation. The normal pool elevation behind
the dam is 620 feet, and the dam forms Pool 9. The dam consists of an 811-foot-long concrete
structure, five roller gates and eight tainter gates. The structures also include an earth
embankment with a secondary spillway. No part of the proposed Project will change visible
aspects of the existing USACE facilities.
Along the river, immediately downstream and upstream of the dam are a large number of
uninhabited and verdant islands without bridge access to the shore. These mostly finger-shaped
islands dominate the landscape making the backwaters of the dam aesthetically pleasing. The
landscape in the vicinity of the Project is dominated by small farms, forests, and steep terrain,
and most areas directly adjacent to the river on both sides are largely uninhabited (FFP, 2011).
4.8.1
Overhead transmission lines could possibly be a potential aesthetic effect. As discussed above,
the Applicant has conducted a preliminary interconnection survey. Though a potential
connection has been identified, transmission line alternatives are still being considered, and as
such, the need for transmission line surveys will be determined through consultation once a final
transmission route has been determined.
4-62
4.8.2
The Applicant’s proposed facilities will be located immediately downstream and within the
existing auxiliary lock. The switchyard will be constructed and maintained in a manner
appropriate to the nature of the existing USACE structures.
4.8.3
REFERENCES
4.9
CULTURAL RESOURCES [§ 5.6 (D)(3)(X)]
Human occupation within the UMR Basin likely began more than 12,000 years ago.
Archaeological records include the earliest evidence in the project vicinity dating to the
Paleoindian period (12,000 Before Present (B.P.) to 7500 B.P). Paleoindians are characterized as
small family groups of nomadic hunter/gatherers that depended heavily upon Pleistocene
mammals such as mammoth, mastodon, bison, and caribou. Undisturbed sites from this culture
are very rare and much of what is known about this period is derived from kill sites and through
surface finds of fluted spear points. Several sites within the project vicinity are reported to
contain Paleoindian components (USFWS, 2006; USFWS, 2008).
The Archaic period (9000 B.P. to 3000 B.P.) followed the Paleoindian period. People of this
tradition adapted their subsistence practices to changing environmental and habitat resources
associated with a warming climate by incorporating small game species and a broader range of
plant species into their diets. Extensive trade routes brought in exotic materials. Sites within the
project vicinity have components from late in the Archaic period, although none with human
remains (USFWS, 2006; USFWS, 2008).
The Woodland tradition began approximately 3,000 years ago (3000 B.P. to 700 B.P.).
Hunter/gatherers still dominated the subsistence strategy but people lived in larger, semipermanent villages, practiced horticulture, and participated in long distance trade. Archeological
sites from this period in the project vicinity usually include ceramics/pottery, arrowheads, and
earthen mounds used for human burials and for other purposes. Human remains have also been
4-63
excavated from non-mound sites. Europeans coming into the UMR valley encountered people of
the Woodland culture (USFWS, 2006; USFWS, 2008).
The Middle Mississippian (1000 to 500 B.P.) tradition started in the Saint Louis area moved up
the Mississippi River and its tributaries. There are few documented cultural sites in the project
vicinity from the Middle Mississippian period. There is more recorded cultural evidence of the
Oneota, a related cultural likely to have developed from the Late Woodland culture, as a result of
the arrival of corn and interaction with Middle Mississippian cultures. The Oneota were farmers
who cultivated corn and supplemented their diets by fishing and hunting. The present day
Winnebago are believed to be descendants of the Oneota (USFWS, 2006; USFWS, 2008).
The Mississippi River was the major route of European exploration and subsequent Western
culture population growth and development. The fur trade was first established the fur trade in
the UMR Valley by the French who maintained it from about 1610 through the early 1760s. The
British took control of the fur trade in the 1760s and dominated it until the War of 1812.
Subsequent to the war, Americans controlled the regional trade until it collapsed in the late 1840s
and early 1850s (USFWS, 2008).
Between 1830 and 1890, the Mississippi River served as a transportation route for logs to St.
Louis from the forestry operations of northern Wisconsin and Minnesota. Until the introduction
of the railroads during the late 19th century, steamboats were primary means of shipping goods
in the river valley (USFWS, 2008). During the late 19th century, several improvements were
made to the Mississippi River to improve navigation. The USACE constructed several dams on
lakes in the headwaters area beginning in the 1880s to help maintain channel depth by releasing
stored spring run-off during period of low flow. Beginning in 1878, Congress authorized several
channel projects on the river. The first project authorized a 4.5-foot deep channel and wing dams,
the second authorized a 6-foot channel and the current 9-foot deep channel project was
authorized in 1930 under the Rivers and Harbors Act. The Act authorized the 9-foot navigation
channel and a series of 23 locks and dams, including Lock and Dam 9 (USACE, 1985).
4-64
4.9.1
IDENTIFICATION OF ANY HISTORIC OR ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE IN THE PROPOSED
PROJECT VICINITY, WITH PARTICULAR EMPHASIS ON SITES OR PROPERTIES EITHER
LISTED IN, OR RECOMMENDED BY THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER OR
TRIBAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER FOR INCLUSION IN, THE NATIONAL
REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
There are no properties listed on the NRHP for Crawford County by the Wisconsin SHPO
(Wisconsin, 2011). One property, the Effigy Mounds National Monument, has been identified as
NRHP listed for Allamakee County, Iowa (Iowa, 2011). Additional information about the
Monument, which is located 6 miles from Lock and Dam 9, is provided under Recreational
Resources.
In 1986, Lock and Dams 3 through 10 in USACE’s St. Paul District, which includes Lock and
Dam 9, were determined eligible for inclusion in the NRHP listing. At the time, the locks and
dams were less than 50 years old; however, they were deemed eligible despite the 50-year rule
because of the importance of the 9-foot channel navigation project and its representation of the
two presidential administrations who shared credit for its construction (USACE, 1983).
4.9.2
EXISTING DISCOVERY MEASURES, SUCH AS SURVEYS, INVENTORIES, AND LIMITED
SUBSURFACE TESTING WORK, FOR THE PURPOSE OF LOCATING, IDENTIFYING, AND
ASSESSING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES THAT
HAVE BEEN UNDERTAKEN WITHIN OR ADJACENT TO THE PROJECT BOUNDARY
The Applicant is unaware of any surveys or testing performed within the project boundary, and
given the extensive history of development and previous disturbance at the site would not expect
such surveys to show any resources of significance. The proposed Project footprint is extremely
limited, and the proposed Project occurs on existing and disturbed facilities and land at that
USACE facilities. However, the Applicant has requested a site file search from the Iowa Office
of the State Archaeologist.
The structural integrity, scenic character, and historic significance of Lock and Dam 9 will
remain unchanged under the proposed action. Nevertheless, the Applicant will conduct
installation and operation in consultation, to the extent it is desired, with the Wisconsin SHPO,
Iowa SHPO, and Indian tribes.
4-65
4.9.3
IDENTIFICATION OF INDIAN TRIBES THAT MAY ATTACH RELIGIOUS AND CULTURAL
SIGNIFICANCE TO HISTORIC PROPERTIES WITHIN THE PROJECT BOUNDARY OR IN THE
PROJECT VICINITY; AS WELL AS AVAILABLE INFORMATION ON INDIAN TRADITIONAL
CULTURAL AND RELIGIOUS PROPERTIES, WHETHER ON OR OFF OF ANY FEDERALLYRECOGNIZED INDIAN RESERVATION.
The Applicant is not aware of any Indian tribes that have an active interest within the project
boundary or vicinity. However, consultation and outreach will continue to occur under the FERC
licensing process.
4.9.4
In a June 14, 2011 letter, the Wisconsin Historical Society recommended that the project area
undergo an archeological survey. However, based on refinement of the project boundary, the
Applicant believes that the Project is limited to an area that has been previously heavily
disturbed and dredged. Therefore, the Applicant is requesting further consultation to determine
the scope and need for additional investigations. In addition, as mentioned above, the Applicant
has requested an archeological site record search of the project area from the Office of the State
Archeologist in Iowa. Given the limited footprint of the Project, the Applicant believes that these
results and further consultation with the Wisconsin SHPO will adequately determine the
presence of cultural resources in the area.
The Applicant is not proposing any structural modifications to the USACE facilities. The
proposed Project will utilize existing river flows at the Lock and Dam 9 and will have no effect
on pool elevations. USACE will continue to control elevations in Pool 9 through coordinated
operations of the Lock and Dam system on the Mississippi River and the proposed Project will
have no effect on these operations. Therefore, the proposed Project will have no effect on
cultural resources if they exist in the project vicinity.
The Applicant will consult with the State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) of both states
and with the USACE. The Applicant is not proposing any additional cultural resource surveys.
4-66
4.9.5
Prior to construction, the Applicant will notify and consult with the Wisconsin and Iowa SHPOs
regarding any new construction or ground disturbing activities. The Applicant proposes no
additional PM&E measures.
4.9.6
REFERENCES
State Historical Society of Iowa (Iowa). 2011. National Register Sites in Iowa, Allamakee
County. [Online] URL: http://www.iowahistory.org/historic-preservation/nationalregister-of-historic-places/properties-in-iowa.html. Accessed May 23, 2011.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1985. Mississippi River Navigation. [Online] URL:
http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/pao/history/MISSRNAV/index.asp. Accessed May 25,
2011.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1983. Overview and Cultural Resources Compliance
Report with a Programmatic Memorandum of Agreement. Major Rehabilitation Program
Mississippi River Locks and Dams 3 – 10 in the St. Paul District.
http://www.fws.gov/midwest/planning/Trempealeau/ccp/CCP.pdf. Accessed September
11, 2009.
Wisconsin Historical Society (WHS). 2011. Wisconsin National Register of Historic Places,
Crawford County. [Online] URL:
http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/hp/register/summary.asp#nav. Accessed May 23, 2011.
4.10
SOCIO-ECONOMIC RESOURCES [§ 5.6 (D)(3)(XI)]
The following is a summary of selected socioeconomic variables for the project vicinity,
including Crawford County, Wisconsin and Allamakee County, Iowa, as well as the UMR
Corridor in general. The nearest town to the proposed Project is Lynxville, Wisconsin.
4.10.1 POPULATION PATTERNS
In 2009, an estimated 16,731 people were living in Crawford County, Wisconsin (Table 4-6).
14,407 people were living in Allamakee County, Iowa in 2009. From 2000 to 2009, the
4-67
populations of the counties changed by -3.0 percent and -1.8 percent, respectively. The
population changes for Crawford County were below the growth experienced statewide in
Wisconsin during that time (5.4 percent). Similarly, the population changes for Allamakee
County were below the growth experienced statewide in Iowa during that time (2.8 percent).
Population densities are significantly lower in each county compared to statewide densities.
Crawford County had 30.1 persons per square mile per square mile compared to 98.8 persons per
square mile in Wisconsin, while Allamakee County had a population density of 22.9 persons per
square mile compared with 52.4 persons per square mile for the state of Iowa (US Census,
2011a; US Census, 2011b).
TABLE 4-6.
POPULATION STATISTICS FOR WINONA AND HOUSTON COUNTIES AND
MINNESOTA
CRAWFORD
ALLAMAKEE
COUNTY,
COUNTY,
WISCONSIN
IOWA
Population
Population (2009 estimate)
16,731
Population (2000)
17,245
Population Growth (2000 to 2009)
-3.0%
Geography (2000)
Land area in square miles
572.69
Population Density (ppl/sq mi)
30.1
Gender (2009)
Male
51.2%
Female
48.8%
Age (2009)
Persons under 5 years old
5.8%
Persons under 18 years old
22.7%
Persons 18 to 64 years old
54.3%
Persons 65 years old and over
17.2%
Race (2009)
Caucasian
96.4%
Black
2.2%
American Indian and Alaska Native
0.3%
Asian
0.3%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific
-Islander
Hispanic or Latino
1.1%
Two or more races
0.8%
Source: US Census, 2011a; US Census, 2011b
4-68
14,407
14,675
-1.8%
639.56
22.9
51.4%
48.6%
6.9%
23.8%
50.8%
18.5%
98.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
-9.1%
0.8%
4.10.2 HOUSEHOLD/FAMILY DISTRIBUTION AND INCOME
In 2000, there were 6,677 households in Crawford County. There were 5,722 households in
Allamakee County. Both counties had slightly fewer than 2.5 persons per household, which is
approximately the national average. The median household income in 2008 was $41,646 for
Crawford County and $39,049 for Allamakee, with both counties falling below the median
average for their respective states. About 12 percent of the population in Crawford County and
12.6 percent of the population in Allamakee County is below the poverty level (US Census,
2011a; US Census, 2011b).
4.10.3 PROJECT VICINITY EMPLOYMENT SOURCES
The largest employment sectors are the same in both Crawford County, Wisconsin and
Allamakee County, Iowa. The majority of the workforce in both counties is employed in the
manufacturing industry, with the retail trade and health care and social assistance sectors
following (US Census, 2011a; US Census, 2011b). Agriculture is also important in each county.
Farms in Crawford County average approximately 199 acres and sell approximately $32,649 in
products annually. In Allamakee County, agriculture is even more important with farms
averaging 301 acres with an average of $84,049 in sales annually. Families or individuals own
and operate most of the farms in both counties. Livestock, poultry, and their products account for
a majority of the sales (FFP, 2011).
TABLE 4-7.
LARGEST EMPLOYMENT SECTORS AS OF 2002
CRAWFORD
ALLAMAKEEC
COUNTY,
OUNTY,
WISCONSIN
IOWA
Manufacturing
Employees
Annual Payroll
Value of Sales, Shipments, or Receipts
Retail Trade
Employees
Annual Payroll
Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees
Annual Payroll
Accommodation & Food Service
Employees
1,767
$51,179,000
$558,820,000
1,630
$43,253,000
$358,273,000
1,357
$19,629,000
$180,451,000
599
$10,024,000
$112,879,000
1,213
$25,986,000
$51,766,000
759
$14,401,000
$29,296,000
689
277
4-69
CRAWFORD
COUNTY,
WISCONSIN
$5,746,000
$19,442,000
ALLAMAKEEC
OUNTY,
IOWA
$1,690,000
$6,958,000
Annual Payroll
Wholesale Trade
Employees
205
414
Annual Payroll
$5,507,000
$9,864,000
Value of Sales, Shipments, or Receipts $55,918,000
$148,221,000
Source: US Census, 2011a; US Census, 2011b; FFP, 2011
4.10.4 THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER CORRIDOR’S REGIONAL ECONOMY
Many of the socioeconomic resources in the region have a relationship to the Mississippi River,
whether directly or indirectly. Three of the ten dominant sectors (harvest of natural resources;
recreation; and minerals and mining) rely directly on the River. Indirectly, the tourism and
cultural resources sector along with the natural resources service sector rely on the River. The
last five sectors rely on the River for transportation or water source, including water supply;
agriculture; energy; commercial navigation; and manufacturing (FFP, 2011). The proposed
Project will fall within the economic profile of the region in the energy sector by providing a
source of renewable energy and decreasing reliance on fossil fuels.
The proposed Project is likely to have a significant positive effect on the local economy. These
effects will stem directly from the Project installation and operation as they create local jobs and
indirectly through the fabrication and manufacture of the Project components.
The proposed Project will also provide low cost and renewable energy, supplying the energy
needs of the region without contributing to water or air pollution. Though the Project will be
operated remotely, operations and maintenance at the Project will be periodically necessary and
will support employment, as will installation of the Project.
The Applicant believes that sufficient socioeconomic data are available for the project vicinity to
assess potential effects of Project installation and operation in the region, and therefore, proposes
no additional studies.
4-70
4.10.6 REFERENCES
US Census. 2011a. QuickFacts: Crawford County, Wisconsin. [Online] URL:
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/55/55023.html. Accessed May 23, 2011.
US Census. 2011b. QuickFacts: Allamakee County, Iowa. [Online] URL:
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/19/19005.html. Accessed May 23, 2011.
4.11
TRIBAL RESOURCES [§ 5.6 (D)(3)(XII)]
Primarily 12 historical Native American groups utilized or inhabited the UMR Valley Region
within the project vicinity. Several of these groups originated in the region, while others
immigrated. The tribes of the project vicinity include (USFWS, 2008):
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ioway,
Ho-Chunk,
Ottawa,
Huron,
Miami,
Eastern Dakota,
Menominee,
Mascouten,
Kickapoo,
Sauk,
Meshwaki, and
Potowatomi.
The Applicant contacted tribes as indicated on FERC’s Initial Consultation Contact List for the
states of Iowa and Wisconsin regarding the proposed Project. They will receive this PAD
(FERC, 2001a; FERC, 2011b). In addition, the Applicant has engaged in outreach with the BIA’s
Midwest Regional Division. The BIA will issue a formal determination regarding the proposed
Project and its impact on tribal interests. Through the course of outreach to date, the Applicant
has not identified any Indian tribes, tribal lands, and interests that the Project may affect;
therefore, there are no anticipated required or voluntary PM&E measures for this resource.
4-71
4.11.1 REFERENCES
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2011a. Initial Consultation Contact List:
Wisconsin Tribes. [Online] URL:
http://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/enviro/Results.aspx. Accessed May 23, 2011.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2011b. Initial Consultation Contact List: Iowa
Tribes. [Online] URL: http://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/enviro/Results.aspx.
http://www.fws.gov/midwest/planning/Trempealeau/ccp/CCP.pdf. Accessed May 23,
2011.
4.12
RIVER BASIN DESCRIPTION [§ 5.6 (D)(3)(XIII)]
4.12.1 AREA OF RIVER BASIN AND SUB-BASIN AND LENGTH OF STREAM REACHES
The Mississippi River flows for 2,340 miles from its source in Lake Itasca in Minnesota to its
mouth in the Gulf of Mexico. The basin is comprised of 6 sub-basins and drains over 40 percent
of the continental United States in the area between the Rocky Mountains and Appalachian
Mountains (NPS, 2010; EPA, 2009).
The USACE Lock and Dam 9 and the proposed Project are located in the UMR Basin. The UMR
Basin is a major sub-basin of the entire Mississippi River, covering approximately 189,190
square miles - about 15 percent of the entire Mississippi River drainage basin. Over 1,300
tributaries covering over 800 miles of river and approximately 30,700 miles of stream flow
through the UMR Basin (USFWS, 2006).
4.12.2 MAJOR LAND AND WATER USE IN PROJECT AREA
4.12.2.1 LAND USE
Since the 19th century, agriculture has been the primary land use of the UMR basin (NPS, 2010).
More than 60 percent of the land area in the UMR sub-basin is devoted to cropland or pasture
(Figure 4-12) (USFWS, 2006). Forestlands border the northern reaches and southern tip of the
basin. The cities of Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota and St. Louis, Missouri limit and dominate
urban lands (USGS, 2003).
4-72
FIGURE 4-12. LAND USE OF THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN
Source: USGS, 2003
WATER USE
The Mississippi River provides drinking water to millions of people, is a major transportation
route and a warm water habitat for aquatic life, provides numerous recreational opportunities,
and is a source of water for manufacturing and power generation. Agriculture, urban
development, precipitation, and water retention and diversion structures installed throughout the
Mississippi River basin influence water flow within the entire basin. Periods of high flow are a
result of increased precipitation and runoff from the basin's tributary streams and can contribute
to water quality issues associated with non-point source pollution. Periods of low flow resulting
from drought can affect water quality by amplifying the effects of point source discharges, as
there is less river water available for the dilution of wastewater inputs (EPA, 2002). Millions of
people visit the UMR every year to participate in boating, fishing, swimming, and other on-water
activities. Annual recreational expenditures on the UMR System exceed $1.2 billion (USGS,
2007).
4-73
4.12.3 ALL DAMS AND DIVERSION STRUCTURES IN THE BASIN OR SUB-BASIN, REGARDLESS OF
FUNCTION
From its source at Lake Itsaca to St. Louis, Missouri, 43 dams on the Mississippi River regulate
flow. Fourteen dams are located on the UMR between Lake Itsaca and Minneapolis, Minnesota
and serve multiple purposes including power generation and recreation. 29 Lock and Dams have
been constructed between Minneapolis and St. Louis, Missouri for the purposes of navigation
(USACE, 2004a; USACE, 2004b). There are no dams located on the Lower Mississippi River
below the confluence with the Ohio River.
The majority of dams and diversion structures on the UMR were constructed for the purposes of
improving navigation. Structural changes to enhance navigation on the Mississippi River began
in the 1830s with the blasting of the 5-foot navigation channel through Des Moines Rapids. From
the mid-1800s to the early 1900s, other channels were dredged on the river and wing dams were
installed to direct river current to the main channel for the purposes of navigation and to prevent
bank erosion (USFWS, 2006).
In 1930, Congress authorized the Mississippi River and Tributaries project, which consisted of a
system of levees, floodways, channel improvements, and stabilization measures. In addition, the
project called for USACE construction, operation, and maintenance of a 9-foot navigation
channel on the UMR system. This reach of the Mississippi River from Minneapolis to St. Louis
stretches 670 miles and has a 400-foot elevation gradient. The navigation dams create a series of
stair-stepped navigation pools allowing through navigation for boats and barges (Figure 4-13)
(USFWS, 2006; USGS, 2007).
4-74
FIGURE 4-13. LOCKS AND DAMS OF THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER
Source: USGS, 1998
4-75
USACE’s St. Paul District operates and maintains 13 locks and dams, one of which is the Lock
and Dam 9, the site of the proposed Project (USACE, 2004a). Lock and Dam 9 impounds Pool 9,
the lower portion of which is also known as Lake Winneshiek, a 6,000 acre backwater lake on
the Wisconsin side of the River. In the spring of 2011, the USACE will be planning for a
proposed project to create two 8,000-foot-islands in the center if the lake to help to reduce wave
action to minimize the associated turbidity and habitat loss (USACE, 2011).
4.12.4 TRIBUTARY RIVERS AND STREAMS, THE RESOURCES OF WHICH ARE OR MAY BE
AFFECTED BY PROJECT OPERATIONS
The UMR runs approximately 800 miles from its headwaters to the confluence with the Ohio
River at Cairo, MO. The basin has 12 major tributaries, with drainage areas greater than 4, 000
sq miles (Table 4-8). The total mapped length of basin streams is approximately 30,700 miles
(USGS, 1998).
TABLE 4-8.
MAJOR TRIBUTARIES TO THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER
Source: USGS, 1998
4-76
Sixteen minor tributaries enter upstream of Pool 9 (FFP, 2011):
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Hayshore Lake (River right)
Mud Lake (River right)
Winnebago Creek (River right)
Bad Axe River (River left)
Upper Iowa River (River right)
Big Lake (River right)
Clear Creek (River right)
Columbus Lake (River left)
Village Creek (River right)
Rush Creek (River left)
Lake Winneshiek (River left)
Sugar Creek (River left)
Buck Creek (River left)
Copper Creek (River left)
Wexford Creek (River right)
Leitner Creek (River left)
Project operations will not affect any major tributaries of the UMR or minor tributaries of Pool 9.
4.12.5 REFERENCES
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009. Mississippi River Sub-basin. [Online] URL:
http://www.epa.gov/msbasin/subbasin.htm. Accessed May 14, 2009.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002. Upper Mississippi River Water Quality
Assessment Report. [Online] URL: http://www.epa.gov/r5water/pdf/umr_wqa_full.pdf.
Prepared March 2002. Accessed May 13, 2011.
National Park Service (NPS). 2010. Mississippi River Facts. [Online] URL:
http://www.nps.gov/miss/riverfacts.htm. Updated December 2, 2010. Accessed May 23,
2011.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2004a. Mississippi Locks and dams. [Online] URL:
http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/navigation/default.asp?pageid=145. Updated December
16, 2004. Accessed May 23, 2011.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2004b. History of the Mississippi River and Tributaries
Project. [Online] URL: www.mvn.usace.army.mil/pao/bro/misstrib.htm. Updated May
19, 2004. Accessed May 23, 2011.
4-77
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2011. Lake Winneshiek Habitat Project. [Online] URL:
http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/environment/default.asp?pageid=82#. Accessed May 23,
2011.
http://www.fws.gov/Midwest/planning/uppermiss/CCP/CCP.pdf. Accessed May 14,
2009.
US Geological Survey (USGS). 2007. Upper Mississippi River System. [Online] URL:
http://www.umesc.usgs.gov/umesc_about/about_umrs.html. Accessed May 14, 2009.
US Geological Survey (USGS). 2003. Nutrients in the Upper Mississippi River: Scientific
Information to Support Management Decisions. Fact Sheet 105-03. [Online] URL:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2003/fs-105-03/. Accessed May 14, 2009.
US Geological Survey (USGS). 1998. Ecological Status and Trends of the Upper Mississippi
River System: A Report of the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program. [Online] URL:
http://www.umesc.usgs.gov/reports_publications/status_and_trends.html. Accessed May
14, 2009.
4-78
5.0
PRELIMINARY ISSUES AND STUDIES LIST FOR EACH
RESOURCE AREA [§ 5.6 (D)(4)]
5.1
ISSUES PERTAINING TO THE IDENTIFIED RESOURCES
A primary purpose of this PAD is to identify potential environmental issues associated with
Project installation or operation and to determine if additional information is necessary to
understand potential Project effects on those resources. To assist in early identification of any
issues, the Applicant distributed a PAD questionnaire to a comprehensive distribution list
(including state, federal, and local resources agencies, and local and national NGOs) to
determine if these stakeholders had existing information about resources at or near the proposed
Project.
The Applicant used the information provided by the agencies and stakeholders, in addition to its
own research, to develop baseline descriptions of the resources described above in Section 4.0.
Additionally in Section 4.0, the Applicant discusses preliminary issues for potentially affected
resources. The Applicant does not anticipate any issues pertaining to the identified resources
beyond those described above, and provides more detail on proposed study plans below.
5.2
POTENTIAL STUDIES AND INFORMATION GATHERING REQUIREMENTS ASSOCIATED
WITH THE IDENTIFIED ISSUES;
Applicant proposed studies proposed to address identified potential issues are discussed below.
The Applicant believes that additional studies will not be necessary beyond the following:
•
Desktop Entrainment/Impingement Study
•
Desktop Sediment Quality and Quantity Study,
•
Desktop Hydraulic Modeling and Sediment Transport Study,
•
Desktop Water Quality Study, and
•
Mussel Survey, if existing studies are not sufficient
Desktop Entr ainment/Impingement Study
The Applicant proposes a Desktop Entrainment/Impingement Study to assess potential project
effects on fish mortality and injury using existing literature and site-specific information. The
FERC routinely accepts this approach, including similar studies at recent hydropower projects in
5-1
the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (MISO) territory. Due to the
exceedingly positive results of the fish mortality and entrainment study conducted by HGE at its
Hastings, MN project and the overly-conservative estimates by the Desktop Study conducted
prior to installation, the Applicant has hard and tested data showing that Desktop Studies are
more than adequate to represent what may be expected at the Project.
Not all fish species occurring above and below Lock and Dam 9 may be susceptible to
entrainment based on habitat use, behavior and swimming abilities relative to the placement of
the project turbines in the water column. Accordingly, the Applicant will determine potential risk
first by identifying fish species that are potentially subject to impingement and entrainment, and
then by assessing likelihood of mortality based on the design parameters of the turbine array with
respect to intake profiles and approach velocities.
Desktop Sediment Quality and Quantity Study and Desktop Hydr aulic Modeling and
Sediment Tr anspor t Study
The Applicant proposes to conduct a Desktop Hydraulic Modeling and Sediment Transport
Study and a Desktop Sediment Quality and Quantity Study to determine the effects of a new
flow pattern on sedimentation rates and potential water quality issues associated with
sedimentation and erosion in the new tailwater. Proposed study measures include gathering
bathymetric data and sediment data from a small pontoon boat using hand-operated sampling
equipment. Sediment core sampling at seven distinct locations in areas above, in and below the
auxiliary lock would be collected for chemical analysis of the EPA priority pollutant list (129
analytes), polybrominates, organic carbon, and water content.
Desktop Water Quality Study
As part of the licensing process, the Applicant proposes to conduct a literature review and
synthesis of existing data to describe the baseline water quality conditions in the vicinity of the
proposed Project. The objective of this effort will be to characterize the trends in dissolved
oxygen (DO), water temperature, and turbidity occurring immediately upstream and downstream
of the existing dam, as well as overall spatial and temporal trends in the UMR. Particular focus
will be places on characterization of the late summer months when water quality conditions are
typically at their most critical levels. To the extent practicable, the best and most recent data for
5-2
the project area will be used to characterize baseline conditions. For instance, effort to
characterize pools upstream of the dam will utilize vertical profile data whenever possible in
order to capture chemical and thermal stratification patterns typical of impoundments.
The Applicant proposes the literature review/data synthesis approach based on an initial review,
which revealed that significant pertinent data already exists for the UMR. Furthermore, it has
been identified that sampling is continuing to presently take place along the UMR through longterm monitoring programs. As such, every effort will be made to utilize contemporary data
within the analysis. Known databases that will be reviewed include:
1. USGS Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center – Upper Mississippi Long Term
Resource Monitoring Program ;
2. USEPA - Environmental Monitoring and Assessment of Great River Ecosystems
(EMAP-GRE);
3. USEPA Upper Mississippi River Water Quality Assessment Report (2002) with data
supplements through 2005; and
4. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers On-Site Data.
Pertinent data will be synthesized into a draft Desktop Water Quality Report, which will be
distributed to resource agencies and other interested stakeholders for review. Following review
by licensing stakeholders, a final report will be filed with the Commission.
MUSSEL SURVEY
Unless existing data is adequate, the Applicant proposes conducting a mussel survey of the
project area to determine the presence or absence of freshwater mussel species and/or mussel
habitat above, below, and in the auxiliary lock. The Applicant will consult with resource
agencies to determine if existing information is available to address mussels within the project
area. If mussel surveys are deemed necessary through agency consultation, the Applicant will
work with resources agencies regarding the timing of the surveys, as they may be seasonally
dependant.
5-3
5.3
RELEVANT QUALIFYING FEDERAL AND STATE OR TRIBAL COMPREHENSIVE WATERWAY
PLANS
Section 10(a) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. § 803(a)(2)(A), requires FERC to
consider the extent to which a project is consistent with Federal or state comprehensive plans for
improving, developing, or conserving a waterway or waterways affected by the Project. On April
27, 1988, FERC issued Order No. 481—A revising Order No. 481, issued October 26, 1987,
establishing that FERC will accord FPA Section 10(a)(2)(A) comprehensive plan status to any
Federal or state plan that:
•
•
•
is a comprehensive study of one or more of the beneficial uses of a waterway or
waterways;
specifies the standards, the data, and the methodology used; and
is filed with the Secretary of the Commission.
FERC currently lists 72 comprehensive plans for the state of Wisconsin and nine comprehensive
plans for the state of Iowa. Table 5-1 lists potentially relevant plans that may be useful in the
licensing proceeding for characterizing desired conditions.
TABLE 5-1.
LIST OF QUALIFYING FEDERAL AND STATE COMPREHENSIVE WATERWAY
PLANS POTENTIALLY RELEVANT TO THE LOCK AND DAM 9 PROJECT
RESOURCE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Water Resources,
National Park Service (NPS). 1982. The nationwide rivers
Recreation, and
inventory. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. January
Aesthetics
1982
Water Resources
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR). 1983.
Statewide outstanding rivers inventory. St. Paul, Minnesota. April
1979. 45 pp.
Water Resources
National Park Service (NPS). 1982. The nationwide rivers
inventory. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. January.
1982.
Water, Wildlife, Cultural Mississippi Headwaters Board. 1981. A management plan for the
Resources, and
Upper Mississippi River. Grand Rapids, Minnesota. 1981. 120 pp.
Aesthetics
Wildlife Resources
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Canadian Wildlife
Service (CWS). 1986. North American waterfowl management
plan. Department of the Interior. Environment Canada. May 1986.
Wildlife Resources
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1993. Upper Mississippi
River & Great Lakes region joint venture implementation plan: A
component of the North American waterfowl management plan.
March 1993.
5-4
RESOURCE
Aquatic Resources
Recreation
Recreation
Water, Wildlife, and
Botanical Resources
Water Resources
Water Resources
Water Resources
Wildlife Resources
Wildlife Resources
Wildlife Resources
Wildlife Resources
Aquatic Resources
Wildlife, Aquatic, and
Botanical Resources
Wildlife Resources
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1983. Higgins Eye
(Lampsilis higginsi) mussel recovery plan. Prepared by the
Higgins Eye Mussel Recovery Team. Twin Cities, Minnesota. July
29, 1983.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 1991.
Wisconsin Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan
(SCORP) for 1991-96. Madison Wisconsin. October 1991.
Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). 1986. Iowa State
Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). Des Moines,
Iowa.
Upper Mississippi River Basin Commission (UMRBC). 1981.
Comprehensive master plan for the management of the Upper
Mississippi River system- environmental report. Minneapolis,
Minnesota. September 1981. 340 pp.
Upper Mississippi River Basin Commission (UMRBC). 1982.
Comprehensive master plan for the management of the Upper
Mississippi River system. Minneapolis, Minnesota. January 1,
1982. 193 pp.
Iowa Conservation Commission. 1981. Iowa Protected Water
Areas General Plan. Des Moines, Iowa. March 1981. 201 pp.
Wisconsin Water Quality Assessment Report to Congress.
Madison, Wisconsin. April 1992. 220 pp.
Wisconsin Red-necked Grebe Recovery Plan. Madison,
Wisconsin. June 1988. pp.
Wisconsin Common Tern Recovery Plan. Madison, Wisconsin.
June 1988. 74 pp.
Wisconsin Forster’s Tern Recovery Plan. Madison, Wisconsin.
June 1988. 102 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1993. Upper
Mississippi River & Great Lakes region joint venture
implementation plan: A component of the North American
waterfowl management plan. March 1993.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Undated. Fisheries
USA: the recreational fisheries policy of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C.
Wisconsin’s biodiversity as a management issue. Madison,
Wisconsin. May 1995. 240 pp.
Wisconsin Peregrine Falcon recovery plan. Madison, Wisconsin.
January 1987. 38 pp.
5-5
RESOURCE
Wildlife Resources
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Wisconsin’s forestry best management practices for water quality.
Madison, Wisconsin. 18 pp.
Source: FERC Revised List of Comprehensive Plans, January, 2011
5.4
RELEVANT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS
In addition to the qualifying federal, state, and tribal comprehensive waterway plans listed in
above, some resource agencies have developed resource management plans to help guide their
actions regarding specific resources of jurisdiction. The resource management plans listed in
Table 5-2 may be relevant to the Project and may be useful in the licensing proceeding for
characterizing desired conditions. These plans may include updated versions of plans previously
identified by the FERC as comprehensive waterway plans but that FERC has not yet reviewed
and listed.
TABLE 5-2.
LIST OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS POTENTIALLY RELEVANT TO THE
LOCK AND DAM 9 PROJECT
RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT PLANS
Water, Wildlife,
*Mississippi Headwaters Board. 2002. A management plan for the
Cultural Resources,
Upper Mississippi River. Grand Rapids, Minnesota. 2002. 105 pp.
and Aesthetics
Wildlife Resources
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Canadian Wildlife Service
(CWS). 1998. North American waterfowl management plan- update
to the 1986 and, 1994 plans. Department of the Interior. Environment
Canada. May 1998.
Aquatic Resources
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2004. Higgins Eye
Pearlymussel (Lampsilis higginsi) recovery plan: first revision.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Ft. Snelling, Minnesota. 126
pp.
Recreation
Wisconsin Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan
(SCORP) for 2011-2016. Madison Wisconsin. 2011.
Recreation
Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). 2006. Iowa State
Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). Des Moines,
Iowa. 2006.
Wildlife, Aquatic, and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006. Upper
Recreation, Resources Mississippi River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive
Conservation Plan.
Wildlife, Aquatic, and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008.
Recreation Resources
Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation
Plan.
5-6
RESOURCE
Land Use Resources
Land Use Resources
Water, Wildlife,
Aquatic, Botanical,
and Recreation
Resources
Water Resources
Wildlife Resources
5.4.1
MANAGEMENT PLANS
Crawford County. 2010. Crawford County Comprehensive Plan
2009-2029.
Allamakee County Planning and Zoning Commission. 2001.
Allamakee County Comprehensive Plan.
US Army Corps of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife Work Group River
Resources Forum (USACE). 2004. Environmental Pool Plans.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2008. Upper
Mississippi River Comprehensive Plan.
Wisconsin Whooping Crane Management Plan.
REFERENCES
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 2011. List of Comprehensive Plans. January, 2011.
[Online] URL: http://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/geninfo/licensing/complan.pdf. Accessed May 17, 2011.
5-7
6.0
SUMMARY OF CONTACTS [§ 5.6 (D)(5)]
The Applicant distributed this PAD and accompanying NOI simultaneously to FERC, federal
and state resource agencies, local governments, Native American tribes, NGOs, and others
potentially interested in the licensing proceeding. Appendix C details the distribution list for the
PAD and NOI. This PAD appropriately references all information sources cited and Appendix D
contains a record of all contacts made with agencies and other organizations to date to obtain
Project resource data and information.
6-1
7.0
PURPA BENEFITS [§ 5.6 (E)]
The Applicant is not currently seeking PURPA benefits for the proposed Project.
7-1
APPENDIX A
MAPS
²
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Mississippi
River
Project Location
Iowa
Illinois
Missouri
Iowa
Allamakee County
Lock and Dam 9 Project
!
(
Harpers Ferry
Crawford County
Wisconsin
27
U
V
Legend
!
(
Dam Locations
Major Highways
State Lines
County Lines
Scale:
AS SHOWN
Project No:
Filename:
0 0.5 1
2
Miles
1535-006
LD9
Drawn By:
Date Drawn:
JJP
5-11-2011
LOCK + HYDRO FRIENDS FUND II
LOCK AND DAM 9
PROJECT LOCATION
14 1 M a i n St . , P O B o x 6 5 0
P i t t sf i e l d , M a i n e 0 4 96 7
Te l e p h on e : (2 0 7 ) 4 8 7- 3 3 28
F ax : ( 20 7 ) 4 8 7 -3 1 2 4
ww w . K l e i ns c h mi d t U SA .c o m
MSRMaps: Print
Send To Printer
Page 1 of 1
Back To MSR Maps
Change to 11x17 Print Size
Show Grid Lines
Change to Landscape
5 km E of Harpers Ferry, Iowa, United States 01 Jul 1983
Proposed Project
Location
Image courtesy of the U.S. Geological Survey
© 2010 Microsoft Corporation.
Terms of Use
Privacy Statement
http://msrmaps.com/PrintImage.aspx?T=2&S=12&Z=15&X=818&Y=5982&W=2&qs=%7... 6/9/2011
APPENDIX B
FLOW DURATION CURVES
USACE L&D 9 Flow Duration Curve, MS River, January 1959-October 2009
300,000
280,000
260,000
240,000
220,000
200,000
180,000
160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Exceedence Probability (% Equalled or Exceeded)
70%
80%
90%
100%
USACE L&D 9 Flow Duration Curve, MS River, January 1959-January 2009
300000
280000
260000
240000
220000
200000
180000
160000
140000
120000
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
USACE L&D 9 Flow Duration Curve, MS River, February 1959-February 2009
300000
280000
260000
240000
220000
200000
180000
160000
140000
120000
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
USACE L&D 9 Flow Duration Curve, MS River, March 1959-March 2009
300,000
280,000
260,000
240,000
220,000
200,000
180,000
160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
USACE L&D 9 Flow Duration Curve, MS River, April 1959-April 2009
300,000
280,000
260,000
240,000
220,000
200,000
180,000
160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
USACE L&D 9 Flow Duration Curve, MS River, May 1959-May 2009
300,000
280,000
260,000
240,000
220,000
200,000
180,000
160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
USACE L&D 9 Flow Duration Curve, MS River, June 1959-June 2009
300,000
280,000
260,000
240,000
220,000
200,000
180,000
160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
USACE L&D 9 Flow Duration Curve, MS River, July 1959-July 2009
300,000
280,000
260,000
240,000
220,000
200,000
180,000
160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
USACE L&D 9 Flow Duration Curve, MS River, August 1959-August 2009
300,000
280,000
260,000
240,000
220,000
200,000
180,000
160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
USACE L&D 9 Flow Duration Curve, MS River, September 1959-September 2009
300,000
280,000
260,000
240,000
220,000
200,000
180,000
160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
USACE L&D 9 Flow Duration Curve, MS River, October 1959-October 2009
300,000
280,000
260,000
240,000
220,000
200,000
180,000
160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
USACE L&D 9 Flow Duration Curve, MS River, November 1959-November 2008
300,000
280,000
260,000
240,000
220,000
200,000
180,000
160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
USACE L&D 9 Flow Duration Curve, MS River, December 1959-December 2008
300,000
280,000
260,000
240,000
220,000
200,000
180,000
160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
APPENDIX C
DISTRIBUTION LIST
HFF II
P-13392
Lock and Dam 9
Nanette M. Bischoff
FERC Coordinator
US Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District
180 5th Street East
Suite 700
St. Paul, MN 55101-1638
Mark Storzer
Field Manager
US Bureau of Land Management -Eastern States
626 E. Wisconsin Avenue
Suite 200
Milwaukee, WI 53201-0631
Chief, Eastern Division
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Suite 809
Washington, DC 20004
Terry Dukerschein
Team Leader
2630 Fanta Reed Road
La Crosse, WI 54603
Peggy A. Harding
Regional Engineer
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Chicago
Region
230 South Dearborn Street
Room 3130
Chicago, IL 60604
Dave Bierman
Team Leader
206 Rose Street
Bellevue, IA 52031
John Fornek
Project Engineer
Region
230 South Dearborn Street
Room 3130
Chicago, IL 60604
Vince Yearick
Chief, OEP
Hydro East Branch 1, Room 61-27
888 First Street, NE; PJ-14.1
Janet Hutzel
Environmental Protection
Federal energy Regulatory Commission
Hydro East Branch 1
888 First Street, NE
Diane Rosen
Regional Director
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Midwest Region
BWH Federal Building
One Federal Drive, Room 550
Ft. Snelling, MN 55111
Bureau of Indian Affairs
1849 C Street, N.W.
Tom Melius
Regional Director
US Fish and Wildlife Service, Midwest Regional
Office
BWH Federal Building
1 Federal Drive
Tony Sullins
Field Supervisor
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Twin Cities Field Office
4101 American Boulevard East
Bloomington, MN 55425
Phil Delphy
Twin Cities Field Office
4101 American Boulevard East
Bloomington, MN 55425
Jeff Gosse
FERC Coordinator
US Fish and Wildlife Service, Regional Office
Ecological Services
1 Federal Drive
Tim Yager
McGregor District Manager
Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife & Fish
Refuge
460 Business Hughway 18
McGregor, IA 52157
HFF II
P-13392
Lock and Dam 9
Pam Thiel
La Crosse District Leader
La Crosse Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office
555 Lester Avenue
Onalaska, WI 54650
Patricia Kurkul
Regional Adimistrator
NOAA Fisheries Northeast Regional Office
55 Great Republic Drive
Gloucester, MA 01930-2276
Louise Clemency
Field Supervisor
Green Bay Field Office
2661 Scott Toweer Drive
New Franken, WI 54229
Miles Croom
Habitat Conservation
NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office
263 13th Avenue South
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
Amber Andress
Fish and Wildlife Biologist
Rock Island Field Office
1511 47th Avenue
Moline, IL 61265
Wayne A. Babcock
Field Solicitor
US Department of the Interior
Three Parkway Center
Suite 385
Pittsburgh, PA 15220
Randy Thoreson
National Park Service, RTCA Program
111 Kellogg Boulevard East
Suite 105
St. Paul, MN 55101
Diane Banta
National Park Service
25 E. Washington Street
Suite 1650
Chicago, IL 60602
Susan Hedman
Administrator
US EPA, Region 5, Resources Management Division
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604
Karl Brooks
Administrator
US EPA, Region 7, Environmental Services Division
901 N. 5th Street
Kansas City, KS 66101
USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region 9
626 East Wisconsin Avenue
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Amanda Ratliff
Environment and Preservation
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region V
536 South Clark St.
6th Floor
Chicago, IL 60605
Ken Sessa
Environment and Preservation
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region
VII
9221 Ward Parkway
Suite 300
Kansas City, MO 64114-3372
Midwest Regional Coordinator
American Whitewater
PO Box 1540
Cullowhee, NC 28723
Sara Strassman
Director, River Restoration
American Rivers, Great Lakes Region
1845 N. Farwell Avenue
Suite 100
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Regional Director
American Rivers, Midwest Region
1225 S. 15th Street
La Crosse, WI 54601
Jim Fischer
Mississippi River Planner
3550 Mormon Coulee Road
La Crosse, WI 54601
Dan Baumann
PO Box 4001
Eau Claire, WI 54702-4001
HFF II
P-13392
Lock and Dam 9
Byron Dale Simon
Chief Biologist
101 South Webster Street
PO Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707-7921
David Coon
Supervisor
Wisconsin Valley Improvement Company
2301 3rd Street
Wasau
Winona, 54403
Sherman Banker
Compliance Architect
Wisconsin Historical Society
816 State Street
Room 306
Madison, WI 53706-1482
Robert Bohmann
Chair
Wisconsin Conservation Congress
1105 Melvin Avenue
Racine, WI 53402
Kathleen Angel
Wisconsin Coastal Management Program
101 East Wilson Street
10th Floor
Madison, WI 53703
Martin Konrad
Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Central
Office
502 E. 9th Street
Des Moines, IA 50319-0034
J.B. Van Hollen
Attorney General
Wisconsin Department of Justice
PO Box 7857
Madison, WI 53707
Dave Bierman
Natural Resources Biologist
206 Rose Street
Bellevue, IA 52031
Scott Walker
Governor
Wisconsin Office of the Governor
115 East Capitol
Madison, WI 53702
Scott Gritters
Natural Resources Biologist
331 S. River Park Drive
Guttenberg, IA 52052
Janet Geisler
County Clerk
County of Crawford Wisconsin
225 North Beaumont Road
Suite 210
Prairie du Chien, WI 53821
Brennan Dolan
Archaeologist
State Historical Society of Iowa
600 East Locust
Des Moines, IA 50319
Carol Crusan
City Clerk
City of Lynxville Wisconsin
362 Spring Street
Lynxville, WI 54626
Denny Caneff
Executive Director
Wisconsin River Alliance
306 East Wilson Street
Suite #2W
Madison, WI 53703
Gloria Jackson
Allamakee County Historic Preservation Commission
121 Allamakee Street
PO Box 95
Waukon, IA 52712
Julie Smith
Regulatory Counsel
Iowa Association of Municipal Utilities
1735 NE 70th Ave
Ankeny, IA 50021
Anne Kimber
Director of Energy Services
1735 NE 70th Ave
Ankeny, IA 50021
HFF II
P-13392
Lock and Dam 9
Secretary
Iowa Department of Commerce
Utilities Division
350 Maple Street
Tom Miller
Attorney General
Iowa Department of Justice
1305 E. Walnut Street
Terry Branstad
Governor
Iowa Office of the Governor
State Capitol
County Clerk
County of Allamakee Iowa
110 Allamakee Street
Waukon, IA 52172
Dr. Bob Fields
Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma
RR 1 Box 721
Perkins, OK 74059
Allen Kelley
Acting Chairman
Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska
3345 B. Thrasher Road
White Cloud, KS 66094
Chairperson
Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri
305 N. Main Street
Reserve, KS 66434
Principal Chief
Sac and Fox Nation of Oklahoma
Rt. 2 Box 246
Stroud, OK 74079
Chairman
Sac and Fox Tribe of the Mississipi in Iowa
349 Meskwaki Road
Tama, IA 52339-9629
John R. Shotton
Chairman
Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians
8151 Highway 177
Red Rock, OK 74651
Donald Moore
Chairman
Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa
Indians
PO Box 39
Odahan, WI 54861
Chairman
Brule River Sportsmens Club
PO Box 100
Brule, WI 54820
Chairman
Forest County Potawatomi Community of Wisconsin
PO Box 340
Crandon, WI 54520
President
Ho-Chunk Nation
PO Box 667
Black River Falls, WI 54615
Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa
13394 W. Trepania Road
Hayward, WI 54843
Chairman
of Wis
13394 W. Trepania Road
Bldg 1
Hayward, WI 54843
President
Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa
of Wis
PO Box 67
Lac du Flambeau, WI 54538
Chairman
Lake Superior Chippewa
PO Box 67
Lac du Flambeau, WI 54538
Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin
PO Box 910
Keshena, WI 54135
Chairman
Mole Lake Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of the
Chippewa Indians - Sokaogon Chippewa Community
PO Box 625
Crandon, WI 54520
HFF II
P-13392
Lock and Dam 9
Oneida Nation of Wisconsin
PO Box 365
Oneida, WI 54155
Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewas
88385 Pike Road HWY 13
Bayfield, WI 54814
Chairwoman
Sokaogon Chippewa Community
3051 Sand Lake Road
Crandon, WI 54520
St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin
24663 Angeline Avenue
Webster, WI 54893
President
Stockbridge Munsee Community of Wisconsin
N8476 Mo He con Nuck Road
Bowler, WI 54416
Gina M. Lemon
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe
115 Sixth Street NW
Suite E
Cass Lake, MN 56633
APPENDIX D
AGENCY CONSULTATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Lock + TM Hydro Friends Fund I - Mighty Mouse Project (FERC No. 13391)
Lock + TM Hydro Friends Fund II - Gumby Project (FERC No. 13392)
Pre-Application Document Information Questionnaire for FERC Licensing
Lock + TM Hydro Friends Fund I and Lock + TM Hydro Friends Fund II (collectively referred to
as “HFF” or “HFFs” within this Questionnaire) are domestic corporations currently holding the
preliminary permits for the development of low-impact hydroelectric facilities at the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) Mississippi River Locks and Dams 5a and 9, respectively.
Correspondingly, these proposed hydroelectric projects are named the Mighty Mouse Project
(FERC No. 13391 at LD 5a) and the Gumby Project (FERC No. 13392 at LD 9). Both HFFs are
wholly-owned development subsidiaries of Hydro Green Energy, LLC (HGE), a renewable
energy development company headquartered in the Chicago, IL area. Both HFFs have proposed
to utilize proprietary hydropower technology provided by HGE. This technology is described in
more detail in the following paragraphs.
As noted above, HGE possesses proprietary hydropower technology focused on the development
of new hydropower generation at existing non-powered dams in an environmentally-responsible
and cost-competitive fashion. More specifically, the proposed Projects will deploy low-RPM
hydropower turbines within a “Lock Frame Module (LFM)” that will utilize a portion of the
existing incomplete auxiliary locks at the respective USACE Locks and Dams. This technology
provides for the development of hydropower generation in a manner that minimizes the civil
work, costly installation processes, and potentially significant environmental impacts of
conventional hydropower. The footprint associated with these proposed Projects is small, with
each Project being located entirely within the USACE security zone found at the dams.
Furthermore, they are designed to be installed and operated without interfering with USACE’s
navigational mission or placing direct loading on the USACE infrastructure. HGE’s technology
is based on over 130 years of hydropower production in the United States, as well as proven and
widely used methods and designs commonly used for fabrication and installation of modular
offshore oil, gas, and liquefied natural gas systems. Furthermore, the foundation of this
innovative technology was successfully demonstrated at HGE’s hydrokinetic power project in
Hastings, MN (FERC P-4306).
With respect to the Projects themselves, the Mighty Mouse Project is located at USACE Lock
and Dam 5a on the Mississippi River near Fountain City, MN, and bordering the counties of
Winona, MN, and Buffalo, WI. The Gumby Project is located downstream of the Mighty Mouse
Project at USACE Lock and Dam 9 on the Mississippi River. The Gumby Project is located near
Lynxville, WI, bordering the counties of Allamakee, IA, and Crawford, WI. The hydropower
developments will each consist of one horizontal array of 10 hydropower turbines, which will be
installed in a single row, in a new LFM that will be installed in the downstream portion of the
auxiliary lock itself, along with movable panels that can close off flow to the units if conditions
dictate. The approximate capacity of the Mighty Mouse Project is 3.5 MW, while the
approximate capacity of the Gumby Project is 4 MW. These details are further illustrated on
Figure 1, attached, and in Table 1, below.
TABLE 1. PROJECT DETAILS
Project
Name/FERC
No
Applicant
Name
L&D
State(s) Counties
number
Mighty Mouse
(P-13391)
HFF I
LD 5a
Gumby (P13392)
HFF II
LD 9
MN;WI Winona
County, MN
Buffalo
County, WI
IA; WI Allamakee,
IA
Crawford,
WI
Township Capacity
or
Nearby
Town
Fountain
3.5 MW
City, MN
Lynxville, 4 MW
WI
The project boundary for the Mighty Mouse Project will encompass the entire auxiliary
navigational lock from the upstream to the downstream side and certain lands on the westerly
side of the navigational locks for the provisioning of the switchyard and control room. The
project boundary for the Gumby Project will encompass the entire auxiliary navigational lock
from the upstream to the downstream side and certain lands on the eastern side of the
navigational locks for the provisioning of the switchyard and control room. The proposed
Projects would be developed in coordination with the USACE, who control the access to, and
facilities of, the respective Locks and Dams. The Projects will operate in a strictly run-of-river
mode.
As part of the licensing process for the Projects, HFF must prepare Pre-Application Documents
(PAD)s for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) that present all
“existing engineering, economic, and environmental information relevant to licensing each
project that is reasonably available, or can reasonably be obtained with due diligence. The PADs
serve as the foundation for issue identification, study plan development, and the Commission’s
environmental analysis.” This questionnaire will assist HFF with the collection of any relevant
existing resource information pertinent to the Projects and help to identify any data collection
needs or potential resource issues early in the licensing process. Your assistance is greatly
appreciated.
2/5
1.
Contact Information for person completing the questionnaire:
Name & Title:
Organization:
Address:
Phone:
Email
Address:
2.
Do you know of any reasonably available materials or information related to either or
both of the Projects or the Projects’ environments?
Yes (If yes, please complete 2a thru 2f.)
2(a)
Please indicate the specific resource area(s) for which you have information:
Geology and soils
Water resources
Fish and aquatic resources
Wildlife and botanical resources
Wetlands, riparian, and littoral habitat
Rare, threatened & endangered species
2(b)
No (If no, please go to 3.)
Recreation and land use
Aesthetic resources
Cultural resources
Socio-economic resources
Tribal resources
Other resource information
Please briefly describe the information or list available documents, specifying which of
the Projects the information is relevant to: (Additional information may be provided on
a separate page.)
3/5
2(c)
Where and how can HFF obtain this information?
2(d)
Please provide the names of other persons in your organization whom you wish to
designate for a potential follow-up contact by HFF’s representative for the resource
area(s) checked above. If you know of others who are not part of your organization but
who may have relevant information, please provide their name(s) and contact information
as well. (Additional contacts may be provided on a separate page.)
Representative Contact Information
Name:
Address:
Phone:
Email
Address:
Other Contact Information
Name:
Address:
Phone:
Email
Address:
2(e)
Based on the resources listed in 2a, are you aware of any specific issues pertaining to the
identified resource area(s) such as water quality, wildlife habitat, endangered species or
cultural resources that may be affected by the Projects’ operations? Please be sure to
specify the Project. (Additional information may be provided on a separate page.)
Yes (Please list specific issues below.)
4/5
No
Resource Area
3.
Do you or does your organization plan to participate in the licensing process?
Yes
4.
Project
Specific Issue
No
We are interested in your comments. If you have comments and/or questions regarding
the Projects, the Pre-Application Documents, or FERC licensing, please note them below,
specifying the relevant Project:
Please return this Questionnaire to Carrie Hall in the enclosed self-addressed, stamped
envelope or by FAX to (207) 487.3124 within 30 days of receipt. Comments and/or
questions may be emailed to Carrie.Hall@kleinschmidtusa.com.
5/5
²
Buffalo County
Wabasha County
Jackson County
(5) Mighty Mouse Project
Trempealeau County
(
!
Monroe County
Winona
Winona County
La Crosse County Onalaska
La Crosse
Minnesota
Wisconsin
MI
s si ss
Fillmore County
Houston County
p
i
pi R
iv
Winneshiek County
(9) Gumby Project
0
Dam Locations
Cities
Scale:
AS SHOWN
County Lines
Project No:
Major Highways
Filename:
State Lines
Drawn By:
Fayette County
r
Allamakee County
Iowa
Legend
(
!
e
Vernon County
5
Date Drawn:
JJP
5-11-2011
Crawford County
20
30
Miles
LOCK + HYDRO FRIENDS FUND I AND II
Clayton County
1535-006
MightyMouse_Gumby.mxd
10
(
!
Grant County
MIGHTY MOUSE AND GUMBY
PROJECT LOCATIONS
14 1 M a in S t . , PO B o x 6 5 0
Pi tt sfi e ld , Ma in e 0 4 9 6 7
Te l e p h o n e : ( 2 0 7 ) 4 8 7 -3 3 2 8
Fa x : (2 0 7 ) 4 8 7 - 3 1 2 4
ww w.K lei nschm idt USA .com
PAD Questionnaire Agency Distribution List for Mighty Mouse and Gumby Projects
Nanette M. Bischoff
US Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District
Louise Clemency
Peggy A. Harding
Region
Amber Andress
John Fornek
Region
Vince Yearick
Janet Hutzel
Federal energy Regulatory Commission
Diane Rosen
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Midwest Region
Bureau of Indian Affairs
DC
Mark Storzer
US Bureau of Land Management -Eastern States
Terry Dukerschein
Walter Popp
Dave Bierman
Tom Melius
US Fish and Wildlife Service, Midwest Regional
Office
Tony Sullins
Phil Delphy
Jeff Gosse
US Fish and Wildlife Service, Regional Office
Mary Stefanski
Refuge
Tim Yager
Refuge
Pam Thiel
La Crosse Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office
Wayne A. Babcock
US Department of the Interior
Randy Thoreson
Angie Tornes
Brian Leaders
Susan Hedman
US EPA, Region 5, Resources Management Division
Karl Brooks
US EPA, Region 7, Environmental Services Division
USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region 9
Milwaukee
Patricia Kurkul
NOAA Fisheries Northeast Regional Office
Miles Croom
NOAA Fisheries Southest Regional Office
Amanda Ratliff
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region V
Ken Sessa
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region
VII
American Whitewater
Cullowhee, NC
Sara Strassman
American Rivers, Great Lakes Region
American Rivers, Midwest Region
La Crosse, WI
Charlotte Cohn
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Judy Mader
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Kevin Molloy
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Britta Bloomberg
Minnesota Historical Society
Janet Geisler
County of Crawford Wisconsin
John Jaschke
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources
Carol Crusan
City of Lynxville Wisconsin
Glenn Wilson
Minnesota Department of Commerce
Joe Sanfilippo
Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Field Office
Burl Haar
Minnesota Public Utilities Commission
Roger Lande
Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Central
Office
Kirsten Mickelson
Upper Mississippi River Basin Association
Brennan Dolan
State Historical Society of Iowa
Mississippi Headwaters Board
Lori Swanson
Minnesota Office of Attorney General
Mark Dayton
Minnesota Office of the Governor
County Clerk
County of Winona Minnesota
City Clerk
City of Fountain Mennesota
Jim Fischer
Dan Baumann
Byron Dale Simon
Sherman Banker
Wisconsin Historical Society
Kathleen Angel
Wisconsin Coastal Management Program
Denny Caneff
Wisconsin River Alliance
David Coon
Wisconsin Valley Improvement Company
J.B. Van Hollen
Wisconsin Department of Justice
Scott Walker
Wisconsin Office of the Governor
Roxann Halverson
County of Buffalo Wisconsin
Julie Smith
Anne Kimber
Secretary
Iowa Department of Commerce
Tom Miller
Iowa Department of Justice
Terry Branstad
Iowa Office of the Governor
County Clerk
County of Allamakee Iowa
Dr. Bob Fields
Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma
Allen Kelley
Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska
Chairperson
Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri
Principal in Chief
Sac and Fox Nation of Oklahoma
Chairman
Sac and Fox Tribe of the Mississipi in Iowa
John R. Shotton
Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians
Donald Moore
Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa
Indians
Chairman
Brule River Sportsmens Club
THPO
Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Indians
Chairman
Forest County Potawatomi Community of Wisconsin
President
Minnesota Chippewa Tribe
President
Ho-Chunk Nation
President
Prairie Islan Indian Community of Minnesota
Chairman
Chairman
Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians of Minnesota
THPO
of Wis
Chairman
Santee Sioux Tribal Council
President
Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa
of Wis
Chairman
Lake Superior Chippewa
THPO
Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin
Chairman
Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community of
Minnesota
Chairwoman
Upper Sioux Community of Minnesota
Chairman
White Earth Reservation Business Committee
Chairman
Mole Lake Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of the
Chippewa Indians - Sokaogon Chippewa Community
THPO
Oneida Nation of Wisconsin
THPO
Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewas
Chairwoman
Sokaogon Chippewa Community
THPO
St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin
President
Stockbridge Munsee Community of Wisconsin
Cultural Resources Specialist
Bois Forte Band of Chippewa
Chairman
Fond du Lac Reservation Business Committee
THPO
Leech Lake Band of Chippewa Indians
President
Lower Sioux Indian Community of Minnesota
J:\1535\006\Docs\Correspondence\Set one mailing
lists\DIRECTORY NAME AND ORG ONLY (SET
ONE MM and GUMBY).doc
State of Wisconsin
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
101 S. Webster Street
Box 7921
Madison WI 53707-7921
Scott Walker, Governor
Cathy Stepp, Secretary
Telephone 608-266-2621
FAX 608-267-3579
TTY Access via relay - 711
July 11, 2011
Carrie Hall
Kleinschmidt Associates
141 Main St.
PO Box 650
Pittsfield, ME 04967
SUBJECT:
Endangered Resources Review (ERR Log # 11-250)
Lock and Dam 9 Hydroelectric Project, Crawford County, WI
Dear Ms. Hall:
The Bureau of Endangered Resources has reviewed the proposed project described in your Endangered
Resources (ER) Review Request received June 13, 2011. The ER Review for the project is attached. Please
keep in mind that the ER Review for the project does not exempt you from the requirements of state and
federal endangered species laws. Rather, it is a tool to help you comply with state and federal endangered
species laws. Additional consultation with the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and/or US Fish and
Wildlife Service may be necessary if follow-up actions are indicated.
The following page contains important information to help you better understand this ER Review. The ER
Review itself is divided into four sections: A) Brief description of the proposed project, B) Endangered
resources known or likely to occur in the proposed project area, C) Follow-up actions, including those that
need to be taken to comply with state and federal endangered species laws, and D) Next steps.
This ER Review may contain Natural Heritage Inventory data (including specific locations of endangered
resources) which are considered sensitive and are not subject to Wisconsin's Open Records Law. As a
result, please remember that you may share information contained in the ER Review only with individuals
who need this information to carry out specific roles in planning and implementation of the proposed project.
Specific locations of endangered resources should not be released or reproduced in any publicly
disseminated documents. To improve coordination regarding endangered resources issues for the proposed
project, we are copying the ER Review to individuals and DNR staff who may be involved in permitting,
licensing, or approval of the proposed project.
The attached ER Review is for informational purposes and only addresses endangered resources
issues. This ER Review does not constitute DNR authorization of the proposed project and does not
exempt the project from securing necessary permits and approvals from the DNR.
Please contact me at (608)264-6057 or via email at lori.steckervetz@wisconsin.gov if you have any
questions about this ER Review.
Sincerely,
Lori Steckervetz
Endangered Resources Program
uthd_11-250
dnr.wi.gov
wisconsin.gov
Printed on
Recycled
Paper
National Heritage Inventory Data
(Considered Sensitive and, therefore, Omitted)
APPENDIX E
FISH SPECIES OF POOLS 9 AND 10
NATIVE RESIDENT SPECIES THAT OCCUR IN POOLS 9 AND 10 OF THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER.
COMMON NAME (SCIENTIFIC NAME)
POOL 9 POOL 10
Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus)
A
A
Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus)
Bullhead minnow (Pimephales vigilax)
A
A
Bullhead minnow (Pimephales vigilax)
Channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus)
A
A
Channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus)
Common carp (Cyprinus carpio)
A
A
Common carp (Cyprinus carpio)
Emerald shiner (Notropis atherinoides)
A
A
Emerald shiner (Notropis atherinoides)
Freshwater drum (Aplodinotus grunniens)
A
A
Freshwater drum (Aplodinotus grunniens)
Gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum)
A
A
Gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum)
Mimic shiner (Notropis volucellus)
A
A
Mimic shiner (Notropis volucellus)
River shiner (Notropis blennius)
A
A
River shiner (Notropis blennius)
Spotfin shiner (Cyprinella spiloptera)
A
A
Spotfin shiner (Cyprinella spiloptera)
White bass (Morone chrysops)
A
A
White bass (Morone chrysops)
Black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus)
C
C
Black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus)
Bowfin (Amia calva)
C
C
Bowfin (Amia calva)
Brook silverside (Labidesthes sicculus)
C
C
Brook silverside (Labidesthes sicculus)
Flathead catfish (Pylodictis olivaris)
C
C
Flathead catfish (Pylodictis olivaris)
Largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides)
C
C
Largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides)
Logperch (Percina caprodes)
C
C
Logperch (Percina caprodes)
Longnose gar (Lepisosteus osseus)
C
C
Longnose gar (Lepisosteus osseus)
Mooneye (Hiodon tergisus)
C
C
Mooneye (Hiodon tergisus)
Northern pike (Esox lucius)
C
C
Northern pike (Esox lucius)
Pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus)
C
C
Pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus)
River carpsucker (Carpiodes carpio)
C
C
River carpsucker (Carpiodes carpio)
Rock bass (Ambloplites rupestris)
C
C
Rock bass (Ambloplites rupestris)
Sauger (Sander canadensis)
C
C
Sauger (Sander canadensis)
Shorthead redhorse (Moxostoma
Shorthead redhorse (Moxostoma
macrolepidotum)
C
C
macrolepidotum)
Shortnose gar (Lepisosteus platostomus)
C
C
Shortnose gar (Lepisosteus platostomus)
Shovelnose sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus
Shovelnose sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus
platorynchus)
C
C
platorynchus)
Silver redhorse (Moxostoma anisurum)
C
C
Silver chub (Macrhybopsis storeriana)
Smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu)
C
C
Smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu)
E-1
Smallmouth buffalo (Ictiobus bubalus)
Spottail shiner (Notropis hudsonius)
Spotted sucker (Minytrema melanops)
Walleye (Sander vitreus)
Yellow perch (Perca flavescens)
Bigmouth buffalo (Ictiobus cyprinellus)
Golden redhorse (Moxostoma erythrurum)
Golden shiner ( Notemigonus crysoleucas)
Johnny darter (Etheostoma nigrum)
Mud darter (Etheostoma asprigene)
Orangespotted sunfish (Lepomis humilis)
Pugnose minnow (Opsopoeodus emiliae)
Quillback (Carpiodes cyprinus)
River darter (Percina shumardi)
Silver chub (Macrhybopsis storeriana)
Silver lamprey (Ichthyomyzon unicuspis)
Tadpole madtom (Noturus gyrinus)
Warmouth (Lepomis gulosus)
White crappie (Pomoxis annularis)
Yellow bullhead (Ameiurus natalis)
Black bullhead (Ameiurus melas)
Blue sucker (Cycleptus elongatus)
Bluntnose minnow (Pimephales notatus)
Brown bullhead (Ameiurus nebulosus)
Chestnut lamprey (Ichthyomyzon castaneus)
Goldeye (Hiodon alosoides)
Green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus)
Highfin carpsucker (Carpiodes velifer)
Mississippi silvery minnow (Hybognathus
nuchalis)
Paddlefish (Polyodon spathula)
River redhorse (Moxostoma carinatum)
POOL 9
C
C
C
C
C
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
POOL 10
C
C
C
C
C
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
E-2
Smallmouth buffalo (Ictiobus bubalus)
Spottail shiner (Notropis hudsonius)
Spotted sucker (Minytrema melanops)
Walleye (Sander vitreus)
Yellow perch (Perca flavescens)
Bigmouth buffalo (Ictiobus cyprinellus)
Golden redhorse (Moxostoma erythrurum)
Golden shiner ( Notemigonus crysoleucas)
Johnny darter (Etheostoma nigrum)
Mud darter (Etheostoma asprigene)
Orangespotted sunfish (Lepomis humilis)
Pugnose minnow (Opsopoeodus emiliae)
Quillback (Carpiodes cyprinus)
River darter (Percina shumardi)
Silver lamprey (Ichthyomyzon unicuspis)
Silver redhorse (Moxostoma anisurum)
Tadpole madtom (Noturus gyrinus)
Warmouth (Lepomis gulosus)
White crappie (Pomoxis annularis)
Yellow bullhead (Ameiurus natalis)
Black bullhead (Ameiurus melas)
Blue sucker (Cycleptus elongatus)
Bluntnose minnow (Pimephales notatus)
Brown bullhead (Ameiurus nebulosus)
Chestnut lamprey (Ichthyomyzon castaneus)
Goldeye (Hiodon alosoides)
Green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus)
Highfin carpsucker (Carpiodes velifer)
Mississippi silvery minnow (Hybognathus
nuchalis)
Paddlefish (Polyodon spathula)
Sand shiner (Notropis stramineus)
Sand shiner (Notropis stramineus)
Shoal chub (Macrhybopsis hyostoma)
Slenderhead darter (Percina phoxocephala)
Weed shiner (Notropis texanus)
Western sand darter (Ammocrypta clara)
White sucker (Catostomus commersonii)
Yellow bass (Morone mississippiensis)
American eel (Anguilla rostrata)
Banded darter (Etheostoma zonale)
Black buffalo (Ictiobus niger)
Blackside darter (Percina maculata)
Brassy minnow (Hybognathus hankinsoni)
Burbot (Lota lota)
Central mudminnow (Umbra limi)
Fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas)
Grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella)
Grass pickerel (Esox americanus vermiculatus)
Lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens)
Northern hog sucker (Hypentelium nigricans)
Pirate perch (Aphredoderus sayanus)
Stonecat (Noturus flavus)
Trout-perch (Percopsis omiscomaycus)
Bigmouth shiner (Notropis dorsalis)
Blacknose shiner (Notropis heterolepis)
Blackstripe topminnow (Fundulus notatus)
Bluntnose darter (Etheostoma chlorosoma)
Carmine shiner (Notropis percobromus)
Ghost shiner (Notropis buchanani)
Greater redhorse (Moxostoma valenciennesi)
Iowa darter (Etheostoma exile)
Muskellunge (Esox masquinongy)
Pallid shiner (Hybopsis amnis)
POOL 9
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
POOL 10
U
U
U
U
U
U
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
X
E-3
Shoal chub (Macrhybopsis hyostoma)
Slenderhead darter (Percina phoxocephala)
Stonecat (Noturus flavus)
Western sand darter (Ammocrypta clara)
White sucker (Catostomus commersonii)
Yellow bass (Morone mississippiensis)
American eel (Anguilla rostrata)
Banded darter (Etheostoma zonale)
Black buffalo (Ictiobus niger)
Brassy minnow (Hybognathus hankinsoni)
Burbot (Lota lota)
Central mudminnow (Umbra limi)
Fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas)
Grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella)
Grass pickerel (Esox americanus vermiculatus)
Lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens)
Northern hog sucker (Hypentelium nigricans)
River redhorse (Moxostoma carinatum)
Trout-perch (Percopsis omiscomaycus)
Weed shiner (Notropis texanus)
Bigmouth shiner (Notropis dorsalis)
Blackside darter (Percina maculata)
Blackstripe topminnow (Fundulus notatus)
Bluntnose darter (Etheostoma chlorosoma)
Ghost shiner (Notropis buchanani)
Greater redhorse (Moxostoma valenciennesi)
Iowa darter (Etheostoma exile)
Muskellunge (Esox masquinongy)
Pallid shiner (Hybopsis amnis)
Pirate perch (Aphredoderus sayanus)
Skipjack herring (Alosa chrysochloris)
Brook stickleback (Culaea inconstans)
Skipjack herring (Alosa chrysochloris)
American brook lamprey (Lampetra appendix)
Brook stickleback (Culaea inconstans)
Brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis)
Brown trout (Salmo trutta)
Central stoneroller (Campostoma anomalum)
Common shiner (Luxilus cornutus)
Creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus)
Fantail darter (Etheostoma flabellare)
Goldfish (Carassius auratus)
Lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss)
Southern redbelly dace (Phoxinus erythrogaster)
Suckermouth minnow (Phenacobius mirabilis)
POOL 9
H
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
POOL 10
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis)
Brown trout (Salmo trutta)
Central stoneroller (Campostoma anomalum)
Common shiner (Luxilus cornutus)
Creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus)
Fantail darter (Etheostoma flabellare)
Goldfish (Carassius auratus)
Lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush)
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss)
Southern redbelly dace (Phoxinus erythrogaster)
Suckermouth minnow (Phenacobius mirabilis)
American brook lamprey (Lampetra appendix)
Banded killifish (Fundulus diaphanus)
Bighead carp (Hypophthalmichthys nobilis)
Source: FFP, 2010, adapted from Steuck et al. 2010
Relative Abundance Key:
X - Probably occurs only as a stray from a tributory or inland stocking.
H - Records of occurrence are available, but no collections have been documented in the last ten years.
R - Considered to be rare. Some species in this category may be on the verge of extirpation.
U - Uncommon, does not usually appear in sample collections, populations are small, but the species in this category do not appear to be on the
verge of extirpation.
O - Occasionally collected, not generally distributed, but local concentrations may occur.
C - Commonly taken in most sample collections; can make up a large portion of some samples.
A - Abundantly taken in all river surveys.
E-4
APPENDIX F
LIST OF REPTILE AND AMPHIBIAN SPECIES
REPTILE AND AMPHIBIAN SPECIES FOUND IN THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER
REPTILES
Snakes
Coluber constrictor foxi
Blue racer
Elaphe obsoleta
Rat snake
Elaphe vulpina
Fox snake
Lampropeltis t. triangulum
Eastern Milk snake
Nerodia s. sipedon
Northern Water snake
Opheodrys vernalis
Smooth Green snake
Pituophis melanoleucus
Gopher Bull snake
Regina grahamii
Graham's Crayfish snake
Storeria dekayi
Dekay's Brown snake
Storeria o. occipitomaculata Northern Red-bellied snake
Thamnophis sirtalis
Common Garter snake
Tropidoclonian lineatum
Prairie lined snake
Turtles
Apalone spinifera
Eastern Spiny Softshell turtle
Chelydra serpentina
Common Snapping turtle
Chrysemys picta belli
Western Painted turtle
Chrysemys picta marginata
Midland Painted turtle
Graptemys geographica
Common Map turtle
Graptemys ouachitensis
Ouachita Map turtle
Sternotherus odoratus
Common Musk turtle
Amphibians
Ambystoma tigrinum
Eastern tiger salamander
Bufo americanus
American toad
Hyla chrysoscelis
Cope's gary treefrog
Hyla versicolor
Gray treefrog
Pseudacris crucifer
Spring peeper
Pseudacris triseriata
Western chorus frog
Rana clamitans
Green frog
Rana pipiens
Northern leopard frog
Rana sylvatica
Wood frog
Source: USFWS, 2006.
F-1
APPENDIX G
LIST OF NATIVE MUSSEL SPECIES IN THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER
MUSSELS NATIVE TO THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI LIKELY TO OCCUR WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA
COMMON NAME
SPECIES
FISH HOST
Washboard
Megalonmaias nervosa American Eel, Flathead Catfish, Channel
Catfish, Longnose Gar, White Bass, Freshwater
Drum
Sheepnose
Plethobasus cyphyus
Sauger
Higgins Eye
Lampsilis higginsii
Smallmouth Bass, Largemouth Bass, Northern
Pike, Sauger, Walleye, Freshwater Drum
Slough Sandshell
Lampsilis teres
Shovelnose Sturgeon, Largemouth Bass,
or Yellow Sandshell
Longnose Gar
Black Sandshell
Ligumia recta
Largemouth Bass, Sauger, Walleye
Wartyback
Quadrula nodulata
Largemouth Bass, Channel Catfish, Flathead
Catfish,
Pistolgrip
Tritogonia verrucosa
Flathead Catfish
Flatfloater
Anodonta suborbiculata Largemouth Bass
Giant Floater
Pyganodon grandis
White Sucker, Laremouth Bass, Skipjack
Herring, Longnose Gar, White Bass, Freshwater
Drum
Mucket
Actinonaias ligamentina American Eel, Smallmouth Bass, Largemouth
Bass, Whiye Bass, Sauger
Butterfly
Ellipsaria lineolata
Sauger, Freshwater Drum
Fatmucket
Lampsilis siliquoidea
White Sucker, Smallmouth Bass, Largemouth
Bass, White Bass, Sauger, Walleye
Fragile Papershell
Leptodea fragilis
Freshwater Drum
Threeridge
Amblema plicata
Black Redhorse, Golden Redhorse, Northern
Hogsucker, Largemouth Bass, Northern Pike,
Flathead Catfish, Channel Catfish, White Bass,
Sauger, Feshwater Drum
Wabash Pigtoe
Fusconaia flava
No Migratory Fish
Strange Floater
Strophitus undulatus
Largemouth Bass, Walleye
Plain Pocketbook
Lampsilis cardium
Smallmouth Bass, Largemouth Bass, Sauger,
Walleye
Threehorn wartyback Obliquaria reflexa
No Migratory Fish
Hickorynut
Obovaria olivaria
Shovelnose Sturgeon
Pink Heelsplitter
Potamilus alatus
Freshwater Drum
Pink Papershell
Potamilus ohiensis
Freshwater Drum
Lilliput
Toxolasma parvus
No Migratory Fish
Fawnsfoot
Trincilla donaciformis
Deertoe
Truncilla truncata
Pimpleback
Quadrula pustulosa
Shovelnose Sturgeon, Channel Catfish, Flathead
Catfish
Source: (Wilcox, et. al., 2004; USFWS, 2003)
G-1
APPENDIX H
LIST OF UPLAND HABITAT PLANTS AND WILDLIFE COMMON TO THE REGION
LIST OF COMMON PLANTS OF THE REGION.
SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME
Acer rubrum
Red maple
Acer saccharaum
Sugar maple
Agrimonia gryposepala
tall hairy agrimony
Allium tricoccum
Ramp
Amaranthus retroflexus
redroot amaranth
Aralia nudicaulis
Wild sarsaparilla
Artemisia ludoviciana
white sagebrush
Aster pilosus
NA
Athyrium filix-femina
Common ladyfern
Betula sp.
Birch species
Carya ovata
Shagbark hickory
Corylus americana
American hazlenut
Cornus racemosa
Gray dogwood
Cyperus schweinitzii
Schweinitz's flatsedge
Eragrostis spectabilis
purple lovegrass
Festuca arundinacea
NA
Festuca obtusa
NA
Galium triflorum
fragrant bedstraw
Geranium maculatum
Wild geranium
Helianthus stumosus
Woodland sunflower
Impatens capensis
Jewelweed
Juglans cinerea
Butternut
Lactuca canadensis
Canada lettuce
Mitella diphylla
twoleaf miterwort
Monarda punctata
spotted beebalm
Pedicularis canadensis
Canadian lousewort
Phleum pretense
Timothy
Physalis ixocarpa
NA
Pinus resinosa
Red pine
Pinus strobus
White pine
Podophyllum pelatum
Mayapple
Polygala verticillata
whorled milkwort
Prunus americana
American plum
Rhamnus sp.
Buckthorn species
Rhus sp.
Sumac species
Ribes sp.
Gooseberry species
Rubus allegheniensis
Allegheny blackberry
Rubus enslenii
NA
Rudbeckia subtomentosa
sweet coneflower
H-1
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Quercus rubra
Sanicula canadensis
Secale cereal
Smilacnia racemosa
Sorghastrum nutans
Sporobolus asper
Sporobolus neglectus
Sporobolus vaginiflorus
Stellaria graminea
Tillia sp.
Tradescantia ohiensis
Trillium sp.
Trifolium pratense
Trifolium repens
Viola sp.
Viola pedata
SOURCE: (USDA, 2011)
COMMON NAME
Red oak
Canadian blacksnakeroot
Rye
False Solomon’s seal
Indiangrass
NA
puffsheath dropseed
poverty dropseed
grass-like starwort
Basswood
Bluejacket
Trillium species
red clover
white clover
Violet species
birdfoot violet
LIST OF COMMON WILDLIFE OF THE REGION.
SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME
Birds
Accipiter striatus
Sharp-shinned Hawk
Ruby-throated
Archilochus colubris
Hummingbird
Bonasa umbellus
Ruffed Grouse
Cardinalis cardinalis
Northern Cardinal
Carduelis tristis
American Goldfinch
Carpodacus mexicanus
House Finch
Carpodacus purpureus
Purple Finch
Cathartes aura
Turkey Vulture
Chaetura pelagica
Chimney Swift
Colaptes auratus
Northern Flicker
Columba livia
Rock Pigeon
Contopus virens
Eastern Wood-Pewee
Corvus brachyrhynchos
American Crow
Cyanocitta cristata
Blue Jay
Dryocopus pileatus
Pileated Woodpecker
Dumetella carolinensis
Gray Catbird
Icterus galbula
Baltimore Oriole
Junco hyemalis
Dark-eyed Junco
H-2
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Melanerpes carolinus
Meleagris gallopavo
Melospiza melodia
Molothrus ater
Parus atricapillus
Parus bicolor
Passer domesticus
Passerina cyanea
Pheucticus ludovicianus
Picoides pubescens
Picoides villosus
Quiscalus quiscula
Sayornis phoebe
Sialia sialis
Sitta carolinensis
Spizella arborea
Spizella passerina
Spizella pusilla
Sturnus vulgaris
Troglodytes aedon
Turdus migratorius
Zenaida macroura
Mammals
Blarina brevicauda
Canis latrans
Didelphis virginiana
Eptesicus fuscus
Geomys bursarius
Glaucomys volans
Lasionycteris noctivagans
Lasiurus borealis
Lasiurus cinereus
Marmota monax
Mephitis mephitis
Microtus pennsylvanicus
Mustela erminea
Mustela frenata
Mustela nivalis
COMMON NAME
Red-bellied Woodpecker
Wild Turkey
Song Sparrow
Brown-headed Cowbird
Black-capped Chickadee
Tufted Titmouse
House Sparrow
Indigo Bunting
Rose-breasted Grosbeak
Downy Woodpecker
Hairy Woodpecker
Common Grackle
Eastern Phoebe
Eastern Bluebird
White-breasted Nuthatch
American Tree Sparrow
Chipping Sparrow
Field Sparrow
European Starling
House Wren
American Robin
Mourning Dove
Northern short-tailed shrew
Coyote
Virginia opossum
Big brown bat
Plains pocket gopher
Southern flying squirrel
Silver-haired bat
Red bat
Hoary bat
Woodchuck
Striped skunk
Meadow vole
Ermine
Long-tailed weasel
Least weasel
H-3
SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME
Mustela vison
American Mink
Myotis lucifugus
Little brown bat
Odocoileus virginianus
White-tailed deer
Peromyscus leucopus
White-footed mouse
Peromyscus maniculatus
Deer mouse
Scalopus aquaticus
Eastern mole
Sciurus carolinensis
Eastern gray squirrel
Sciurus niger
Eastern fox squirrel
Spermophilus
Thirteen-lined ground
tridecemlineatus
squirrel
Sylvilagus floridanus
Eastern cottontail
Synaptomys cooperi
Southern bog lemming
Tamias striatus
Eastern chipmunk
Tamiasciurus hudsonicus
Red squirrel
Taxidea taxus
American badger
Urocyon cinereoargenteus
Common gray fox
Vulpes vulpes
Red fox
Zapus hudsonius
Meadow jumping mouse
SOURCE(S): (USFWS, 2006; eBird 2011)
H-4
APPENDIX I
LIST OF WETLAND HABITAT BOTANICAL AND WILDLIFE SPECIES COMMON TO
THE REGION
LIST OF TYPICAL WETLAND BOTANICAL SPECIES COMMON TO THE REGION.
SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME
Acorus calamus
Calamus
Agrostis alba
NA
Agrostis gigantea
Redtop
Alisma subcordatum
American water plantain
Althaea officinalis
common marshmallow
Amaranthus tuberculatus
roughfruit amaranth
Amorpha fruticosa
desert false indigo
Asclepias incarnata
swamp milkweed
Aster lateriflorus
NA
Azolla caroliniana
Carolina mosquitofern
Azolla mexicana
Mexican mosquitofern
Betula nigra
river birch
Bidens cernua
nodding beggartick
Bidens frondosa
devil's beggartick
Boehmeria cylindrica
smallspike false nettle
Boltonia asteroides
white doll's daisy
Bromus latiglumis
earlyleaf brome
Calamagrostis canadensis
Bluejoint
Calamagrostis canadensis var. canadensis
Bluejoint
Calamagrostis scribneri
NA
Callitriche palustris
vernal water-starwort
Callitriche verna
NA
Caltha palustris
yellow marsh marigold
Calystegia sepium
hedge false bindweed
Cardamine bulbosa
bulbous bittercress
Cardamine pensylvanica
Pennsylvania bittercress
Carex alopecoidea
foxtail sedge
Carex brevior
shortbeak sedge
Carex canescens
silvery sedge
Carex cephalophora
oval-leaf sedge
Carex cristatella
crested sedge
Carex grayi
Gray's sedge
Carex hystericina
bottlebrush sedge
Carex intumescens
greater bladder sedge
Carex laeviconica
smoothcone sedge
Carex lupulina
hop sedge
Carex muskingumensis
Muskingum sedge
Carex normalis
greater straw sedge
Carex rhynchophysa
NA
I-1
Carex rostrata var. utriculata
Carex stipata
Carex stricta
Carex tribuloides
Carex trichocarpa
Carex typhina
Carex utriculata
Carex vulpinoidea
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Ceratophyllum demersum
Chelone glabra
Cicuta maculata
Cinna arundinacea
Cornus sp.
Cyperus aristatus
Cyperus diandrus
Cyperus engelmannii
Cyperus ferruginescens
Cyperus odoratus
Cyperus squarrosus
Cyperus stenolepis
Cyperus strigosus
Digitaria ischaemum
Dioscorea hirticaulis
Dioscorea villosa
Echinochloa crus-galli
Echinochloa muricata
Echinochloa walteri
Eclipta alba
Eclipta prostrata
Eleocharis acicularis
Eleocharis calva
Eleocharis erythropoda
Eleocharis obtusa
Eleocharis palustris
Elodea brandegeeae
Elodea canadensis
Elodea linearis
Epilobium coloratum
Epilobium leptophyllum
Equisetum ×litorale
NA
awlfruit sedge
upright sedge
blunt broom sedge
hairyfruit sedge
cattail sedge
Northwest Territory sedge
fox sedge
common buttonbush
coon's tail
white turtlehead
spotted water hemlock
sweet woodreed
dogwood sp.
NA
umbrella flatsedge
NA
NA
fragrant flatsedge
bearded flatsedge
NA
strawcolored flatsedge
smooth crabgrass
NA
wild yam
Barnyardgrass
rough barnyardgrass
coast cockspur grass
NA
false daisy
needle spikerush
NA
bald spikerush
blunt spikerush
common spikerush
NA
Canadian waterweed
NA
purpleleaf willowherb
bog willowherb
NA
I-2
Equisetum fluviatile
Eragrostis hypnoides
Eupatoriadelphus maculatus
Eupatorium perfoliatum
Fraxinus nigra
Galium tinctorium
Gentiana andrewsii
Glyceria elata
Glyceria septentrionalis
Glyceria striata
Gratiola neglecta
Hasteola suaveolens
Helenium autumnale
Hemicarpha drummondii
Heteranthera dubia
Heteranthera liebmannii
Hibiscus laevis
Hypericum mutilum
Impatiens capensis
Iris shrevei
Iris virginica
Iris virginica var. shrevei
Juncus nodosus
Juncus tenuis
Leersia lenticularis
Leersia oryzoides
Lemna minima
Lemna minor
Lemna trisulca
Lindernia dubia
Lipocarpha drummondii
Lobelia cardinalis
Lobelia siphilitica
Ludwigia palustris
Ludwigia polycarpa
Lycopus americanus
Lysimachia ciliata
Lysimachia hybrida
Lysimachia nummularia
Lysimachia terrestris
Lythrum alatum
water horsetail
teal lovegrass
spotted trumpetweed
common boneset
black ash
stiff marsh bedstraw
closed bottle gentian
NA
floating mannagrass
fowl mannagrass
clammy hedgehyssop
false Indian plantain
common sneezeweed
NA
grassleaf mudplantain
NA
halberdleaf rosemallow
dwarf St. Johnswort
Jewelweed
NA
Virginia iris
Shreve's iris
knotted rush
poverty rush
catchfly grass
rice cutgrass
NA
common duckweed
star duckweed
yellowseed false pimpernel
Drummond's halfchaff sedge
Cardinalflower
great blue lobelia
marsh seedbox
manyfruit primrose-willow
American water horehound
fringed loosestrife
lowland yellow loosestrife
creeping jenny
earth loosestrife
winged lythrum
I-3
Mimulus ringens
Muhlenbergia glomerata
Myosoton aquaticum
Myriophyllum heterophyllum Michx.
Myriophyllum pinnatum (Walt.) BSP.
Najas flexilis
Najas guadalupensis
Nasturtium officinale
Nelumbo lutea
Nuphar lutea
Nymphaea odorata
Nymphaea tuberosa
Packera paupercula
Parnassia glauca
Parthenocissus quinquefolia (L.) Planch
Pedicularis lanceolata
Penthorum sedoides
Phyla lanceolata
Physostegia virginiana
Polygonum hydropiper
Polygonum hydropiperoides
Polygonum lapathifolium
Polygonum opelousanum
Polygonum pensylvanicum
Polygonum persicaria
Polygonum punctatum
Potamogeton foliosus
Potamogeton nodosus
Potamogeton pectinatus
Potamogeton pusillus
Pycnanthemum virginianum
Quercus bicolor
Rorippa palustris
Rorippa sessiliflora
Rudbeckia laciniata
Rumex altissimus
Rumex fascicularis
Rumex orbiculatus
Rumex salicifolius
Rumex verticillatus
Sagittaria brevirostra
Allegheny monkeyflower
spiked muhly
Giantchickweed
Milfoil
Milfoil
floating waternymph
southern waternymph
Watercress
American lotus
yellow pond-lily
American white waterlily
NA
balsam groundsel
fen grass of Parnassus
Virginia creeper
swamp lousewort
ditch stonecrop
lanceleaf fogfruit
obedient plant
marshpepper knotweed
swamp smartweed
curlytop knotweed
NA
Pennsylvania smartweed
spotted ladysthumb
dotted smartweed
leafy pondweed
longleaf pondweed
NA
small pondweed
Virginia mountainmint
swamp white oak
bog yellowcress
stalkless yellowcress
cutleaf coneflower
pale dock
NA
greater water dock
willow dock
swamp dock
shortbeak arrowhead
I-4
Sagittaria cuneata
Sagittaria latifolia
Salix sp.
Schoenoplectus fluviatilis
Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani
Scirpus atrovirens
Scirpus cyperinus
Scirpus fluviatilis
Scirpus validus
Scutellaria galericulata
Scutellaria lateriflora
Senecio pauperculus
Sium floridanum
Sium suave
Sparganium eurycarpum
Spartina pectinata
Spiraea alba
Spiranthes cernua
Spirodela polyrhiza
Spirodela polyrrhiza
Stachys hispida
Stachys tenuifolia
Stellaria longifolia
Stuckenia pectinata
Symphyotrichum lateriflorum var.
lateriflorum
Triphora trianthophora
Typha latifolia
Utricularia macrorhiza
Vallisneria americana
Verbena hastata
Veronica peregrina
Veronica serpyllifolia
Vitis sp.
Wolffia borealis
Wolffia columbiana
Wolffia punctata
Zannichellia palustris
Zosterella dubia
arumleaf arrowhead
broadleaf arrowhead
willow sp.
river bulrush
softstem bulrush
green bulrush
Woolgrass
river bulrush
NA
marsh skullcap
blue skullcap
NA
NA
hemlock waterparsnip
broadfruit bur-reed
prairie cordgrass
white meadowsweet
nodding lady's tresses
NA
common duckmeat
NA
smooth hedgenettle
longleaf starwort
sago pondweed
calico aster
Threebirds
Cattail
common bladderwort
wild celery
swamp verbena
Neckweed
thymeleaf speedwell
wild grape sp.
northern watermeal
Columbian watermeal
NA
horned pondweed
NA
Source: (USDA, 2011; USFWS, 2006)
I-5
LIST OF WETLAND WILDLIFE SPECIES COMMONLY OCCURRING IN THE REGION.
SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME
Birds
Agelaius phoeniceus
Red-Winged Blackbird
Aix sponsa
Wood Duck
Anas americana
American Wigeon
Anas carolinensis
Green-winged Teal
Anas clypeata
Northern Shoveler
Anas platyrhynchos
Mallard
Anas strepera
Gadwall
Ardea herodias
Great Blue Heron
Aythya affinis
Lesser Scaup
Aythya collaris
Ring-necked Duck
Aythya valisineria
Canvasback
Branta canadensis
Canada Goose
Bucephala albeola
Bufflehead
Butorides virescens
Green Heron
Cardinalis cardinalis
Northern Cardinal
Fulica americana
American Coot
Gcaruelis tristis
American Goldfinch
Geothlypis trichas
Common Yellowthroat
Grus canadensis
Sandhill Crane
Larus argentatus
Herring Gull
Larus delawarensis
Ring-billed Gull
Lophodytes cucullatus
Hooded Merganser
Megaceryle alcyon
Belted Kingfisher
Mergus merganser
Common Merganser
Molothrus ater
Brown-Headed Cowbird
Passerina cyanea
Indigo Bunting
Phalacrocorax auritus
Double-crested Cormorant
Pheucticus ludovicianus
Rose-Breasted Grosbeak
Podilymbus podiceps
Pied-Billed Grebe
Riparia riparia
Bank Swallow
Scolopax minor
American Woodcock
Stelgidopteryx serripennis
Northern Rough-Winged
Swallow
Vireo olivaceus
Red-eyed Vireo
Mammals
Castor canadensis
American beaver
Ondatra zibethicus
Muskrat
Procyon lotor
Northern raccoon
Lontra canadensis
River otter
I-6
SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME
Sorex cinereus
Cinereus shrew
SOURCE(S): (USFWS, 2006; eBird 2011; Mossman, 1988)
LIST OF POTENTIAL INVASIVE AQUATIC AND WETLAND BOTANICAL SPECIES THAT MAY OCCUR
IN THE PROJECT VICINITY.
SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME
Alternanthera philoxeroides Alligator Weed
Centaurea maculosa
Spotted Knapweed
Coronilla varia
Crown Vetch
Eichhornia crassipes
Water Hyacinth
Hydrilla verticillata
Hydrilla
Ludwigia peploides
Floating primrosewillow
Ludwigia uruguayensis
Uruguayan primrosewillow
Lythrum salicaria
Purple Loosestrife
Myriophyllum aquaticum
Parrot Feather
Myriophyllum spicatum
Eurasian Watermilfoil
Najas minor
Brittle Naiad
Phalaris arundinacea
Reed Canary Grass
Phragmites sp.
Phragmites sp.
Potamogeton crispus
Curly-leaf Pondweed
Salvinia sp.
Salvinia sp.
Triadica sebifera
Chinese Tallow Tree
Source: (USFWS, 2006)
I-7
APPENDIX J
LIST OF THREATENED, ENDANGERED AND SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES BY STATE
AND COUNTY
TABLE 1. STATE THREATENED, ENDANGERED AND SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES KNOWN TO
OCCUR WITHIN THE PROJECT SITE AS INDICATED BY WDNR RTE SPECIES REVIEW
COMMON NAME
SCIENTIFIC NAME
STATUS FED
FISH
American Eel
Anguilla rostrata
SC
Black Buffalo
Ictiobus niger
T
Blue Sucker
Cycleptus elongatus
T
Bluntnose Darter
Etheostoma chlorosoma
E
Goldeye
Hiodon alosoides
E
Lake Sturgeon
Acipenser fulvescens
SC
Longear Sunfish
Lepomis megalotis
T
Mud Darter
Etheostoma asprigene
SC
Paddlefish
Polyodon spathula
T
Pallid Shiner
Notropis amnis
E
Pirate Perch
Aphredoderus sayanus
SC
Pugnose Minnow
Opsopoeodus emiliae
SC
Shoal Chub
Macrhybopsis aestivalis
T
Silver Chub
Macrhybopsis storeriana
SC
Skipjack Herring
Alosa chrysochloris
E
Weed Shiner
Notropis texanus
SC
Western Sand Darter
Etheostoma clarum
S
INVERTEBRATE AND INSECTS
Higgins' Eye
Lampsilis higginsii
E
E
Rock Pocketbook
Arcidens confragosus
T
Wartyback
Quadrula nodulata
T
Washboard
Megalonaias nervosa
SC
REPTILES & AMPHIBIANS
Gray Ratsnake
Pantherophis spiloides
SC
PLANTS
Nodding Rattlesnake-root
Prenanthes crepidinea
E
Yerba-de-tajo
Eclipta prostrate
SC
OCCUR IN THE SURROUNDING 1-MILE BUFFER OF THE PROJECT SITE AS INDICATED
BY WDNR RTE SPECIES REVIEW
COMMON NAME
SCIENTIFIC NAME
STATUS FED
BIRD
Peregrine Falcon
Falco peregrinus
E
Timber Rattlesnake
Crotalus horridus
SC/P
J-1
Smooth Coil
Wing Snaggletooth
Dragon Wormwood
Helicodiscus singleyanus
Gastrocopta procera
PLANTS
Artemisia dracunculus
SC
T
SC
OCCUR IN THE SURROUNDING 5-MILE BUFFER OF THE PROJECT SITE AS INDICATED
BY WDNR RTE SPECIES REVIEW
COMMON NAME
SCIENTIFIC NAME
STATUS FED
BIRD
Cerulean Warbler
Dendroica cerulea
T
Acadian Fycatcher
Empidonax virescens
T
A Common Burrowing Mayfly
Hexagenia rigida
SC
TABLE 4. THREATENED, ENDANGERED AND SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES POTENTIALLY
OCCURRING IN ALLAMAKEE COUNTY, IOWA
COMMON NAME
SCIENTIFIC NAME
STATUS FED
BIRD
Bald eagle
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
SC
P
Henslow's Sparrow
Ammodramus henslowii
T
King Rail
Rallus elegans
E
Peregrine Falcon
Falco peregrinus
T
Red-shouldered Hawk
Buteo lineatus
E
Blanding'sTurtle
Emydoidea blandingii
T
Bullsnake
Pituophis catenifer sayi
SC
Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake
Sistrurus catenatus
E
C
Gopher Snake
Pituophis catenifer
SC
Mudpuppy
Necturus maculosus
T
North American Racer
Coluber constrictor
SC
Northern Cricket Frog
Acris crepitans
E
Smooth Softshell
Apalone mutica
SC
Timber Rattlesnake
Crotalus horridus
T
Wood Turtle
Clemmys insculpta
T
FISH
American Brook Lamprey
Lampetra appendix
T
Black Buffalo
Ictiobus niger
SC
Black Redhorse
Moxostoma duquesnei
T
Blue Sucker
Cycleptus elongatus
SC
Bluntnose Darter
Etheostoma chlorosoma
E
Burbot
Lota lota
T
Chestnut Lamprey
Ichthyomyzon castaneus
T
J-2
COMMON NAME
Lake Sturgeon
Paddlefish
Pallid Shiner
Pirate Perch
Pugnose Minnow
Weed Shiner
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Acipenser fulvescens
Polyodon spathula
Notropis amnis
Aphredoderus sayanus
Opsopoeodus emiliae
Notropis texanus
Baltimore
Euphydryas phaeton
Bluff Vertigo
Vertigo meramecensis
Briarton Pleistoscene Vertigo
Vertigo brierensis
Butterfly
Ellipsaria lineolata
Columbine Dusky Wing
Erynnis lucilius
Creeper
Strophitus undulatus
Dusted Skipper
Atrytonopsis hianna
Ebony Shell
Fusconaia ebena
Edwards' Hairstreak
Satyrium edwardsii
Elktoe
Alasmidonta marginata
Frigid Ambersnail
Catinella gelida
Hickory Hairstreak
Satyrium caryaevorum
Higgins' Eye
Lampsilis higginsii
Iowa Pleistocene Vertigo
Vertigo iowaensis
Midwest Pleistocene Vertigo
Vertigo hubrichti hubrichti
Monkeyface
Quadrula metanevra
Olympia Marble
Euchloe olympia
Rock Pocketbook
Arcidens confragosus
Round Pigtoe
Pleurobema coccineum
Salt And Pepper Skipper
Amblyscirtes hegon
Sheepnose or Bullhead
Plethobasus cyphyus
Silvery Blue
Glaucopsyche lygdamus
Sleepy Dusky Wing
Erynnis brizo
Variable Pleistocene Vertigo
Vertigo hubrichti variabilis
Washboard
Megalonaias nervosa
Wild Indigo Dusky Wing
Erynnis baptisiae
Yellow Sandshell
Lampsilis teres
PLANT
Alderleaf Buckthorn
Rhamnus alnifolia
American Fever-few
Parthenium integrifolium
American Speedwell
Veronica americana
Arrow-headed Rattle-box
Crotalaria sagittalis
Balsam Fir
Abies balsamea
Beak Grass
Diarrhena obovata
Bigroot Prickly-pear
Opuntia macrorhiza
J-3
STATUS FED
E
T
SC
SC
SC
E
T
E
E
T
SC
T
SC
E
SC
T
E
SC
E
E
T
T
SC
E
E
SC
E
T
SC
T
T
SC
E
SC
T
SC
SC
SC
E
E
E
C
COMMON NAME
Black Huckleberry
Bog Bedstraw
Bog Birch
Bog Bluegrass
Bog Willow
Broad Beech Fern
Buckbean
Bunchberry
Canada Plum
Carey Sedge
Chinquapin Oak
Christmas Fern
Clammy False Foxglove
Clustered Broomrape
Creeping Juniper
Crowfoot Clubmoss
Daisy-leaved Moonwort
Douglas Knotweed
Dragon Wormwood
Drooping Bluegrass
Dwarf Scouring-rush
Eastern Jointweed
Engelmann’s Spike Rush
Glade Fern
Glade Mallow
Glomerate Sedge
Golden Corydalis
Golden Saxifrage
Glandular Wood Fern
Grape-stemmed Clematis
Great Plains Ladies'-tresses
Great Water-leaf
Green Violet
Ground Pine
Hairy-jointed Meadow-parsnip
Hairy Wild-petunia
Hill's Thistle
Hoary Tick-trefoil
Hook-spurred Violet
Hooker's Orchid
Jeweled Shooting Star
Kidney-leaf White Violet
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Gaylussacia baccata
Galium labradoricum
Betula pumila
Poa paludigena
Salix pedicellaris
Phegopteris hexagonoptera
Menyanthes trifoliata
Cornus canadensis
Prunus nigra
Carex careyana
Quercus muehlenbergil
Polystichum acrostichoides
Aureolaria pedicularia
Orobanche fasciculata
Juniperus horizontalis
Lycopodium digitatum
Botrychium matricariifolium
Polygonum douglasii
Artemisia dracunculus
Poa languida
Equisetum scirpoides
Polygonella articulata
Eleocharis engelmannii
Diplazium pycnocarpon
Napaea dioica
Carex aggregata
Corydalis aurea
Chrysosplenium iowense
Dryopteris intermedia
Clematis occidentalis
Spiranthes magnicamporum
Hydrophyllum appendiculatum
Hybanthus concolor
Lycopodium clavatum
Thaspium barbinode
Ruelia humilis
Cirsium hillii
Desmodium canescens
Viola adunca
Platanthera hookeri
Dodecatheon amethystinum
Viola renifolia
J-4
STATUS FED
T
E
T
SC
T
SC
T
T
E
SC
SC
SC
E
E
T
SC
E
E
SC
SC
SC
E
SC
SC
SC
SC
T
T
T
S
SC
SC
T
E
E
E
SC
SC
SC
T
T
T
COMMON NAME
Kentucky Coffee-tree
Lanced-leaved Buckthorn
Large-leaf White Violet
Leathery Grape Fern
Ledge Spikemoss
Limestone Oak Fern
Long Beechfern
Low Bindweed
Low Sweet Blueberry
Lupine
Mapleleaf Viburnum
Marginal Shield Fern
Meadow Bluegrass
Missouri Rockcress
Mountain Maple
Mountain Ricegrass
Muskroot
Narrowleaf Pinweed
Nodding Pogonia
Nodding Rattlesnake-root
Northern Black Currant
Northern Lungwort
Northern Monkshood
Oak Fern
One-flowered Broomrape
One-sided Pyrola
Oregon Woodsia
Pale Corydalis
Pale False Foxglove
Pinesap
Pin Oak
Pink Milkwort
Pink Shinleaf
Poppy Mallow
Prairie Indian-Plantain
Prairie Ragwort
Prickly Rose
Prince's Pine
Purple Cliff-brake fern
Purple Fringed Orchid
Purple Milkweed
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Gymnocladus dioicus
Rhamnus lanceolata
ssp.glabrata
Viola incognita
Botrychium multifidum
Selaginella rupestris
Gymnocarpium robertianum
Thelypteris phegopteris
Calystegia spithamaea
Vaccinium angustifolium
Lupinus perennis
Viburnum acerifolium
Dryopteris marginalis
Poa wolfii
Arabis missouriensis
Acer spicatum
Oryzopsis asperifolia
Adoxa moschatellina
Lechea intermedia
Triphoria trianthophora
Prenanthes crepidinea
Ribes hudsonianum
Mertensia paniculata
Aconitum noveboracense
Gymnocarpium dryopteris
Orobanche uniflora
Pyrola secunda
Woodsia oregana
Corydalis sempervirens
Agalinis skinneriana
Monotropa hypopithys
Quercus palustris
Polygala incarnata
Pyrola asarifolia
Callirhoe triangulata
Cacalia tuberose
Senecio plattensis
Rosa acicularis
Chimaphila umbellata
Pellaea atropurpurea
Platanthera psycodes
Asclepias purpurascens
J-5
STATUS FED
SC
SC
E
T
SC
SC
E
Sc
T
T
SC
T
SC
SC
SC
SC
S
T
SC
E
T
E
T
T
SC
T
T
T
E
T
SC
T
E
E
T
SC
E
T
E
T
E
COMMON NAME
Purple Sand-grass
Putty Root
Racemed Milkwort
Rock Clubmoss
Rock Sandwort
Rosy Twisted Stalk
Rough Bedstraw
Rough-seeded Fame Flower
Royal Fern
Rusty Woodsia
Roundstem Foxglove
Sage Willow
Sand Cherry
Shadbush
Shining Willow
Short’s Rock-cress
Showy Lady's-slipper
Shrubby Cinquefoil
Slender Ladies'-tresses
Slender Mountain-ricegrass
Slender Sedge
Slim-leaved Panic Grass
Small White Lady's Slipper
Snowberry
Soft Rush
Solomon's Seal
Spring Avens
Spotted Coralroot
Squaw Root
Summer Grape
Swamp Goldenrod
Sweet Indian Plantain
Tall Cotton Grass
Tall Millet-grass
Three-toothed Cinquefoil
Tree Clubmoss
Twinflower
Twinleaf
Upland Boneset
Valerian
Velvet Leaf Blueberry
Violet
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Triplasis purpurea
Aplectrum
Polygala polygama
Lycopodium porophilum
Minuartia michauxii
Streptopus roseus
Galium asprellum
Talinum rugospermum
Osmunda regalis
Woodsia ilvensis
Agalinis gattingeri
Salix candida
Prunus pumila
Amelanchier sanguinea
Salix lucida
Arabis shortii
Cypripedium reginae
Potentilla fruticosa
Spiranthes lacera
Oryzopsis pungens
Carex tenera
Dichanthelium linearifolium
Cypripedium candidum
Symphoricarpos albus
Juncus effusus
Polygonatum pubescens
Geum vernum
Corallorhiza maculata
Conopholis americana
Vitis aestivalis
Solidago uliginosa
Cacalia suaveolens
Eriophorum angustifolium
Milium effusum
Potentilla tridentata
Lycopodium dendroideum
Linnaea borealis
Jeffersonia diphylla
Eupatorium sessilifolium
Valeriana edulis
Vaccinium myrtilloides
Viola macloskeyi
J-6
STATUS FED
SC
SC
E
T
SC
T
SC
E
T
E
T
SC
SC
SC
T
SC
T
T
T
E
SC
T
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
T
SC
SC
E
T
SC
SC
E
T
T
T
SC
SC
T
SC
COMMON NAME
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Water Shield
Brasenia schreberi
Water Starwort
Callitriche heterophylla
Waterwillow
Decodon verticillatus
Winterberry
Ilex verticillata
Wooly Milkweed
Asclepias lanuginosa
Yellow Gentian
Gentiana alba
Yellow Giant Hyssop
Agastache nepetoides
Yellow Trout-lily
Erythronium americanum
Yellow-lipped Ladies-tresses
Spiranthes lucida
Yerba-de-tajo
Eclipta prostrate
Source (IDNR, 20011; USFWS, 2011b)
STATUS FED
SC
SC
E
E
T
T
T
T
E
SC
Abbreviations: T = threatened; E = Endangered; SC = Special Concern; P = Protected; C =
Candidate.* Non-Essential Experimental Population
J-7

Lock and Dam 9 Hydroelectric Project FERC PROJECT No. 13392

Transcription

Similar documents

US Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Program

So, you want to be a wildlife biologist?

Fa-600 PoEN LED EM-Lock

To this: Davidsonville Wildlife Sanctuary Wetland Restoration Best

Presentation - FloridaDisaster.org

GATORLAND FLORIDA

4 • Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News By Reed Karaim and

^ Sand Creek Wildlife Management Area

UN Day Invitation here

Wild Capeb.indd - World Wide Creative