**BIOLOGICAL OPINION**

**FOR THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE**

**OF THE 9-FOOT NAVIGATION CHANNEL**

**ON THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER SYSTEM**

**SUMMARY OF FINDINGS**

In this Biological Opinion, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)
has determined that the continued operation and maintenance of the
9-foot Navigation Project will jeopardize the continued existence of the
Higgins= eye pearly mussel (*Lampsilis higginsi*) and the pallid
sturgeon (*Sacphirhynchus albus*). We have also provided reasonable and
prudent alternatives that will allow the continued operation and
maintenance of the 9-foot Navigation Project while offsetting adverse
impacts to the species and avoiding jeopardy. If the reasonable and
prudent alternatives are not implemented, then the likelihood of
survival and recovery of these species will be appreciably reduced. The
Corps of Engineers (Corps) is required to notify the Service of its
final decision on the implementation of the reasonable and prudent
alternatives described herein.

In addition, we have found that the project will not jeopardize the
least tern (*Sterna antillarum*) and winged mapleleaf mussel (*Quadrula
fragosa*) but will result in incidental take. We have provided an
Incidental Take Statement with reasonable and prudent measures that will
minimize the impacts of this take on these species.

We also have determined that the proposed action will likely adversely
affect the bald eagle (*Haliaeetus leucocephalus)* and the Indiana bat
*(Myotis sodalis)*. However, while the project may affect individuals,
the impacts will be offset by management actions proposed by the Corps
or will be negligible, and will not rise to the level of incidental take
(i.e., harm and harassment). For the decurrent false aster (*Boltonia
decurrens)* we found that while adverse effects will result, the species
will not be jeopardized. Because it is a plant, take is not prohibited.

The Service considered including the sturgeon chub (*Macrhybopsis
gelida*) and sicklefin chub (*Machrybopsis meeki*), which are candidate
species, in this biological opinion. However, because it appears that
these species are more than a year away from a listing proposal, we
chose not to include them at this time. When they are proposed for
listing, we recommend that you request use of the conferencing process
to consider project effects on these species.

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

Background
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....
3

Species Covered In This Consultation
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....
3

Consultation History
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
4

Biological Opinion

> 1.0 Description of the Proposed Action
> \...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....
> 9

2.0 Indiana Bat
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....
19

3.0 Decurrent False Aster
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
40

4.0 Least Tern
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....
51

5.0 Higgins= Eye Pearly Mussel
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
93

6.0 Winged Mapleleaf Mussel
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
128

7.0 Bald Eagle
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....
145

8.0 Pallid Sturgeon
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
164

Reinitiation - Closing Statement
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....
240

**BACKGROUND**

This programmatic (Tier I) consultation considers the systemic impacts
of the operation and maintenance of the 9-Foot Channel Navigation
Project on the Upper Mississippi River System (UMRS) on listed species
as projected 50 years into the future. This consultation does not
include individual, site specific projects or new construction. These
will be handled under separate (Tier II) consultations if it is believed
that they may affect a listed species. This consultation establishes a
baseline on which any future expansion of the navigation system on the
UMRS can be assessed.

This consultation was conducted by an interagency Corps of Engineers
(Corps) - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) Consultation Team
composed of representatives of the three Corps Districts (St. Paul,
Minnesota, Rock Island, Illinois and St. Louis, Missouri) and the three
Service Field Offices involved (Twin Cities, Minnesota, Rock Island,
Illinois and Marion, Illinois). The Team members cooperated with each
other in exchanging information preparing and reviewing the Biological
Assessment and this Opinion. Each team member took responsibility for
one or more species covered in the consultation. Ultimate responsibility
for the content of the Biological Assessment rests with the Corps of
Engineers, however, and for this Opinion, with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.

The outline for the Biological Assessment was recommended by the Service
to insure that all the necessary topics would be addressed and that the
need for additional information would be minimized once the Assessment
was completed. An impacts matrix was jointly developed by the Team in an
attempt to identify all the potential impacts for each species that
would be addressed.

Oversight of the consultation process was provided by the Service=s
Field Office Supervisors and the Corps= Mississippi Valley Division
Office Staff. Conflict resolution was the primary responsibility of the
Service=s Regional Office and the Corps= Division Office but, generally,
all parties to the consultation took part in these discussions. A set of
guidelines or ground rules were jointly developed by the two agencies to
guide the process.

**SPECIES COVERED IN THIS CONSULTATION**

This consultation covers the following species: Indiana bat (*Myotis
sodalis*), decurrent false aster (*Boltonia decurrens*), bald eagle
(*Haliaeetus leucocephalus*), Higgins= eye pearlymussel (*Lampsilis
higginsi*), winged mapleleaf mussel (*Quadrula fragosa*), least tern
(*Sterna antillarum*), and pallid sturgeon (*Scaphirynchus alba*).
During informal consultation, the Interagency Corps/Service Consultation
Team concluded that pink mucket pearly mussel (*L. abrupta*) and fat
pocketbook mussel (*Potamilis capax*) have been extirpated from the UMRS
and need not be addressed. By letter dated June 10, 1999, the Service
concurred with the Corps= findings in its Biological Assessment that the
project may adversely affect the pallid sturgeon and Higgins= eye pearly
mussel. However, the Service did not concur with the Corps that the
project would not adversely affect the Indiana bat, bald eagle, winged
mapleleaf mussel and decurrent false aster.

The Service considered including the sturgeon chub (*Macrhybopsis
gelida*) and sicklefin chub (*Machrybopsis meeki*), which are candidate
species, in this biological opinion. However, because it appears that
these species are more that a year away from a listing proposal, we
chose not to include them in this opinion. When they are proposed for
listing, we recommend that you request use of the conferencing process
to consider project effects on these species.

**CONSULTATION HISTORY**

February 23, 1993 - The Service=s Rock Island Field Office transmits a
letter to the St. Louis Corps District Engineer requesting that the
District initiate Section 7 consultation on various construction
(operation and maintenance) activities on the Mississippi River.

November 22, 1993 - The Service=s Rock Island Field Office transmits a
letter to the Rock Island Corps District with a species list for Section
7 consultation for their expanded navigation study. In that letter the
Service urged the Corps to address operation and maintenance of the
navigation channel.

July 8, 1994 - St. Louis Corps District requests a list from the
Service=s Rock Island Field Office of threatened and endangered species
that may occur within the area of the Upper Mississippi 9-Foot
Navigation Project.

November 25, 1994 - The Service=s Rock Island Field Office transmits a
species list to the St. Louis District for preparation of a Biological
Assessment for the operation and maintenance of the Upper Mississippi
River 9-Foot Navigation Project.

May 15, 1995 - St. Louis Corps District transmits a Tier I
(programmatic) biological assessment (BA) for the operation and
maintenance of the UMR Navigation Project within the St. Louis District
to the Service=s Rock Island Field Office.

June 16, 1995 - The Service=s Rock Island Field Office responds to St.
Louis District=s BA concurring with a tiered approach but noting that
the Corps did not request formal consultation on the Tier I assessment
and recommended that the two agencies continue in informal consultation
until it is determined which species should be consulted on, what data
are required, and how any formal consultation should be accomplished.

August 7, 1995 - St. Louis Corps District responds to the Service=s June
16, 1995 letter concurring that the two agencies should remain in
informal consultation for the present time.

April 12, 1997 - The Service=s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish,
Wildlife and Parks transmits a letter to the Assistant Secretary of the
Army requesting assistance in resolving the issue of the Corps=
reluctance to address operation and maintenance of the navigation
channel in its navigation improvements study.

May 20, 1997 - The Service=s Rock Island Field Office transmits a letter
to the Rock Island Corps District Engineer again requesting that the
Corps address impacts of the operation and maintenance of the navigation
channel on endangered and threatened species.

October 1, 1997 - Rock Island District Corps District notifies the
Service=s Rock Island Field Office that it intends to prepare a BA for
the operation and maintenance of the O&M Project, and a separate BA for
their Navigation Study.

December 21, 1997 - Conference call between the Service=s Rock Island
Field Office and Rock Island Corps District to discuss the approach of
preparing a separate BA for operation and maintenance and one for the
Navigation Study.

March 27, 1998 - Rock Island Corps District transmits a draft biological
assessment for the UMR Expanded Navigation Study to the Service=s Rock
Island Field Office.

April 1, 1998 - Service=s Regional Office transmits a letter to
Mississippi Valley Division Engineer expressing concern regarding
Section 7 compliance for the O&M Project and the Corps= Navigation
Study. The Service recommends that the Corps initiate a single
consultation with the Service on the systemic impacts of the O&M Project
for all three UMR Corps Districts. This programmatic consultation would
then form the baseline on which to assess the impacts of the Corps=
Navigation Study.

April 17, 1998 - Meeting between Service=s Regional Director and
Mississippi Valley Division Engineer to discuss a Plan of Action
completing a systemic consultation on the O&M Project. The Plan calls
for establishing a Consultation Team consisting of Corps and Service
representatives. The Corps assigned the St. Louis District as their lead
and the Service assigned the Rock Island Field Office as their lead.
Regional and Division Office Staff will serve as advisors and
facilitators.

May 15, 1998 - Service=s Rock Island Field Office transmits a letter to
St. Louis Corps District enclosing an outline for the consultation and a
draft impacts matrix for the Corps to use in preparation of its
biological assessment.

May 20, 1998 - Meeting between Corps and Service Consultation Teams to
discuss the consultation process, impacts matrix, and the preparation of
the Corps= biological assessment.

June 9, 1998 - Service=s Rock Island Field Office transmits a letter to
St. Louis Corps District enumerating the listed species found in the O&M
Project area.

June 14, 1998 - The Service=s Rock Island Field Office transmits a
letter to the Corps indicating that the Higgins= eye pearly mussel
occurs in an additional six counties.

August 4, 1998 - Meeting between Corps and Service Consultation Teams to
discuss a revised impacts matrix and other consultation issues.

September 28, 1998 - Corps and Service Consultation Team Leaders
finalize a set of Ground Rules for completing the consultation.

November 1998 - Corps Consultation Team members transmit draft sections
of the biological assessment to their Service counterparts for review
and comment.

January 26, 1999 - Service=s St. Paul and Rock Island Field Offices and
St. Paul Corps District meet with the Higgins= eye pearlymussel and
winged mapleleaf mussel Recovery Teams to discuss O&M Project related
impacts on these species.

January/February, 1999 - Service Consultation Team members provide
comments to the Corps Consultation Team members on individual sections
of the draft Biological Assessment.

February 4, 1999 - Service and Corps Consultation Teams meet to discuss
progress on the biological assessment, areas of agreement and
disagreement, and to establish a schedule for the remainder of the
consultation.

March 30, 1999 - The Service=s Marion Illinois Sub-office provides
information to the St. Louis Corps District regarding the collection of
a young-of-the-year pallid sturgeon at approximate Mississippi River
Mile 49.5L.

May 3, 1999 - Corps= Division Engineer transmits its biological
assessment to the Service=s Regional Director requesting the initiation
of formal consultation on the O&M Project.

June 10, 1999 - Service=s Assistant Regional Director responds to Corps=
Division Engineer=s biological assessment requesting additional
information.

July 28, 1999 - Corps= Division Engineer transmits a letter to the
Service= Regional Office amending page 1 of its Biological Assessment to
include language that the Corps A\... is not required \... to provide
the attached BA \..., the BA is being voluntarily submitted to the \...
Service \... for the purpose of fulfilling the Corps= commitment to
conservation of endangered species.@

August 2, 1999 - Corps= Division Engineer responds to Service=s June 10
letter providing some of the information requested and enumerating the
reasons why the remainder will not be provided.

August 31, 1999 - Service=s Regional Office transmits a letter to the
Corps= Division Engineer acknowledging the receipt of additional
information and that formal consultation has been initiated as of August
6, 1999.

September 27, 1999 - Meeting between the Service=s Rock Island Field
Office and St. Louis Corps District at which the Service presented its
anticipated finding of jeopardy for the pallid sturgeon and a Reasonable
and Prudent Alternative (RPA) to avoid jeopardy.

October 21, 1999 - Meeting between Service and Corps Consultation Teams,
the Service=s Regional Office and the Corps= Mississippi Valley Division
to discuss RPA=s and reasonable and prudent measures (RPM=s) for all
species, and the consequences of jeopardy findings for

*L. higginsi* and *S. alba*. It was agreed to extend the consultation
period one month to December 3, 1999.

October 27, 1999 - Meeting among representatives of the Service=s Rock
Island Field Office, St. Louis Corps District, Corps= Mississippi Valley
Division, the Waterways Experiment Station, Southern Illinois
University, and the Long Term Resource Monitoring Station (Cape
Girardeau, MO) to discuss and attempt to develop a mutually acceptable
RPA for pallid sturgeon. No agreement was reached on the RPA but the
Service offered to provide a list of benchmarks (performance measures)
for the Corps to use in estimating costs of the RPA.

November 2, 1999 - Service=s Regional Office transmits a letter to
Corps= Mississippi Valley Division acknowledging an extension of the
consultation period to December 3, 1999.

November 8, 1999 - Service=s Marion, IL suboffice faxes draft benchmarks
to the Corps= St. Louis District for review and comment.

November 18, 1999 - Meeting between Service Regions 3 and 6 to discuss
the status of pallid sturgeon, the validity of a jeopardy opinion in
this consultation, and to refine the RPA and RPM=s.

November 19, 1999 - Telephone conversation between George Rhodes, Corps=
Mississippi Valley Division, and John Blankenship, Assistant Regional
Director, FWS Region 3, Twin Cities, MN to discuss an extension of the
consultation for 90 days.

November 23, 1999 - Letter from Service=s Regional Office to the Corps=
Mississippi Valley Division Engineer confirming a joint agreement to
extend the consultation period for an additional 90 days to March 2,
2000.

November 30, 1999 - Conference call between FWS staff Rock Island, IL,
Twin Cities, MN, and Marion, IL and Corps staff St. Louis, MO and
Vicksburg, MS to discuss the 90 day extension of the consultation
period. The Corps requested it be modified to 60 days because of a
concern for the timely completion of a future consultation for the
Navigation Expansion Study and the Service agreed.

December 6, 1999 - Letter from Service=s Regional Office to Corps=
Mississippi Valley Division Engineer confirming a revised extension of
the consultation period for an additional 60 days to

February 2, 2000. In addition, the Service notifies the Corps that if a
Biological Assessment for the least tern is not received by January 3,
2000, the Service will proceed with the consultation for this species
using existing information.

December 9, 1999 - St. Louis Corps District faxes review comments on the
Service=s draft benchmarks for habitat restoration in the Middle
Mississippi River to the Service.

December 15, 1999 - Meeting between Service=s Regional Office, Rock
Island Field Office and Marion Sub-office staff and Corps= St. Louis
District and Mississippi Valley Division Staff to develop a workable
RPA. Tentative agreement was reached on the elements of the RPA,
prioritization of RPA actions, and benchmarks for the 4 years following
this consultation.

December 28, 1999 - Service receives Biological Assessment for the least
tern from Corps= Mississippi Valley Division.

January 11, 2000 - Service transmits preliminary draft sections of the
Biological Opinion for the pallid sturgeon and Higgins= eye pearly
mussel to the Corps for review and comment.

January 12, 2000 - Corps transmits comments on preliminary draft
sections of the Biological Opinion to the Service.

February 2, 2000 - The Mississippi Valley Corps Division transmits a
letter to Service=s Regional Office providing comments on draft sections
of the Biological Opinion for the Higginsi= pearly mussel and pallid
sturgeon.

February 4, 2000 - Consultation Period Ends

February 9, 2000 - Corps transmits a document entitled AFuture Corps of
Engineers and Fish and Wildlife Service Actions to Improve the Status of
the Pallid Sturgeon in the Middle Mississippi River@ to the Service as a
supplement to its Biological Assessment.

On or about February 14, 2000 - The St. Louis Corps District forwarded a
revised Reasonable and Prudent Alternative for the pallid sturgeon to
the Service.

February 17, 2000 - Meeting between the Service=s Regional, Rock Island
and Marion, Illinois offices and the Corps= Division and St. Louis
District offices to discuss the draft Reasonable and Prudent Alternative
for the pallid sturgeon.

February 18, 2000 - Draft Biological Opinion provided to the Corps for
review and comment.

February 24, 2000 - The Service transmits a revised draft Reasonable and
Prudent Alternative for the pallid sturgeon to the Corps= Mississippi
Valley Division.

April 2, 2000 - Corps= comments on Draft Biological Opinion received by
the Service.

April 19, 2000 - Meeting between Service and Corps representatives to
discuss the final findings of the Biological Opinion, implementation of
the RPMs and RPAs, and outreach.

May 15, 2000 - Final Biological Opinion delivered to the Corps.

**BIOLOGICAL OPINION**

**1.0 Description of the Proposed Action**

1.1 Action Area

The UMRS 9-Foot Navigation Project includes the commercially navigable
portions of the Mississippi, Illinois, Kaskaskia, Minnesota, St. Croix,
and Black Rivers. As the impacts of the proposed action affect pallid
sturgeon populations in the lower Missouri and Mississippi rivers, the
action area also encompasses these river stretches (see section 8.3
below for further discussion).

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for maintaining
navigation by means of a series of 37 locks and dams, channel training
structures, and dredging on over 1,200 miles of navigable waterway.
Flood control is maintained to a large extent by a system of
agricultural and urban levees, some of which were designed and built by
the Corps of Engineers. In addition, the Corps operates and maintains 31
recreational areas and provides for stewardship of the natural resources
on project lands and waters. There are also outgrants to Federal, State,
public and private institutions and individuals for various purposes,
including cottage leases, wildlife management, and recreation.

The 9-Foot Channel Navigation Project encompasses three separate Corps
of Engineers districts. Its area is defined as the entire Illinois
Waterway from the confluence with the Mississippi River at Grafton,
Illinois (River Mile 0.0), to T. J. O\'Brien Lock in Chicago, Illinois
(River Mile 327.0). The segment of the UMR starts at the confluence with
the Ohio River (River Mile 0.0) and extends to Upper St. Anthony Falls
Lock in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota (River Mile 854.0). It also
includes the navigable portions of the Kaskaskia, Minnesota, Black and
St. Croix Rivers.

The St. Louis District includes the UMR from its confluence with the
Ohio, River Mile 0.0 to River Mile 300. 1, near Saverton, Missouri, and
the navigable portion of the Kaskaskia River. It also includes the
Illinois River from its confluence with the Mississippi at Grafton,
Illinois, to immediately below La Grange Lock and Dam at River Mile
79.8. The Rock Island District includes the UMR (River Mile 300. 1) near
Saverton, Missouri, through Guttenberg, Iowa (River Mile 615), and the
Illinois River from the junction of the Calumet-Sag Channel and the
Chicago Sanitary Canal (River Mile 303.4) to the La Grange Lock and Dam
(River Mile 79.8). The St. Paul District includes the UMR from
Guttenberg, Iowa (River Mile 615), to Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota
(River Mile 854.0), as well as the navigable portions of the Minnesota,
Black, and St. Croix Rivers.

1.1.1 Middle Mississippi River

> The first modification to the river for navigation began in 1824 with
> clearing and snagging to remove hazards for wooden hull vessels. In
> the 1830\'s, the first channel stabilization works were built. In
> 1881, a comprehensive plan was authorized to maintain an 8-foot
> channel through bankline revetments and permeable dikes. Congress
> authorized the existing 9-foot channel project in 1927 for the purpose
> of securing a 9-foot-deep by 300-foot-wide channel between St. Louis,
> Missouri, and Cairo, Illinois.

1.1.2 Upper Mississippi River

> Modifications to the UMR for navigation began in 1824 when the
> Government authorized removal of snags, shoals, and sandbars;
> excavation of rock at several rapids; and closing off of meandering
> sloughs and side channels to maintain flows in the main channel. The
> first comprehensive modification of the river was authorized by the
> Rivers and Harbors Act of June 18, 1878.
>
> A 42 foot channel was maintained from the mouth of the Missouri River
> to St. Paul, Minnesota, by constructing dams at the headwaters of the
> UMR to impound water for low-flow supplementation, and by bank
> revetments, closing dams, and longitudinal dikes. In 1890, the 42 foot
> channel was extended to Minneapolis, Minnesota. A 6-foot channel was
> authorized by the Rivers and Harbors Act of March 2, 1907. The
> additional depth was obtained primarily by construction of rock and
> brush wingdams designed to constrict low-water flows to a narrower
> channel.
>
> Dam 19 at River Mile 364.2 (Keokuk, Iowa) was constructed in 1913 and
> is the only dam not federally-owned or operated. It is one of two
> sites generating hydropower on the system, the other being at Lock and
> Dam 1 in the Twin Cities which is partially owned by the Ford Motor
> Company. Congress authorized the 9-Foot Channel Navigation Project in
> the Rivers and Harbors Act of July 3, 1930, to be achieved by a series
> of locks and dams and supplemented by dredging. The project extended
> from the mouth of the Missouri River to Minneapolis, Minnesota. The
> Rivers and Harbors Act of August 26, 1937, authorized a 4.6-mile
> extension of the project to ascend St. Anthony Falls.
>
> 1.1.3 Illinois River
>
> Between 1871-1878, the State of Illinois built two locks and dams for
> navigation on the Illinois River and the Federal Government built two
> locks and dams for the 7-foot navigation project. The 1900 completion
> of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal created a connection between
> Lake Michigan and the Illinois River. This increased Illinois River
> flows and diverted urban wastes into the Illinois River. By 1930, the
> State had completed 75% of the 9-Foot Channel Navigation Project but
> was unable to raise funds for completion. The Rivers and Harbors Act
> of July 3, 1930, authorized the Corps of Engineers to complete the
> project and assigned responsibility to the Federal Government. The
> Rock Island District is responsible for operating and maintaining
> eight locks and dams along 327 miles of the system, and the St. Louis
> District is responsible for the lower 80-mile reach from La Grange
> Lock to Grafton, Illinois, the Illinois Waterway portion of Alton
> Pool.
>
> 1.1.4 Kaskaskia River
>
> The Kaskaskia River Navigation Project was authorized by the 1962
> Rivers and Harbors Act to provide a navigation channel 9 feet deep and
> 225 feet wide on the lower 50.5 miles of the Kaskaskia River. The
> project shortened the river between its mouth and Fayetteville,
> Illinois, from 52 to 36 miles. Meanders were left as cutoffs, much of
> the channel was excavated, and flow was partially regulated by a lock
> and dam near the river\'s mouth.
>
> 1.1.5 Minnesota River
>
> A 4-foot navigation channel on the Minnesota River to Mile 25.6 near
> Shakopee, Minnesota, was authorized by the Rivers and Harbors Act of
> July 13, 1892. Congress authorized a 9-foot channel on the Minnesota
> River up to Mile 14.7 near Savage, Minnesota, in the Rivers and
> Harbors Act of July 3, 1958. The Peavey Company maintains a 9-foot
> channel from Mile 14.7 to its grain terminal at Mile 21.8.
>
> 1.1.6 St. Croix River
>
> The Rivers and Harbors Act of June 18, 1878, authorized a 3-foot
> navigation channel on the
>
> St. Croix River from the mouth to Mile 51.8 at Taylors Falls,
> Minnesota. A 6-foot channel to
>
> Mile 24.4 at Stillwater, Minnesota, was authorized by the Rivers and
> Harbors Act of January 2 1, 1927. The present 9-foot channel to
> Stillwater was authorized by the Rivers and Harbors Act of August 30,
> 1935, and was assured as a result of the completion of Lock and Dam 3
> in 1938.
>
> 1.1.7 Black River
>
> The Rivers and Harbors Act of August 26, 1937, authorized a 9-foot
> navigation channel on the Black River at La Crosse, Wisconsin, to a
> point 1.4 miles above the mouth. Dredging a channel approximately 300
> feet wide, which is considered adequate for existing commerce, was
> completed in 1941.

1.2 Proposed Action

The proposed action is the continuance, for the next 50 years, of the
operation and maintenance of the 9-Foot Navigation Channel Project on
the UMRS which has been on-going for the past 60-70 years.

> 1.2.1 Lock and Dam Operations
>
> Water levels upstream of the dams are based upon depths needed for
> navigation and are controlled by systematically raising or lowering
> the dam gates. Water elevations at all of the dams are regulated based
> upon discharge. The goal is to maintain a target water level at a
> control point within each pool. Control ranges are defined within each
> district. Water level control is described completely in pool
> operation plans for each lock and dam. An analysis of water level
> management on the Upper Mississippi River System was completed by the
> Long Term Resource Monitoring Program and is available in Wlosinski
> and Hill (1995).
>
> Maintenance at locks and dams is performed on a daily basis or at
> longer intervals for major work. Personnel perform day-to-day
> maintenance of operating machinery and minor repair work on the
> facilities. During major maintenance and rehabilitation, lock gates
> and valves are removed, sandblasted, and repaired, as are dam gates
> when necessary. Major rehabilitation at Locks and Dams 2-22 and the
> Illinois Waterway was evaluated in a Programmatic Environmental Impact
> Statement (USACE 1989b). The associated Biological Assessment is
> hereby incorporated by reference.
>
> 1.2.2 Recreation
>
> The three Corps districts operate and maintain 31 recreation areas
> along the river. Seventy-three additional recreation areas are located
> on Corps lands but are leased to other organizations that are
> responsible for operation and maintenance. Twenty-two major public
> parks are located along the river. Boating access to the river is
> provided by approximately 360 boat access points and/or marinas and
> 11,500 marina slips along the Upper Mississippi River, excluding the
> St. Croix and Minnesota Rivers. Carlson *et al.* (1995) estimated that
> over 12 million daily visits occurred throughout the Upper Mississippi
> River System during the study year. The study also determined that the
> top three activities in which those visitors engaged were recreational
> boating, boat fishing, and sightseeing.
>
> The guiding documents governing operation and management of Corps of
> Engineers\' administered recreational facilities and grounds is the
> Operational Management Plan (OMP) Part II. Currently, the St. Paul and
> Rock Island Districts have completed OMP=s that include a detailed
> synopsis describing a 5-year plan of action on how facilities will be
> operated and maintained. Annual updates of the OMP Part II are
> reviewed for appropriateness and to ensure that long-term management
> is provided in an environmentally sound manner. The St. Louis District
> is currently developing a comprehensive master plan for the river
> projects and concurrently developing OMP=s. The OMP=S will be similar
> in scope to those described above and completed after Master Plan
> approval. The Kaskaskia OMP was recently approved (USACE 1998).
> Complete description of operation and maintenance of recreation areas
> can be found in the OMP (USACE 1992, USACE 1993). Additional
> information is found in Land Use Allocation Plans and Master Plans
> (USACE 1969-1973, 1983, 1989a).
>
> The St. Paul District manages one major recreation area and three boat
> ramps. Blackhawk Park, about 25 miles south of La Crosse, Wisconsin,
> is the only full service staffed campground/park that the district
> operates on the Mississippi River above Guttenberg, Iowa. The district
> has a few real state outgrants, but 460 private recreational
> facilities and a few hundred others on municipal leases are managed in
> accordance with the Shoreline Management Plan, which allows private
> structures and use while affirming public ownership and management.
>
> The Mississippi River recreational facilities that the Rock Island
> District directly manages include six Class A campgrounds (modern
> facilities), one Class B campground (semi-modern facilities), two
> Class C campgrounds (primitive facilities), six no-fee primitive
> campgrounds, 10 day-use areas with day-use fee boat ramps, 10 free
> day-use areas with boat ramps, 10 no-fee day-use areas with picnic
> shelters, four lock and dam overlooks, and one Class B project visitor
> center.
>
> In calendar year 1997, there were approximately 55 million visitor
> hours of use on Rock Island District Mississippi River Project lands
> and waters, with about 10% or 5.5 million visitor hours occurring at
> Corps-administered recreational facilities. Visitor assistance and
> resource management at these facilities are administered by the
> Mississippi River Project Office staff located at Pleasant Valley,
> Iowa; and by park ranger staff assigned to remote field station
> offices located in Dubuque and Muscatine, Iowa, and Thomson, Rock
> Island, and Quincy, Illinois. In addition to managing developed
> recreational facilities, these park rangers are also responsible for
> managing dispersed recreational activities occurring on all 93,600
> land and water acres of the Rock Island District, Mississippi River
> Project. Mississippi River Natural Resource Management staff are
> empowered to enforce Part 327, Title 36 of the Federal Code of
> Regulations in order to protect recreational and natural resource
> features found within project lands and waters of the Mississippi
> River Project.
>
> In the Rock Island District, approximately 565 private recreational
> and residential leases encompass 465 acres of land. Public Law 99-662
> allows-for these leases to continue indefinitely until terminated by
> the lessee or the Secretary of the-Army. New leases are not being
> issued, but existing sites are maintained. If leased areas are
> returned to the Corps, natural resource management prescriptions are
> implemented, which include closure or removal of the access road and
> conversion to natural habitat. The OMP contains additional information
> on other types of leases.
>
> The St. Louis District manages seven recreation areas, 18 access
> areas, and five marinas. Eighteen cabin subdivisions (350 recreational
> cottage leases are still active on 244 acres) dot the riverbanks. The
> States of Illinois and Missouri operate three recreation areas and 17
> accesses on Corps-owned land. The city of Alton operates one marina on
> Corps land. Local governments, as well as the states, operate an
> additional 23 access areas. Marinas, harbors, and boating clubs on the
> Mississippi and Kaskaskia Rivers total 27 and 2, respectively,
> providing some 3,198 boat slips. The Rivers Project Office operates a
> regional visitor center at the Melvin Price Locks and Dam area and
> Class C visitor centers at Locks 27 and Kaskaskia Lock and Dam.
>
> The rivers of the St. Louis District are a major recreational resource
> for the people living in the bi­-state area. A portion of the Great
> River Road from Melvin Price Locks and Dam visitor center to Hardin,
> Illinois, was recently designated a National Scenic Byway.
> Recreational points of interest are the Mark Twain National Wildlife
> and Fish Refuge, Lewis and Clark State Historical Park, the Corps\'
> Riverlands Environmental Demonstration Area adjacent to Melvin Price
> Locks and Dam, the multi-agency confluence greenway (Mississippi and
> Missouri Rivers), and the regional bike trail system. According to a
> recent survey, recreational use of the area is varied. Fishing from a
> boat is the most popular (23.4%), followed closely by sightseeing
> (19.6%) and recreational boating (17.9%). Bank fishing (14.6%) is the
> fourth most popular activity, followed by waterskiing (7.1%), hiking
> (6.4%), and swimming (4.1%). Picnicking is participated in by 2.7%,
> only slightly above camping at 2.7%. All other activity totals
> approximately 1.6%.

1.2.3 Natural Resource Management

> The Corps of Engineers maintains primary administrative authority over
> all fee title lands and waters acquired for construction and operation
> of the Mississippi River Project. The Corps has the responsibility and
> authority to manage the natural resources on fee title lands, which
> includes forest, fish and wildlife, water, aesthetic, and vegetative
> resources. Detailed descriptions of the projects are included in the
> Rock Island District, Natural Resource Management, Operational
> Management Plan Part I (USACE 1992) and the St. Paul District,
> Mississippi River Operational Management Plan (USACE 1993). With the
> exception of the Kaskaskia River OMP that was recently approved (USACE
> 1998), the St. Louis District OMP will be completed after approval of
> the Comprehensive Rivers Project Master Plan.
>
> Estimates from 1989 satellite data indicate that approximately 304,000
> acres of the UMR floodplain remains forested (Yin 1998). The St. Louis
> District has mapped a total of 800,000 acres of floodplain forest as
> of 1994 (USACE 2000). Much of this remaining bottomland forest is
> managed for natural resource benefits in the St. Paul and Rock Island
> Corps Districts, and efforts are under way to maintain forest age
> class and diversity. The St. Louis District does not directly manage
> any of its forest lands; rather, it oversees the management of its fee
> title lands managed by state and federal agencies such as the Fish and
> Wildlife Service.
>
> The goals of the forest management in the Corps= Rock Island District
> are as follows:
>
> 1\. Complete and maintain a detailed comprehensive stand-mapping
> database to use in future forest management decisions.
>
> 2\. Promote size class diversity through continued silvicultural
> practices such as TSI=s, tree plantings, and timber sales to maintain
> and improve forest quality for wildlife habitat and provide a
> regulated and sustained yield of forest products.
>
> 3\. Protect habitat for all endangered and threatened species found on
> project lands.
>
> 4\. Maintain existing and future nesting sites for colonial nesting
> birds.
>
> 5\. Manage habitat to provide nesting and feeding sites for local and
> migratory birds.
>
> 6\. Maintain and enhance communication with coordinating agencies and
> the general public.
>
> Specific management practices are outlined in the OMP, and the
> Management Plan is updated annually. At that time, review and
> coordination ensure that management is provided in an environmentally
> sound manner.
>
> In addition to lands managed by the Corps, other fee title lands are
> managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and several of the
> states under Cooperative Agreements. These lands include portions of
> the Upper Mississippi National Wildlife and Fish Refuge, the Mark
> Twain National Wildlife Refuge, the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife
> Refuge, the Illinois River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge, and a
> number of state conservation areas in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois,
> Iowa, and Missouri. At the present time, all Service Refuges in the
> action area are preparing Comprehensive Conservation Plans (CCPs)
> which will address forest land management. While still in draft stage,
> these plans will likely include goals similar to the following:
>
> \- reduce forest fragmentation by conserving and enhancing the size of
> bottomland forest blocks;
>
> \- enhance forest structural diversity within blocks (age class,
> species, canopy, understory, etc.);
>
> \- ensure adequate spatial distribution of bottomland forest along the
> river corridor for neotropical migrants;
>
> \- promote natural biological diversity through the protection,
> restoration, and management.
>
> 1.2.4 Channel Maintenance
>
> The navigation channel is maintained by periodic maintenance dredging
> and regulatory structures (wing and closing dams and revetment).
> Description of channel maintenance in the three districts varies
> slightly due to differing river conditions. A general description of
> channel maintenance follows, along with a list of documents in which
> more specific information can be found.
>
> 1.2.4.1 Dredging
>
> Periodic dredging is required in order to maintain a 9-foot channel.
> In required locations, dredging occurs with hydraulic cutterhead,
> mechanical, or dustpan dredge. In accordance with the Federal
> Standard, dredged material placement sites are identified that
> represent the least costly alternative with sound engineering
> practices and meet environmental standards pursuant to the Clean Water
> Act. Placement of dredged material has occurred within the thalweg,
> shoreline, bottomland forests, agricultural fields, and beneficial use
> sites and for environmental restoration. Where recurrent dredge cuts
> occur, long-term site plans have been and are being developed.
> Placement sites are chosen in conjunction with On-Site Inspection
> Teams (OSITs), public coordination, and various other committees of
> river managers and biologists.

Detailed description of the St. Paul District\'s process and program can
be found in their Channel Maintenance Management Plan (CMMP) (USACE
1996) and associated Environmental Impact Statement dated March 20,
1997. A Biological Assessment was prepared for the district and is
included within the Environmental Impact Statement. That Biological
Assessment is hereby incorporated by reference.

> Detailed description of the Rock Island District\'s program is found
> in the Long Term Management Strategy for Dredged Material Placement,
> Main Report Mississippi River (USACE 1990) and Illinois River (USACE
> 1995) and associated Dredged Material Management Plans.
>
> Detailed description of channel maintenance dredging in the St. Louis
> District is found in the Environmental Impact Statement on operation
> and maintenance of Pools 24, 25, and 26, Mississippi and Illinois
> Rivers (USACE 1975). Dredged material is generally placed adjacent to
> the main channel where beneficial uses may occur, such as recreational
> beach creation, least tem island habitat, and island creation.
> Approximately 150 sites have been dredged in the past, with between 30
> to 50 locations in the district dredged regularly for a total of
> approximately 8 million cubic yards annually.
>
> 1.2.4.2 River Regulatory Structures
>
> The Corps of Engineers began building regulatory structures in 1878
> with the authorization of the 4.5 foot channel. Since that time, many
> wingdams, closing dams, and bank-line revetment have been constructed
> and maintained to assist in channel maintenance. Regulatory structures
> help to reduce channel maintenance dredging, reduce costs and
> environmental effects of channel maintenance, restore or maintain
> natural river processes, and restore and enhance habitat quality. Use
> of structures is mainly limited to the Mississippi River with few used
> on the Illinois River.
>
> Regulatory structures are described in more detail within various
> documents, including the 9-Foot Channel Environmental Impact
> Statements for each district, the CMMP (USACE 1996), and various other
> project-specific documents. In addition to meeting the goal of
> reducing channel maintenance, the planning and design of regulatory
> structures includes consideration of environmental impacts and
> compliance with various regulations. The process varies within each
> district, but involves coordination with other agencies. In St. Paul
> District, the process includes project review by the River Resources
> Forum. The Rock Island District has the Committee to Assess Regulatory
> Structures (CARS), which consists of representatives from the
> engineering, operations, and environmental officer and the U.S. Fish
> and Wildlife Service. In addition, a document produced by the St.
> Louis District describes their environmental river engineering project
> in which biologists and engineers cooperate to improve navigation and
> habitat diversity through the use of river structures (USACE, no
> date).
>
> 1.2.4.3 Clearing and Snagging
>
> While clearing and snagging was once widespread prior to the
> completion of the current project, it now takes place only on the St.
> Croix and Minnesota Rivers. Snags on the river are recognized as
> providing valuable aquatic habitat and are only removed when safety is
> a concern. Removal of trees snagged in the navigation channel of the
> Minnesota River is an infrequent requirement. They are only removed
> when they become a navigation concern. On the St. Croix River, snag
> removal is limited to requests from the National Park Service and
> takes place only during safety concerns and channel blockage (USACE
> 1996).

1.3 Conservation Measures

Conservation Measures to minimize harm to listed species which are
proposed by the action agency are considered part of the proposed action
and their implementation is required under the terms of the
consultation. The Corps included the following Conservation Measures in
its April 1999 Biological Assessment:

1.3.1 Indiana bat

> \- Any activities that are determined to impact potential Indiana bat
> habitat will prohibit tree removal/clearing during the period of April
> 1 to September 30, unless mist net surveys indicate that no bats are
> present and there is no known roosting at the site. If a site is
> within a 5-mile radius of hibernacula, the period is April 1 to
> November 15.
>
> \- Forest management efforts within the range of the Indiana bat will
> be carried out to establish and maintain forest species and size class
> diversity in order to ensure a long-term supply of potential Indiana
> bat roosting trees.
>
> \- Current Corps of Engineers operations and maintenance programs will
> be evaluated to determine if additional opportunities exist to promote
> hardwood regeneration and species diversity in floodplain forests.

1.3.2 Decurrent false aster

> \- Each project that requires bankline or upland dredged material
> placement, or bankline habitat modification along the Illinois River
> or the UMR (within the known range of the species) will be addressed
> in a separate site-specific Tier II Biological Assessment to the U.S.
> Fish and Wildlife Service. An inspection of bankline habitat or upland
> placement sites will be conducted by Rock Island District personnel,
> St. Louis District personnel, or an expert contractor prior to habitat
> modification. If plants are encountered, Section 7 coordination will
> be completed prior to any habitat disturbance.
>
> \- All Section 10/404 actions for fleeting, port development or
> recreation-related facilities will be reviewed for potential impacts
> to federally proposed species and threatened or endangered species.
> Appropriate Section 7 review will include consideration of habitat
> potential at the project site by Corps regulatory staff and
> coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service when necessary.
> Applicants for projects that require bankline or floodplain habitat
> modifications along the Illinois River or UMR within the existing
> range of the species may be required to conduct a survey for *B.
> decurrens*. If plants are encountered, Section 7 consultation will be
> completed prior to any habitat disturbance.

1.3.3 Pallid Sturgeon

> \- The St. Louis District will continue to conduct maintenance
> dredging outside the presumed Awindow@ of pallid sturgeon reproduction
> of April 12 - June 30. In cases where emergency dredging is required,
> the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be contacted.
>
> \- The St. Louis District=s Avoid and Minimize Team will be asked to
> prioritize physical-biological monitoring of point-bar habitat of
> bendway weirs in the Middle Mississippi River in FY 2000.

1.4 Literature Cited

Carlson, B.D., D.B. Probst, D.J. Stynes, and R.S. Jackson. 1995.
Economic impact of recreation on the upper Mississippi River System.
Technical Report EL-95-16. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MS.

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1969-1973. Land use allocation
plans and master plans.

\_\_\_\_\_\_. 1975. Environmental impact statement for operation and
maintenance of the 9-Foot Channel, Upper Mississippi River, Pools 23,
24, Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. St. Louis Corps District, MO

\_\_\_\_\_\_. 1983. Upper Mississippi River land use allocation plan -
master plan for public use development and resource management, part I
and II. St. Paul Corps District, MN.

\_\_\_\_\_\_. 1989a. Land use allocation plan, Mississippi River Pools
11-22. Rock Island Corps District, IL.

\_\_\_\_\_\_. 1989b. Final programmatic environmental impact statement,
major rehabilitation effort, Mississippi River Locks and Dams 2-22; and
the Illinois Waterway from La Grange to Lockport Locks and Dams; Iowa,
Illinois, Missouri, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Rock Island Corps
District.

\_\_\_\_\_\_. 1990. Long term management strategy for dredged material
management plan. Rock Island Corps District, IL.

\_\_\_\_\_\_. 1992. Natural resource management operational management
plan, Mississippi River. Rock Island Corps District, IL.

\_\_\_\_\_\_. 1993. Natural resource management operational management
plan, Mississippi River. St. Paul Corps District, MN

\_\_\_\_\_\_. 1995. Long term management strategy for dredged material
placement, Illinois Waterway, river miles 80.0-327.0. Rock Island Corps
District, IL.

\_\_\_\_\_\_. 1996. Channel maintenance management plan. St. Paul Corps
District, MN.

\_\_\_\_\_\_. 1998. Compartment prescription for the resource
operational management plan, Rivers Project 12, Kaskaskia river. St.
Louis Corps District, MO.

\_\_\_\_\_\_. 2000. Consolidated comments on the draft biological
opinion (BO) evaluating continued operation and maintenance of the
9-Foot Navigation Channel Project on the Upper Mississippi River System.
Vicksburg, MS.

\_\_\_\_\_\_. No date. Environmental river engineering on the
Mississippi. St. Louis Corps District, MO.

Yin, Yao. 1998. Floodplain Forests. *In*: USGS (United States Geological
Survey). Ecological status and trends of the Upper Mississippi River
System 1998. R.L. Delaney, ed. La Crosse, WI. Page 9-2.

Wlosinski, J.H. and L. Hill. 1995. Analysis of water level management on
the Upper Mississippi River. National Biological Service, Environmental
Management Technical Center, Onalaska, WI. LTRMP 95-T001. 43pp. (NTIS
#PB96-141411).

**2.0 Indiana bat**

2.1 Status of the Species

This section presents the biological or ecological information relevant
to formulating the biological opinion. Appropriate information on the
species= life history, its habitat and distribution, and other data on
factors necessary to its survival, is included to provide background for
analysis in later sections. This analysis documents the effects of all
past human and natural activities or events that have led to the current
range-wide status of the species. This information is presented in
listing documents, the draft revised recovery plan (USFWS 1999), and the
Biological Assessment (USACE 1999).

2.1.1 General

> The Indiana bat *(Myotis sodalis)* was listed as an endangered species
> on March 11, 1967 *(Federal Register* 32\[48\]:4001), under the
> Endangered Species Preservation Act of October 15, 1966 (80 Stat. 926;
> 16 U. S. C. 668aa\[c\]). Eleven caves and two mines in six states were
> listed as critical habitat on September 24, 1976 (41 FR 41914), but
> none are within the action area.
>
> The Indiana bat is a migratory species found throughout much of the
> eastern half of the United States. During winter, Indiana bats are
> restricted to suitable hibernacula, mostly caves, but also a few
> abandoned mines, and even a tunnel and a hydroelectric dam, that are
> primarily located in karst areas of the east-central U. S. More than
> 85 percent of the range wide population occupies nine Priority One
> hibernacula (hibernation sites with a recorded population \>30,000
> bats since 1960 - although two of these currently have extremely low
> numbers of bats) Indiana, Kentucky, and Missouri each contain three
> Priority One hibernacula. Priority Two hybernacula (recorded
> population \>500 but \<30,000 bats since 1960) are known from the
> above mentioned states, in addition to Arkansas, Illinois, New York,
> Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. Priority Three
> hibernacula with recorded populations \<500 bats or records of single
> hibernating individuals have been reported in 17 states, including all
> of the above mentioned states. Hibernacula with recorded populations
> of \<500 bats (Priority Three hibernacula) or records of single
> hibernating individuals have been reported in the above mentioned
> states plus Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, and Georgia.
>
> Although the number of band returns for the Indiana bat are limited,
> certain migration patterns may be inferred from what little
> information that does exist. Based on sparse band recovery records,
> all of which are from the Midwest, it appears that females and some
> males generally migrate north in the spring upon emergence from
> hibernation (Hall 1962; Myers 1964; Hassell and Harvey 1965; Barbour
> and Davis 1969; Kurta 1980; LaVal and LaVal, 1980; Bowles 1982),
> although there also is evidence that movements may occur in other
> directions. However, summer habitats in the eastern and southern
> United States have not been well investigated; it is possible that
> both sexes of Indiana bats occur throughout these regions. Very little
> is known about Indiana bat summer habitat use in the southern and
> eastern United States, or how many Indiana bats may migrate to form
> maternity colonies there. Most summer captures of reproductively
> active Indiana bats (pregnant or lactating females or juveniles) have
> been made between April 15 and August 15 in areas generally north of
> the major cave areas.
>
> Most of the maternity records of the Indiana bat originated in the
> Midwest (southern Iowa, northern Missouri, northern Illinois, northern
> Indiana, southern Michigan, and western Ohio). The first maternity
> colony was found and several studies of Indiana bat maternity habitat
> were conducted in the midwest region. Although the woodland in this
> glaciated region is mostly fragmented, it has a relatively high
> density of maternity colonies. Today, small bottomland and upland
> forested tracts with predominantly oak-hickory forest types and
> riparian bottomland forests of elm-ash-cottonwood associations exist
> in an otherwise agriculturally dominated (non-forested) landscape
> (USFWS 1999). Unglaciated portions of the Midwest (southern Missouri,
> southern Illinois, southern Indiana), Kentucky, and most of the
> eastern and southern portions of the species\' range appear to have
> fewer maternity colonies per unit area of forest. However, such
> conclusions may be premature, given the lack of search effort in these
> areas.
>
> Trees in excess of 16 inch diameter at breast height (dbh) with
> exfoliating bark are considered optimal for maternity colony roost
> sites, but trees in excess of 9 inch dbh appear to provide suitable
> maternity roosting habitat (Romme *et al*. 1995). Cavities and
> crevices in trees may also be used for roosting. In Illinois, Gardner
> *et al*. (1991) found that forested stream corridors, and impounded
> bodies of water, were preferred foraging habitats for pregnant and
> lactating Indiana bats.
>
> Females typically utilize larger foraging ranges than males (Garner
> and Gardner 1992). Bats forage at a height of approximately 2-30
> meters under riparian and floodplain trees (Humphrey *et al*. 1977).
> They forage between dusk and dawn and feed exclusively on flying
> insects, primarily moths, beetles, and aquatic insects. Female Indiana
> bats exhibit strong site fidelity to summer roosting and foraging
> areas, that is, they return to the same summer range annually to bear
> their young.
>
> Male Indiana bats may be found throughout the entire range of the
> species. Males appear to roost singly or in small groups, except
> during brief summer visits to hibernacula. Males have been observed
> roosting in trees as small as 3 inch dbh.
>
> After the summer maternity period, Indiana bats migrate back to
> traditional winter hibernacula. Some male bats may begin to arrive at
> hibernacula as early as July. Females typically arrive later and by
> September the number of males and females are almost equal. Autumn
> Aswarming@ occurs prior to hibernation. During swarming, bats fly in
> and out of cave entrances from dusk to dawn, while relatively roost in
> the caves during the day. By late September many females have entered
> hibernation, but males may continue swarming well into October in what
> is believed to be an attempt to breed with late arriving females.
>
> Indiana bats will forage over a variety of habitat types but prefer to
> forage in and around the tree canopy of both upland and bottomland
> forest or along the corridors of small streams. Females in Illinois
> were found to forage most frequently in areas with canopy cover of
> greater than 80% (Garner and Gardner 1992). The species feeds on
> flying insects, both aquatic and terrestrial. Lee (1993) found that
> reproductively active females consume more aquatic insects than do
> males (USFWS 1996). 3D/E (1995) summarizes dietary information on the
> species where they reviewed the known literature. They found that the
> predominant prey include terrestrial orders such as moths
> (Lepidoptera) and beetles (Coleoptera). Aquatic insects such as flies
> (Diptera), caddisflies (Trichoptera), and stoneflies (Plecoptera) are
> also consumed. As would be expected, in conditions where riparian
> woodlands are present, more aquatic insects are consumed. Females also
> have been found to consume higher percentages of aquatic insects. The
> study area contains a variety of habitats where the species could
> forage. These include floodplain forests, backwaters, sloughs, and
> over open water. It is likely that foraging Indiana bats within the
> project vicinity will forage upon both aquatic and terrestrial insects
> near the canopy of floodplain forests.

2.1.2 Current Status and Population Trends in Hibernacula

> Based on censuses taken at hibernacula, the total, known Indiana bat
> population in 1997 was estimated at 353,000 bats (Table 2-1). Indiana
> bat populations first were first surveyed in the late 1950s (Hall
> 1962). In the decades since then, additional colonies of hibernating
> Indiana bats were discovered and our knowledge of the distribution and
> status of the species has expanded. Many hibernacula populations have
> decreased in number since monitoring began, especially in Kentucky and
> Missouri.

+------------+-----------------+-------------------+-----------------+
| Table 2-1  |                 |                   |                 |
| Summary of |                 |                   |                 |
| h          |                 |                   |                 |
| ibernating |                 |                   |                 |
| Indiana    |                 |                   |                 |
| bat        |                 |                   |                 |
| p          |                 |                   |                 |
| opulations |                 |                   |                 |
| by State,  |                 |                   |                 |
| based upon |                 |                   |                 |
| estimates  |                 |                   |                 |
| nearest to |                 |                   |                 |
| year       |                 |                   |                 |
| indicated  |                 |                   |                 |
| ^1,\ 2^    |                 |                   |                 |
| (from      |                 |                   |                 |
| USFWS      |                 |                   |                 |
| 1999).     |                 |                   |                 |
+------------+-----------------+-------------------+-----------------+
| State      | Historic Level  | When Regular      | Most Recent     |
|            |                 | Surveys Began     | Survey          |
|            | (1960 or        | (\~1980)          |                 |
|            | Earliest #)     |                   | (1995-1997)     |
+------------+-----------------+-------------------+-----------------+
| Alabama    | 300             | 300               | 300             |
|            |                 |                   |                 |
| Arkansas   | 14,930          | 14,830            | 2,700           |
|            |                 |                   |                 |
| Illinois   | 4,140           | 3,990             | 4,530           |
|            |                 |                   |                 |
| Indiana    | 177,885         | 124,080           | 182,510         |
|            |                 |                   |                 |
| Kentucky   | 241,335         | 96,235            | 61,370          |
|            |                 |                   |                 |
| Missouri   | 323,120         | 302,915           | 47,135          |
|            |                 |                   |                 |
| New York   | 7,805           | 7,805             | 14,990          |
|            |                 |                   |                 |
| Ohio       | \-\--           | C                 | 9,300           |
|            |                 |                   |                 |
| Pe         | 65              | 65                | 270             |
| nnsylvania |                 |                   |                 |
|            | 19,305          | 19,305            | 16,580          |
| Tennessee  |                 |                   |                 |
|            | 5,260           | 5,620             | 1,840           |
| Virginia   |                 |                   |                 |
|            | [4,7            | [4                | [11,6           |
| [West      | 00]{.underline} | ,675]{.underline} | 60]{.underline} |
| V          |                 |                   |                 |
| irginia]{. | 808,505         | 589,120           | 353,185         |
| underline} |                 |                   |                 |
|            |                 |                   |                 |
| Total      |                 |                   |                 |
+------------+-----------------+-------------------+-----------------+
| ^1^ Due to |                 |                   |                 |
| in         |                 |                   |                 |
| consistent |                 |                   |                 |
| records,   |                 |                   |                 |
| population |                 |                   |                 |
| estimates  |                 |                   |                 |
| for a      |                 |                   |                 |
| particular |                 |                   |                 |
| period     |                 |                   |                 |
| were       |                 |                   |                 |
| ex         |                 |                   |                 |
| trapolated |                 |                   |                 |
| from the   |                 |                   |                 |
| nearest    |                 |                   |                 |
| survey     |                 |                   |                 |
| prior to   |                 |                   |                 |
| or         |                 |                   |                 |
| subsequent |                 |                   |                 |
| to the     |                 |                   |                 |
| year       |                 |                   |                 |
| displayed  |                 |                   |                 |
| in the     |                 |                   |                 |
| table;     |                 |                   |                 |
| therefore, |                 |                   |                 |
| all caves  |                 |                   |                 |
| are        |                 |                   |                 |
| r          |                 |                   |                 |
| epresented |                 |                   |                 |
| in each    |                 |                   |                 |
| period.    |                 |                   |                 |
|            |                 |                   |                 |
| ^2^ States |                 |                   |                 |
| with       |                 |                   |                 |
| records of |                 |                   |                 |
| fewer than |                 |                   |                 |
| 100        |                 |                   |                 |
| h          |                 |                   |                 |
| ibernating |                 |                   |                 |
| Indiana    |                 |                   |                 |
| bats are   |                 |                   |                 |
| not        |                 |                   |                 |
| listed.    |                 |                   |                 |
+------------+-----------------+-------------------+-----------------+

> 2.1.3 Reasons For Decline
>
> Not all of the causes of Indiana bat population declines have been
> determined; the decline of the species at its current rate is unknown.
> Although several known human-related factors have caused declines in
> the past, they may not solely be responsible for recent declines.

2.1.3.1 Documented causes.

> [Disturbance and vandalism]{.underline}. A serious cause of Indiana
> bat decline has been human disturbance of hibernating bats during the
> decades of the 1960s through the 1980s. Bats enter hibernation with
> only enough fat reserves to last until spring. When a bat is aroused,
> as much as 68 days of fat supply is used in a single disturbance
> (Thomas *et al.* 1990). Humans use (e.g., including recreational
> cavers and researchers) near hibernating Indiana bats can cause
> arousal (Humphrey 1978; Thomas 1995; Johnson *et al.* 1998). If this
> happens too often, the bats\' fat reserves may be exhausted before the
> species is able to forage in the spring.
>
> Active programs by State and Federal agencies have led to the
> acquisition and protection of a number of Indiana bat hibernacula. Of
> 127 caves/mines with populations \>100 bats, 54 (43%) are in public
> ownership or control, and most of the 46 (36%) that are gated or
> fenced are on public land. Although such conservation efforts have
> been successful in protecting Indiana bats from human disturbance,
> they have not been sufficient to reverse the downward trend in many
> populations.
>
> [Improper cave gates and structures]{.underline}. Some hibernacula
> have been rendered unavailable to Indiana bats by the erection of
> solid gates in the entrances (Humphrey 1978). Since the 1950\'s, the
> exclusion of Indiana bats from caves and changes in air flow are the
> major cause of loss in Kentucky (an estimated 200,000 bats at three
> caves) (USFWS 1999). Other cave gates have so modified the climate of
> hibernacula that Indiana bats were unable to survive the winter
> because changes in air flow elevated temperatures which caused an
> increase in metabolic rate and a premature exhaustion of fat reserves
> (Richter *et al.* 1993; Merlin Tuttle, Bat Conservation International,
> *in litt.* 1998).
>
> [Natural hazards]{.underline}. Indiana bats are subject to a number of
> natural hazards. River flooding in Bat Cave, Mammoth Cave National
> Park, drowned large numbers of Indiana bats (Hall, 1962). Other cases
> of hibernacula being flooded have been recorded by Hall (1962),
> DeBlase *et al.* (1965), and USFWS (1999). A case of internal cave
> flooding occurred when tree slash and debris (produced by forest
> clearing to convert the land to pasture) were bulldozed into a
> sinkhole, blocking the cave\'s rain water outlet and drowning an
> estimated 150 Indiana bats (USFWS 1999).
>
> Another hazard exists because Indiana bats hibernate in cool portions
> of caves that tend to be near entrances, or where cold air is trapped.
> Some bats may freeze to death during severe winters (Humphrey, 1978;
> Richter *et al.* 1993).
>
> Indiana bats are vulnerable to the effects of severe weather when
> roosting under exfoliating bark during summer. For example, a
> maternity colony was displaced when strong winds and hail produced by
> a thunderstorm stripped the bark from their cottonwood roost and the
> bats were forced to move to another roost (USFWS 1999).
>
> 2.1.3. 2. Suspected causes.
>
> [Microclimate effects.]{.underline} Changes in the microclimates of
> caves and mines may have contributed more to the decline in population
> levels of the Indiana bat than previously estimated (Tuttle, *in
> litt.* August 4, 1998). Entrances and internal passages essential to
> air flow may become larger, smaller, or close altogether, with
> concomitant increases or decreases in air flow. Blockage of entry
> points, even those too small to be recognized, can be extremely
> important in hibernacula that require chimney-effect air flow to
> function. As suggested by Richter *et al.* (1993) and Tuttle (*in
> litt.* August 4, 1998), changes in air flow can elevate temperatures
> which can cause an increase in metabolic rate and a premature
> exhaustion of fat reserves.
>
> Hibernacula in the southern portions of the Indiana bat\'s range may
> be either near the warm edge of the bat\'s hibernating tolerance or
> have relatively less stable temperatures. Hibernacula in the North may
> have passages that become too cold. In the former case, bats may be
> forced to roost near entrances or floors to find low enough
> temperatures, thus increasing their vulnerability to freezing or
> predation. In the North, bats must be able to escape particularly cold
> temperatures. In both cases, modifications that obstruct air flow or
> bat movement could adversely impact the species (USFWS 1999).
>
> [Land use practices]{.underline}. The Indiana bats\' maternity range
> has changed dramatically since pre-settlement times (Schroeder 1991;
> Giessman *et al.* 1986; MacCleery 1992; Nigh *et al.* 1992). Most of
> the forest in the upper Midwest has been fragmented, fire has been
> suppressed, and native prairies have been converted to agricultural
> crops or to pasture and hay meadows for livestock. Native species have
> been replaced with exotics in large portions of the maternity range,
> and plant communities have become less diverse than occurred prior to
> settlement. Additionally, numerous chemicals are applied to these
> intensely- cropped areas. The changes in the landscape and the use of
> chemicals (McFarland 1998) may have reduced the availability and
> abundance of the bats\' insect forage base.
>
> In the eastern U. S., the area of land covered by forest has been
> increasing in recent years (MacCleery 1992). Whether or not this is
> beneficial to the Indiana bat is unknown. The age, composition, and
> size class distribution of the woodlands will have a bearing on their
> suitability as roosting and foraging habitat for the species outside
> the winter hibernation season.
>
> [Chemical contamination]{.underline}. Pesticides have been implicated
> in the declines of a number of insectivorous bats in North America
> (Mohr 1972; Reidinger 1972, 1976; Clark and Prouty 1976; Clark *et
> al.* 1978; Geluso *et al.* 1976; Clark 1981). The effects of
> pesticides on Indiana bats have yet to be studied. McFarland (1998)
> studied two sympatric species, the little brown bat *(Myotis
> lucifugus)* and the northern long-eared bat *(M. septentrionalis
> keenii)* as surrogates in northern Missouri and documented depressed
> levels of acetylcholinesterase, suggesting that bats there may be
> exposed to sublethal levels of organophosphate and/or carbamate
> insecticides applied to agricultural crops. McFarland (1998) also
> demonstrated that bats in northern Missouri are exposed to significant
> amounts of agricultural chemicals, especially those applied to corn.
> BHE Environmental, Inc. (1999) collected tissue and guano samples from
> five species of bats at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri and documented the
> exposure of bats to p,p\'-DDE, heptachlor epoxide, and dieldrin.

2.2 Environmental Baseline

This section is an analysis of the effects of past and ongoing human and
natural factors leading to the current status of the species, its
habitat, and ecosystem within the action area. The purpose is to
describe the current status of the species within the action area and
those factors that have contributed to this state.

Much of the UMRS corridor represents potential summer habitat for the
Indiana bat. Due to their migratory behavior, Indiana bats likely
traverse or follow the Mississippi and Illinois River corridors en route
to their summer habitats and in returning to their hibernacula. In doing
so, they may stop and roost temporarily in suitable floodplain trees, or
may select an area to spend the summer in a maternity colony.

> 2.2.1 Status of the Species in the Action Area
>
> In counties bordering the Mississippi River, bats have been collected
> at 24 sites between Cairo, Illinois, and Canton, Missouri (river miles
> 0-340), including 7 hibernacula. However, of these collections, only
> three females and three males have collected at two sites in the
> Mississippi River floodplain in Pool 21 in 1990 and 1997 (USGS/USFWS
> 2000). In counties bordering the Illinois River, bats have been
> collected at 13 sites, including 2 hibernacula, between Jersey and
> LaSalle Counties (Illinois DNR Natural Heritage Database 1999).
> However, only 1 site was located in the Illinois River floodplain
> where 1 specimen was collected (USGS/USFWS 2000).
>
> The current population status in the action area is difficult to
> assess primarily because of the few collections that have been made.
> Based on hibernacula estimates, the species appears to be relatively
> stable in Illinois (see Table 2-1) while it is declining in Missouri.
> How this trend relates to the bat=s status in the action area is
> unknown.
>
> 2.2.2 Factors Affecting the Species
>
> 2.2.2.1 Impoundment and Water Level Regulation
>
> The discussion regarding the effects of impoundment and water level
> regulation on floodplain forest composition that is found in section
> 7.2.1.1.1 for the bald eagle is applicable to the Indiana bat and is
> hereby incorporated by reference.
>
> The 9-Foot Channel Navigation Project has contributed to hydrological
> changes of the river floodplain and initially caused the conversion of
> some bottomland forest to aquatic and wetland habitat. However, many
> acres of farmed lands were purchased as part of the project and
> allowed to grow to forest. Were it not for the 9-Foot Channel
> Navigation Project and acquisition of lands by the Federal Government,
> much of the remaining forest would most likely have been cleared and
> would not exist today. Much of that remaining bottomland forest is
> managed for natural resource benefits in the Rock Island and St. Louis
> Corps District, and efforts are under way to maintain forest age class
> and diversity which will directly benefit the bat through long term
> maintenance of suitable habitat. The St. Louis District does not
> directly manage any of its forest lands; rather, the District exerts
> ultimate management responsibility over forested lands managed by
> state and federal agencies such as the Fish and Wildlife Service. The
> most important disturbance factor will remain flooding for the
> foreseeable future and areas of floodplain that are frequently
> inundated and have higher water tables will most likely continue to be
> comprised of water-tolerant species suitable for Indiana bat use.
>
> While it is obvious that impoundment has contributed to hydrological
> changes in the floodplain of the project area and has affected forest
> composition, the magnitude of this impact cannot be evaluated due to
> lack of historical data. In total, however, the 9-Foot Channel
> Navigation Project has been beneficial to the bat.
>
> 2.2.2.2 Dredging and Disposal
>
> Dredging and disposal may have affected Indiana bats in two ways:
> disturbance and habitat alteration. Dredging occurs during the summer
> and fall months when bats may be present. Dredged material disposal
> may have disturbed Indiana bats if they were roosting in trees located
> at a disposal site. This could range from \>bumping= trees with heavy
> equipment causing bats to abandon the roost, to actually removing
> trees prior to disposal causing abandonment or, as a worst case,
> mortality. The magnitude of this impact cannot be determined due to a
> lack of historical data. On the positive side, disposal among living
> trees could have caused tree mortality, thus creating roosting habitat
> as the trees= bark becomes loose and exfoliates.
>
> 2.2.2.3 Clearing and Snagging
>
> Removal of trees or other obstructions from the navigation channel may
> have affected Indiana bats by removing roost trees along the
> shoreline. However, the magnitude of this impact cannot be determined
> due to a lack of historical data.
>
> 2.2.2.4 Channel Structures and Revetment
>
> Construction of channel control structures and revetment may have
> occurred in areas utilized by Indiana bats for roosting if bank
> reshaping and tree removal was included. The magnitude of these
> impacts cannot be determined due to a lack of historical data but, in
> total, has been detrimental to the bat.
>
> 2.2.2.5 Tow Traffic - No Effect
>
> 2.2.2.6 Fleeting
>
> Development of fleeting areas may have affected Indiana bats in two
> ways: (1) disturbance or (2) loss of roost trees. Fleeting activities
> may have disturbed bats roosting in shoreline trees if trees are
> \>bumped= by barges or heavy equipment. A study of the effects of
> barge fleeting on bank erosion found that fleeting areas are of high
> risk for potential bank erosion (USACE 1998) and a subsequent loss of
> potential roost trees. In addition, barges have been tied off to
> shoreline trees in the past which may have resulted in their being
> pulled down. The magnitude of these impacts cannot be determined due
> to a lack of historical data.
>
> 2.2.2.7 Port Facilities
>
> Terminal or port facilities have typically been constructed in urban
> or industrial areas, usually within floodplain habitat. There is one
> Corps of Engineers port facility within the range of the Indiana bat
> (LeClaire Service Base, IA), and numerous private facilities. In
> non-urban situations, it is possible that Indiana bat habitat has been
> destroyed or modified. The magnitude of these impacts cannot be
> determined due to a lack of historical data.
>
> 2.2.2.8 Exotic Species - not applicable
>
> 2.2.2.9 Contaminants
>
> It is possible that insects upon which the species feeds contain
> environmental contaminants. Meade (1995) describes contaminants in the
> Mississippi River in detail. Contaminants in the system include heavy
> metals, pesticides, and synthetic organic compounds with some specific
> areas known to have contaminated sediments. Mayflies *(Hexagenia*
> spp.) are considered to be an appropriate species to assess ecosystem
> contamination and have been studied to document substrate
> contamination by PCB=s, mercury, and cadmium in reaches of the Upper
> Mississippi River (Steingraeber and Weiner 1995, Steingraeber *et al.*
> 1994, Beauvais *et al.* 1995). Bioaccumulation of these substances
> could possibly have also affected the Indiana bat. There is no
> historical information available by which to analyze the effects of
> project-related contamination on the Indiana bat.
>
> 2.2.2.10 Recreation Related Indirect Effects
>
> Development and use of recreational facilities such as campgrounds,
> boat launch facilities, marinas, and beaches, may have impacted
> Indiana bats in two ways: 1) modification of habitat and 2)
> disturbance. Habitat modification would include loss of trees which
> may have been used by bats for roosting. Human activity in roost areas
> may have disturbed bats resulting in abandonment. The magnitude of
> this impact cannot be evaluated due to a lack of historical
> information.
>
> 2.2.2.11 Cabin Leases
>
> Within the Rock Island District, there are 565 private recreational
> and residential leases encompassing 465 acres. In the St. Louis
> District, there are approximately 350 recreational cottage leases on
> 244 acres. Development and use of cabin lease sites may have impacted
> Indiana bats through habitat modification or disturbance if bats were
> present. Habitat modification would include loss of shoreline trees
> which may have been used by bats for roosting. The magnitude of this
> impact cannot be evaluated due to a lack of historical information.
>
> 2.2.2.12 General Plan Lands Management
>
> The Corps has the responsibility and authority to manage the natural
> resources on fee title lands. The goals of the Corps= forest
> management in the project area are described in section 1.2.3 of this
> document.
>
> As with most habitat management projects, the prescribed forest
> management practices may have caused temporary adverse impacts, but
> provided long-term benefits to the habitat (i.e., forest
> regeneration). All forest management prescriptions are evaluated for
> presence of threatened or endangered species, or species of special
> concern and actions are taken to avoid impacts to species. This
> includes designation of special management zones, observance of
> seasonal restrictions and provision of buffers. Forest management
> practices are carried out through close coordination with state and
> federal resource agencies including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
> Service. Forestry practices diversify the habitat and strive to
> maintain size class diversity. Specific actions are described in the
> operating management plan (OMP) and five year plan and environmental
> assessment prepared for forestry, fish and wildlife management within
> the St. Paul and Rock Island Districts. Forest management practices
> that maintain forest age class and diversity have contributed to the
> conservation of the species through provision and maintenance of
> suitable habitat into the future.
>
> Management of General Plan lands by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
> and state natural resource agencies may have resulted in changes to
> Indiana bat habitat. Within the range of the bat, these areas include
> the Illinois River Refuges, Mark Twain National Fish and Wildlife
> Refuge, UMR National Wildlife & Fish Refuge, and various areas managed
> by state agencies. Detailed descriptions of the Refuges are included
> in their respective refuge Master Plans. In general, the management
> practices on General Plan lands that have maintained forest age class
> and diversity have contributed to the conservation of Indiana bat
> habitat. However, clearing of bottomland forest may have negatively
> impacted the bat.
>
> The magnitude of this impacts cannot be evaluated due to a lack of
> historical information.

2.3 Effects of the Action

This section includes an analysis of the direct and indirect effects of
the proposed action on the species and its interrelated and
interdependent activities.

2.3.1 Direct Effects

> 2.3.1.1 Operation of the 9-Foot Channel Project
>
> 2.3.1.1.1 Impoundment and Water Level Regulation
>
> The long-term impact of impoundment upon the bottomland forest and
> species composition is not yet fully understood. However, trees will
> continue to produce seeds as they have in the past, so the
> reproductive potential of the bottomland species is present as long as
> there are mature trees. As mentioned in Section 7.2.1, it appears that
> much of the forest is aging and not regenerating in a smooth
> transition. If forests are allowed to undergo natural succession,
> Indiana bat habitat could decline over the 50-year life of the
> project. However, the St. Paul and Rock Island Corps Districts have
> Operational Management Plans which incorporate forest management
> practices that will benefit the bat. In addition, the Corps=
> Conservation Measure for the Indiana bat (section 1.3.1) wherein
> Aforest management efforts within the range of the bat will be carried
> out to establish and maintain forest species and size class diversity
> in order to ensure a long-term supply of potential Indiana bat roost
> trees@, will mitigate any potential impacts of impoundment and water
> level regulation. Yin (1999) concluded that the composition of the
> present ­day forest will be sustained over the next 50 years.
>
> The general habitat needs of the Indiana bat include dead or dying
> trees greater than 9 inches dbh with exfoliating bark for roosting
> purposes. While impoundment and water level regulation will continue
> to contribute to hydrological changes in the floodplain of the project
> area which, in turn, will affect forest composition and extent, we see
> no reason to believe that the availability of suitable roost trees
> will become a limiting factor to the potential use of the action area
> by Indiana bats over the life of the project. Therefore, impacts of
> impoundment and water level control will be offset and will not rise
> to the level of harm; i.e. will not cause death or injury of
> individual bats or significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns
> including breeding, feeding or sheltering. The survival of the species
> will not be threatened in the action area.
>
> 2.3.1.2 Maintenance of the 9-Foot Channel Project
>
> 2.3.1.2.1 Dredging and Disposal
>
> Channel dredging and disposal will continue over the life of the
> project and may affect Indiana bats through disturbance of roosting
> bats. Both the St. Paul and Rock Island Districts currently have
> dredged material placement coordination processes in place. Prior to
> the discharge of any dredged material, representatives of the Corps
> and state and federal resource agencies meet to determine the
> preferred placement site for the dredged material. Consideration of
> endangered species impacts is a part of this process. Potential
> impacts of dredged material placement can be minimized or avoided and,
> if necessary, Tier II Section 7 Consultation will be conducted. All
> dredged material in the St. Louis District is disposed of in the water
> and does not affect bat habitat. Therefore, while dredging and
> disposal may affect individual bats through disturbance, it will not
> rise to the level of harm or harassment; i.e., will not cause death or
> injury of individual bats or significantly disrupt normal behavior
> patterns including breeding, feeding or sheltering. The survival of
> the species will not be threatened in the action area.
>
> 2.3.1.2.2 Clearing and Snagging
>
> The majority of snagging presently occurs outside of the range of the
> Indiana bat. The future need for snagging on these rivers is unknown.
> However, given appropriate coordination with the Service in the Rock
> Island and St. Louis Corps Districts, any potential impacts can be
> minimized or avoided. Therefore, any impacts are likely to be
> negligible and it will not rise to the level of harm or harassment;
> i.e. will not cause death or injury of individual bats or
> significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns including breeding,
> feeding or sheltering. The survival of the species will not be
> threatened in the action area.
>
> 2.3.1.2.3 Channel Structures/Revetment
>
> There is a potential to affect roosting or nursery trees if
> construction and maintenance of channel structures and revetment
> involves bankline grading and removal of trees. Current construction
> practices usually include placing stone from the river without the
> need for terrestrial staging areas. In cases where shoreline
> modification is required, it is usually minor, and the long-term
> effect is preservation of the shoreline and reduction in erosion and
> tree loss. In instances where clearing may be required, surveys would
> be conducted or clearing would occur outside the roosting season.
> However, we do not expect that tree clearing would occur to the extent
> that roosting habitat would be limited.
>
> The planning and design of regulatory structures includes
> consideration of environmental impacts and compliance with various
> regulations. The process varies within each Corps district, but
> involves coordination with other agencies. The Rock Island District
> has the Committee to Assess Regulatory Structures (CARS), which
> consists of representatives from the engineering, operations, and
> environmental officer and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In
> addition, a document produced by the St. Louis District describes
> their environmental river engineering project in which biologists and
> engineers cooperate to improve navigation and habitat diversity
> through the use of river structures (USACE 1999). Given appropriate
> coordination, impacts to the bat within its range can be avoided. Tier
> II Section 7 Consultation will be conducted where necessary.
> Therefore, any impacts due to construction and maintenance of channel
> structures and revetment are likely to be negligible and will not rise
> to the level of harm or harassment; i.e. will not cause death or
> injury of individual bats or significantly disrupt normal behavior
> patterns including breeding, feeding or sheltering. The survival of
> the species will not be threatened in the action area.
>
> 2.3.2 Indirect Effects
>
> 2.3.2.1 Navigation Related Indirect Effects
>
> 2.3.2.1.1 Tow Traffic - No effect
>
> 2.3.2.1.2 Fleeting
>
> The future need for fleeting areas will likely increase as tow traffic
> increases over the life of the project. However, potential impacts of
> development of fleeting areas can be minimized or eliminated through
> appropriate coordination with the Service. The State of Iowa regulates
> barge-fleeting activities through their own regulations and Illinois
> and Missouri regulate it through review of the Federal permitting
> process (Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the
> Rivers and Harbors Act). Given appropriate coordination, potential
> impacts can be minimized or avoided. Tier II Section 7 Consultation
> will be conducted as necessary. Therefore, fleeting impacts are likely
> to be negligible and will not rise to the level of harm or harassment;
> i.e. will not cause death or injury of individual bats or
> significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns including breeding,
> feeding or sheltering. The survival of the species will not be
> threatened in the action area.

2.3.2.1.3 Port Facilities

> The future need for private port facilities is unknown although it
> will likely increase as tow traffic increases. If construction
> requires removal of floodplain trees suitable for Indiana bat
> roosting, it may adversely affect the species. However, construction
> of terminals would be subject to floodplain regulations and
> environmental review. Given appropriate coordination, potential
> impacts can be minimized or avoided. Tier II Section 7 Consultation
> will be conducted as necessary. Therefore, construction and operation
> of port facilities may affect individual bats through disturbance or
> minor habitat alteration but will not rise to the level of harm or
> harassment; i.e., will not cause death or injury of individual bats or
> significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns including breeding,
> feeding or sheltering. The survival of the species will not be
> threatened in the action area.

2.3.2.1.4 Exotic Species - Not applicable

> 2.3.2.1.5 Contaminants
>
> Environmental contaminants from accidental spills could potentially
> affect the Indiana bat. However, the probability of a traffic-related
> catastrophic spill is considered low.
>
> As discussed in Section 2.1.3 above, agricultural chemicals have been
> suggested in several sources to be a potential cause of population
> declines in insectivorous bats. Although it is true that the direct
> application of insecticides could affect the species, this is not of
> concern here. Chemical use has changed and is continuing to change.
> First generation insecticides such as DDT or chlordane are soluble in
> water and have higher potential to remain attached to sediment
> particles, thus attributing to their continued persistence (Goolsby
> and Pereira 1996). Presently, many agricultural insecticides are water
> soluble and have half lives in the hours, thus making them less likely
> to impact aquatic insects (USACE 1999). If they were to affect the
> Indiana bat or other insectivorous bats, it would most likely be
> through decreasing the abundance of their food source, not through
> direct toxic effects. Herbicides also have been documented to be in
> high concentrations through the river, especially from May through
> July. With longer half lives, they have higher potential to remain
> attached to sediments; however, they are also generally less likely to
> have direct toxic effects to animals.
>
> Accidental spills of contaminants on the UMRS may affect the Indiana
> bat to a minor extent by reducing its food supply. However, due to the
> low frequency of spills on the UMRS, this impact is considered
> negligible and will not threaten the survival of the species in the
> action area.
>
> 2.3.2.2 Recreation Related Indirect Effects
>
> Considering current population trends, human use of, and demand for
> recreational facilities in the UMRS corridor will likely increase,
> which will increase the potential for impact on the Indiana bat. Human
> activity at or near bat roost sites has the potential to cause
> disturbance. Operation of Corps= recreational facilities includes
> routine maintenance, such as mowing, but there is no plan to expand or
> increase the number of such facilities (USACE 1999). Due to the low
> number of documented roost sites in the UMRS floodplain, any impacts
> from recreational use are considered negligible.
>
> Development of private recreational facilities would be subject to
> floodplain regulations and environmental review. Given appropriate
> coordination, potential impacts can be avoided and Tier II Section 7
> consultation will be conducted as necessary. Therefore, impacts from
> the construction of recreational facilities may affect individual bats
> through disturbance but will not rise to the level of harm or
> harassment; i.e., will not cause death or injury of individual bats or
> significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns including breeding,
> feeding or sheltering. The survival of the species will not be
> threatened in the action area.
>
> 2.3.3 Interrelated Effects
>
> 2.3.3.1 Timber Management - see 2.3.3.3 below
>
> 2.3.3.2 Cabin Leases
>
> New leases are not being issued, but existing sites are maintained. If
> leased areas are returned to the Corps, natural resource management
> prescriptions are implemented which include closure or removal of the
> access road and conversion to natural habitat. Maintenance actions
> taken by lessees are subject to review, and therefore impacts to the
> Indiana bat would be considered at that time. However, this
> maintenance does not include expansion or additional clearing of
> trees. Should future clearing be proposed, a Tier II Section 7
> consultation may be required. Therefore impacts from continued
> maintenance of cabin leases may affect individual bats through
> disturbance but will not rise to the level of harm or harassment;
> i.e., will not cause death or injury of individual bats or
> significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns including breeding,
> feeding or sheltering. The survival of the species will not be
> threatened in the action area.
>
> 2.3.3.3 Management of General Plan Lands
>
> Corps= forest management goals were described in section 1.2.3 of this
> document. In addition, the Corps= has proposed a Conservation Measure
> for the Indiana bat (see 1.3.1 above) wherein Aforest management
> efforts within the range of the bat will be carried out to establish
> and maintain forest species and size class diversity in order to
> ensure a long-term supply of potential Indiana bat roost trees.@
> Although forest management practices may cause temporary adverse
> impacts, there will likely be long-term benefits to the habitat. Prior
> to carrying out management actions, sites are evaluated for presence
> of threatened or endangered species and other natural resources of
> concern, and actions are taken to avoid impacts to these species. This
> includes designating special management zones, observing seasonal
> restrictions, and providing buffers. Forest management is carried out
> through close coordination with State and Federal resource agencies,
> including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Forestry practices
> diversify the habitat and strive to maintain size class diversity.
> Specific actions are described in the OMP, 5-year plan, and
> Environmental Assessment prepared for forestry, fish and wildlife
> management within the Rock Island District (USACE 1992, USACE 1981).
> Forest management practices that maintain forest age class and
> diversity contribute to the conservation of the species through
> providing and maintaining suitable future habitat.
>
> As described in Section 1.2.3, a great deal of land in the project
> area is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and state
> natural resource agencies as fish and wildlife refuges and
> recreational areas. Within the range of the Indiana bat, these include
> the Illinois River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge, the Mark Twain
> National Wildlife Refuge, the Upper Mississippi River National
> Wildlife and Fish Refuge, and various areas managed by the states. At
> the present time, all Service Refuges in the action area are preparing
> Comprehensive Conservation Plans (CCPs) which will address forest land
> management. Forest management practices that maintain forest age class
> and diversity contribute to the conservation of the species through
> providing and maintaining suitable future habitat.
>
> Therefore, any adverse impacts associated with General Plan Land
> management will not rise to the level of harm or harassment; i.e. will
> not cause death or injury of individual bats or significantly disrupt
> normal behavior patterns including breeding, feeding or sheltering.
> The survival of the species will not be threatened in the action area.

2.3.4 Interdependent Effects - None

> 2.3.5 Cumulative Effects
>
> Cumulative effects include the effects of State, local or private
> actions that may occur in the action area. Future Federal actions that
> are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this
> section because they require separate consultation pursuant to section
> 7 of ESA.
>
> The Service is unaware of any non-Federal actions that are reasonably
> certain to occur which may affect the Indiana bat. However, most
> non-Federal actions in the floodplain of the Illinois and Upper
> Mississippi Rivers will likely require Federal review under Section
> 404 of the Clean Water Act or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors
> Act. Given appropriate environmental coordination, impacts to the
> Indiana bat can be avoided. Therefore, any cumulative effects due to
> non-Federal actions are considered to be negligible.
>
> 2.3.6 Summary of Effects
>
> In summary, loss of habitat may result from continued impoundment and
> water level regulation of the UMRS but these losses will be offset by
> forest management practices conducted by the Corps and other Federal
> and state resource agencies. Impacts from other aspects of the
> operation and maintenance of the 9-Foot Navigation Project are
> considered to be negligible and will not rise to the level of harm or
> harassment; i.e., will not cause death or injury of individual bats or
> significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns including breeding,
> feeding or sheltering. The survival of the species will not be
> threatened in the action area.

2.4 Conclusion

After reviewing the current status of the Indiana bat, the environmental
baseline for the action area, the effects of the proposed action, and
the cumulative effects, it is the Service\'s biological opinion that the
proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
the species.

Potential impacts will be negligible, offset by forest management
prescriptions, or will be avoided or minimized through appropriate
environmental coordination. As any adverse effects will be minimized,
the long-term persistence of the Indiana bat within the action area will
not be threatened. Thus, the proposed action is also unlikely to
appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the
species rangewide. No Critical Habitat has been designated for the bat
within the action area.

2.6 Incidental Take

Section 9 of the Act and Federal regulation pursuant to Section 4(d) of
the Act prohibits the take of endangered and threatened species without
special exemption. Take is defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt,
shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or to attempt to engage in
any such activity. Harm is further defined by the Service to include
significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or
injury to listed species by significantly impairing essential behavioral
patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Harass is defined
by the Service as intentional or negligent actions that create the
likelihood of injury to listed species to such an extent as to
significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which include, but are
not limited to, breeding, feeding, and sheltering. Incidental take is
defined as take incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out
of an otherwise lawful activity. Under the terms of Section 7(b)(4) and
Section 7(o)(2), take incidental to and not an intended part of the
agency action is not considered prohibited taking under the Act,
provided such taking is in compliance with the terms and conditions of
this Incidental Take Statement.

The measures described below are non-discretionary, and must be
undertaken by the Corps for the exemption in Section 7(o)(2) to apply.
The Corps has a continuing duty to regulate the activity covered by this
incidental take statement. If the Corps fails to assume and implement
the terms and conditions, the protective coverage of Section 7(o)(2) may
lapse. In order to monitor the impact of incidental take, the Corps must
report the progress of the action and its impact on the species to the
Service as specified in the incidental take statement (50 CFR,
402.14(I)(3)).

The Service does not anticipate that the proposed action will
incidentally take any Indiana bats.

2.7 Conservation Recommendations - None

2.8 Literature Cited

3D/E (3D/Environmental Services, Inc.). 1995. Literature summary and
habitat suitability index model components of summer habitat for the
Indiana bat, *Myotis sodalis*. Report to Ind. Dept. Nat. Res. Fed. Aid
Proj. E-1-7, Study no. 8.

Barbour, R.W. and W.H. Davis. 1969. Bats of America. Univ. Press of
Kentucky, Lexington. 286 pp.

Beauvais, S.L., J.G. Wiener, and G.J. Atchison. 1995. Cadmium and
mercury in sediment and burrowing mayfly nymphs (*Hexagenia*) in the
Upper Mississippi River, USA. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 28,
178-183.

BHE Environmental, Inc. 1999. 1998 Annual report: implementation of
reasonable and prudent measures and terms and conditions in the
biological opinion for BRAC implementation at Fort Leonard Wood. Unpubl.
Rept. 3D/E Group of BHE Environmental, Inc., Cincinnati, OH. 199 pp. +
app.

Bowles, J.B. 1982. Results of monitoring of Indiana bat maternity sites
in south-central Iowa. Unpubl. Report to IA Cons. Comm.

Brack, V., Jr., K. Tyrell, and K. Dunlap. 1991. A 1990-1991 winter cave
census for the Indiana bat (*Myotis sodalis*) in non-priority 1
hibernacula in Indiana. Ind. Fed. Aid Proj. E-1-6, Study No. 18. Ind.
Dept. Nat. Resour., Indianapolis. 45 pp.

Clark, D.R., Jr. 1981. Bats and environmental contaminants: a review.
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service Special Scientific Report. Wildlife No.
235. 27 pp.

Clark, D.R., Jr., R.K. LaVal, and D.M. Swineford. 1978. Dieldrin-induced
mortality in an endangered species, the gray bat ((*Myotis grisescens*).
Science 199:1357-1359.

Clark, D.R., Jr., and R.M. Prouty. 1976. Organochlorine residues in
three bat species from four localities in Maryland and West Virginia,
1973. J. Pestic. Monitor. 10:44-53.

DeBlase, A.F., S.R. Humphrey, and K.S. Drury. 1965. Cave flooding and
mortality in bats in Wind Cave, Kentucky. J. Mamm., 46:96.

EMTC (Environmental Management Technical Center). 1998. Draft ecological
status and trends of the Upper Mississippi River System. USGS/EMTC

Garner, J.D. and J.E. Gardner. 1992. Determinations of summer
distribution and habitat utilization of the Indiana bat (*Myotis
sodalis*) in Illinois. Final Report: Project E-3. End. Sp. Act Sec. 6
Rpt. Il. Dept. Cons., Springfield, IL.

Giessman, N., T.W. Barney, T.L. Haithcoat, J.W. Meyers, and B.
Massengale. 1986. Distribution of forestland in Missouri. Trans.
Missouri Acad. Sci. 20:5-14.

Geluso, K.N., J.S. Altenbach, and D.E. Wilson. 1976. Bat mortality:
pesticide poisoning and migratory stress. Science 194:185-186.

Goolsby, D.A and W.E. Pereira. 1996. Pesticides in the Mississippi
River. In: Mead, R.H. ed. 1996. Contaminants in the Mississippi River,
1987-92. U.S. Geol. Surv. Circ. 1133. pp87-101. Denver, CO.

Hall, J.S. 1962. A life history and taxonomic study of the Indiana bat,
*Myotis sodalis*. Reading Publ. Mus. Art., Gallery Publ. 12:1-68.

Hassell, M.D. and M.J. Harvey. 1965. Differential homing in *Myotis
sodalis*. Am. Midl. Nat. 74:501-503

Humphrey, S.R. 1978. Status, winter habitat, and management of the
endangered Indiana bat, *Myotis sodalis*. Florida Scientist 41:65-76.

Johnson, S.A., V. Brack, Jr., and R.E. Rolley. 1998. Overwinter weight
loss of Indiana bats (*Myotis sodalis*) from hibernacula subject to
human visitation. Am. Midl. Nat. 139:255-261.

Kennedy, J. and S. Ducummon. 1999. 1999 Winter bat survey in Pilot Know
Mine, Iron County, Missouri. Unpubl. Rept. to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Columbia, MO. 12pp.

Kurta, A. 1980. Status of the Indiana bat, *Myotis sodalis*, in
Michigan. Mich. Acad. 13:31-36.

Jacobson, R.B., and A.T. Primm. 1997. Historical land-use changes and
potential effects on stream disturbance in the Ozark Plateaus, Missouri.
U.S. Geol. Surv. Water-Supply Paper 2484, Denver, CO. 85pp.

Ladd, D. 1991. Reexamination of the role of fire in Missouri oak
woodlands. *In:* G.V. Burger, J.E. Ebinger, and G.S. Wilhelm, eds., pp.
67-80. Proceedings of the Oak Woods Management Workshop, Eastern IL
Univ., Charleston, IL.

LaVal, R.K. and M.L. LaVal. 1980. Ecological studies and management of
Missouri bats, with emphasis on cave-dwelling species. MO Dept. of Cons.
Terrestrial Series 8:1-53.

Lee, y. 1993. Feeding ecology of the Indiana bat *Myotis sodalis*, and
resource partitioning with *Myotis keenii* and *Myotis lucifugus*. M.S.
Thesis, U. of Tenn. , Knoxville.

MacCleery, D.W. 1992. American forests - a history of resiliency and
recovery. USDA Forest Service publ. FS-540. Forest History Society,
Durham, NC. 58 pp.

Marbut, C.F. 1896. Surface features of Missouri. MO Geol. Surv. Rept.
10-14-109.

McFarland, C.A. 1998. Potential agricultural insecticide exposure of
Indiana bats (*Myotis sodalis*) in Missouri. Unpubl. M.S. thesis, U. of
MO - Columbia. 256 pp.

Meade, R.H., ed. 1995. Contaminants in the Mississippi River, 1987-92.
U.S. Geol. Surv. Circ. 1133. Denver, CO

Mohr, C.E. 1972. The status of threatened species of cave-dwelling bats.
Bull. Nat. Speleol. Soc. 34:33-37.

Moore, G.F. 1998. Plant communities of Effigy Mounds National Monument
and their relationship to presettlement vegetation. M.S. Thesis, U. of
WI, Madison.

Myers, R.F. 1964. Ecology of three species of Myotine bats in the Ozark
Plateau. Unpubl. Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ. of Missouri-Columbia,
Columbia, MO 210 pp.

Nelson, J.C., A. Redmond, and R.E. Sparks. 1994. Impacts of settlement
on floodplain vegetation at the confluence of the Illinois and
Mississippi Rivers. Transactions of the IL St. Acad. Sci. (1994). Vol.
87, Nos. 3 and 4, pp. 117-133.

Nelson, J.C.. And R.E. Sparks. 1997. Forest compositional change at the
confluence of the Illinois and Mississippi Rivers. Trans. Il. St. Acad.
Sci. Vol. 91, Nos. 1 and 2, pp. 33-46. Reprinted by the USGS, Envl.
Mgmt. Tech. Cent., Onalaska, WI. September 1998. LTRMP 98-R011. 14 pp.

Nigh, T.A., W.L. Pflieger, P.L. Redfearn, W.A. Schroeder, A.R.
Templeton, and F.R. Thompson, III. 1992. The biodiversity of Missouri -
definition, status, and recommendations for its conservation.
Biodiversity Task Force, Jefferson City, MO. 53 pp.

Reidinger, R.F. 1972. Factors influencing Arizona bat population levels.
Unpubl. Ph.D. dissert., U. of AZ, Tucson. 172 pp.

\_\_\_\_\_. 1976. Organochlorine residues in adults of six southwestern
bat species. J. Wild. Manag. 40:677-680.

Richter, A.R., S.R. Humphrey, J.B. Cope and V. Brack, Jr. 1993. Modified
cave entrances: thermal effect on body mass and resulting decline of
endangered Indiana bats (*Myotis sodalis*). Conserv. Biol. 7:407-415.

Romme. R.C., K. Tyrell, and V. Brack, Jr. 1995. Literature summary and
habitat suitability index model: components of summer habitat for the
Indiana bat, *Myotis sodalis*. Report submitted to the IN Dept. Nat.
Res., Div. Wild., Bloomington, IN by 3D/Environmental Services, Inc.,
Cincinnati, OH. Fed. Aid Proj. E-1-7, Study No. 8. 38pp.

Saur, C. O. 1920. The geography of the Ozark highland of Missouri. Geog.
Soc. of Chicago Bull. No. 7. U. of Chicago Press, Chicago. 187 pp.

Schmauch, S. and M. Tuttle. 1998. Pilot Knob Mine site evaluation.
Unpubl. Rept. to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Columbia, MO. 5pp.

Schroeder, W.A. 1981. Presettlement Prairie of Missouri. MO Dept. of
Cons., Jefferson City, MO. 35 pp.

Steingraeber, M.T., T.R. Schwartz, J.G. Wiener, and J.A. Lebo. 1994.
Polychlorinated biphenyl congeners in emergent mayflies from the Upper
Mississippi River. Envl. Sci. and Tech. 8:707-714.

Steingraeber, M.T. and J.G. Wiener. 1995. Bioassessment of contaminant
transport and distribution in aquatic ecosystems by chemical analysis of
burrowing mayflies (*Hexagenia*). Regulated Rivers: Research and
Management 11:201-209.

Thomas, D.W., M. Dorais, and J.M. Bergeron. 1990. Winter energy budgets
and cost of arousals for hibernating little brown bats (*Myotis
lucifugus*). J. Mamm. 71:475-479.

Thomas, D. W. 1995. Hibernating bats are sensitive to non-tactile human
disturbance. J. Mamm. 76:940-946.

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1981. Environmental assessment,
Mississippi river Forestry, Fish and Wildlife Plan, Pools 11-22. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Rock Island District, Rock Island, IL

\_\_\_\_\_. 1992. Natural Resource Management Operational Management
Plan, Mississippi River. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Rock Island
District, Rock Island, IL.

\_\_\_\_\_. 1998. Identification of potential commercial navigation
related bank erosion sites. Interim report for the UMR-IWW System
Navigation Study.

\_\_\_\_\_. 1999. Tier I of a two-tiered biological assessment -
operation and maintenance of the Upper Mississippi River navigation
project within the St. Paul, Rock Island, and St. Louis Districts.
Mississippi Valley Division, Vicksburg, MS. 111 pp. plus appendices.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1999. Agency Draft Indiana Bat
(*Myotis sodalis*) Revised Recovery Plan. Fort Snelling, MN. 53 pp.

Yin, Y. 1999. Flooding and forest succession in a modified stretch along
the Upper Mississippi River. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management,
14:217-225. Reprinted by U.S.G.S. Upper Midwest Envl. Sci. Cent., La
Crosse, WI. Jan. 1999. LTRMP 99-R002. 9 pp.

Yin, Y. and J.C. Nelson. 1995. Modifications of the Upper Mississippi
River and their effects on floodplain forests. Nat. Biol. Surv., Envl.
Mgmt. Tech. Cent., Onalaska, WI. Feb. 1995. LTRMP 95-T003. 17 pp.

Yin, Y., J.C. Nelson, and K.S. Lubinski. 1997. Bottomland hardwood
forests along the Upper Mississippi River. Natural Areas Journal 17(2):
164-173. Reprinted by U.S.G.S. Envl. Mgmt. Tech. Cent., Onalaska, WI.
Nov. 1997. LTRMP 97-R025. 10pp.

**3.0 Decurrent false aster**

3.1 Status of the Species

This section presents the biological or ecological information relevant
to formulating the biological opinion. Appropriate information on the
species= life history, its habitat and distribution, and other data on
factors necessary to its survival, is included to provide background for
analysis in later sections. This analysis documents the effects of all
past human and natural activities or events that have led to the current
status of the species. This information is presented in listing
documents, the recovery plan (USFWS 1990), and the Biological Assessment
(USACE 1999).

The decurrent false aster *(Boltonia decurrens)* was listed as a
threatened species by the Service on November 14, 1988 (53 FR 45861). It
is a floodplain species that occurs along a 250 miles section of the
lower Illinois River and nearby parts of the UMR (Schwegman and Nyboer
1985, USFWS 1990). *B. decurrens* is an early successional species that
requires either natural or human disturbance to create and maintain
suitable habitat. Its natural habitat is wet prairies, shallow marshes,
and shores of open rivers, creeks, and lakes (Schwegman and Nyboer
1985). In the past the annual flood/drought cycle of the Illinois River
provided the natural disturbance required by this species. Annual spring
flooding created open, well lit habitat and reduced competition by
killing other less flood-tolerant, early successional species. Field
observations indicate that in \"weedy\" areas without disturbance, the
species is eliminated by competition within 3 to 5 years (USFWS 1990).

Smith *et al.* (1998) found that populations of *B. decurrens* increased
in size at three sites studied on the Illinois River following the flood
of 1993, with the greatest increase occurring at the two sites which had
the most severe flooding. These results suggest that the removal of
competing species by flood waters may be an important factor in
maintaining populations of *B. decurrens* in the floodplain. *B.
decurrens* has high light requirements for growth and achene germination
(Smith *et al.* 1993, Smith *et al.* 1995), and shading from other
vegetation is thought to contribute to its decline in undisturbed areas.

*B. decurrens* exhibits a number of morphological adaptations for life
on the floodplain. Stoecker *et al.* (1995) found *B. decurrens* to be
extremely tolerant when maintained under conditions of root ­zone
saturation. All plants in the flood treatment replicate survived to the
end of the study at 56 days. The formation of aerenchyma, a common plant
adaptation to flooding which allows diffusion of oxygen from aerial
shoots to maintain root metabolism, was extensive, increasing in
adventitious roots from 26% of root cross-section area in non-flooded
plants to 49% in flooded plants (Stoecker *et al. 1995).* Achenes of *B.
decurrens* are morphologically structured for flotation and therefore
presumably are adapted for dispersal on river currents. Smith and Keevin
(1998) found that germination was not significantly reduced in achenes
floated for 4 weeks, and 20% of achenes floated under conditions of
simulated wave action were still floating after 4 weeks. These data
indicate that achenes have the potential for long distance dispersal on
water.

Smith and Keevin (1998) found that achenes of *B. decurrens* will not
germinate in the dark. Achenes, which were covered with as little as 0.2
in. of sediment, did not germinate; therefore, if achenes are deposited
by flood water and subsequently covered by a shallow layer of sediment,
it is unlikely they will germinate. Natural or human disturbance of the
soil, exposing the achenes to light, would be required for germination.
Sediment type may also be an important factor in achene germination and
long-term survival of populations. *B. decurrens* has been observed
growing on a variety of soil types (Schwegman and Nyboer 1985, Smith
1991); however, laboratory studies (Smith *et al.* 1995) comparing
achene germination and growth on two soil types, silty clay (6.7% sand,
53.3% silt, and 40% clay) and loamy sand (80% sand, 16.7% silt and 3.3%
clay) indicate that germination and seedling growth were significantly
greater on sand than on clay. These laboratory results suggest that the
silt and clay sediment being deposited by flood events on the Illinois
River (Lee and Stall 1976) is not ideal for germination and growth. Soil
type may thus be important in determining the distribution pattern of
this species.

*B. decurrens* reproduces vegetatively and sexually. Vegetative
production of one or more basal rosettes occurs during the fall.
Rosettes bolt the following spring; plants flower and set achenes from
late August to early October. Field monitoring by Schwegman and Nyboer
(1985) suggested prolific achene production. *B. decurrens* produces ca.
50,000 achenes per individual, and, based on achene viability, an
average plant is capable of producing ca. 40,000 seedlings under optimal
conditions for germination (Smith and Keevin 1998). Fall seedlings
overwinter and bolt and flower the following spring and summer. Spring
seedlings, however, may either bolt and flower the same year or
overwinter as small rosettes which bolt and flower the following year
(Smith 1991). In areas where seedling production is low or nonexistent,
*B. decurrens* populations can be maintained by basal rosette
production. In fact, few seedlings are found in established populations
(Moss 1997, Smith 1991). Seedling establishment is expected to be low
due to the small achene size, the high light and temperature
requirements for germination, and specific soil texture and
microtopography requirements for germination and seedling growth (Baskin
and Baskin 1988, Smith *et al.* 1995).

Analysis of 19^th^ century habitat data taken from herbarium sheets
indicates that *B. decurrens*= natural habitat was the shores of lakes
and streams in the Illinois River floodplain and the Mississippi River
floodplain in the vicinity of its confluence with the Illinois River. It
ranged along a 250 mile stretch between LaSalle, Illinois and St. Louis,
Missouri. A disjunct population at Cape Girardeau, Missouri was reported
in 1976, 120 miles downstream of St. Louis (Schwegman and Nyboer 1985),
but it has not been found since.

The present distribution of the aster is essentially unchanged.
Determining a total population for the species is difficult because
individual populations may change dramatically from year to year; some
increasing, some decreasing, new ones appearing and old ones
disappearing depending on site conditions. Several notable populations
include Riverlands Environmental Demonstration Area, Spatterdock Bottoms
and Columbia Bottoms in St. Charles County, Missouri; and Rice Lake in
Fulton County, and Worley Lake in Tazewell County, Illinois (Dr. Marian
Smith, Southern Illinois University - Edwardsville *in litt*. to Gerry
Bade December 4, 1999; *ibid*. January 28, 2000.).

In spite of the above, the species is considered to be stable ((Dr.
Marian Smith, Southern Illinois University - Edwardsville *in litt*. to
Gerry Bade December 4, 1999). The Recovery Plan states that the species
will be considered recovered after 12 stable populations have been
protected by purchase, easement or cooperative management agreement. The
species is considered to be about 75% recovered at this time ((Dr.
Marian Smith, Southern Illinois University - Edwardsville *in litt*. to
Gerry Bade December 4, 1999).

Habitat destruction and modification has been blamed for the decline of
the species, particularly of natural marshes, wet prairies, and
shoreline habitats. Wetlands have been drained and converted to other
uses, heavy siltation has buried suitable habitats, and construction of
levee systems have altered the flooding regimes necessary for reduction
of competition and prevented the dispersal of seeds to potential
habitat. (USFWS 1990, Schwegman and Nyboer 1985, Smith *et* *al.* 1993,
Stoecker *et al.* 1995, Smith *et al.* 1998, Smith and Keevin 1998).

3.2 Environmental Baseline

This section is an analysis of the effects of past and ongoing human and
natural factors leading to the current status of the species, its
habitat, and ecosystem within the action area. The purpose is to
describe the current status of the species within the action area and
those factors that have contributed to this state.

> 3.2.1 Status of the Species in the Action Area
>
> The action area encompasses the entire range of the species, therefore
> its status within the action area is as described above.
>
> 3.2.2 Factors Affecting the Species
>
> 3.2.2.1 Impoundment and Water Level Regulation
>
> The initial impoundment of the Illinois River by navigation dams Locks
> and Dam 26 on the UMR; La Grange Lock and Dam, Peoria Lock and Dam,
> Starved Rock Lock and Dam and Marseilles Lock and Dam on the Illinois
> River) within the historic range of the aster created a series of
> pools. The pooling of the Illinois River resulted in the inundation of
> shoreline habitat. Historic collections indicate that shoreline
> habitat was utilized by *B. decurrens* (USFWS 1990). The acreage of
> shoreline habitat lost during the initial inundation by the navigation
> pools has not been quantified. It should be noted, however, that Anew@
> shoreline would have been created or shifted to a higher elevation
> when the river was impounded.
>
> Maintenance of navigation pools on the Illinois River has resulted in
> stable water levels during low-­flow periods while locks and dams have
> had little effect on water stages during high water events. During
> low-flow periods prior to lock and dam construction, especially during
> drought years, the river would have receded, providing additional
> shoreline habitat for *B. decurrens.* The magnitude of impact would
> depend on many factors including the timing and duration of shoreline
> dewatering and availability of a seed bank. While the natural drought
> process has been eliminated, the flood cycle remains unmodified.
>
> 3.2.2.2 Dredging and Disposal
>
> Dredged material from the navigation channel by a hydraulic cutterhead
> dredge and is discharged to placement sites by floating pipeline.
> Under optimal conditions, the dredge can pump as much as 350 cubic
> yards per hour as far as 4000 feet up or downstream and up to 1000
> feet inland. The Government hydraulic cutterhead dredge *William A.
> Thompson* is occasionally used for large jobs or jobs requiring longer
> pipeline, up to 1 mile.
>
> Dredged material removed from the navigation channel in the Rock
> Island District portion of the Illinois River was usually placed along
> the shoreline or occasionally in upland sites located in close
> proximity to the dredging site. Depending upon location, dredged
> material is placed 1) linearly along the shoreline for bankline
> stabilization or to rejuvenate recreational beaches that have
> diminished because of erosion, or 2) in the upland out of the river,
> occasionally in bottomland forest, or, more likely, in industrial
> sites, on levees, or in beneficial use sites. Previous shoreline and
> upland placement may have destroyed populations of *B. decurrens* or
> rendered the habitat unsuitable for recolonization. Dredged material
> removed from the St. Louis District=s portion of the Illinois River
> and the Mississippi River are placed in underwater sites near the
> shoreline. The magnitude of impact cannot be quantified due to a lack
> of historical data.
>
> 3.2.2.3 Clearing and Snagging - not applicable
>
> 3.2.2.4 Channel Structure/Revetment
>
> Past activities related to the construction of channel training
> structures and revetment have likely affected *B. decurrens* or its
> habitat. Such modification includes bankline grading and placement of
> stone (covering habitat) for bank revetment, wingdams, and closure
> structures. Maintenance of existing structures where shoreline
> modification has occurred may also have affected the species. The
> magnitude of these impact cannot be quantified due to a lack of
> historical data.
>
> 3.2.2.5 Fleeting
>
> Development of existing fleeting areas required various levels of
> habitat modification, including placement of on-shore deadmen.
> Operation of heavy equipment and soil disturbance may have affected
> *B. decurrens* to an unknown degree. A study of the effects of barge
> fleeting on bank erosion found that fleeting areas are of high risk
> for potential bank erosion (USACE 1998) which may have destroyed the
> plant=s habitat. However, the magnitude of this impact cannot be
> determined due to a lack of historical data.
>
> 3.2.2.6 Recreation Related Indirect Effects
>
> Development of recreation-related facilities required various levels
> of habitat modification including grading of shoreline areas,
> construction of boat ramps and docks, placement or riprap and bank
> revetment, and dredging access channels and harbors. Such actions may
> have destroyed the plant=s habitat. The level of impact to *B.
> decurrens* or its habitat is unknown due a to lack of historical data.
>
> 3.2.2.7 Cabin Leases
>
> Development and use of cabin lease sites may have impacted decurrent
> false asters through habitat modification. Habitat modification would
> include conversion of open floodplain habitat to maintained lawns or
> rip rap shore protection. Continual human traffic over an area of
> otherwise suitable habitat would render it unsuitable for the species.
> The magnitude of this impact cannot be evaluated due to a lack of
> historical information.
>
> 3.2.2.8 General Plan Land Management
>
> Corps of Engineers= General Plan (GP) Lands in the St. Louis District
> include Riverlands Environmental Demonstration Area (EDA) managed by
> the Corps, Dresser Island/Spatterdock Bottoms managed by the Corps,
> Horseshoe Lake managed in part by the Corps and the State of Illinois)
> and Batchtown, Calhoun and Gilbert Lake Divisions and the Portage
> Island Group of the Mark Twain National Wildlife and Fish Refuge
> managed by the Service. *B. decurrens* occurs in the Gilbert Lake
> Division, Horseshoe Lake, the EDA and Dresser Island/Spatterdock
> Bottoms.
>
> In the past, certain maintenance and management activities such as
> grading and filling, bank stabilization, mowing, drainage ditch
> clean-out and controlled burns may have impacted the aster on these
> areas. The magnitude of these impacts is unknown due to a lack of
> historical data. No previous Section 7 consultation has been conducted
> for these activities.

3.3 Effects of the Action

This section includes an analysis of the direct and indirect effects of
the proposed action on the species and its interrelated and
interdependent activities.

> 3.3.1 Direct Effects
>
> 3.3.1.1 Operation of the 9-Foot Channel Project
>
> 3.3.1.1.1 Impoundment and Water Level Regulation
>
> The continued impoundment will not cause any additional impacts to the
> species or its habitat, i.e., no additional habitat will be lost due
> to inundation. Consequently, the impacts of impoundment will not
> threaten the survival and recovery of the species over the life of the
> project.
>
> The future impacts of water level regulation will be the same as in
> the past, i.e stabilization of water levels during low flows and
> little or no affect on high flows. While the natural drought process
> has been eliminated, the flood cycle remains unmodified and will
> continue to provide the habitat disturbance on which the species
> depends. Consequently, the impacts of water level regulation will not
> threaten the survival and recovery of the species in the action area.
>
> 3.3.1.2 Maintenance of the 9-Foot Channel Project
>
> 3.3.1.2.1 Dredging and Disposal
>
> The Rock Island District currently has a dredged material placement
> coordination process in place. Prior to the discharge of any dredged
> material, representatives of the Rock Island District and the On-Site
> Inspection Team (OSIT) meet to determine the preferred placement site
> for the dredged material. The OSIT is composed of representatives of
> the appropriate State and Federal agencies. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
> Service, along with representatives of the affected State(s),
> participate in the OSIT. Additionally, appropriate Federal and State
> agency representatives are coordinated with concerning endangered
> species. Although the OSIT tries to avoid impacts from dredged
> material placement, there is a potential that *B. decurrens* may occur
> at sites where seed has settled but the plant has not yet sprouted.
> Potential impacts of dredged material placement can be minimized as
> much as possible through appropriate coordination with the Service.
> Tier II Section 7 Consultation will be conducted as necessary. In the
> St. Louis District, placement of dredged material within the range of
> *B. decurrens* does not involve land or shoreline disposal. Therefore,
> the impacts of maintenance dredging will not threaten the survival and
> recovery of the species in the action area.

3.3.1.2.2 Clearing and Snagging - not applicable

> 3.3.1.2.3 Channel Structure/Revetment
>
> There is a potential to adversely affect decurrent false aster
> populations where construction and maintenance of channel structures
> and revetment would involve habitat modification. Such modification
> would include bankline grading and placement of stone (covering
> habitat) for bank revetment, wingdams, and closure structures. There
> is also a potential that bank grading and associated activities could
> create conditions suitable for the establishment of new populations of
> *B. decurrens* due to habitat disturbance. Current construction
> practices for off-bank revetment, chevron dikes, and bendway weirs do
> not involve terrestrial habitat destruction and construction is done
> from the river without terrestrial staging areas.
>
> Potential impacts of constructing and maintaining channel structures
> and revetment can be avoided through appropriate coordination with the
> Service. Tier II Section 7 Consultation will be conducted as
> necessary. Therefore, construction and maintenance of channel
> structures and revetment will not threaten the survival and recovery
> of the species in the action area.
>
> 3.3.1.2.4 Lock and Dam Rehabilitation - no effect
>
> 3.3.2 Indirect Effects
>
> 3.3.2.1 Navigation Related Indirect Effects
>
> 3.3.2.1.1 Tow Traffic - no effect
>
> 3.3.2.1.2 Fleeting
>
> The future need for fleeting areas will likely increase as tow traffic
> increases over the life of the project. Fleeting may affect individual
> plants through shoreline erosion. However, potential impacts of
> development of fleeting areas will be minimized or eliminated through
> appropriate coordination with the Service. The States of Illinois and
> Missouri regulate fleeting through review of the Federal permitting
> process (Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the
> Rivers and Harbors Act). Given appropriate coordination, potential
> impacts can be minimized or avoided. Tier II Section 7 Consultation
> will be conducted as necessary. The survival of the species will not
> be threatened in the action area.

3.3.2.1.3 Port Facilities

> The future need for additional port facilities is unknown although it
> will likely increase as tow traffic increases over the life of the
> project. Construction of port facilities may affect the aster through
> habitat modification. However, potential impacts of port facilities
> can be avoided through appropriate coordination with the Service. Tier
> II Section 7 Consultation will be conducted as necessary. Therefore,
> development of port facilities will not threaten the survival and
> recovery of the species in the action area.
>
> 3.3.2.1.4 Exotic Species - not applicable
>
> 3.3.2.1.5 Contaminants
>
> The potential for a major spill of an herbicide that would harm the
> aster is extremely remote and would be mitigated by the dilution with
> river water, river stage, location and timing of the spill. Therefore,
> this impact is considered negligible and will not threaten the
> survival and recovery of the species in the action area.

3.3.2.2 Recreation Related Indirect Effects

> Considering current population trends, human use of, and demand for
> recreational facilities in the UMRS corridor will likely increase,
> which will increase the potential for impact on the aster. Development
> of recreational facilities such as boat ramps and harbors, swimming
> beaches, and the like may affect the aster through habitat
> modification. However, potential impacts can be avoided through
> appropriate coordination with the Service. Tier II Section 7
> Consultation will be conducted as necessary. Therefore, development of
> recreational facilities will not threaten the survival and recovery of
> the species in the action area.

3.3.3 Interrelated Effects

> 3.3.3.1 Timber Management - see section 3.3.3.3 below
>
> 3.3.3.2 Cabin Leases
>
> The maintenance of cabin lease sites by the Corps of Engineers will
> not likely create any additional impacts to the aster. There will be
> no new leases issued, but those in existence will be maintained. All
> leases returned to the Corps are released and natural resource
> management prescriptions are implemented. This usually includes
> closure or removal of the access road and conversion to natural
> habitat (USACE 1999). All new maintenance actions taken by lessees are
> subject to review by the Corps. Therefore, maintenance of cabin lease
> sites will not threaten the survival and recovery of the species in
> the action area.

3.3.3.3 General Plan Land Management

> The St. Louis District has recently completed an Action Plan for *B.
> decurrens* on Corps of Engineers General Plan lands within the St.
> Louis District (USACE 1998). Development of the Action Plan was a
> joint effort between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Corps
> of Engineers with participation from Dr. Marian Smith (Southern
> Illinois University - Edwardsville), an expert on the species. The
> action plan included a monitoring protocol and initial census,
> evaluation of management techniques, training of site personnel to
> identify the species, development of an education and outreach
> program, development of land management objectives, and development of
> a pre-action checklist for project implementation. The next step is to
> implement the plan and to incorporate a management protocol into the
> Corps= Operational Management Plan for the area. Consistent with the
> Action Plan, the St. Louis District has completed Phase I (Monitoring
> Protocol), an initial census of the Environmental Demonstration Area,
> to determine the locations and general population sizes of *B.
> decurrens* (USACE *in litt*. to Gerry Bade, November 3, 1999).
> Implementation of this Action Plan will provide benefits to the
> species and enhance the potential for its survival and recovery.
>
> Similar management possibilities exist on other Corps lands, U.S. Fish
> and Wildlife Service refuge lands, including the Mark Twain National
> Fish and Wildlife Refuge and the Illinois River Refuge, and management
> lands owned and/or managed by the Missouri Department of Conservation
> and the Illinois Department of Natural Resources. The Service=s
> Refuges are currently in the process of completing Comprehensive
> Conservation Plans which will address their goals and objectives for
> aster management. Although some land prescriptions may temporarily
> impact the species, management by these agencies will, in general, be
> of benefit to the aster in the action area.

3.3.3.4 Public Use Sites - see 3.3.2.2 above.

> 3.3.4 Interdependent Effects - none
>
> 3.3.5 Cumulative Effects
>
> Cumulative effects include the effects of State, local or private
> actions that have occurred in the action area. Future Federal actions
> that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this
> section because they require separate consultation pursuant to section
> 7 of ESA.
>
> The Service is unaware of any non-Federal actions that are reasonably
> certain to occur which may affect the decurrent false aster. However,
> most non-Federal actions in the floodplain of the Illinois and Upper
> Mississippi Rivers will likely require Federal review under Section
> 404 of the Clean Water Act or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors
> Act. Given appropriate environmental coordination, impacts to the
> aster can be avoided. Therefore, any cumulative effects due to
> non-Federal actions are considered to be negligible.
>
> 3.3.6 Summary of Effects
>
> In summary, all potential impacts from the continued operation and
> maintenance of the 9-Foot Channel Project are considered to be
> negligible and will not threaten the survival and recovery of the
> species in the action area. Furthermore, all new construction of river
> training structures and bank revetment, maintenance of existing
> structures, and channel dredging and disposal will be subject to
> environmental review by the Service, and thus, additional measures to
> further minimize potential impacts will be implemented via a Tier II
> Section 7 consultation. Similarly, non-Federal activities such as
> fleeting, port facilities, and recreational facilities requiring
> authorization under the CWA or River and Harbors Act will also be
> reviewed by the Service and, if necessary, undergo a Tier II Section 7
> consultation.

3.4 Conclusion

After reviewing the current status of *B. decurrens*, the environmental
baseline for the action area, the effects of the proposed action, and
the cumulative effects, it is the Service\'s biological opinion that the
proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
the species.

Potential impacts will be negligible, offset by management
prescriptions, or will be avoided or minimized through appropriate
environmental coordination. As any adverse effects will be minimized,
the long-term persistence of the aster within the action area will not
be threatened. Thus, the proposed action is also unlikely to appreciably
reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the species rangewide.
No critical habitat has been designated for this species, therefore,
none will be affected.

3.5 Incidental Take Statement

Sections 7(b)(4) and 7(o)(2) of ESA do not apply to the incidental take
of listed plant species. However, protection of listed plants is
provided to the extent that ESA requires a Federal permit for removal or
reduction to possession of endangered plants from areas under Federal
jurisdiction, or for any act that would remove, cut, dig up, or damage
or destroy any such species on any other area in knowing violation of
any regulation of any State or in the course of any violation of a State
criminal trespass law.

3.6 Conservation Recommendations

Section 7(a)(1) of ESA directs Federal agencies to utilize their
authorities to further the purposes of ESA by carrying out conservation
programs for the benefit of endangered and threatened species.
Conservation recommendations are discretionary agency activities to
minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on listed species
or critical habitat, to help implement recovery plans, or to develop
information.

> 1\. The St. Louis Corps District and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
> Service developed an action plan for managing and protecting
> populations of *B. decurrens* on the Riverlands Environmental
> Demonstration Area (EDA). The action plan included a monitoring
> protocol and initial census, evaluation of management techniques,
> training of site personnel to identify the species, development of an
> education and outreach program, development of land management
> objectives, and development of a pre-action checklist for project
> implementation. Implementation of this action plan is hereby
> recommended.

3.7 Literature Cited

Baskin, C.C. and J.M. Baskin. 1988. Germination ecophysiology of
herbaceous plant species in a temperate region. Amer. J. Bot.
75:286-305.

Lee, M.T., and J.B. Stall. 1976. Sediment conditions in backwater lakes
along the Illinois River - Phase 2. Il. St. Wat. Surv. Contract Report
176B. 63 pp.

Moss, J. 1997. Stage-based demography of the threatened floodplain
species *Boltonia decurrens*. M.S. Thesis, Southern Illinois University,
Edwardsville, IL.

Schwegman, J.E. and R.W. Nyboer. 1985. The taxonomic and population
status of *Boltonia decurrens* (Torr. & Gray) Wood. Castanea 50:112-115.

Smith, M. 1991. Life history research for decurrent false aster. Il.
Dept. Cons. Contract Report, Springfield, IL. 26 pp.

Smith, M., T. Brandt, and J. Stone. 1995. Effects of soil texture and
microtopography on germination and seedling growth in *Boltonia
decurrens* (Asteraceae), a threatened floodplain species. Wetlands
15:392-396.

Smith, M. and T. Keevin. 1998. Achene morphology, production and
germination, and potential for water dispersal in *Boltonia decurrens*
(decurrent false aster), a threatened floodplain species. Rhodora
100:69-81.

Smith, M., T. Keevin, P. Mettler-McClure, and R. Barkau. 1998. Effects
of the flood of 1993 on *Boltonia decurrens*, a rare floodplain plant.
Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 14:191-202.

Smith, M., Y. Wu, and O. Green. 1993. Effects of light and water-stress
on photosynthesis and biomass production in *Boltonia decurrens*
(Asteraceae), a threatened species. Am. J. Bot. 80:854-864.

Stoecker, M.A., M. Smith, and E.D. Melton. 1995. Survival and aerenchyma
development under flooded conditions of *Boltonia decurrens*, a
threatened floodplain species and Conyza canadensis, a widely
distributed competitor. Am. Midl. Nat. 134:117-126.

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1998. Action plan for managing and
protecting populations of *Boltonia decurrens*. 3 pp.

\_\_\_\_\_. 1999. Tier I of a two-tiered biological assessment -
operation and maintenance of the Upper Mississippi River navigation
project within the St. Paul, Rock Island, and St. Louis Districts.
Mississippi Valley Division, Vicksburg, MS. 111 pp. plus appendices.

\_\_\_\_\_. *in litt*. Correspondence to Gerry Bade, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Rock Island, IL. November 3, 1999.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1990. Decurrent false aster
recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Twin Cities, MN. 26 pp.

**4.0 Interior Least Tern**

4.1 Status of the Species

> 4.1.1 Species Description
>
> Least terns (*Sterna antillarum*) are the smallest members of the
> subfamily Sterninae and family Laridae of the order Charadriiformes,
> measuring approximately 21-24 cm long with a 51 cm wingspan. The sexes
> are alike with a black-capped crown, white forehead, grayish back and
> dorsal wing surfaces, snowy white undersurfaces, legs of various
> orange and yellow colors depending on the sex, and a black-tipped bill
> whose color also varies depending on sex (Watson 1966, Davis 1968,
> Boyd and Thompson 1985). Immature birds have darker plumage than
> adults, a dark bill, and dark eye stripes on their white foreheads.
>
> The least tern in North America was described by Lesson in 1847
> (Ridgway 1895, American Ornithologists= Union (AOU) 1957, 1983). The
> least tern in interior North America was later described as a race of
> the Old World little tern (*Sterna* *albifrons*). As a result of
> studies on vocalizations and behavior, this group is now recognized as
> a distinct species, with the interior least tern recognized as a
> subspecies (*Sterna* *antillarum* *athalassos*) (AOU 1957, 1983).
> Unless otherwise specified, the term Aleast terns@ will hereafter
> refer to the interior least tern.
>
> 4.1.2 Historic and Current Rangewide Distribution
>
> The interior least tern is migratory and historically bred along the
> Mississippi, Missouri, Arkansas, Red, Rio Grande and Ohio river
> systems (AOU 1957, Anderson 1971, Coues 1874, Burroughs 1961, Hardy
> 1957, Youngworth 1930, 1931, Ducey 1981). The range extended from
> Texas to Montana and from eastern Colorado and New Mexico to southern
> Indiana. Incidental occurrences of least terns have been reported in
> Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Ohio and Arizona (Campbell 1935,
> Janssen 1986, Jung 1935, Mayfield 1943, Monson and Phillips 1981,
> Phillips *et al*. 1964). The species continues to breed in most of the
> above referenced river systems. However, its distribution is generally
> restricted to less altered river segments (USFWS 1990).
>
> [Mississippi and Ohio Rivers]{.underline}: In the Mississippi River
> valley, least terns historically nested from Lee County, Iowa, to
> Jefferson County, Mississippi (Hardy 1957, Smith and Renken 1993).
> Currently, the breeding range extends from Madison County, Illinois,
> (approximate Upper Mississippi River mile 196.0) to Madison Parish,
> Louisiana, on the Lower Mississippi River (Rumancik 1988). Surveys by
> the Corps of Engineers (Corps) (Rumancik 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988, M.
> Smith 1986) and the Missouri Department of Conservation (MoDOC ) (J.
> Smith 1985, 1986, 1987, and 1988, Smith and Renken 1990) indicate that
> about one-half of all least terns occur along 1100 km of the Lower
> Mississippi River. On the Ohio River, least terns nest just above the
> confluence of the Tennessee and Ohio Rivers and at one artificial site
> on the Wabash River in Indiana.
>
> [Missouri River System]{.underline}: In the Dakotas, least terns occur
> primarily on those river segments of the Missouri River and its
> tributaries that are not affected by impoundments or channelization.
> In South Dakota, the least tern nests primarily on flowing segments of
> the Missouri and Cheyenne Rivers (Nebraska Game and Park Commission
> 1985a, Schwalbach 1988, Schwalbach *et al*. 1986, 1988). Breeding
> areas in North Dakota constitute about 192 km of the Missouri River
> from Garrison Dam to the mouth of the Cannonball River south of
> Bismarck (Dryer and Dryer 1985, Mayer and Dryer 1988), and about 29 km
> of the Yellowstone River in North Dakota from the Montana border to
> the river=s confluence with the Missouri River (Kreil and Dryer 1987).
> In Montana, breeding least terns have been recorded on the Yellowstone
> River and on the Missouri River between Ft. Peck Reservoir and North
> Dakota. In Nebraska, least terns breed along the lower section of the
> Niobrara River and on the Platte River and several of its tributaries
> (Nebraska Game and Fish Commission 1985a, 1987). Least terns no longer
> nest in the Missouri reaches of the Missouri River (Smith 1985, Sidle
> *et al*. 1988, Smith and Renken 1990).
>
> [Arkansas River System]{.underline}: Breeding least terns occur along
> the Arkansas River system in Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas and
> Texas. In Colorado, least terns nest at Adobe Creek reservoir and have
> been observed at Nee Noshe reservoir (Carter 1989). In Kansas, least
> terns nest on the Cimarron River (Boyd 1983, 1986, 1987, Schulenberg
> and Ptacek 1984). Least terns occur on several tributaries of the
> Arkansas River in Oklahoma. These include the Salt Fork, Beaver River
> and Cimarron River (Boyd 1987). In Arkansas, the breeding range on the
> Arkansas River is above Little Rock (Smith and Shepard 1985, Smith *et
> al*. 1987, K. Smith 1986).
>
> [Red River System]{.underline}: Least terns are known to occur on the
> Prairie Dog Town Fork of the Red River in the eastern Texas Panhandle
> and along the Texas and Oklahoma boundary as far east as Burkburnett,
> Texas (McCament and Thompson 1985, 1987).
>
> [Rio Grande River System]{.underline}: Least terns occur at three
> reservoirs along the Rio Grand River and along the Pecos River at the
> Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge in New Mexico (McCament and
> Thompson 1985, 1987, Neck and Riskind 1981, Seibert 1951, Marlett
> 1984, 1987).
>
> The wintering area of interior least terns is unknown. However, least
> terns of unknown populations or subspecies are found during winter
> along the Central American coast and the northern coast of South
> America from Venezuela to northeastern Brazil. Approximately 35 least
> terns of unknown subspecies have been recaptured in South America,
> mostly in Guyana. One interior least tern was captured in El Salvador
> and a California least tern has been captured in Guatemala.
>
> 4.1.3 Life History
>
> 4.1.3.1 Reproductive Biology
>
> Least terns spend about 4-5 months at their breeding sites. They
> arrive at breeding areas from late April to early June (Faanes 1983,
> Hardy 1957, USFWS 1987a, Wilson 1984, Wycoff 1960, Youngworth 1930).
> Courtship occurs at the nesting site or at some distance from the nest
> site (Tomkins 1959). It includes the fish flight, an aerial display
> involving pursuit and maneuvers culminating in a fish transfer on the
> ground between two displaying birds. Other courtship behaviors include
> nest scraping, copulation and a variety of postures and vocalizations
> (Ducey 1981, Hardy 1957, Wolk 1974).
>
> The nest is a shallow and inconspicuous depression in an open, sandy
> area, gravelly patch, or exposed flat. Small stones, twigs, pieces of
> wood and debris usually lie near the nest. Least terns nest in
> colonies and nests can be as close as just a few meters apart or
> widely scattered up to hundreds of meters (Ducey 1988, Anderson 1983,
> Hardy 1957, Kirsch 1990, Smith and Renken 1990, Stiles 1939). The
> benefit of semi-colonial nesting in least terns may be related to
> anti-predator behavior and social facilitation (Burger 1988).
>
> The birds usually lay two to three eggs (Anderson 1983, Faanes 1983,
> Hardy 1957, Kirsch 1987, 1988, 1989, Sweet 1985, Smith 1985). The
> average clutch size for interior least terns nesting on the
> Mississippi River during 1986-1989 was 2.4 eggs (Smith and Renken
> 1990). Egg-laying begins by late May. Both sexes share incubation
> which generally lasts 20-25 days but has ranged from 17-28 days
> (Faanes 1983, Hardy 1957, Moser 1940, Schwalbach 1988).
>
> The precocial behavior of least tern chicks is similar to that of
> other terns. They hatch within one day of each other and are brooded
> for about one week. They usually remain within the nesting territory
> but wander farther as they mature. Fledging occurs after three weeks,
> however, parental attention continues until migration (Hardy 1957,
> Massey 1972, 1974, Tomkins 1959). Departure from colonies by both
> adults and fledglings varies but is usually complete by early
> September (Bent 1921, Hardy 1957, Stiles 1939).
>
> 4.1.3.2 Dispersal Patterns
>
> Breeding site fidelity of coastal and California least terns is very
> high (Atwood *et al*. 1984, Burger 1984). This may also be true for
> the interior least tern in its riverine environment. An interior least
> tern banded in 1988 as a breeding adult on the Missouri River in North
> Dakota returned in 1989 to breed on a Missouri River sandbar in North
> Dakota (Mayer and Dryer 1990). In the Mississippi River valley, a bird
> banded as a breeding adult in 1987 was observed nesting at the same
> site in 1989, and three others banded as breeding adults in 1988
> returned to nest within the same stretch of the Mississippi River in
> 1989 (Smith and Renken 1990). Two of those birds had returned to
> within 4.8 km of their former nesting site. One least tern captured in
> 1987 as a breeding adult at a Mississippi River colony in Missouri had
> been banded as a chick in 1980; this bird was nesting at a site 131 km
> upriver from its natal Tennessee colony (Smith 1987, Smith and Renken
> 1990). Chick dispersal may be as far as that reported by Boyd and
> Thompson (1985) for a breeding Kansas bird that had been banded as a
> chick on the Texas coast.
>
> 4.3.1.3 Home Range and Territoriality
>
> The least tern=s home range during the breeding season is usually
> limited to a reach of river near the sandbar nesting site. Home ranges
> can be variable and have been documented ranging from 11 to 1,015 ha
> (Talent and Hill 1985). Variation in home range size is likely due to
> food limitations and chick loss. The home range may change if
> renesting birds select a different breeding site. Nesting territories
> are defended and birds defend any nest in the colony. In defending the
> territory, the incubating bird will fly up and give an obvious alarm
> call followed by repeated dives at the intruder (Hardy 1957).
>
> 4.1.1.4 Feeding Behavior and Habitat
>
> Least terns feed almost entirely on small fish, primarily minnows
> (Cyprinidae), throughout their entire life (Youngworth 1930, Hardy
> 1957, Anderson 1983). Important fish prey genera include *Fundulus,
> Notropis, Campostoma, Pimephales, Gambusia, Blonesox, Lepomis, Morone,
> Dorosoma* and *Carpiodes* (Hardy 1957, Grover 1979, Schulenberg *et
> al*. 1980 Rumancik 1988, 1989, Smith and Renken 1990, Wilson *et al*.
> 1989). This species requires shallow water areas in lakes, ponds and
> river backwater areas with abundant small fish populations near the
> nesting area (Ganier 1930, Youngworth 1930, Hardy 1957, Anderson
> 1983). In a study of eastern least terns in North Carolina, all 61 of
> the colonies observed were within 250 m of a large expanse of shallow
> water (Jernigan *et al*. 1978). In Georgia, eastern least terns
> foraged a maximum distance of 410 m from the colony (Tomkins 1959).
> Least terns in Nebraska generally were observed foraging within 100 m
> of the colony (Faanes 1983). Moseley (1976) believed least terns to be
> opportunistic feeders, exploiting any fish within a certain size
> range. Fishing occurs close to the riverine colony. Fishing behavior
> involves hovering and diving over standing or flowing water.
>
> 4.1.4 Population Status and Trends
>
> The interior least tern was proposed for listing as an endangered
> species on May 29, 1984 (49 FR 22444-22447). The species was listed as
> endangered on June 27, 1985 (50 FR 21784-21792). According to the
> recovery plan (USFWS 1990), the least tern has been a species of
> concern for many years because of its perceived low numbers and the
> vast transformation of its riverine habitat. Barren sandbars, the
> least terns most common nesting habitat, were once a common feature of
> the Mississippi, Missouri, Arkansas, Ohio, Red, Rio Grande, Platte and
> other river systems of the central United States. Sandbars generally
> are not stable features of the natural river landscape, but are formed
> or enlarged, disappear or migrate depending on the dynamic forces of
> the river. However, stabilization of major rivers to achieve
> objectives for navigation, hydropower, irrigation, and flood control
> has destroyed the dynamic nature of these processes (Smith and Stucky
> 1988). Many of the remaining sandbars are unsuitable for nesting
> because of vegetation encroachment or are too low and subject to
> frequent inundation. The number and distribution of least terns
> probably declined accordingly.
>
> Kirsch and Sidle (1999) compiled tern population data for 1984-1995 to
> assess the status of the population. Breeding population estimates
> were compiled for 35 local areas. Numbers of terns increased during
> the period 1984-1986, probably due to increased survey efforts.
> However, large population increases along the Middle Mississippi River
> (MMR) and Lower Mississippi River (Cape Girardeau, Missouri, to
> Vicksburg, Mississippi) (LMR) between 1989 and 1990 (100%) and between
> 1993 and 1994 (60%) cannot be attributed to increased survey effort or
> improved survey methods (Kirsch and Sidle 1999). Approximately 52-79%
> of least terns nest along this portion of the Mississippi River. The
> Platte River, Nebraska, harbors the second largest number of least
> terns \[438-635 terns (6.2-13.6%)\]. Two stretches of the Missouri
> River (Garrison Dam to Lake Oahe, North Dakota, and Gavins Point Dam,
> South Dakota to Ponca, Nebraska); Salt Plains National Wildlife
> Refuge; Oklahoma, Cimarron and Canadian Rivers, Oklahoma; and Falcon
> Reservoir on the Rio Grande River, Texas, all typically harbor more
> than 100 least terns (Kirsch and Sidle 1999). Although recent counts
> of least terns (approximately 8,800 terns in 1995) exceed the overall
> recovery objective of 7,000 birds, the mean number of least terns in
> 12 of 19 local areas designated in the recovery plan (USFWS 1990) do
> not reach corresponding objectives (Kirsch and Sidle 1999).
>
> Overall population trends from 1986-1995 are positive. However, this
> positive trend is primarily due to increases in numbers of least terns
> on the Lower Mississippi River (Kirsch and Sidle 1999). Annual change
> for the entire population was approximately 9%. However, when data
> from the Lower Mississippi River was excluded, the annual change was
> 2.4% (Kirsch and Sidle 1999). At the scale of drainage basins, trends
> were positive for the Lower Mississippi River (13%), Platte River
> (2.6%) and the Missouri River (1.8%). However, only the trend for the
> Lower Mississippi River was significant (Kirsch and Sidle 1999).
>
> Interior least tern numbers at local breeding areas fluctuate
> substantially. This is perhaps due to changes in local and regional
> habitat availability or differences in emigration, immigration or
> local recruitment (Kirsch and Sidle 1999). Kirsch and Sidle (1999)
> detected significant population trends in 7 of 31 local areas. Trends
> in 5 of these areas were significantly positive (Garrison Dam to Lake
> Oahe on the Missouri River, North Dakota; Elkhorn River, Nebraska;
> reservoirs in the Arkansas River watershed, Colorado; Gibson Lake on
> the Wabash River, Indiana; and the Lower Mississippi River). Two areas
> had significant negative trends. These were Council Bluffs, Iowa, near
> the Missouri River, and Optima National Wildlife Refuge, Oklahoma
> (Kirsch and Sidle 1999). Both of these areas support low numbers of
> least terns.
>
> Kirsch and Sidle (1999) found fledging success estimates to be highly
> variable among colonies, river reaches and drainages, both within and
> among years. Fledging success estimates for the Lower Mississippi
> River do not support the positive population trend for that area. In
> addition, available data do not indicate high productivity in years
> prior to large population increases (Kirsch and Sidle 1999). Also,
> fledging success in many local areas was found to be below the 0.51
> fledglings/pair thought to be required for population maintenance
> (Kirsch 1996). Kirsch and Sidle (1999) speculated that the most
> plausible explanation for the recent increase of interior least terns
> is surges of immigration from the least tern population along the Gulf
> of Mexico which is large and stable or increasing (Thompson 1982,
> Jackson and Jackson 1985, Thompson *et al*. 1997). Further, they state
> that regular immigration for the Gulf Coast population may be an
> important influence on the dynamics of the interior population of
> least terns. However, movement data are limited, with only one
> published report of a least tern moving between the Gulf Coast and
> interior breeding areas (Boyd and Thompson 1985). Kirsch and Sidle
> (1999) further state that low individual site fidelity and substantial
> fluctuations in local numbers suggest considerable movement among
> breeding areas.
>
> 4.1.5 Habitat Requirements
>
> Interior least terns require open expanses of sand or pebble beach
> along river banks and reservoirs. Sandbars, islands, and dike fields
> are used for courtship and nesting. Terns choose sites that are
> well-drained and well back from the water line. Individual nests are
> usually near small ridges or pieces of driftwood (Bent 1921, Hardy
> 1957, Tomkins 1959, Ducey 1981, Anderson 1983, Evans 1984, Dryer and
> Dryer 1985, Landin *et al*. 1985). Least terns usually nest on sites
> totally devoid of vegetation, but have been found on sites with an
> average 11.4 to 30.4 percent vegetative cover (Hardy 1957, Anderson
> 1983, Faanes 1983, Schulenberg and Ptacek 1984, Dryer and Dryer 1985,
> Landin *et al*. 1985, Rumancik 1985).

Vegetation, if present, is usually located well away from the colony
(Hardy 1957, Anderson 1983, Rumancik 1985, Smith and Shepard 1985).
However, bugseed (*Corispermum hypssopifolium*), eastern cottonwood
(*Populus deltoides*) and sandbar willow (*Salix interior*) are commonly
found within or near some interior least tern colonies (Wycoff 1950,
Faanes 1983, Evans 1984, Dryer and Dryer 1985). Thompson (1982) reported
that vegetation associated with coastal least terns in Texas is usually
clumped and scattered. This type of growth form appears to be
particularly important for protection of young chicks from weather
extremes and predators (Hardy 1957, Jernigan *et al*. 1978, Thompson
1982, Minsky *et al*. 1984, Schulenberg and Ptacek 1984) while not
substantially obscuring the site vertically or horizontally.

> Foraging habitat for least terns includes side channels, sloughs,
> tributaries, shallow-water habitats adjacent to sand islands and the
> main channel (Dugger 1997). To successfully reproduce, productive
> foraging habitat must be located within a short distance of a colony
> (Dugger 1997).
>
> 4.1.6 Rangewide Distribution and Abundance of Habitat
>
> At a minimum, over 9,500 acres of sandbar (excluding vegetated areas)
> existed prior to impoundment of mainstem dams above Gavins Point Dam
> (USFWS 1984). While the reach of river below Gavins Point Dam still
> exhibits its somewhat free-flowing state, approximately 7,800 acres of
> sandbar habitat has been lost between 1956 and 1975 (Schmulbach *et
> al*. 1981). Gavins Point Dam closed in 1955. In 1981, Schmulbach *et
> al*. reported 2,200 acres of sandbar remaining along the 50 mile
> stretch of river below Gavins Point Dam that is designated as the
> Missouri National Recreation Area. In the LMR, 158,074 acres of bare
> sandbar habitat occurred above the Low Water Reference Plane (LWRP) in
> 1948. By 1994, the amount of bare sandbar habitat above the LWRP had
> declined to 105,797 acres (USACE 1999a). This represents a 33% decline
> in bare sandbar habitat. This decline is attributable to the river=s
> response to a series of bendway cutoffs and sandbar accretion and
> colonization by woody vegetation (USACE 1999a). Much of the sandbar
> habitat that remains is associated with wingdam systems, which may not
> provide optimal breeding habitat for least terns.
>
> 4.1.7 Factors Affecting Least Terns Rangewide
>
> Channelization, irrigation and the construction of reservoirs and
> pools has contributed to the elimination of much of the least tern=s
> sandbar nesting habitat (Funk and Robinson 1974, Hallberg *et al*.
> 1979, Sandheinrich and Atchison 1986). Ducey (1985), for example
> describes the changes in the channel characteristics of the Missouri
> River since the early 1900\'s under the Missouri River Bank
> Stabilization and Navigation Project. The wide and braided character
> of the Missouri River was engineered into a single, narrow navigation
> channel. Most sandbars virtually disappeared between Sioux City, Iowa,
> and St. Louis, Missouri (Sandheinrich and Atchison 1986, Smith and
> Stucky 1988). The MMR and the Lower Mississippi River have experienced
> similar effects due to channelization.
>
> Current regulation of Missouri River dam discharges pose additional
> problems for interior least terns nesting in remaining habitats
> (Nebraska Game and Parks Commission 1985c, Schwalbach *et al*. 1988).
> Before regulation of river flows, summer flow patterns were more
> predictable. Peak flow occurred in March from local runoff and then
> again in May and June when mountain snowmelt occurs. Flows then
> declined during the rest of the summer allowing least terns to nest as
> water levels dropped and sandbars became available (Stiles 1939, Hardy
> 1957). Currently, the main stem system is regulated for hydropower,
> navigation, water quality and supply, flood evacuation, irrigation,
> fish and wildlife conservation, and public recreation. However, system
> releases are designed to provide equitable service to power and
> navigation demands, except when they conflict with flood control
> functions of the system (USFWS 1990).
>
> The demands are unpredictable and flows can fluctuate greatly. Flow
> regimes differ greatly from historic regimes. High flow periods may
> now extend into the normal nesting period, thereby reducing the
> quality of existing nest sites and forcing least terns to initiate
> nests in poor quality locations. Extreme fluctuations can flood
> existing nests, inundate potential nesting areas, or dewater feeding
> areas. Interior least terns along the Arkansas River in Oklahoma and
> Arkansas contend with dam discharge problems similar to those on the
> Missouri River (USFWS 1990).
>
> Along the MMR, Lower Mississippi River, and elsewhere, river discharge
> may exert considerable influence on reproductive success. A wet spring
> may delay river fall and habitat may not be available until later.
> Rises in the river during spring and summer may inundate nests and
> wash away chicks (Rumancik 1986, 1989, Smith and Renken 1990).
> Renesting, however, does occur and may be an adaptation to river
> fluctuations. Dike construction has created many sandbars between the
> dikes and many nesting colonies are located on these sandbars (Landin
> *et al*. 1985, Rumancik 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, J. Smith 1985, 1986,
> 1987). According to Smith and Stucky (1988) the process of dike field
> terrestrialization is well underway at several least tern colony sites
> in the Lower Mississippi River. However, according to USACE (1999a)
> approximately two-thirds of LMR sandbars are not connected to the
> riverbank at a river stage of Low Water Reference Plane (LWRP) +10
> feet.
>
> Reservoir storage of flows responsible for scouring sandbars has
> resulted in the encroachment of vegetation along many rivers such as
> the Platte River, Nebraska, and greatly reduced channel width (Currier
> *et al*. 1985, O=Brien and Currier 1987, Eschner *et al*. 1981, Lyons
> and Randle 1988, Sidle *et al*. 1989, Stinnett *et al*. 1987). In
> addition, river mainstem reservoirs now trap much of the sediment load
> resulting in less aggradation and more degradation of the river bed
> and, subsequently, less formation of suitable sandbar nesting habitat.
> Riverine habitat along the central Platte River may require extensive
> vegetation clearing and other intensive management. In contrast, the
> lower Platte River has not undergone as extensive habitat changes as
> the central Platte. During 1987-1989, riverine sandbar habitat hosted
> 72% of the nests on the lower Platte and only 12% of the nests on the
> central Platte (Kirsch 1989, Lingle 1989).
>
> Human disturbance has been documented as a significant factor
> affecting tern productivity in many locations, including the Missouri
> River (Massey and Atwood 1979, Goodrich1982, Burger 1984, Dryer and
> Dryer 1985, Schwalbach *et al*. 1986, Schwalbach 1988, Mayer and Dryer
> 1990, Dirks and Higgins 1988). Many rivers have become the focus of
> recreational activities and sandbars are fast becoming the
> recreational counterpart of coastal beaches. Human presence reduces
> reproductive success (Mayer and Dryer 1988, Smith and Renken 1990).
> Domestic pet disturbance and trampling by grazing cattle are other
> factors that have contributed to the population decline.
>
> Predation has also been documented as a significant factor affecting
> least tern productivity in many locations (Massey and Atwood 1979,
> Jenks-Jay 1982), including the Missouri River (Dirks and Higgins
> 1988). Grover (1979) attributed 25% to 38.5% of the observed nesting
> failures to coyote predation. Paige (1968) noted 40% to 100% of
> eastern least tern chicks were destroyed by predators.
>
> Pollutants entering the waterways within and upstream of breeding
> areas can negatively impact water quality and fish populations in
> nearby foraging areas. Strip mining, urban and industrial pollutants,
> and sediments from non-point sources can all degrade water quality and
> fish habitat, thereby impacting small-fish populations on which least
> terns depend (Wilbur 1974, Erwin 1983). In addition, because least
> terns are relatively high on the food chain, they are in a position to
> accumulate contaminants which may render eggs infertile or otherwise
> affect reproduction and chick survival (USFWS 1983, Dryer and Dryer
> 1985). The extent of this impact, however, is undocumented. Mercury
> residues have been found in least terns from the Cheyenne River
> watershed in South Dakota. DDE=s and PCB=s have also been found in the
> two coastal subspecies in South Carolina and California (USFWS 1983).
>
> 4.1.8 Summary
>
> Least tern distribution and abundance have been affected by
> channelization and impoundment projects throughout its range. Although
> this species is still widely distributed, it is generally restricted
> to less altered river segments. Overall population trends from 1986 to
> 1995 are positive. However, this positive trend is due to increases in
> numbers of least terns on the Lower Mississippi River. Fledging
> success rates for the Lower Mississippi River do not support the
> positive population trend for this area, indicating possible
> immigration from Gulf Coast populations. Although recent counts of
> least terns (approximately 8,800 terns in 1995) exceed the overall
> recovery objective of 7,000 birds, the mean number of least terns in
> 12 of 19 local areas identified in the recovery plan (USFWS 1990) do
> not reach corresponding objectives (Kirsch and Sidle 1999).
>
> Suitable least tern nesting habitat is anticipated to continue to
> decline in quantity and suitability as sandbar habitat accretes and
> converts to woody vegetation and aquatic habitats continue to be
> degraded and lost due to sedimentation.

4.2 Environmental Baseline

The Section 7 environmental baseline for this biological opinion is an
analysis of the effects of past and ongoing human and natural factors
leading to the current status of the species, its habitat, and
ecosystem, within the action area. Along with a discussion of the past
and present impacts associated with construction, operation and
maintenance of the 9-Foot Channel Project, the baseline includes the
following: 1) State, local and private actions already affecting the
species or that will occur contemporaneously with this consultation; 2)
unrelated Federal actions affecting least terns that have completed
formal or informal consultations; and 3) Federal and other actions
within the action area that may benefit least terns.

> 4.2.1 Status of the species in the action area
>
> 4.2.1.1 Historic and current distribution in the action area
>
> In the Upper Mississippi River, least terns historically nested from
> the confluence with the Ohio River north to Lee County, Iowa
> (approximate river mile 362.0) (Hardy 1957, Smith and Renken 1991).
> Hardy (1957) states that least terns formerly ranged in eastern Iowa
> as far north as Dubuque, located at approximate river mile 580.0.
> Currently, the breeding range extends from the confluence of the Ohio
> River to the confluence of the Missouri River at approximate river
> mile 196.0 (MMR). However, least terns have recently been noted at the
> Riverlands Environmental Demonstration Area at approximate river mile
> 202.5 (Dan Erickson, USACE, pers.comm.), approximately 6.5 miles
> upstream from the confluence of the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers.
>
> 4.2.1.2 Population status and trends in the action area
>
> Historical population data is lacking. The first published report of
> least terns nesting in Illinois was made by Widmann (1898) who
> observed breeding birds on Gabaret Island in Madison County, Illinois.
> Brewer (1954) reported nesting colonies at Horseshoe Lake in Alexander
> County in 1952. Downing (1980) did not note any least terns in the
> lower 30-50 miles of the MMR during surveys in 1974. Two colonies in
> the MMR were located in 1983. These were located at Bumgard Island at
> river mile 30.3 and Brown=s Bar at river mile 23.7 (Anderson 1983).
> Thirteen nests were noted for both colonies (Anderson 1983).
>
> From 1989 to 1995 Corps= surveys in the MMR noted least tern numbers
> ranging from 58 in 1989 to zero in 1995 (USACE 1995). Other small boat
> census information provided by the Corps noted least tern numbers
> ranging from 90 in 1986 to 9 in 1998. This would seem to reflect a
> downward trend. However, detailed surveys of the MMR in 1997 for least
> terns identified 169 nests (MoDOC 1997). Two large colonies totaling
> 160 nests were located on historical nesting islands (Bumgard Island
> and Brown=s Bar). There has been great variability in the number of
> least terns observed in the MMR from year to year. This is likely a
> reflection of yearly fluctuations in river stages (e.g., flooding) and
> the availability of suitable nesting habitat.
>
> 4.2.1.3 Distribution and abundance of habitat in the action area
>
> Data regarding the amount of sandbar habitat which historically
> occurred in the MMR is lacking. However, Collot=s (1826) historical
> account of the MMR describes a very dynamic system with the capability
> to create and maintain a diversity of habitat types, indicating
> sandbar habitat at all elevations would have been abundant.
>
> According to the Corps= least tern biological assessment (USACE
> 1999a), 20,412 acres of non-vegetated sandbar occurs above the LWRP
> and is potentially available to least terns in the MMR. This habitat
> is widely distributed throughout the MMR with approximately 4,975
> acres occurring between river miles 0-45 and 15,437 acres between
> river miles 45-195. The biological assessment did not identify how
> much of this sandbar area occurs above various LWRP elevations (e.g.,
> LWRP +10, LWRP +15, LWRP +20, etc.). Data for the LMR indicates that
> river stages exceed LWRP +10 elevation for considerable periods in any
> given year (e.g., 240 to 300 days exceedence). Therefore, the sandbar
> area occurring above LWRP +15 and LWRP +20 is most likely potentially
> available to least terns for nesting. The hydrologic analysis of
> sandbar habitat availability during the least tern nesting season (15
> May - 31 August) did not consider how much of the area is emergent
> during the pre-laying period when least terns are searching for
> suitable nest sites or during the egg-laying period (approximately mid
> to late May for first nest attempts).
>
> Instead, the Corps= analysis of available sandbar habitat considered
> the amount of sandbar which is emergent more than 50 continuous days
> from 15 May - 31 August. This analysis likely overestimates the
> availability of sandbar habitat for nesting as a higher percentage of
> sandbar habitat is emergent in July and August during low river
> stages. This is relatively late in the least tern nesting season and
> would only provide habitat for renesting or second nest attempts.
> Smith and Renken (1991) hypothesized that sandbar habitat that is
> continuously above the water for 100 days from 15 May - 31 August is
> important to least terns on the Mississippi River. The Corps=
> hydrologic analysis for the MMR (based on one gauging station)
> indicates that sandbar habitat is emergent for 100 continuous days
> above LWRP +15 elevation only 1 out of 10 years. Sandbar habitat is
> emergent for 100 continuous days above LWRP +20 elevation 1 out of 5
> years. Given this, it is probable that much of the 20,412 acres of
> non-vegetated sandbar is not actually available during the time period
> when least terns are searching for nest sites or is only infrequently
> available depending on river stages in any given year.
>
> In addition, much of the sandbar habitat that is available for least
> tern nesting is likely associated with wingdam fields. Sandbars
> associated with wingdam fields gradually accrete and attach to the
> riverbank. The process of terrestrialization eventually makes these
> areas unsuitable for least tern nesting. These areas are also more
> easily accessible by predators.
>
> Dugger (1997) found that tern food availability is directly related to
> measures of reproductive success, such as clutch size, egg weight and
> chick growth. Foraging habitat for least terns includes side-channels,
> sloughs, tributaries, shallow-water habitats adjacent to sand islands
> and the main channel (Dugger 1997). Shallow-water areas may be of more
> importance than deep-water as these areas have higher fish abundance
> (Tibbs 1995) and very small fish which can be fed to tern chicks
> (Dugger 1997). To successfully reproduce, productive foraging habitat
> must be located within a short distance of a colony (Dugger 1997).
>
> The MMR was historically a very dynamic system with the capability to
> create and maintain a diversity of habitat types. Today, the natural
> meandering processes of the MMR have been altered through
> channelization. Wingdams, revetments, closing structures and bendway
> weirs have fixed the channel in place, disrupting the dynamic
> processes that create and maintain least tern habitat. This has
> affected the quality and quantity of habitat in the MMR, thus
> affecting the abundance and distribution of least tern nesting and
> foraging habitat.
>
> 4.2.2 Factors affecting the species environment within the action area
>
> 4.2.2.1 Channel Training Structures
>
> Channel training structures have reduced channel diversity through the
> loss of side channels, backwaters, islands, and meandering (Funk and
> Robinson 1974, Hesse *et al*. 1988). This has affected least terns by
> (1) reducing sandbar nesting habitat; (2) reducing foraging habitat;
> and (3) reducing the nutrient cycling capability of the river,
> therefore, reducing forage fish abundance.
>
> The MMR historically had a meandering pattern and shifted its course
> over the years, leaving oxbow lakes and backwaters (Theiling 1999).
> The undeveloped river was shallow and characterized by a series of
> runs, pools and channel crossings that provided a diversity of depth.
> As a result, least tern nesting and foraging habitat would have been
> abundant. Currently the MMR channel is fixed as a result of channel
> training structures and no longer allowed to meander across the
> floodplain. In 1824, the MMR surface area totaled 109 mi^2^ (87.2%
> riverbed 12.8% islands), and in 1888, surface area increased to 163
> mi^2^ (78.5% riverbed, 21.5% islands). Average river width increased
> from 3600 feet in 1824 to 5300 feet in 1888 (Simons *et al*. 1974).
> This increase in surface area and width is thought to have been caused
> by a series of floods between 1844 and 1888 and by changes in land use
> (e.g., clearing of floodplain timber for steamboat fuel and lumber and
> conversion of floodplain to agricultural use). These examples are an
> indication of the river=s surface area and width at particular points
> in time. However, the magnitude of the change from 1824 to 1888 is
> indicative of the dynamic nature of the MMR and the great potential
> for change described by Collot (1826) indicating that the river
> surface area and width has probably never been static. In 1968, due to
> the construction of channel training structures (dikes/revetments),
> the river surface area had decreased to 100 mi^2^ and the river width
> to an average of 3200 feet. Given the above, from 1888 to 1968, there
> was a 38.7% decrease in river surface area and a 39.6% decrease in
> average river width (Simons *et al*. 1974, Fremling *et al*. 1986).
> The effect of channel training structures in reducing channel width
> and surface area, and thereby, habitat diversity, continues and is
> ongoing. Theiling *et al*. (1999) found that main channel habitat
> decreased by 1667 acres in six study reaches during the period 1950 to
> 1994. Of this amount, approximately 412 acres were lost from 1975 to
> 1994. Fixing the river channel in place and reducing river surface
> area and width has affected natural river processes that create
> aquatic and terrestrial habitats over time. As a result, island
> sandbar and aquatic habitat quantity and diversity has declined,
> affecting the availability of least tern nesting and foraging habitat.
>
> In addition to constricting the channel width, dikes and revetments
> have also deepened the low water channel of the MMR. Wlosinski (1999)
> found water-surface elevations in the MMR have decreased at the same
> low discharge of 60,000 cfs during the period from 1880 to present.
> River stages fluctuate as much as 15m annually, effectively dewatering
> some secondary channels during low stages (Fremling *et al*. 1989).
> Previously aquatic habitats are now dry at low discharges (Wlosinski
> 1999). As a result, many least tern foraging habitats are dry during
> portions of the reproductive season. This limits the availability of
> least tern forage food. Dewatering of side channels has also increased
> predator accessibility to least tern nesting colonies. As discussed in
> the Status section, predators can significantly impact least tern
> reproductive success.
>
> Channel training structures have also altered the natural hydrograph
> of the MMR by contributing to higher water surface elevations at lower
> discharges than in the past. Wlosinski (1999) documented a trend of
> increasing water surface elevations in the MMR at the same high
> discharge of 780,000 cfs for a 130 year period of record. Present day
> floods on the Mississippi River at St. Louis tend to be 9 feet higher
> than historic floods at the same discharge of 780,000 cfs (Wlosinski
> 1999). Wlosinski (1999) also noted that the number of days water
> elevations are above flood stage is also increasing. At St. Louis,
> water surface elevations were above flood stage for 217 days from 1880
> to 1917; 312 days from 1918 to 1955; and 485 days from 1956 to 1993.
> The increasing occurrence of above floodstage days has limited the
> availability of least tern nesting habitat.
>
> Channel training structures have also reduced the quantity and quality
> of MMR side channels. The loss of side channels is well documented. In
> 1797 there were 55 side channels (Collot 1826), 35 in 1860 (Simons *et
> al*. 1974), 27 in 1968 (Simons *et al*. 1974), and only 25 today
> (USACE 1999b). Many of those that remain are degraded and much smaller
> than in the past (Theiling *et al*. 1999). The loss of side channel
> habitat continues. Within six study reaches analyzed, Theiling *et
> al*. (1999) noted that approximately 918 acres of secondary channel
> habitat was lost during the period 1950 to 1994. Of this amount,
> approximately 271 acres was lost from 1975 to 1994. Side channels
> serve as important nursery areas and as refugia from the swift
> currents and harsh environments of the thalweg (Environmental Sci. and
> Eng. 1982, Fremling *et al*. 1989). These areas are an integral
> component of the habitat complexity of the MMR and serve an important
> role in the cycling of nutrients and primary productivity. The loss of
> side channels has reduced the production of least tern forage food
> organisms and the availability of foraging habitat.
>
> Just as changes in river processes have eliminated channel meandering
> that creates new side channels, development of new sand bar habitat is
> also inhibited. Bendway weirs were developed to inhibit point-bar
> establishment in bends and channel crossings and to reduce the need
> for dredging in these areas. They consist of a series of submerged
> dikes (\>3m below the LWRP) generally constructed around the outer
> edge of a river bend. In recent years, bendway weirs have also been
> utilized in other depositional areas in the MMR. Each dike is angled
> 30 degrees upstream of perpendicular to divert flow, in progression,
> towards the inner bank. The result is hydraulically controlled point
> par development and reduced channel downcutting throughout the bend.
>
> Information concerning sandbar habitat loss is lacking for the MMR.
> However, data from the Lower Mississippi River may provide some
> indication of trends in sandbar habitat loss.
>
> In 1948 bare sandbar occurring above the LWRP in the LMR totaled
> 158,074 acres. By 1963, bare sandbar area above the LWRP had declined
> to 108,660 acres, reflecting a 31% decline. From 1963 to 1988, bare
> sandbar above the LWRP increased to 116,685 acres. This increase in
> sandbar acreage can primarily be attributed to accretion of sand in
> wingdam fields and degradation of the low water channel. From 1988 to
> 1994 bar sandbar acreage above the LWRP declined to 105,797 acres
> (USACE 1999a). Overall, bare sandbar habitat has declined 33% from
> 1948 to 1994. Conversely, wooded sandbar habitat above the LWRP
> increased from 21,482 acres in 1948 to 27,794 acres in 1988, a 29%
> increase. Overall, bare and wooded sandbar habitat declined by 35,077
> acres (20%) from 1948 to 1988 (USACE 1999a).
>
> 4.2.2.2 Locks and Dams
>
> Impoundment due to construction of locks and dams has adversely
> affected least terns by eliminating the species from a portion of its
> historic range. Least terns historically nested as far north as Lee
> County, Iowa (Hardy 1957). Dams were constructed on the UMR for the
> specific purpose of increasing low and moderate flow water surface
> elevations to maintain a continuous nine-foot navigation channel from
> St. Louis, Missouri, to Minneapolis, Minnesota (USACE 1999c). Initial
> impoundment likely eliminated the least terns= nesting habitat in the
> UMR above St. Louis, Missouri.
>
> Wlosinski (1999) found that water surface elevations in the MMR
> decreased at the same low discharge of 60,000 cfs during the period
> 1880 to present. This downward trend is likely to continue as a result
> of the proposed project. This downward shift in annual minimum stages
> has been attributed primarily to the degradation of the low water
> channel due to channel constriction by wingdams and levees (Simons *et
> al*. 1974). However, the MMR receives 60% of its flow from the
> Mississippi River basin (Fremling *et al*. 1989). It is likely that
> holding water to maintain a 9-Foot Channel in the pools contributes to
> the low water surface elevations in the MMR at low discharges.
> Therefore, water level regulation contributes to water level
> fluctuations in aquatic habitats in the MMR. This has affected the
> availability of least tern foraging habitat. In addition, loss of
> aquatic habitat has reduced the nutrient cycling ability of the MMR,
> therefore, reducing the abundance of forage food.
>
> One of the effects of impoundment of the UMR is a reduction in
> suspended sediment load in the MMR. MMR sediment load has declined 66%
> from pre-1935 levels mainly due to sediment entrapment in Missouri
> River impoundments (Fremling *et al*. 1989). However, as the UMR
> presently contributes approximately 20% of the average sediment load
> to the MMR (Tuttle and Pinner 1982), UMR dams have also contributed to
> the sediment load reductions. This lack of sediment delivery upset the
> natural channel equilibrium and was replaced by a variety of
> nonequilibrium processes such as hydraulic sorting and bed paving,
> which eventually will eliminate all sediment movement (USFWS 1993).
> Such reductions in suspended sediment load has likely affected the
> abundance of new sandbar habitat in the MMR.
>
> 4.2.2.3 Dredging/Disposal
>
> Dredging occurs in depositional areas and channel crossings to
> maintain a nine-foot navigation channel with disposal occurring in the
> adjacent main channel border area near shore. From 1978 to 1998, the
> St. Louis District dredged an average of 6.0 million cubic yards (mcy)
> of material per year in the MMR. This ranged from a low of 0.5 mcy in
> 1993 to a high of 20.5 mcy in 1988 (USACE 1998). The amount of
> material dredged varies from year to year depending on river stages.
> In addition, there has been no consistent pattern in the locations of
> dredging activities as this also varies depending on river conditions.
>
> The past effects of dredging and disposal activities have not been
> documented. At the present time, dredging occurs in depositional areas
> of the main channel with disposal occurring in the adjacent main
> channel border areas near shore. As such, dredging activities are not
> likely affecting least tern nesting activities. In recent years, the
> St. Louis District has been following general dredge disposal
> guidelines developed to protect important aquatic habitats, such as
> side channels. In this manner, impacts to least tern foraging habitats
> due to dredging and disposal activities have been minimized.
>
> Dredging disturbs bottom sediments and associated contaminants. Main
> channel dredge cut sediment is periodically sampled and analyzed to
> determine bulk chemical concentrations of contaminants for use in
> assessing the water quality effects of dredging. However, no analysis
> of the effects of dredging on the mass balance of contaminant
> mobilization and transport in the UMR have been conducted. The
> concentrations of some contaminants, such as PCB=s have been
> homogenized in the Mississippi River due to repeated deposition and
> resuspension of contaminated silts (Rostad *et al*. 1995). Although
> dredge material consists mainly of sand, some amount of silts are
> disturbed during the dredging process.
>
> Dredging and disposal may have adversely affected least terns by
> contributing to the transference and homogenization of contaminants in
> the Mississippi River. Rostad *et al*. (1995) state that suspended
> material in the Mississippi River transport the following sparingly
> soluble synthetic chlorinated pesticides and industrial chemicals:
> aldrin, chlorthalonil, chlordane, DCPA, DDT, DDE, DDD, dieldrin,
> endrin, heptachlor, heptachlor epoxide, hexachlorobenzene, PCB=s and
> trifluralin. Least terns may accumulate contaminants which may render
> eggs infertile or otherwise affect reproduction and chick survival
> (USFWS 1983, Dryer and Dryer 1985), however, the extent of this impact
> is undocumented.
>
> 4.2.2.4 Commercial Sand and Gravel Dredging
>
> Dredging disturbs bottom sediments and associated contaminants.
> Although the dredged material consists mainly of sand, some amount of
> silts are disturbed during the dredging process. As discussed above,
> the concentrations of some contaminants, such as PCB=s, have been
> homogenized in the Mississippi River due to repeated deposition and
> resuspension of contaminated silts (Rostad *et al*. 1995). It is
> likely that commercial sand and gravel dredging has contributed to
> some degree to the homogenization of contaminant concentrations in the
> Mississippi River and potentially contributed to the transference of
> contaminants downstream. As such, least tern reproduction may have
> been adversely affected, however, the extent of this impact is
> unknown.
>
> 4.2.2.5 Flood Control Projects
>
> Approximately, 80% of the floodplain in the MMR (approximately 500,000
> acres) has been isolated from the main channel due to levee
> construction. Interior drainage ditches and large pumps drain
> groundwater seepage (Theiling 1999) and interior floodflows. This has
> allowed the conversion of floodplain habitats to agriculture and other
> land uses. Isolated backwaters, side channels and wetlands have been
> degraded due to incompatible agricultural practices, poor stormwater
> management and sedimentation. Destruction and isolation of these
> important floodplain features have reduced riverine productivity
> (Theiling *et al*. 1999) by decreasing energy inputs (e.g., organic
> matter, carbon) into the main channel. Isolation of wetlands reduces
> their habitat value to riverine fish that make seasonal movements to
> backwaters and floodplains (USACE 1999b). These factors affect the
> overall abundance and distribution of fish in the river system. Thus,
> flood control projects have affected the availability of least tern
> foraging habitats and the abundance of least tern forage food.
>
> Levees contribute to increased flood heights and increased water level
> variability because floodwaters are confined in a smaller
> cross-sectional area (Belt 1975, Chen and Simons 1986, Bellrose *et
> al*. 1983). Wlosinski (1999) documented a trend of increasing
> water-surface elevations in the MMR at the same high discharge of
> 780,000 cfs. Present day floods on the Mississippi River tend to be 9
> feet higher than historic floods at this discharge (Wlosinski 1999).
> Wlosinki (1999) also found that the number of days water elevations
> are above flood elevations has increased. At St. Louis, water surface
> elevations were above flood stage for 217 days from 1880 to 1917; 312
> days from 1918 to 1955; and 485 days from 1956 to 1993 (Wlosinski
> 1999). As a result, flood control projects, in conjunction with
> channel training structures, have affected the availability of least
> tern nesting habitat, as many sandbar habitats are flooded at times
> when least terns are searching for suitable nesting areas.
>
> 4.2.2.6 Missouri River Impoundments
>
> The MMR currently receives about 80% of its average suspended sediment
> load from the Missouri River and 20% from the UMR watershed above St.
> Louis. The sediment load is 109.8 million tons/year. This represents a
> 66% decline from pre-1935 levels, mainly due to retention by Missouri
> River reservoirs (Fremling *et al*. 1989). This lack of sediment
> delivery upset the natural channel equilibrium and was replaced by a
> variety of nonequilibrium processes, such as hydraulic sorting and bed
> paving, which eventually will eliminate all sediment movement (USFWS
> 1993). Such reductions in sediment load has likely affected the
> abundance of sandbar habitat in the MMR.
>
> 4.2.2.7 Avoid and Minimize Program
>
> In October 1992, the St. Louis District issued Design Memorandum No.
> 24, AAvoid and Minimize Measures@ developed as a result of commitments
> made in the Record of Decision of the Environmental Impact Statement
> for the Second Lock at Melvin Price Locks and Dam. The purpose of the
> Avoid and Minimize Program is to implement various measures to avoid
> and minimize impacts associated with operation and maintenance of the
> 9-Foot Channel Project. The avoid and minimize program is beneficially
> affecting least terns by restoring/enhancing habitat in the MMR.
>
> In 1997, hard points were placed in the side channel between the
> mainland and the sandbar at Owl Creek, river miles 84-86(R). The
> purpose of this project was to isolate an existing sandbar to improve
> nesting habitat for least terns, by reducing predator accessibility.
> In addition, the hardpoints create a flow in the side channel that
> induces scour and creates a deeper channel; which contributes to
> overall aquatic habitat diversity (USACE 1997). Improvements in
> aquatic habitat diversity should result in increased forage fish
> abundance for least terns.
>
> In 1998, the upper closing structure of Marquette Chute, river mile
> 51.0(R), was modified by placing a series of shallow notches in the
> structure. The idea was to create a Astring of pools@ which may
> someday connect to each other downstream of the closing structure. Two
> of the notches were designed to enhance an existing half-acre, shallow
> pool located on the adjacent sandbar. The intent was to increase the
> wetted edge of this area (Frazier and Hrabik 1998). This project
> increased fishery access to the side channel and improved the nutrient
> cycling ability of the side channel. This potentially benefitted least
> terns by increasing forage fish abundance in this portion of the MMR,
> which is a known least tern nesting area.
>
> The Avoid and Minimize Program was originally proposed for
> implementation from 1994 to 2000 with an estimated cost of
> approximately 14 million dollars (2 million/year). After 2000, the
> program is to be completely absorbed into the normal operation and
> maintenance program or become part of the Integrated River Management
> Program (USACE 1992). Due to recovery efforts from the Great Flood of
> 1993, program construction did not become active until 1995 (USACE
> 1995). Since that time, the program has been extended to 2002, but
> funding has been reduced to 1-1.5 million dollars/year (USACE 1997).
> Funding for the Avoid and Minimize Program is currently divided
> between the impounded reaches of the St. Louis District (Pools 24, 25
> and 26) and the MMR, with work in the MMR beginning in 1997.
>
> The projects constructed by the Avoid and Minimize Program have served
> to increase aquatic habitat diversity in the MMR. This is a benefit to
> least terns, which are adapted to a dynamic environment with diverse
> habitat components. In addition, physical and biological monitoring
> have provided data that may be used to further refine structures for
> environmental benefits. However, the Avoid and Minimize Program can
> only implement small-scale improvements given funding limitations and
> the necessity to distribute those resources over a large area of river
> (approximately 300 river miles).
>
> 4.2.2.8 Refuge Land Acquisition and Management
>
> Refuge land acquisition and management is beneficially affecting least
> terns by restoring/enhancing habitat in the MMR. Benefits include
> improved fishery access to off-channel habitat during flood stages and
> improving the nutrient cycling ability of the MMR, which increases the
> abundance of least tern forage fish.
>
> Prior to the Flood of 1993, public land ownership in the MMR was
> virtually nonexistent. However, following the Flood of 1993, many
> private landowners and levee and drainage districts expressed the
> desire to sell their flood prone property. In response, Congress
> appropriated funding for the Emergency Wetland Reserve Program of the
> Department of Agriculture and for the Fish and Wildlife Service to
> assist with purchasing property from landowners who had been plagued
> by flooding and wanted to dispose of their flood prone property.
>
> The Service completed an Environmental Assessment in 1995 that
> evaluated four areas (totaling 11,400 acres) of floodplain habitat in
> the MMR which contained unprotected wetlands, cropland and aquatic
> areas. The four specific areas identified included:
>
> 1\) Meissner Island, 1,650 acres in Monroe County, Illinois at river
> miles 153-156;
>
> 2\) Harlow Island, 1,050 acres in Jefferson County, Missouri at river
> miles 141-145;
>
> 3\) Wilkinson Island, 2,700 acres in Jackson County, Illinois and
> Perry County, Missouri at river miles 88-94, and;
>
> 4\) Powers Island, 6,000 acres in Scott County, Missouri at river
> miles 34-39 (USFWS 1995).
>
> To date, the Service has purchased 1,224 acres on Harlow Island, 2,532
> acres on Wilkinson Island and less than 100 acres on Meissner Island.
> These areas are part of the Mark Twain National Wildlife Refuge
> (MTNWR) for management and administrative purposes. The purchased
> lands contribute to MTNWR goals and objectives by restoring habitat
> conditions on lands that will also increase floodplain functionality
> and the ecological integrity of the river. Acquisition of the
> properties has allowed flood-damaged agricultural lands to return to a
> more natural state by minimizing the reliance on levees and restoring
> the natural functions of the Mississippi River floodplain through
> re-connection with the river. This re-connection improves riverine
> fish access to off-channel areas during flood stages. Restoration of
> the cropland and improved floodplain function will increase organic
> matter and carbon inputs into the river locally while reducing nitrate
> input. This nutrient cycling function will benefit aquatic resources
> in this portion of the river. Thus, least tern forage fish abundance
> will increase.
>
> 4.2.3 Summary
>
> Overall least tern population trends from 1986 to 1995 have been
> positive (Kirsch and Sidle (1999). Least tern populations along the
> Mississippi River have generally increased from 1986 to 1999 with some
> cyclic fluctuations (Kirsh and Sidle 1999). Total population numbers
> were relatively low (\<2500) from 1986 to 1989 but remained relatively
> high (\>3400) from 1990 to 1999 with a peak of approximately 6100
> birds in 1999 (USACE 1999a). Populations in the MMR also exhibited
> cyclic fluctuations ranging from 90 in 1986 to 9 in 1998 and a peak of
> 169 nests in 1997. Although not stable, the Mississippi River
> population of least terns exceed the recovery goal of 2200 to 2500
> birds. Least terns occurring in the MMR represent a small percentage
> of the Mississippi River population. In addition, the MMR represents a
> small percentage of the least terns= total range.
>
> As discussed previously, the decline in least tern abundance and
> distribution has been coincidental with the development of river
> systems for navigation and flood control. Many factors influence least
> tern habitat availability and abundance in the MMR, with the most
> pervasive effect being a decrease in habitat quantity and quality as a
> result of channel training structures, locks and dams on the UMR,
> flood control projects and impoundment on the Missouri River. Other
> factors that have possibly affected least terns include dredging and
> disposal activities, commercial sand and gravel dredging and fleeting
> operations, all of which may contribute to the transference and
> homogenization of contaminant concentrations in the Mississippi River.
> Least tern abundance in the MMR appears to vary from year to year,
> likely as a result of river stages and the availability of suitable
> nesting habitat in any given year.

4.3 Effects of the Action

> 4.3.1 Direct Effects
>
> Aquatic features in rivers and floodplains are transient (Leopold *et
> al*. 1964, Shields and Abt 1989, Salo 1990, Amoros 1990). Natural
> river systems are subject to high and low flow events and biological
> processes that can cause rapid changes in successional stage of a
> particular river feature (Theiling *et al*. 1999). A natural channel
> is neither straight nor uniform (Brookes 1996). Hydraulic and
> morphologic variability through space and time determine the different
> habitats found both within a given river channel and also in the
> adjacent riparian and floodplain zones (Brookes 1996).
>
> The proposed project (operation and maintenance of the 9-Foot Channel
> Project) will continue to arrest some of the natural processes that
> provide dynamic physical change in rivers. As explained previously,
> the dynamic equilibrium of the MMR has been interrupted and replaced
> by unstable processes and hydraulic and morphologic variability has
> declined as the result of past operation and maintenance activities.
> This disruption will have continuing, ongoing effects. The result will
> be continued homogenization of the river system and loss of habitat
> diversity. This will adversely affect least terns through the loss of
> nesting and foraging habitat and by reducing forage food abundance.
>
> 4.3.1.1 Operation of the 9-Foot Channel Project
>
> 4.3.1.1.1 Water Level Regulation
>
> During previous discussions with the Corps we concluded that water
> level regulation effects were not applicable to least terns. However,
> in further reviewing this issue, we believe this is not the case. Dams
> were constructed on the UMR for the specific purpose of increasing low
> and moderate flow water surface elevations to maintain a continuous
> nine-foot navigation channel. Wlosinski (1999) found that water
> surface elevations in the MMR decreased at the same low discharge of
> 60,000 cfs during the period 1880 to present. This downward trend is
> likely to continue as a result of the proposed project. The downward
> shift in annual minimum stages has been attributed primarily to the
> degradation of the low water channel due to channel constriction by
> wingdams and levees (Simons *et al*. 1974). However, the MMR receives
> 60% of its flow from the Upper Mississippi River basin (Fremling *et
> al*. 1989). It is likely that holding water to maintain a 9-Foot
> Channel in the pools contributes to the low water surface elevations
> in the MMR at low discharges. Therefore, water level regulation will
> continue to contribute to water level fluctuations in aquatic habitats
> in the MMR. This can affect the availability of least tern foraging
> habitat. In addition, loss of aquatic habitat will reduce the nutrient
> cycling ability of the MMR, therefore, reducing the abundance of
> forage food.
>
> 4.3.1.1.2 Impoundment
>
> The UMR contributes approximately 20% of the suspended sediment load
> to the MMR (Tuttle and Pinner 1982). Impoundment due to UMR dams will
> continue to contribute to the reduction of sediment to the MMR.
> Theiling (1999) found that navigation pools may continue to accumulate
> this sediment. The lack of sediment delivery upset the natural channel
> equilibrium. This has been replaced by a variety of nonequilibrium
> processes, such as, hydraulic sorting and bed paving, which will
> eventually eliminate all sediment movement (USFWS 1993). Such
> reductions in sediment load will continue to affect least terns by
> reducing the abundance of bare sandbar habitat in the MMR.
>
> 4.3.1.2 Maintenance of the 9-Foot Channel Project
>
> Maintenance of the 9-Foot Channel Project consists of channel
> maintenance dredging and disposal, maintenance of existing channel
> training structures and construction of new channel training
> structures. These activities work in combination to significantly
> alter the natural processes that provide dynamic physical change in
> the MMR. Such changes will continue to affect least terns by (1)
> reducing the availability of bare sandbar nesting habitat; (2)
> reducing the availability of foraging habitat; and (3) reducing the
> abundance of forage food.
>
> 4.3.1.2.1 Dredging/Disposal
>
> Dredging occurs in depositional areas and channel crossings to
> maintain a nine-foot navigation channel with disposal occurring in the
> adjacent main channel border. Although dredge material consists mainly
> of sand, some amount of silts are disturbed during the dredging
> process. The amount of material dredged in the MMR will vary from year
> to year depending on river stages, and based on past data, there does
> not appear to be a consistent pattern in the location of dredging
> activities (USACE 1998). As discussed previously, dredging and
> disposal activity has likely contributed to the homogenization and
> transference of contaminants in the Mississippi River. This will
> continue to occur. Least terns may accumulate contaminants which may
> render eggs infertile or otherwise affect reproduction and chick
> survival (USFWS 1983, Dryer and Dryer 1985). However, it is unclear
> the extent to which this may affect least terns.
>
> 4.3.1.2.2 Snagging and Clearing
>
> A well defined navigation channel has been established in the MMR as a
> result of various channel training structures and is maintained by
> dredging operations. As a result, snagging and clearing operations no
> longer occur in the MMR.
>
> 4.3.1.2.3 Channel Training Structures
>
> 4.3.1.2.3.1 Wingdams
>
> Wingdams are designed to direct flow towards the middle of the
> channel, thus reducing the natural meandering capability of the river.
> Dike systems (wingdams) may cause localized flattening of the channel
> slope, increased roughness, vertical accretion of bars, increases in
> main channel volume, and stage reductions at low discharges (Elliot
> *et al*. 1991). Existing wingdams have the ongoing effect of altering
> natural river processes, thereby, reducing the quality, quantity and
> diversity of habitat in the MMR (see Environmental Baseline section).
> Continued disruption of natural processes will affect least terns by
> (1) reducing the availability of bare sandbar nesting habitat; (2)
> reducing the availability of foraging habitat; and (3) reducing the
> abundance of forage food.
>
> Wingdam systems in the MMR are maintained for the purpose of
> maintaining the nine-foot navigation channel. As such, they continue
> to reduce the natural meandering capability of the river. Thus, the
> river remains constricted and the channel bottom degraded. River
> migrations that would naturally create new habitat no longer occur. In
> addition, there is evidence that wingdams in the MMR continue to
> accrete sediment and revert to woody habitat, further constricting the
> channel. This reduces the availability of bare sandbar nesting
> habitat.
>
> Further, wingdams are frequently constructed near the mouths of side
> channels which modifies river hydraulics and hastens side channel
> filling. From 1950 to 1994, Theiling *et al*. (1999) noted the loss of
> approximately 918 acres of secondary channel habitat in the six study
> reaches analyzed. Of this amount, approximately 271 acres were lost
> from 1975 to 1994. Construction of wingdams near the mouths of side
> channels is at least partially responsible for this loss of habitat.
> This trend in side channel habitat loss is likely to continue as
> existing structures are maintained and new structures are developed.
> This reduces the availability of least tern foraging habitat and, as
> side channels serve an important role in nutrient cycling and primary
> production, this reduces the abundance of least tern forage food.
> Further, as side channels continue to accrete with sediment and
> disappear, predator accessability to least tern nesting colonies will
> increase. This will reduce least tern reproductive success in the MMR.
>
> 4.3.1.2.3.2 Bendway Weirs
>
> Bendway weirs are designed to reduce dredging requirements in river
> bends by controlling point bar development (Davinroy 1990). Bendway
> weirs affect least terns by (1) reducing the availability of bare
> sandbar nesting habitat; (2) reducing foraging habitat availability;
> and (3) reducing the abundance of forage food. However, bendway weirs
> reduce channel degradation which may reduce water level fluctuations
> in adjacent side channels. As such, bendway weirs may benefit least
> terns by increasing the availability of least tern foraging habitat
> and increasing least tern forage food abundance.
>
> Bendway weirs control point bar development along the inside of river
> bends. As such, new sandbar (aquatic and terrestrial) habitat
> development is prohibited. Existing sandbar habitat will continue to
> accrete and revert to woody vegetation to some extent. Thus, bendway
> weirs, reduce the availability of bare sandbar habitat for least tern
> nesting.
>
> In general terms, the results of various studies indicate that fish
> redistribute across the channel cross-section from the inside bank
> (shallow-water) to the outside bank (deep-water) as a result of
> bendway weirs. This is most likely in response to increases in
> macroinvertebrate abundance (Ecological Specialists, Inc. 1997a) and
> the low velocity fields that develop behind each weir. Dugger (1997)
> noted that very small fish captured in shallow-water habitats seem to
> be particularly important during least tern chick-rearing periods, as
> only small fish can be fed to chicks. Further, data suggests that
> shallow-water habitats (primarily sand/water interface habitats) are
> likely the habitats utilized most by foraging least terns during low
> or normal flows (Dugger 1997). Therefore, by reducing the abundance of
> shallow-water habitat and causing a redistribution of fish across the
> channel cross-section, bendway weirs will continue to reduce the
> availability of least tern foraging habitat and forage food abundance.
>
> However, bendway weirs also result in channel aggradation which may
> reduce water level fluctuations in adjacent side channels. This may
> benefit least terns by increasing the availability of least tern
> foraging habitat in side channels and increasing the abundance of
> least tern forage food, by improving nutrient cycling and increasing
> primary productivity. Therefore, the affect of bendway weirs on least
> tern foraging habitat and forage food abundance may be a trade-off in
> terms of effects.
>
> 4.3.1.2.3.3 Bank Revetment/Off-Bank Revetment
>
> Bankline revetments are used to eliminate the tendency for the main
> channel to migrate within the floodplain. Revetments alter the
> sinuosity of the river channel and alter natural alluvial processes,
> such as erosion. This can affect least terns by (1) reducing the
> availability of bare sandbar nesting habitat; (2) reducing the
> availability of foraging habitat; and (3) reducing the abundance of
> forage food.
>
> Revetments located on outside river bends led to channel downcutting
> and riverbed degradation. Thus, revetments, in conjunction with
> wingdams, are responsible for MMR channel constriction and degradation
> that has reduced river surface area/width and has resulted in a
> downward shift of annual minimum stages resulting in degradation of
> aquatic habitats by dewatering (Simons *et al*. 1974, Fremling *et
> al*. 1989, Wlosinski 1999). Revetments prohibit natural channel
> migrations that would result in establishment of new mid-channel
> sandbar habitats and new side channels as old side channels fill in
> with sediment or are cut-off from the main channel. By prohibiting
> natural channel migrations, revetments also reduce the input of
> organic matter and nutrients (woody debris) to the river and
> contribute to reductions in suspended sediment loads. Thus, revetments
> will continue to contribute to reductions in bare sandbar habitat,
> reductions in least tern foraging habitat, and reductions in the
> abundance of forage food.
>
> Off-bank revetments were designed to reduce bank stabilization costs
> and increase habitat diversity in main channel environments. They
> differ from standard revetment in that the riprap is placed several
> meters away from the bank in areas where there is a gradually sloping
> river bed. The result is the creation of artificial backwaters
> adjacent to the main channel. Fish movement is allowed through notches
> in the revetment. Recent fish work suggests that off-bank revetment
> provides useful and valuable habitat for a large variety of riverine
> fishes (Atwood 1996).
>
> Currently, there are no off-bank revetments constructed in the MMR.
> Therefore, these structures are not effecting least terns. Future
> construction of these structures in the MMR would increase off-channel
> habitat, therefore, increasing aquatic habitat diversity which would
> benefit least terns by increasing the abundance of foraging habitat.
> However, MMR banklines are already extensively revetted, therefore,
> the need for future revetments is uncertain. In addition, use of this
> type of revetment would generally be restricted to low velocity and
> gently sloping areas of the river (Rob Davinroy, USACE, pers. comm.).
> It is uncertain how this may affect forage food abundance, as small
> fish abundance has been found to be higher in shallow-water habitats
> compared to deep-water habitats (Tibbs 1995).
>
> 4.3.1.2.3.4 Chevron Dikes
>
> Chevron dikes were designed to divert flow into a portion of the
> navigation channel impacted by sediment accumulation on the point bar
> at a river bend where the river channel splits. The dikes divert flow
> into the main channel by presenting the hydraulic appearance of a
> solid object without isolating the side channel with a closing
> structure. Flow between the structures maintains a permanent side
> channel connection, which provides important off-channel habitat for
> fishes. Dredge material is placed within chevron dikes, creating
> sandbar habitat (aquatic and terrestrial). The rock dike substrate
> provides habitat for epilithic macroinvertebrates that are capable of
> colonizing in very high densities and providing an important food
> source for fish. Chevron dikes also create habitat heterogeneity and
> appear to increase invertebrate abundance and diversity (Ecological
> Specialists, Inc. 1997b) and provide useful and valuable habitat for a
> large variety of riverine fishes (Atwood 1997).
>
> No chevrons have been constructed in the MMR. Therefore, these
> structures are not currently affecting least terns. Any future
> construction of chevron dikes in the MMR would likely benefit least
> terns by (1) increasing the abundance of bare sandbar nesting habitat;
> (2) improving aquatic habitat diversity, thereby, increasing foraging
> habitat; and (3) increasing the abundance of forage food.
>
> 4.3.1.2.3.5 Closing Structures
>
> Closing structures for side channels were constructed to divert flow
> towards the main channel to maintain sufficient depth for the
> navigation channel. Thus, these structures have reduced flow into side
> channels causing the channel to fill with sediment. Recently, low
> dissolved oxygen and high ammonia levels have been documented in side
> channels isolated from the river (Bob Hrabik, MoDOC, LTRM Station,
> pers. comm.). Side channel closing structures also inhibit fish
> ingress/egress in side channels. Closing structures disrupt natural
> geomorphic processes by isolating/destroying important side channel
> and backwater habitat, thereby, reducing riverine productivity
> (Theiling et. al. 1999). Thus, closing structures reduce the
> availability of least tern foraging habitat and reduce the abundance
> of forage food.
>
> 4.3.2 Indirect Effects
>
> 4.3.2.1 Navigation Related Indirect Effects
>
> 4.3.2.1.1 Tow Traffic
>
> There is currently no indication that commercial navigation traffic
> disturbs least tern nesting or foraging. Tow traffic contributes to
> the resuspension of bottom sediments in the main channel depending
> upon water depths. As such, tow traffic may contribute to the
> transference and homogenization of contaminants in the UMR. As such,
> least tern reproduction may be adversely affected, however, the extent
> of this impact is unknown.
>
> 4.3.2.1.2 Fleeting
>
> Sandbars are depositional areas and are not conducive to the
> establishment of fleeting areas. Currently, there are no fleeting
> areas located near known least tern nesting areas. The establishment
> of new fleeting areas will require a permit from the Corps and will
> require individual section 7 consultation to determine if any adverse
> affects are likely.
>
> 4.3.2.1.3 Port Facilities
>
> Development of port facilities requires various levels of habitat
> modification (USACE 1999c). It is unknown to what degree future
> development of port facilities may contribute to loss of habitat for
> least terns.
>
> 4.3.2.1.4 Exotic Species
>
> There are no exotic species currently known to be affecting least
> terns.
>
> 4.3.2.1.5 Contaminants
>
> Rostad *et al*. (1995) state that suspended material in the
> Mississippi River transports the following sparingly soluble synthetic
> chlorinated pesticides and industrial chemicals: aldrin,
> chlorthalonil, chlordane, DCPA, DDT, DDE, DDD, dieldrin, endrin,
> heptachlor, heptachlor epoxide, hexachlorobenzene, lindane,
> methoxychlor, mirex, pentachloroanisole, pentachlorobenzene, PCB=s and
> trifluralin. The concentrations of some contaminants, such as PCB=s,
> have been homogenized in the Mississippi River due to the repeated
> deposition and resuspension of contaminated silts (Rostad *et al*.
> 1995).
>
> An analysis of reported oil spills in a portion of the MMR indicates
> that these types of spills are quite common (from 11/26/98 to 7/26/99
> there were 21 spills reported for the area between UMR miles 170.0 to
> 196.0) (Stan Smith, USFWS, pers. comm.). Most of the spills were small
> quantities of oil and/or diesel. The potential for such future spills
> to have direct or chronic effects on least terns is unknown. However,
> such spills contribute to the accumulation of contaminants in the MMR.
>
> 4.3.2.2 Recreation Related Indirect Effects
>
> Unlike the pooled portion of the UMR where the Corps maintains
> lake-like conditions and recreational facilities that are conducive to
> boating, no recreation facilities are maintained or planned for the
> MMR. Recreation activity in the MMR is not affected by maintenance of
> the 9-Foot Channel Project. Therefore, recreation related indirect
> effects to least terns are not anticipated.
>
> 4.3.3 Interrelated Effects
>
> 4.3.3.1 Management of Corps Lands
>
> In 1996, least terns were observed at Riverlands Environmental
> Demonstration Area (approximate river mile 202.5) for several weeks
> during the nesting season. Since that time, the Corps has proposed a
> project under the Avoid and Minimize Program to raise the elevation of
> sandbar habitat in Ellis Bay to encourage least tern nesting in this
> area. The project was not funded, however, future construction of such
> projects may encourage least terns to return to a portion of their
> historical range.
>
> 4.3.3.2 Open River Habitat Enhancement Project
>
> The St. Louis District is in the process of developing the Open River
> Habitat Enhancement Project to enhance and/or create side channel
> habitat in the MMR. In addition, the project proposes other
> activities, such as sandbar creation, riparian corridor restoration
> and restoring woody debris. Sandbar habitat creation will benefit
> least terns by increasing the abundance of nesting habitat. Aquatic
> habitat restoration/enhancement will also benefit least terns by
> increasing the abundance of foraging habitat and forage food.
>
> While the Corps proposes to utilize some operation and maintenance and
> construction general funds to implement this program, much of this
> work is proposed under various cost-sharing mechanisms (e.g.,
> Environmental Management Program, Section 1135 and Section 206). As a
> result, the Corps cannot guarantee how much of this program will be
> implemented, therefore, the amount of habitat that will be restored or
> enhanced is unknown at this time.
>
> 4.3.4 Interdependent Effects
>
> 4.3.4.1 Missouri River Bank Stabilization and Navigation Project
>
> The Missouri River Bank Stabilization and Navigation Project (Missouri
> River Project) has restricted the Missouri River to a serpentine,
> self-cleaning navigation channel characterized by high water
> velocities. This has been accomplished through the use of wingdams and
> revetments which confine the river. Before the Missouri River was
> channelized and impounded, it annually eroded 3.1 hectares/km of its
> floodplain (USACE 1981). Most of this erosion has stopped due to
> channelization and impoundment. Erosion was a natural function of the
> river system, and through erosion, inorganic sediments, organic
> matter, and large woody debris were introduced into the river. This
> material import was essential to the habitat dynamics and nutrient
> cycling of the river system. Such sediment and nutrient discharge are
> the raw materials for habitat development in the Missouri and
> Mississippi River systems. By reducing erosion in the Missouri River,
> and thereby, reducing suspended sediment load, the Missouri River
> Project continues to reduce the abundance of sandbar habitat in the
> MMR, thus reducing nesting habitat for least terns.
>
> 4.3.4.2 USCG Buoy Tending
>
> USCG buoy tending activities are not known to affect least terns.

4.3.5 Cumulative Effects

> Cumulative effects include the effects of future State, tribal, local
> or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action
> area considered in this biological opinion. Future Federal actions
> that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this
> section because they require separate consultation under section 7 of
> the Act.
>
> The Service is unaware of any future State, tribal, local or private
> actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area that
> may affect least terns.
>
> 4.3.6 Summary of Effects
>
> Operation and maintenance of the 9-Foot Channel Project will continue
> to arrest some of the natural processes that provide dynamic physical
> change in the UMR, including the MMR. The dynamic equilibrium of the
> MMR has been interrupted and replaced by unstable processes that have
> continuing, ongoing effects. The result will be continued
> homogenization of the river system, degradation of aquatic habitat and
> loss of terrestrial habitat diversity through succession.
>
> The loss of dynamic physical change has and will continue to affect
> the availability of least tern nesting habitat. This is a result of
> the loss of channel meandering and reduced suspended sediment loads
> that would create new sandbars and the conversion of existing sandbar
> habitat to woody vegetation. The loss and degradation of aquatic
> habitat reduces the availability of least tern foraging habitat. A
> number of operation and maintenance activities work in combination to
> reduce nutrient cycling and primary productivity in the MMR. This
> affects the abundance of least tern forage food. Operation and
> maintenance activities also contribute to the transference and
> homogenization of contaminants in the UMR, which may impair least tern
> reproduction. An indirect effect of operation and maintenance is
> increasing the accessibility of predators to least tern nesting
> colonies.
>
> Channelization, irrigation and impoundment have contributed to the
> elimination of much of the least tern=s sandbar nesting habitat (Funk
> and Robinson 1974, Hallberg *et al*. 1979. Sandheinrich and Atchinson
> 1986). However, the population remains widespread, occupying
> available, though not necessarily optimal, habitat. Continued
> operation and maintenance of the 9-Foot Channel Project over the next
> 50 years will result in continued habitat loss and degradation and
> continued disruption and alteration of natural river processes that
> create habitat over time. As a result, least tern nesting and foraging
> habitat will continue to decline in the MMR. The result will be
> declines in least tern population numbers in the MMR.

4.4 Conclusion

After reviewing the current status of the interior least tern, the
environmental baseline for the action area, the effects of continued
operation and maintenance of the 9-Foot Channel Project and the
cumulative effects, it is the Service=s biological opinion that the
continued operation and maintenance of the 9-Foot Channel Project, as
proposed, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the
interior least tern. No critical habitat has been designated for this
species, therefore, none will be affected.

The proposed action will continue to cause a decline in habitat
availability and least tern numbers in the MMR will likely decline as a
result. However, the MMR represents a small percentage of the least
tern=s total range. Thus, even if the MMR population was decimated by
the proposed action, such an event would not appreciably reduce the
likelihood of survival and recovery of the least tern rangewide.

4.5 Incidental Take Statement

Section 9 of the Act and Federal regulations pursuant to section 4(d) of
the Act prohibit the take of endangered and threatened species,
respectively, without special exemption. Take is defined as to harass,
harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or
attempt to engage in any such conduct. Harm is further defined by the
Service to include significant habitat modification or degradation that
results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing
essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or
sheltering. Harass is defined by the Service as intentional or negligent
actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed species to such
an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which
include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering.
Incidental take is defined as take that is incidental to, and not the
purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity. Under the terms
of section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to and
not intended as part of the agency action is not considered prohibited
taking under the Act provided that such taking in compliance with the
terms and conditions of this incidental take statement.

The measures described below are non-discretionary, and must be
undertaken by the Corps so that they become binding conditions of any
contract, grant, or permit issued, as appropriate, for the exemption in
section 7(o)(2) to apply. The Corps has a continuing duty to regulate
the activity covered by this incidental take statement. If the Corps (1)
fails to assume and implement the terms or conditions or (2) fails to
require contractors to adhere to the terms and conditions of the
incidental take statement through enforceable terms that are added to
the contract, permit or grant document, the protective coverage of
section 7(o)(2) may lapse. In order to monitor the impact of incidental
take, the Corps must report the progress of the action and its impact on
the interior least tern to the Service as specified in this incidental
take statement. \[50 CFR \'402.14(i)(3)\]

While the overall effect of new construction projects (e.g., bendway
weirs, wingdams) are considered programmatically in this incidental take
statement, it is not possible to determine the site-specific effects of
these actions at this time. Therefore, all new construction projects
will require a Tier II level of review to determine if formal section 7
consultation is necessary. A biological assessment that incorporates
measures to further minimize incidental take and that contains
pre-project physical and biological data, an analysis of predicted
post-project effects and monitoring of post-project physical and
biological effects will be developed and provided to the Service for
review.

> 4.5.1 Amount or Extent of Take
>
> The Service anticipates that 0.2 acres/mile/year of sandbar nesting
> habitat and 0.8 acres/mile/year of side channel foraging habitat could
> be taken as a result of continued operation and maintenance of the
> 9-Foot Channel Project. This incidental take is expected to be in the
> form of harm which is defined to include significant habitat
> modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed
> species by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns
> including breeding, feeding or sheltering.
>
> There is currently no data available for trends in sandbar habitat
> loss for the MMR. The best available information concerning sandbar
> trends in the Mississippi River has been developed for the LMR (USACE
> 1999a). Bare sandbar habitat acreage occurring above the LWRP
> (potentially available for least tern nesting) has varied from the
> 1960\'s to the 1990\'s as a result of many factors. These include
> sediment accumulation between wingdams, accretion of sandbars and
> conversion to woody habitat and degradation of the low water channel.
> A comparison of bare sandbar habitat occurring above the LWRP in 1963
> (108,660 acres) and in 1994 (105,797 acres) was used to determine the
> likely trends in available sandbar habitat over the 50 year project
> life. Based on this data, bare sandbar habitat in the LMR, between
> river miles 315 and 954, has declined by 2,863 acres from 1963 to
> 1994. This equates to 0.14 acres/mile/year of bare sandbar habitat
> loss. Therefore, the 0.2 acres/mile/year is a conservative estimate of
> anticipated incidental take of least tern nesting habitat in the MMR.
> Recent studies by Theiling *et al*. (1999) indicate that side channel
> habitat is being lost at a rate of 0.8 acres/mile/year (1975-1994).
> The anticipated incidental take of least tern foraging habitat is
> based upon this trend in aquatic habitat loss in the MMR.
>
> 4.5.2 Effect of the Take
>
> In the accompanying biological opinion, the Service determined that
> this level of anticipated take is not likely to result in jeopardy to
> the species or destruction or adverse modification of critical
> habitat.
>
> 4.5.3 Reasonable and Prudent Measures
>
> The Service believes the following reasonable and prudent measures are
> necessary and appropriate to minimize take of least terns:
>
> 1\. Channel training structure maintenance projects will incorporate
> modifications to maintain flow between sandbars and the adjacent
> shoreline and to reduce conversion of bare sandbar habitat to woody
> vegetation.
>
> 2\. Evaluate dredge material disposal techniques in the MMR to examine
> opportunities and develop recommendations for restoring/enhancing
> sandbar habitat and aquatic habitat. Implement the recommendations
> where feasible and appropriate.
>
> 3\. Utilize existing authorities to reduce the accretion of existing
> and/or newly established sandbars to the bankline and to reduce woody
> vegetation colonization.
>
> 4.5.4 Terms and Conditions
>
> In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act,
> the Corps must comply with the following terms and conditions, which
> implement the reasonable and prudent measures described above and
> outline required reporting/monitoring requirements. These terms and
> conditions are non-discretionary.
>
> 1\. At the beginning of each fiscal year, the Corps will provide the
> Service a list of new construction projects for which Tier II
> evaluations are anticipated.
>
> 2\. Channel training structure maintenance projects will be submitted
> to the Service for a 30 day review period. Service recommendations for
> least tern nesting/foraging habitat improvement will be incorporated
> into project plans where feasible and appropriate.
>
> 3\. Monitoring will be conducted to measure sandbar habitat trends in
> the MMR. This may be accomplished utilizing habitat mapping and
> spatial and hydrologic analyses similar to those utilized for the LMR.
> The monitoring plan must be approved by the Service.
>
> 4\. Dredging and disposal activities will continue to be coordinated
> with the Service, Illinois Department of Natural Resources and
> Missouri Department of Conservation.
>
> 5\. An annual dredge material management report will be provided to
> the Service at the end of each dredging season. The report will
> include information concerning dredging/disposal locations, quantities
> of material, the results of sediment size analysis and methods of
> disposal.

6.  An annual report will be provided to the Service which details
    actions taken regarding implementation of the reasonable and prudent
    measures.

> 4.5.5 Closing Paragraph
>
> The Service believes that no more than 10.0 acres/mile (0.2
> acres/mile/year X 50 years) of bare sandbar habitat and no more than
> 40 acres/mile (0.8 acres/mile/year X 50 years) of side channel habitat
> will be incidentally taken as a result of continued operation and
> maintenance of the 9-Foot Channel Project. The reasonable and prudent
> measures, with their implementing terms and conditions, are designed
> to minimize the impact of incidental take that might otherwise result
> from the ongoing effects of continued operation and maintenance
> activities. If, during the course of continued operation and
> maintenance of the 9-Foot Channel Project, this level of incidental
> take is exceeded, such incidental take represents new information
> requiring reinitiation of consultation and review of the reasonable
> and prudent measures provided. The Federal agency must immediately
> provide an explanation of the causes of the taking and review with the
> Service the need for possible modification of the reasonable and
> prudent measures.

4.6 Conservation Recommendations

Section 7(a)(1) of the Act directs Federal agencies to utilize their
authorities to further the purposes of the Act by carrying out programs
for the benefit of endangered and threatened species. Conservation
recommendations are discretionary agency activities to minimize or avoid
adverse effects of a proposed action on listed species or critical
habitat, to help implement recovery plans, or to develop information.

> 1\. Utilize existing authorities and programs to restore/enhance
> sandbar habitat at all elevations.
>
> 2\. Develop and implement an education program that publicizes
> information about the interior least tern, including its life history,
> reasons for current status and options for recovery.
>
> 3\. Conduct a Geographical Information System analysis to determine
> locations in the MMR where lack of sufficient bare sandbar habitat
> and/or foraging habitat may be limiting or restricting least tern
> nesting.

In order for the Service to be kept informed of actions minimizing or
avoiding adverse effects or benefitting listed species or their
habitats, the Service requests notification of the implementation of any
conservation recommendations.

4.7 Literature Cited

American Ornithologist=s Union. 1957. Checklist of North American birds.
Fifth edition. Baltimore, American Ornithologist=s Union. 691 pp.

American Ornithologist=s Union. 1983. Checklist of North American birds.
Sixth edition. Lawrence, Kansas, American Ornithologist=s Union. 877 pp.

Amoros, C. 1991. Changes in side-arm connectivity and implications for
river system management. Rivers. 2:105-112.

Anderson, E.A. 1983. Nesting productivity of the interior least tern in
Illinois. Unpubl. report, Cooperative Wildlife Research Laboratory,
Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 19 pp.

Anderson, R. 1971. Nesting least terns. Audubon Bulletin. 160:1718.

Atwood, J.L., B.W. Massey, and C.T. Collins. 1984. Movement of the
Huntington beach least tern colony: an assessment of possible impacts.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Laguna Niguel, California. Unpubl.
report. 28 pp.

Atwood, B. 1996. Gosline Island off-bankline revetment study.
[In]{.underline}: Melvin Price Locks and Dam, Progress Report 1996 for
Design Memorandum No. 24, Avoid and Minimize Measures. U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, St. Louis District, St. Louis, Missouri.

Atwood, B. 1997. Cottonwood Island chevron dike fisheries evaluation
update. [In]{.underline}: Melvin Price Locks and Dam, Progress Report
1997 for Design Memorandum No. 24, Avoid and Minimize Measures. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District, St. Louis, Missouri.

Bellrose, F.C., S.P. Havera, F.L. Paveglio, Jr., and D.W. Steffeck.
1983. The fate of lakes in the Illinois River Valley. Biological Notes
119. Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign, Illinois. 27 pp.

Belt, C.B. 1975. The 1973 flood and man=s constriction of the
Mississippi River. Science. 89:681-684.

Bent, A.C. 1921. Life histories of North American gulls and terns. U.S.
National Museum Bulletin 113. 345 pp.

Boyd, R.L. 1983. Population ecology of snowy plover and least tern in
Kansas. Unpubl. report. 34 pp.

Boyd, R.L. 1986. Habitat management and population ecology studies of
the least tern in Kansas. Kansas Fish and Game Commission. Non-game
wildlife project report. 17 pp.

Boyd, R.L. 1987. Habitat management and population ecology studies of
the least tern in Kansas. Kansas Fish and Game Commission. Unpubl.
report.

Boyd, R.L., and B.C. Thompson. 1985. Evidence for reproductive mixing of
least tern populations. J. of Field Ornithology. 56:405-406.

Brewer, R. 1954. Nesting of the least tern in Illinois. Wilson Bulletin.
66:223.

Brookes, A. 1996. River Channel Change. Pages 221-242 [in]{.underline}
P. Geoffery and P. Calow, eds., River Flows and Channel Forms: Selected
Extracts From The Rivers Handbook. Blackwell Science.

Burger, J. 1984. Colony stability in least terns. Condor. 86:61-67.

Burroughs, R.D., ed. 1961. The natural history of the Lewis and Clark
expedition. Michigan State University Press. 340 pp.

Campbell, L. 1935. Least tern taken near Toledo, Ohio. Auk. 52:87.

Carter, M.F. 1989. Breeding least tern inventory. Job progress report,
project SE-12-1, Colorado.

Chen, Y.H., and D.B. Simons. 1986. Hydrology, hydraulics, and
geomorphology of the Upper Mississippi River System. Hydrobiologia.
136:5-20

Collot, V. 1826. A journey in North America. Arthur Bertrand,
Bookseller, Paris. 2 Volumes and 1 map atlas.

Coues, E. 1874. Birds of the northwest: a handbook of the ornithology of
the region drained by the Missouri River and its tributaries. U.S.
Geological Survey of the Territories, Miscellaneous publication number
3. 791 pp.

Currier, P.J., G.R. Lingle, and J.G. VanDerwalker. 1985. Migratory bird
habitat on the Platte and North Platte Rivers in Nebraska. The Platte
River Whooping Crane Critical Habitat Maintenance Trust, Grand Island,
Nebraska.

Davinroy, R.D. 1990. Bendway weirs, a new structural solution to
navigation problems experienced on the Mississippi River. Permanent
International Association of Navigation Congresses. 69:5-18.

Davis, M.E., 1968. Nesting behavior of the least tern (*Sterna
albifrons*). M.S. Thesis. Univ. of California, Los Angeles. 72 pp.

Dirks, B. and K.F. Higgins. 1988. Interior least tern and piping plover
surveys, Missouri River, South Dakota. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, Omaha,
Nebraska.

Downing, R.L. 1980. Survey of interior least tern nesting populations.
Am. Birds. 34:209-211.

Dryer, M.P., and P.J. Dryer. 1985. Investigations into the population,
breeding sites, habitat characteristics, threats, and productivity of
the least tern in North Dakota. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Resource
information paper number 1. Bismarck, North Dakota. 17 pp.

Ducey, J.E. 1981. Interior least tern (*Sterna antillarum athalassos*).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pierre, South Dakota. Unpubl. report. 56
pp.

Ducey, J.E. 1988. Nest scrape characteristics of piping plover and least
tern in Nebraska. Nebraska Bird Review. 56:42-44.

Dugger, K.M. 1997. Foraging ecology and reproductive success of least
terns nesting on the Lower Mississippi River. Ph.D. Dissertation. Univ.
of Missouri, Columbia. 136 pp.

Ecological Specialists, Inc., 1997a. Final Report: Macroinvertebrates
Associated with Bendway Weirs at Mississippi River Mile 30. Prepared for
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District, St. Louis,
Missouri.

Elliot, C.M., R.R. Rentschler, and J.H. Brooks. 1991. Response of Lower
Mississippi River to low-flow stages. Proceedings of the U.S.
Interagency Sedimentation Conference. Vol. 1. Las Vegas, Nevada.

Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc., 1982. Final Report, GREAT
III Ecological Health Characterization. Report DACW43-81-C-00065
prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District, St.
Louis, Missouri.

Eschner, T., R. Hadley, and K. Crowley. 1981. Hydrologic and morphologic
changes in the Platte River Basin in Colorado, Wyoming and Nebraska: a
historical perspective. U.S. Geological Survey open file report 81-1125.
U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado.

Erwin, R.M. 1983. Interior least tern (*Sterna antillarum athalassos*).
Pages 212-226 [in]{.underline} J. Armbruster, ed., Impacts of coal
surface mining on 25 migratory bird species of high Federal interest.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-83/35. Washington, D.C. 384 pp.

Evans, S.A. 1984. Survey of interior least tern (*Sterna antillarum
athalassos*) nesting colonies on the Mississippi and lower Ohio Rivers
at Kentucky. Kentucky Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Resources. Frankfort,
Kentucky. 16 pp.

Faanes, C.A. 1983. Aspects of the nesting ecology of least terns and
piping plovers in central Nebraska. Prairie Naturalist. 15:145-154.

Frazier, J.J., and R.A. Hrabik. 1998. A synopsis on habitat enhancement
work in Marquette Chute, September 1998. [In]{.underline}: Melvin Price
Locks and Dam, Progress Report 1998 for Design Memorandum No. 24, Avoid
and Minimize Measures. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District,
St. Louis, Missouri.

Fremling, C.R., J.L. Rasmussen, R.E. Sparks, S.P. Cobb, C.F. Bryan, and
T.O. Claflin. 1989. Mississippi River fisheries: a case history. Pages
309-351 [in]{.underline} D.P. Dodge, ed., Proceedings of the
International Large River Symposium. Canadian Special Publication of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 106. Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans,
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Funk, J.L., and J.W. Robinson. 1974. Changes in the channel of the lower
Missouri River and effects on fish and wildlife. Aquatic Series No. 11.
Missouri Dept. of Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri.

Ganier, A.F. 1930. Breeding of the least tern on the Mississippi River.
Wilson Bull. 42:103-107.

Goodrich, L.J. 1982. The effects of disturbance on the reproductive
success of the least tern. M.S. Thesis. Rutgers State University, New
Brunswick, New Jersey. 100 pp.

Grover, P.B. 1979. Habitat requirements of charadriiform birds nesting
on salt flats at Salt Plains National Wildlife Refuge. M.S. Thesis.
Oklahoma State University, Stillwater. 38 pp.

Hallberg, G.R., J.M. Harbough, and P.M. Witniok. 1979. Changes in the
channel areas of the Missouri River in Iowa from 1879 to 1976. Iowa
Geological Survey Special Report, Series Number 1.

Hardy, J.W. 1957. The least tern in the Mississippi River. Publ. of the
Museum, Michigan State University, Biological Series 1:1-60.

Hesse, L.W., C.W. Wolfe, and N.K. Cole. 1988. Some aspects of energy
flow in the Missouri River ecosystem and a rationale for recovery. Pages
13-29 [in]{.underline} N.G. Benson, ed., The Missouri River: the
resources, their uses and values. North Central Division of the American
Fisheries Society, Special Publication 8.

Jackson, J.A., and B.J.S. Jackson. 1985. Status, dispersion, and
population changes of the least tern in coastal Mississippi. Colonial
Waterbirds. 8:54-62.

Janssen, R.B. 1986. Least tern in Lyon County. Loon. 58:48-49.

Jenks-Jay, N. 1982. Chick shelters decrease avian predation in least
terns on the Mississippi Gulf Coast. Miss. Kite 6(2):25-35.

Jernigan, L.S., J.F. Parnell, and T. Quay. 1978. Nesting habitats and
breeding populations of the least tern (*Sterna albifrons antillarum*)
in North Carolina. Natl. Oceanic Atomospheric Administration, Sea Grant
Publ. UNC-SG-78-07. 39 pp.

Jung, C. 1935. Occurrence of the least tern (*Sterna antillarum*) in
Wisconsin. Auk. 52:87.

Kirsch, E.M. 1987. Annual Report 1987: Least tern and Piping plover on
the lower Platte River in Nebraska. Nebraska Game and Fish Commission.
Unpubl. report.

Kirsch, E.M. 1988. Annual Report 1988: Least tern and Piping plover on
the lower Platte River in Nebraska. Nebraska Game and Fish Commission.
Unpubl. report.

Kirsch, E.M. 1989. Annual Report 1989: Least tern and Piping plover on
the lower Platte River in Nebraska. Nebraska Game and Fish Commission.
Unpubl. report.

Kirsch, E.M. 1990. Final report 1990: Least tern and Piping plover on
the lower Platte River in Nebraska. Nebraska Game and Fish Commission.
Unpubl. report.

Kirsch, E.M. 1992. Habitat selection and productivity of least terns
(*Sterna antillarum*) on lower Platte River, Nebraska. Wildlife
Monographs. 132.

Kirsch, E.M., and J.G. Sidle. 1999. Status of the interior population of
least tern. J. Wildlife Manage. 63(2):470-483.

Kreil, R., and M.P. Dryer. 1987. Nesting of the interior least tern on
the Yellowstone River in North Dakota. Prairie Naturalist. 19:135-136.

Landin, M.C. 1985. Beneficial uses of dredged materials: island design,
development, and management for bird habitat. Environmental Effects of
Dredging Technical Notes. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Unpubl. Report. 15 pp.

Leopold, L.B., M.G. Wolman, and J.P. Miller. 1964. Fluvial Processes in
Geomorphology. W.H. Freeman and Company. San Francisco. 522 pp.

Lingle, G.R. 1989. Least tern and piping plover nesting ecology along
the central Platte River Valley, Nebraska. Progress report to the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.

Lyons, J., and T. Randle. 1988. Platte River channel characteristics in
the big bend reach. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado.
Unpubl. report. 69 pp.

Marlatt, S.L. 1984. History and management recommendations for the
interior least tern in New Mexico. New Mexico Dept. of Game and Fish.
Unpubl. report. 42 pp.

Marlatt, S.L. 1987. Observations and management recommendations for the
interior least tern in Chaves County, New Mexico. New Mexico Dept. of
Game and Fish. Unpubl. report. 19 pp.

Massey, B.W. 1972. The breeding biology of the California least tern.
M.S. Thesis. California State University, Long Beach. 101 pp.

Massey, B.W. 1974. Breeding biology of California least tern.
Proceedings of the Linnaean Society, New York. 72:124.

Massey, B.W., and J.L. Atwood. 1979. Application of ecological
information to habitat management for the California least tern.
Progress report number 2. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Laguna Niguel,
California.

Mayer, P.M., and M.P. Dryer. 1988. Population biology of piping plovers
and least terns on the Missouri River in North Dakota: 1988 field season
report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bismarck, North Dakota. Unpubl.
report.

Mayer, P.M., and M.P. Dryer. 1990. Population biology of piping plovers
and least terns on the Missouri River in North Dakota: 1989 field season
report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bismarck, North Dakota. Unpubl.
report.

Mayfield, H. 1943. Least tern in southeastern Michigan. Wilson Bulletin.
55:245.

McMament, D., and B.C. Thompson. 1985. Interior least tern distribution
and taxonomy. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. Annual performance
report, Federal Aid project number W-103-R-15, job number 54. 13 pp.

McMament, D., and B.C. Thompson. 1987. Interior least tern distribution
and taxonomy. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. Annual performance
report, Federal Aid project number W-103-R-16.

Minsky, D., K.Keane, and A. White. 1984. A study of the breeding biology
of the California least tern at Camp Pendleton, season of 1983. U.S.
Marine Corps, Nat. Res. Off., Camp Pendleton, California. 53 pp.

Missouri Department of Conservation. 1997. Least Tern Nest Survey in
June 1997. Memorandum prepared by Rochelle Renken for the Missouri
Department of Conservation.

Monson, G., and A. Phillips. 1981. Annotated checklist of the birds of
Arizona. Univ. of Arizona Press, Tuscon. 240 pp.

Moseley, L.J. 1976. Breeding behavior and communication in the least
tern (*Sterna albifrons*). Ph.D. Dissertation. Univ. of North Carolina,
Chapel Hill. 164 pp.

Moser, R. 1940. The piping plover and least tern in Omaha. Nebraska Bird
Review. 8:92-94.

Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. 1985a. Niobrara River interior least
tern and piping plover nesting survey. Unpubl. report.

Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. 1985c. Missouri River least tern and
piping plover habitat management proposal presented to the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. Unpubl. report. 33 pp.

Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. 1987. Platte River interior least
tern and piping plover nesting survey. Unpubl. report.

Neck, R.W., and D.H. Riskind. 1981. Direct and indirect human impact on
least tern nesting success at Falcon Reservoir, Zapata County, Texas.
Bulletin of the Texas Ornithological Society. 14:27-29.

O=Brien, J.S., and P.J. Currier. 1987. Channel morphology, channel
maintenance and riparian vegetation changes in the big bend reach of the
Platte River in Nebraska. Unpubl. report. 49 pp.

Paige, B.B. 1968. The least tern in man=s world. Fla. Nat. 41:14-16.

Phillips, A., J. Marshall, and G. Monson. 1964. The birds of Arizona.
Univ. of Arizona Press, Tucson. 212 pp.

Ridgway, R. 1895. The ornithology of Illinois, part I, descriptive
catalogue. Illinois Natural History Survey. Springfield, Illinois. Pages
247-248.

Rostad, C.E., L.M. Bishop, G.S. Ellis, T.J. Leiker, S.G. Monsterleet,
and W.E. Pereira. 1995. Polychlorinated Biphenyls and other Synthetic
Organic Contaminants Associated with Sediments and Fish ain the
Mississippi River. Pages 103-113 [in]{.underline} R.H. Meade, ed.,
Contaminants in the Mississippi River. USGS Circular 1133.

Rumancik, J.P. 1985. Survey of the interior least tern on the
Mississippi River from Cape Girardeau, Missouri, to Greenville,
Mississippi, 1985. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Memphis District,
Memphis, Tennessee.

Rumancik, J.P. 1986. Survey of the interior least tern on the
Mississippi River from Cape Girardeau, Missouri, to Greenville,
Mississippi, 1986. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Memphis District,
Memphis, Tennessee.

Rumancik, J.P. 1987. Survey of the interior least tern on the
Mississippi River from Cape Girardeau, Missouri, to Greenville,
Mississippi, 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Memphis District,
Memphis, Tennessee.

Rumancik, J.P. 1988. Population survey of the interior least tern on the
Mississippi River from Cape Girardeau, Missouri, to Greenville,
Mississippi, 1988. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Memphis District,
Memphis, Tennessee.

Rumancik, J.P. 1989. Population survey of the interior least tern on the
Mississippi River from Cape Girardeau, Missouri to Vicksburg,
Mississippi, 1989. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Memphis District,
Memphis, Tennessee.

Salo, J. 1990. External processes influencing origin and maintenance of
inland water-land ecotones. Pages 37-64 [in]{.underline} R.J. Naiman and
H. Decamps, eds., The ecology and management of aquatic-terrestrial
ecotones. UNESCO, Paris and the Parthenon Publishing Group. 316 pp.

Sandheinrich, M.B., and G.J. Atchinson. 1986. Environmental effects of
dikes and revetments on large riverine systems. Technical Report E86-5.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Mississippi.

Schmulbach, J.C., J.J. Schuckman, and E.A. Nelson. 1981. Aquatic habitat
inventory of the Missouri River from Gavins Point Dam to Ponca State
Park, Nebraska. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, Omaha,
Nebraska. Unpubl. report. 15 pp.

Schulenberg, E., J.H. Schulenberg, and M.B. Schulenberg. 1980.
Distribution and ecological study of the least tern in Kansas. Kansas
Fish and Game Comm. Nongame Wildl. Proj. 110 pp.

Schulenberg, J.H., and M.B. Ptacek. 1984. Status of the interior least
tern in Kansas. American Birds. 38:975-981.

Schwalbach, M. 1988. Conservation of least terns and piping plovers
along the Missouri River and its major western tributaries in South
Dakota. M.S. Thesis. South Dakota State University, Brookings.

Schwalbach, M., G. Vandel, and K. Higgins. 1986. Status, distribution,
and production of the interior least tern and piping plover along the
mainstem Missouri River in South Dakota, 1986. Report number 86-10 to
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Missouri River Division, Omaha,
Nebraska.

Schwalbach, M., G. Vandel, and K. Higgins. 1988. Status, distribution,
and production of the interior least tern and piping plover along the
mainstem Missouri River in South Dakota, 1986-1987. Completion report to
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Missouri River Division, Omaha,
Nebraska.

Seibert, H.C. 1951. Least terns in southeastern New Mexico. Condor.
53:204.

Shields, F.D., and S.R. Abt. 1989. Sediment deposition in cutoff meander
bends and implications for effective management. Regulated Rivers:
Research and Management. 4:381-396.

Sidle, J.G., J.J. Dinan, M.P. Dryer, J.P. Rumancik, Jr., and J.W. Smith.
1988. Distribution of the least tern in interior North America. American
Birds. 42:195-201.

Sidle, J.G., E.D. Miller, and P.J. Currier. 1989. Changing habitats in
the Platte River valley of Nebraska. Prairie Naturalist. 21:91-104.

Simons, D.B., S.A. Schumm, and M.A. Stevens. 1974. Geomorphology of the
Middle Mississippi River. Report DACW39-73-C-0026 prepared for the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District, St. Louis, Missouri. 110
pp.

Smith, J.W. 1985. Improving the status of endangered species in Missouri
(interior least tern habitat and nest survey). Missouri Dept. of
Conservation endangered species project number SE-01-12. 142 pp.

Smith, J.W. 1986. 1986 survey of the interior least tern on the
Mississippi River (Cape Girardeau, Missouri to Island Number 20,
Tennessee). Missouri Dept. of Conservation. Unpubl. Report.

Smith, J.W. 1987. Improving the status of endangered species in
Missouri: least tern investigations. Missouri Dept. of Conservation
endangered species project number SE-01-12.

Smith, J.W. 1988. Improving the status of endangered species in
Missouri: least tern investigations. Missouri Dept. of Conservation
endangered species project number SE-01-12.

Smith, M. 1986. Field survey of the interior least tern (*Sterna
antillarum athalassos*) on the Mississippi River and Red River,
Louisiana. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg District, Vicksburg,
Mississippi.

Smith, K.L., and W.M. Shepherd. 1985. A survey of the interior least
tern on the Arkansas and White Rivers in Arkansas. Arkansas Natural
Heritage Commission. Unpubl. report. 5 pp.

Smith, K.L. 1986. Results of the 1986 survey of the Arkansas River for
interior least terns. Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission. Unpubl.
report.

Smith, J.W., and N.P. Stucky. 1988. Habitat management for interior
least terns: problems and opportunities in inland waterway. Pages
134-149 [in]{.underline} M.C. Landin, ed., Inland Waterways: Proceedings
national workshop on the beneficial uses of dredged material. TRD-88-8.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Mississippi.

Smith, J.W., and R.B. Renken. 1990. Improving the status of endangered
species in Missouri: least tern investigations. Final report, Jobs 1 and
2, Missouri Dept. of Conservation endangered species project SE-01-19.

Smith, J.W., and Renken, R.B. 1991. Least tern nesting in the
Mississippi River Valley adjacent to Missouri. J. Field Ornithology.
62(4):497-504.

Smith, J.W., and Renken, R.B. 1993. Reproductive Success of Least Terns
in the Mississippi River Valley. Colonial Waterbirds. 16(1):39-44.

Smith, K.L., and W.M. Shepherd. 1985. A survey of the interior least
tern on the Arkansas and White Rivers in Arkansas. Arkansas Natural
Heritage Commission. Unpubl. report. 5 pp.

Smith, K.L., S. Barkley, and C. Gates. 1987. A survey of interior least
terns on the Arkansas River in Arkansas. Arkansas Natural Heritage
Commission. Unpubl. report.

Stiles, B. 1939. The least tern in Iowa. Iowa Bird Life. 14:18-21.

Stinnett, D.P., R.W. Smith, and S.W. Conrady. 1987. Riparian areas of
western Oklahoma: a special study of their status, trends and values.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Tulsa, Oklahoma. Unpubl. report. 80 pp.

Sweet, M.J. 1985. Least tern population survey, 1984. Illinois Dept. of
Conservation. Unpubl. report.

Talent, L.G., and L.A. Hill. 1985. Final Report: breeding ecology of
snowy plovers, American avocets, and interior least terns at Salt Plains
National Wildlife Refuge, Oklahoma. Oklahoma State University,
Stillwater. 186 pp.

Theiling, C.H. 1999. River geomorphology and floodplain features. Pages
4-1 to 4-21 [in]{.underline} 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, LaCrosse, Wisconsin. April 1999. LTRMP 99-T0001. 236
pp.

Theiling, C., M. Craig, and K. Lubinski. 1999. Side Channel
Sedimentation and Land Cover Change in the Middle Mississippi River.
Draft Report prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Rock
Island Field Office, Rock Island, Illinois.

Thompson, B.C. 1982. Distribution, colony characteristics, and
population status of least terns breeding on the Texas coast. PhD.
Dissertation. Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas.

Thompson, B.C., J.A. Jackson, J. Burger, L.A. Hill, E.M. Kirsch, and
J.L. Atwood. 1997. Least tern (*Sterna antillarum*). The birds of North
America, number 290. The American Ornithologist=s Union, Washington,
D.C., and The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Tibbs, J.E. 1995. Habitat use by small fishes in the lower Mississippi
River related to foraging by least terns (*Sterna antillarum*). M.S.
Thesis. Univ. of Missouri, Columbia. 186 pp.

Tompkins, I.R. 1959. Life history notes on the least tern. Wilson
Bulletin. 71:313-322.

Tuttle, J.R., and W. Pinner. 1982. Analysis of major parameters
affecting the behavior of the Mississippi River. Report 4, Potomolgy
Prog. (P-1). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Lower Mississippi Valley
Division, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 30 pp. + tables.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1981. Missouri River bank stabilization
and navigation project final EIS for fish and wildlife mitigation plan.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, Omaha, Nebraska.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1992. Melvin Price Locks and Dam, Design
Memorandum No. 24, Avoid and Minimize Measures. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, St. Louis District, St. Louis, Missouri.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1995. 1995 Least Tern Survey. Memorandum
prepared by Keith A. McMullen for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1997. Melvin Price Locks and Dam, Progress
Report 1997, Design Memorandum No. 24, Avoid and Minimize Measures. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District, St. Louis, Missouri.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1998. Mississippi River Dredging Matrix
and Bar Charts for 1978 to 1998. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis
District, St. Louis, Missouri.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1999a. Biological Assessment for the
Interior Population of the Least Tern, *Sterna antillarum*. U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Lower Mississippi Valley Division, Vicksburg,
Mississippi.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1999b. Draft Upper Mississippi River and
Illinois Waterway Cumulative Effects Study. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Rock Island District, Rock Island, Illinois.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1999c. Tier I Biological Assessment for
Operation and Maintenance of the Upper Mississippi River Navigation
Project within the St. Paul, Rock Island, and St. Louis Districts.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983. Regional Resource Strategy Plan.
NSSE: interior least tern (*Sterna albifrons athalassos*). U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Region 6, Denver, Colorado. pp 112-118.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. Proposed rule for listing the
interior least tern as endangered. Federal Register.
49(104):22444-22447.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987a. Least tern in: Endangered species
information system (computer data base). U.S. Department of the
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Endangered Species and
Habitat Conservation, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Recovery Plan for the Interior
Population of the Least Tern, *Sterna antillarum*. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. 90 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Pallid sturgeon recovery plan.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bismarck, North Dakota. 55 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Environmental Assessment prepared
for the Middle Mississippi River Division of the Mark Twain National
Wildlife Refuge.

Watson, S.R., 1966. Seabirds of the tropical Atlantic Ocean. Smithsonian
Press, Washington, D.C. 230 pp.

Widmann, O. 1898. The great roosts on Gabaret Island, opposite North St.
Louis, Missouri. Auk. 15:22-27.

Wilbur, S.R. 1974. The literature of the California least tern. U.S.
Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Fish and Wildlife, Washington, D.C.,
Species Sci. Rep. 175. 18 pp.

Wilson, B.L. 1984. 1984 search for piping plover and least tern in Iowa.
Unpubl. report.

Wilson, E.C., S.H. Anderson, and W.A. Hubert. 1989. Evaluation of
habitat suitability criteria proposed in Armbruster (1986) for the
interior least tern on the Platte River, Nebraska, and adjacent sand
pits during the 1989 nesting season. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Laramie, Wyoming.
Unpubl. report.

Wlosinski, J. 1999. Hydrology. Pages 6-1 to 6-10 [in]{.underline}
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, LaCrosse,
Wisconsin. April 1999. LTRMP 99-T0001. 236 pp.

Wolk, R.G. 1974. Reproductive behavior of the least tern. Proceedings of
the Linnaean Society, New York. 72:44-62.

Wycoff, R. 1950. (Untitled). Nebraska Bird Review. 18:50-51.

Wycoff, R. 1960. The least tern. Nebraska Bird Review. 28:39-42.

Youngworth, W. 1930. Breeding of the least tern in Iowa. Wilson
Bulletin. 42:102-103.

Youngworth, W. 1931. The American egret and least tern in South Dakota.
Wilson Bulletin. 43:309-310.

**5.0 Higgins\' Eye Pearlymussel**

5.1 Status of the Species

The Higgins\' eye pearlymussel (*Lampsilis higginsi*) was listed as an
endangered species by the Service on June 14, 1976 (Federal Register, 41
FR 24064). The major reasons for the listing of Higgins\' eye was the
decrease in both the abundance and range of the species. As stated in
the original recovery plan \[U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
1983\], Higgins\' eye was never abundant and Coker (1919) indicated it
was becoming increasingly rare around the turn of the century. The fact
that there were few records of live specimens from the early 1900s until
the enactment of the Endangered Species Act in 1973 was a major factor
in its listing in 1976 (Hornbach 1999). A variety of factors have been
listed as affecting Higgins= eye over time including commercial harvest,
impoundment from the project, channel maintenance dredging and disposal
activities, changes in water quality from municipal, industrial and
agricultural sources, unavailability of appropriate glochidial hosts,
exotic species and disease (USFWS 1983).

The historical distribution of Higgins\' eye is not known with
certainty. Although nowhere abundant, it is believed to have been widely
distributed, inhabiting the UMR from just north of St. Louis, Missouri,
to Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota (Coker 1919). It was also found along
the mainstem of the UMR and several of its tributaries including the
Ohio, Illinois, Sangamon, Iowa, Cedar, Wapsipinicon, Rock, Wisconsin,
Black, Minnesota, and St. Croix Rivers (USFWS 1983). The range of
Higgins\' eye has been reduced approximately 50 percent from its
historic distribution to a 302-mile (485.9 km) reach of the UMR (Havlik
1980, Havlik 1987) and is now found only in the UMR upstream of Lock and
Dam 19 at Keokuk, Iowa, in the St. Croix River between Wisconsin and
Minnesota, the Wisconsin River, Wisconsin, and in the lower Rock River
in Illinois (USFWS 1983). The southern-most population is believed to be
pool 19 at River Mile 407 (Cawley 1984).

Higgins\' eye occurs most frequently in medium to large rivers with
current velocities of 0.49 to 1.51 ft/sec and in depths of 3.3 to 19.7
ft. It appears to prefer water with dissolved oxygen greater than 5 ppm
and calcium carbonate levels greater than 50 ppm. The species is
significantly correlated with a firm, coarse sand substrate (Hornbach
*et al.* 1995a). Higgins\' eye are usually found in large, stable mussel
beds with relative high species and age diversity. Hornbach *et al.*
(1995a) conclude Higgins\' eye seems to be associated with areas of
higher mussel species richness and generally higher mussel population
densities.

The reproductive cycle of Higgins\' eye is typical of the family
Unionidae (Cummings and Mayer 1992). Males discharge sperm to the
surrounding water; females obtain the sperm as they siphon water for
food and respiration. Eggs are fertilized in gill sacs (marsupia) in the
female; fertilized eggs are retained in the marsupia until they mature
into glochidia and are released. The mantle edge near Higgins\' eye\'s
posterior end resembles a small swimming fish that attracts predator
fish. Gill tissue containing glochidia protrudes between the mantle
flaps. When the gill tissue is attacked by a fish, glochidia are
released, thus enhancing the probability that glochidia will come into
contact with a host fish. Released glochidia attach themselves to the
gills of host fish. Successfully attached glochidia mature and excyst
from hosts\' gills as juvenile mussels; they settle to the substrate and
become sedentary in the substrate, if it is suitable. The species is
bradytictic (*i.e.*, a long-term breeder) retaining developing glochidia
throughout the year, except for the period following glochidia release.
Baker (1928) and Holland-Bartels and Waller (1988) indicate glochidia
are carried in the gill marsupia through winter and released the
following spring or summer.

Holland-Bartels and Waller (1988) tested 15 species of UMR fish and
reported walleye (*Stizostedion vitreum*) and largemouth bass
(*Micropterus salmoides*) as the most successful glochidia host fish for
Higgins\' eye, as determined by glochidial persistence and maturation to
juvenile stage in the fish. Their study did not investigate sauger
(*Stizostedion canadense*) nor smallmouth bass (*Micropterus
dolomieui*). Waller (1995) considers these species also likely host fish
in the UMR, particularly the sauger, whose range overlaps with Higgins\'
eye\'s more than smallmouth bass.

The Higgins\' Eye Pearlymussel Recovery Team designated seven
\"Essential Habitat Areas\" for Higgins\' eye (USFWS 1983). The
Essential Habitat Areas are believed to contain viable reproducing
Higgins\' eye populations. The Team believed recovery of the species
could not be accomplished without maintaining the Essential Habitat Area
populations. The seven Essential Habitat Areas are (1) the St. Croix
River at Hudson, Wisconsin (River Mile 16.2 - 17.6); (2) the UMR at
Whiskey Rock, at Ferryville, Wisconsin, Pool 9 (River Mile 655.8 -
658.4); (3) the UMR at Harpers Slough, Pool 10 (River Mile 639.0 -
641.4); (4) the UMR Main and East Channel at Prairie du Chien,
Wisconsin, and Marquette, Iowa, Pool 10 (River Mile 633.4 - 637); (5)
the UMR at McMillan Island, Pool 10 (River Mile 616.4 - 619.1); (6) the
UMR at Cordova, Illinois, Pool 14 (River Mile 503.0 - 505.5); and (7)
the UMR at Sylvan Slough, Quad Cities, Illinois, Pool 15 (River Mile
485.5 - 486.0). Three additional Essential Habitat Areas have been
proposed by the Higgins= Eye Pearlymussel Recovery Team; the St. Croix
River at Prescott, Wisconsin, and near Taylors Falls, Minnesota
(Interstate Park), and the Wisconsin River near Muscoda, Wisconsin
(Orion mussel assemblage) (Hornbach1999).

A recent threat to Higgins\' eye comes from zebra mussels (*Dreissena
polymorpha*), freshwater mussels native to the Black and Caspian Seas.
Zebra mussels were introduced into Lake Erie in the late 1980s from ship
ballast water discharge (Benson and Boydstun 1995). The species is now
reproducing and invading North America\'s lakes and rivers, including
the UMR.

5.2 Environmental Baseline

The environmental baseline is an analysis of effects of past and ongoing
natural and human factors, excluding the proposed project, pertinent to
the current status of the species and its habitat. The UMR and
tributaries are the only remaining habitat for Higgins= eye; it is found
only in the UMR upstream of Lock and Dam 19 at Keokuk, Iowa, in the St.
Croix River between Wisconsin and Minnesota, the Wisconsin River,
Wisconsin, and in the lower Rock River in Illinois (USFWS 1983). The
southern-most population is believed to be pool 19 at River Mile 407
(Cawley 1984). Nearly all of the remaining habitat for Higgins= eye is
within the 9-Foot Channel Project.

In the mainstem of the UMR, approximately 50 species of freshwater
mussels have been recorded over time, although only 30 species are found
at present \[U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 1999\]. Natural processes and
features that made the UMR valuable mussel habitat in general include
moderate to high flow currents, stable substrates, the presence of
aquatic vegetation and relatively high water quality. Water quality has
generally improved in recent times in many navigation pools due in part
to improved waste water and stormwater treatment, and improved
agricultural land treatment and erosion control measures.

The environmental baseline for this Biological Opinion includes the time
period from construction of the 9-Foot Channel Project to the present.
It includes impacts to Higgins= eye from construction of the original
project and approximately 60 years of operation and maintenance
activities which, except for maintenance dredging and disposal
activities, have not substantially changed during this period. As will
be discussed in Section 5.2.2.3, Modern Dredging and Disposal
Activities, maintenance dredging and disposal practices have
substantially changed since the mid 1970\'s to avoid and minimize
environmental impacts. The environmental baseline also includes effects
of the exotic zebra mussel on Higgins= eye which has become established
in the project area since approximately 1991 (Refer to Section 5.2.5,
Exotic Species). The following parameters are addressed in the
environmental baseline.

> 5.2.1 Water Level Regulation and Impoundment
>
> The impoundment of the UMR increased the area of benthic habitat for
> freshwater mussels, and changed the character of the original
> floodplain. However, it is unclear how impoundment of the UMR affected
> Higgins= eye. Archeological (Theler 1987) and historical (Ellis 1936,
> Coker 1919) pre-dam mussel studies in Pool 10 suggest the relative
> abundance of Higgins= eye may have been higher after construction of
> the navigation project (Thiel 1981, Duncan and Thiel 1983, Wilcox *et
> al.* 1993). This may in part be attributable to increased
> abundance/availability of host fish and stable water conditions
> associated with the navigation project. Baker and Hornbach (1997)
> associated Higgins\' eye with areas of low velocity (\<0.3 m/s), but
> not areas with no flow. Post-lock and dam (post-impoundment)
> conditions probably contained more area of low velocity habitat that
> Higgins\' eye preferred. However, there are also observations which
> indicate fewer species of mussels were found after the project was
> constructed compared to pre-project conditions; also, it is difficult
> to determine a direct link between the distribution and abundance of
> Higgins= eye due to habitat alteration since it apparently has always
> been a relatively minor component of the mussel community (Hornbach
> 1999).
>
> Impoundment accelerated sedimentation rates throughout the UMR,
> especially in overbank and backwater areas. Since substrate type and
> stability is important to most freshwater mussel species, high
> sedimentation rates or changes in substrate composition likely
> impacted mussels in these areas.
>
> Several fish species have been identified as suitable hosts for
> Higgins\' eye glochidia, including walleye and largemouth bass (Waller
> and Holland-Bartels 1988). Although fish movement was restricted by
> the locks and dams, the abundance of these host fish increased upon
> completion of the project (Fremling and Claflin 1984).
>
> Wilcox *et al.* (1998) examined various factors to determine the
> likelihood a particular fish species could pass through the locks and
> dams of the UMR, such as hydraulic conditions, dam design, migration
> behavior, and seasonal timing. They found two UMR dams which
> completely restricted upstream fish movement: Lock and Dam 1 in St.
> Paul, Minnesota, and Lock and Dam 19 in Keokuk, Iowa. The exchange of
> gene flow within a mussel species may be inhibited by restricted
> inter- and intra-pool movements of fish serving as the glochidial host
> (Romano *et al.* 1991); however, there are no supporting data for
> Higgins= eye. Also, restriction of fish movement may limit or prevent
> the dispersal of parasitic mussel glochidia; likewise there are no
> supporting data for Higgins= eye. However, Coker (1930) discussed the
> historical movement of skipjack herring (*Alosa chrysochloris*), blue
> sucker (*Cycleptus elongatus*), and blue catfish (*Ictalurus
> furcatus*) where these species moved upstream in the spring, followed
> by downstream migrations to overwinter in warmer waters. The
> extirpation of the ebony shell (*Fusconaia* *ebena*) and the elephant
> ear (*Elliptio crassidens*) in the upstream portion of the UMR was
> attributed to the inability of the mussels= host fish, skipjack
> herring, to navigate past lock and dam 19 (Fuller 1980).
>
> As stated previously, there are no data which quantify the abundance
> of Higgins= eye on the UMR pre- and post project. It is therefore
> questionable whether impoundment had positive or negative effects on
> Higgins= eye; there simply are no conclusive data. However, we do know
> that impoundment of the UMR created more lentic (lake-like) habitat,
> favoring conditions for certain aquatic species. Lentic habitat also
> proved favorable to the proliferation of the exotic zebra mussel
> (Refer to Section 5.2.5, Exotic Species).
>
> 5.2.2 Channel Maintenance
>
> 5.2.2.1 Dredging
>
> Following impoundment by the locks and dams, periodic dredging was
> necessary to maintain the 9-Foot Channel Project. Maintenance dredging
> primarily affected the main channel of the river. However, dredging
> may have also affected side channels, sloughs and backwater lakes and
> ponds through increased suspended sediment levels during dredging
> events.
>
> Channel maintenance dredging was normally conducted in areas of
> shifting/shoaling bedload; any mussels within the dredge cut were
> killed by either the dredging operation or from placement of dredged
> materials at the disposal site. Mussel shells are often found at
> historic disposal sites. Bottom substrates in dredge cuts were often
> unstable or shifting for some time following dredging and thus
> provided poor habitat for recolonization by mussels (Burky 1983);
> consequently, frequent dredging of these cuts for maintenance of the
> project likely had little effect on freshwater mussels.
>
> However, if maintenance dredging did not occur frequently (every 5 to
> 10 years), recolonization of dredge cuts by native freshwater mussels
> was possible. Miller and Payne (1992) collected Higgins\' eye from a
> location in the East Channel of the UMR at Prairie du Chien,
> Wisconsin, which had been dredged 8 years earlier, indicating some
> recolonization of dredge cut areas does occur. Eckblad (1999) reported
> nearly half of 38 historic dredge cuts studied contained 14 mussel
> species within 5 years. Fuller (1980) reported a live Higgins\' eye in
> the mussel community located at Hudson, Wisconsin, in the St. Croix
> River adjacent to a frequently dredged channel. Mussels which
> recolonized historic dredge cuts were likely killed through the
> dredging/disposal process.
>
> Suspended solids and sedimentation from dredging operations may cause
> clogging and abrasion of gills and other respiratory surfaces in
> mussels, however there are no data documenting this for Higgins= eye.
> Miller and Payne (1998) found that mussels tolerated discrete
> disturbances (*i.e*., commercial vessel passage, dredging, and extreme
> high water), but no determination of the long-term effects to mussels
> could be made from a data set spanning approximately 10 years. Since
> contaminants have an affinity for smaller-sized particles, not the
> coarse-grained material of most dredge cuts, maintenance dredging
> activities in the main channel likely had only minor impacts on
> contaminant movement in these areas.
>
> 5.2.2.2 Disposal of Dredged Material
>
> As previously stated, there are no data quantifying the impacts of the
> 9-Foot Channel Project on freshwater mussels in general and Higgins=
> eye in particular. However, some inference to possible impacts from
> channel maintenance activities can be made. Historic dredged material
> placement sites were either upland or aquatic habitats located
> adjacent to the main navigation channel. Dredging was conducted using
> hydraulic or mechanical equipment. In early years, it was routine
> practice by the Corps of Engineers to dispose of dredged material as
> close to the dredge as possible, often filling aquatic habitats
> (in-water disposal) adjacent to the main channel. Permanent in-water
> disposal also included thalweg disposal, placing dredged material in
> the deeper water area of the main channel where it could be
> assimilated into the river=s natural sediment transport system.
> Mussels located within in-water disposal sites were presumed killed by
> burial due to the large quantities of material involved.
>
> Current placement of dredged material focuses on using historic
> disposal sites, temporary transfer sites, and upland sites. Use of
> upland disposal sites likely had only minor effects on freshwater
> mussels, including Higgins= eye from activities such as equipment
> access to the site, and subsequent wind and water erosion of dredged
> materials into the river. Hydraulic placement of dredged material on
> upland sites normally required a settling basin from which effluent
> was discharged to the river. The quality of this effluent depended on
> the composition of the sediment dredged, including contaminants.

5.2.2.3 Modern Dredging and Disposal Activities

> Since the mid 1970\'s, there have been many improvements in channel
> maintenance dredging and disposal activities in the St. Paul, Rock
> Island and St. Louis Corps Districts. The majority of these
> improvements came as a result of the interagency Great River
> Environmental Action Team (GREAT) studies. Channel maintenance
> activities are now routinely coordinated with the Service and State
> natural resource agencies with the objective of avoiding/minimizing
> riverine habitat impacts which often occurred in the past. An example
> of this interagency planning and coordination effort is the recent
> completion of the Channel Maintenance Management Plan (CMMP) in the
> St. Paul District which addresses dredging and disposal activities
> (Corps 1996). Today, channel maintenance activities associated with
> the 9-Foot Channel Project are routinely coordinated with such
> interagency groups as the On-Site Inspection Teams, River Resources
> Forum and River Resources Coordinating Team to avoid/minimize project
> impacts to fish and wildlife resources of the UMR, including
> freshwater mussels.
>
> Of the 10 existing/proposed Essential Habitat Areas, only the Harper=s
> Slough and Prairie du Chien Essential Habitat Areas are located within
> the 9-foot navigation channel. Historically, channel maintenance
> dredging has not occurred and is not proposed at the Harper=s Slough
> area.
>
> The Prairie du Chien Essential Habitat Area includes both the main
> navigation channel and the East Channel. Historically, channel
> maintenance dredging has not occurred and is not proposed in the main
> navigation channel. However, the St. Paul District is responsible for
> commercial navigation in the East Channel which is approximately
> 18,480 feet long and passes by the City of Prairie du Chien,
> Wisconsin. The Corps of Engineers proposed a 449-foot dredge cut
> (2,500 cubic yards, Dredge Cut 1) at the north end of the channel, and
> a 351-foot dredge cut (1,900 cubic yards, Dredge Cut 2) at the City
> Dock to maintain commercial navigation; frequency of dredging for Cuts
> 1 and 2 were once in forty years and twice in forty years,
> respectively. A Biological Opinion was prepared for this activity on
> June 28, 1993, concluding jeopardy for Higgins= eye (FWS 1993). The
> project has since been deferred by the St. Paul District (Corps 1996).
>
> 5.2.2.4 Channel Control Structures
>
> Thousands of channel control structures (wing dams, closing dams,
> shoreline protection) were constructed on the UMR as part of the 4.5
> and 6-Foot Channel Projects (USGS 1999); new or rehabilitated
> structures have also been constructed as part of the 9-Foot Channel
> Project. Channel control structures were constructed by the Corps of
> Engineers to maintain the channel alignment or constrict flows to
> improve the sediment transport efficiency through a reach of the river
> (Corps 1996). As such, channel control structures reduce maintenance
> dredging by concentrating flows in the main channel to scour (deepen)
> it for navigation. Construction of channel control structures likely
> covered benthic habitat and buried mussels.
>
> Wing dams were constructed/rehabilitated in main channel and channel
> border habitats, areas which may have contained Higgins\' eye. Wing
> dams increased current velocities and thereby increased scouring of
> main channel areas near the wing dams, producing the desired increased
> channel depths and/or widths for commercial navigation.
>
> Closing dams were constructed to reduce flows into side-channel areas
> and force flows to the main channel. In addition to burial impacts
> from the footprint of these projects, impacts such as reduced volume
> of flow, reduced current velocities, reduced sediment input, and
> increased water residence time in backwaters probably occurred in the
> closed side channels and affected mussels. The increased flows in the
> main channel resulting from side channel closure affects main channel
> and channel border habitats as well. Resulting impacts to mussels
> depended on the amount of change in the rates of sedimentation and
> erosion.
>
> Sedimentation patterns changed in these areas, with sediment
> transported through wing dam fields to downstream areas of lower
> velocity likely burying freshwater mussels located in these areas.
> However, since areas of velocity change attract fish species, high
> mussel densities were subsequently found on or in the vicinity of wing
> dams near suitable substrate; Higgins=s eye mussels have been
> collected between and on wingdams in Pools 7 and 10 of the UMR.
> Placement of riprap for bank stabilization also attracted host fish
> and some of these areas were also likely to have rich mussel
> assemblages.
>
> In summary, while construction of channel control structures and
> subsequent changes to sedimentation and erosion rates likely adversely
> affected some freshwater mussels, wing dams, closing dams and other
> rock structures also provided habitat for fish (some of which were
> hosts for glochidia) and freshwater mussels, including Higgins= eye.
>
> 5.2.3 Commercial Navigation
>
> Commercial navigation resulting from the 9-Foot Channel Project
> affected mussels by increasing suspended solids through propeller wash
> over a mussel bed, by striking or dislodging mussels from the sediment
> by propeller wash, or by burying or crushing mussels during barge
> groundings or fleeting in shallow water conditions. In a study in
> lower pool 10, Miller and Payne (1997, 1998) found no significant
> difference in shell morphometrics of common to abundant species in
> areas where barge passage occurred and in two nearby reference sites
> where barges did not pass. However, at this same location mussel
> densities ranged from 6.36-13.85 mussels/ft^2^ in the reference area,
> while mussels in the turning basin ranged from 2.04-4.52 mussels/ft^2^
> (Miller and Payne 1992). Miller and Payne (1996) and Miller and Payne
> (1998) reported velocity change from barge passage did not damage
> benthic organisms or their habitat in reasonably straight reaches
> having more than 2 feet of water below the vessels.
>
> Substantial erosion can result from propeller wash as tows negotiate
> tight turns in the channel, enter and exit lock chambers, and while
> awaiting lockage along shorelines. These areas may have been subjected
> to severe propeller wash creating an environment too hostile for
> mussel colonization. Barges sometimes ground for a number of reasons
> including running into unknown shoals in the navigation channel,
> operating outside of the navigation channel in shallow water, or by
> being loaded past the nine-foot draft. Barge grounding in newly formed
> shoals is unlikely to impact mussels because the new, unstable
> substrate is unlikely to be colonized by mussels. Substantial local
> mussel damage is likely if a barge grounded on an off-channel mussel
> bed. Mussels, including Higgins\' eye, would be buried, crushed,
> and/or scoured by propeller wash and the weight of the barge(s).
>
> There are approximately 120 commercial port facilities in the range of
> Higgins\' eye (UMR upstream of lock and dam 19; Minnesota River; Black
> River; and St. Croix River). Port facilities likely impacted native
> mussels through habitat loss during construction or subsequent
> maintenance of facilities.
>
> Spills of contaminants and cargo from commercial tows may have
> impacted Higgins\' eye and other freshwater mussels by direct
> mortality and by chronic effects. Benthic organisms are sensitive to a
> wide range of contaminants including ammonium, pesticides, and
> petroleum products, all of which are commonly transported on the UMR.
> Weirs, locks and dams, and mooring sites made navigation safer on the
> UMR and have reduced the potential for hazardous spills, but accidents
> and spills have occurred on the UMR. To date, there are no data which
> conclude that these spills had an adverse impact on Higgins= eye
> populations.
>
> 5.2.4 Recreation
>
> Some recreational facilities likely degraded habitat for freshwater
> mussels. Construction activities, such as sand fill for beach or
> swimming areas, placement of fill or dredging to create
> marinas/harbors, or riprap for shoreline protection likely covered or
> otherwise permanently changed mussel habitat. Large recreational boats
> also likely impacted mussels by inducing abortion, by physically
> damaging mussels, or by other factors similar to those noted for
> commercial navigation. Swimmers have been observed collecting mussels
> at some beach sites; indiscriminate collections may have included
> Higgins= eye at some locations.
>
> 5.2.5 Exotic Species
>
> Of major concern to the well being of mussels in general, and
> Higgins\' eye in particular, was the introduction of zebra mussels to
> the UMR. Zebra mussels have been found throughout the UMR and have the
> potential to kill or otherwise eliminate native mussels, including
> Higgins\' eye.
>
> Adult zebra mussels attach to natural substrates, such as rocks,
> native mussels, wood, aquatic plants, and other zebra mussels. They
> also attach to man-made materials, such as fiberglass, iron, plastic,
> and concrete \[U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 1992\]. Male zebra
> mussels release sperm directly to the water to fertilize eggs released
> to the water by the females. Large females release up to one million
> eggs per season (Corps 1992). Eggs are released when water
> temperatures reach 52-54^o^ F. Immature zebra mussels (veligers)
> spread via passive drift on water currents. Adults and veligers attach
> to boat hulls, or to wet compartments, containers, and equipment in
> boats.
>
> Zebra mussels affect other mussels by competing for food and by
> attaching to mussels in such numbers that infested mussels cannot
> travel or burrow. When infested by approximately 100 or more zebra
> mussels, native mussels cannot open their shells to respire, feed,
> burrow, or move, nor can they close their shells for protection. Zebra
> mussels can build up on native mussels in such numbers that waves and
> currents can dislodge native mussels from the substrate. Recent
> observations suggest infested native mussels may remove themselves
> from the substrate to escape zebra mussels (Miller 1995). Any of these
> impacts or combination of impacts can lead to the death of the
> infested mussel. Commercial and recreational boats are the main
> vectors carrying this species upstream and between water bodies, while
> currents carry veligers and juveniles downstream for further
> dispersal.
>
> Zebra mussels attach themselves by byssal threads to nearly any hard
> surface. Zebra mussels reach a maximum length of about two inches, and
> hundreds of thousands can colonize a square meter. Up to 10,000 zebra
> mussels have been counted on a single mussel (Corps 1992). In
> Michigan\'s Lakes Erie and St. Clair, where zebra mussels have existed
> for several years, native mussel populations have been devastated, and
> in some areas eradicated (Masteller and Schloesser 1991, Gillis and
> Mackie 1991). Gillis and Mackie (1991) found a positive correlation
> between large increases in the average number of zebra mussels
> attached to native mussel shells and a decline in live native mussel
> numbers in Lake St. Clair. They also found that approximately 2,000
> zebra mussels on a native mussel occluded the native mussel\'s siphon
> region completely, affecting its ability to filter. Colonization rates
> of approximately 0.4 to 1.0 g of zebra mussels per g of native mussel
> (dry mass) were recorded in native mussels immediately before
> extirpation from the Canadian side of the Detroit River (Ohnesorg *et
> al.* 1993).
>
> Zebra mussels may have greater impact on some native mussel species
> than others although this is not conclusive. Haag *et al.* (1993), in
> a test of six species, found species in the Anodontinae subfamily to
> be the most sensitive to zebra mussels, followed by Lampsilinae and
> Ambleminae. Higgins\' eye is a member of the subfamily Lampsilinae.
> Hunter *et al.* (1997 and references within) also found some species
> to be more sensitive to infestation than others. Giant floater
> (*Anodonta grandis*) was the most sensitive, followed by fragile
> papershell (*Leptodea fragilis*), fatmucket (*Lampsilis siliquoidea*),
> pink heelsplitter (*Potamilus alatus*), and black sandshell (*Ligumia
> recta*). Zebra mussel data collected by the Corps of Engineers at the
> Prairie du Chien Essential Habitat Area did not find a similar trend
> in sensitivity to zebra mussel infestation among species (Whiting
> 2000).
>
> Zebra mussels were first discovered in Lake St. Clair in 1988 and in
> all the Great Lakes in 1989. They were found in the Chicago Sanitary
> and Ship Canal in 1989 and in the main stem of the Illinois river in
> 1991. The first zebra mussel collected from the UMR was taken in 1991,
> south of La Crosse, Wisconsin (Corps 1999). Miller (1995) sampled
> mussels of the lower East Channel at Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin. He
> found a maximum density of 14,000 zebra mussels/m^2^ affecting up to
> 100 percent of the native mussels in some of his samples. He found the
> 1995 level of zebra mussels to be an order of magnitude greater than
> 1994 levels. An animated map of the spread of zebra mussels on the UMR
> produced by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) can be viewed on the
> Internet at www.nationalatlas.gov/zmussels1.html.
>
> Unlike the Illinois River (via Lake Michigan and the Chicago Sanitary
> and Ship Canal), the UMR did not have an upriver source of veligers to
> spread downriver with the currents. Based on the zebra mussel=s
> current distribution within the UMR, it appears tow traffic is the
> main transportation vector of upstream spread in the UMR upstream of
> the Illinois River (Carlton 1993, Keevin *et al.* 1992), while river
> currents are responsible for its downstream spread from the
> UMR/Illinois River confluence. With a less abundant upriver source,
> UMR zebra mussel populations grew at a slower pace than those in the
> Illinois River. Despite slower population growth rate, recent reports
> from Lake Pepin (Pool 4) and Pools 8-10 indicate high adult zebra
> mussel numbers and densities (\>20,000/m^2^) (Corps 1999, p. 71).
> Studies conducted by Minnesota and Wisconsin resource agencies since
> 1996 indicate Lake Pepin is the likely source population for the
> increasing zebra mussels in Pools 7 and 8 (Corps 1999, p. 71). Lake
> Pepin may be a substantial and long-term source of zebra mussels to
> the downstream UMR. Cope *et al.* (1997) found zebra mussel densities
> higher in the UMR downstream of Lake Pepin compared to densities
> upstream of Lake Pepin.
>
> Based on current zebra mussel densities at dewatered lock chambers, it
> is likely that they harbor reproducing zebra mussels. Yager *et al.*
> (1994) estimated zebra mussel densities in lock chambers up to
> 68.4/m5. Recent examination of Lock and Dam 5A revealed a much higher
> present density than was found in Yager *et al*\'s earlier examination
> (Corps 1999, p. 72). Yager *et al*. (1999) report zebra mussel
> densities exceeding 7,000/m^2^ at locks and dams downstream of Lake
> Pepin.
>
> Hornbach *et al.* (1995b) stated the recent invasion of the UMR and
> probable future invasion of the St. Croix River with zebra mussels has
> cast the survival of Higgins\' eye in doubt. With the continuing
> expansion of the zebra mussel and the limited locations of Higgins\'
> eye populations, it is clear that Higgins\' eye is under threat from
> the zebra mussel. Recent information from the East Channel Essential
> Habitat Area at Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin, supports this conclusion;
> the following discussion on zebra mussel impacts is from Corps
> unpublished 1999 data. Quantitative and qualitative samples for
> freshwater bivalves have been collected in the East Channel Essential
> Habitat Area of the UMR by personnel of the U.S. Army Engineer
> Waterways Experiment Station since 1984 (Table 1; Miller and Payne
> 1993). Samples have been collected at multiple sites where the river
> splits into an east and main channel near river mile 635. However,
> only data from a reference site, located downriver and away from a
> barge turning basin in the north section of the east channel, are
> presented in Table 1. These data provide a baseline for native mussel
> densities and recruitment rates prior to introduction and spread of
> zebra mussels. In addition, the data set illustrates effects of
> introduction and spread of zebra mussels on the native fauna.
>
> All samples for mussels were collected by divers equipped with surface
> supplied air. Quantitative samples were obtained by having a diver
> excavate all substratum, which consisted of shells, live mussels, sand
> and gravel, from the confines of a 0.25 sq m aluminum quadrant.
> Substratum was washed through screens, live bivalves were removed,
> identified, and total shell length (SL) measured with digital
> calipers. From 10 to 60 quadrant were processed in any year.
> Qualitative samples were obtained by either having divers search an
> area for a specific period of time (15-30 min), or until a certain
> number of mussels were obtained. All searching was done by feel since
> visibility is extremely low.
>
> Table 1 contains a measure of recent recruitment, as indicated by both
> the percentage of individual mussels less than 30 mm total SL, and the
> percentage of species with at least one individual less than 30 mm SL.
> Mussels less than 30 mm total shell length are typically 1-3years old;
> therefore a mussel in this size range could be evidence of recruitment
> that took place several years previously. In addition, Table 1
> contains data on zebra mussel and native mussel density; the former
> were first collected in quantitative samples in 1993. Zebra mussel
> density increased to over 10,000 individuals/sq m in 1996. In 1998
> density had dropped to approximately 1700 individuals/sq m and
> consisted mainly of older individuals and there were few new recruits
> in the population. In 1999, zebra mussel density increased to 56,507
> individuals/sq m; it was observed that the older cohort present in
> 1998 had recruited and many juvenile zebra mussels were present. The
> substratum was virtually covered with a thick mat (up to 10 cm thick)
> of dead and living zebra mussels.

+-------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-------------+
| Tab   |           |           |           |           |             |
| le 1. |           |           |           |           |             |
| Su    |           |           |           |           |             |
| mmary |           |           |           |           |             |
| Data  |           |           |           |           |             |
| on    |           |           |           |           |             |
| Evi   |           |           |           |           |             |
| dence |           |           |           |           |             |
| of    |           |           |           |           |             |
| R     |           |           |           |           |             |
| ecent |           |           |           |           |             |
| R     |           |           |           |           |             |
| ecrui |           |           |           |           |             |
| tment |           |           |           |           |             |
| (Pe   |           |           |           |           |             |
| rcent |           |           |           |           |             |
| I     |           |           |           |           |             |
| ndivi |           |           |           |           |             |
| duals |           |           |           |           |             |
| and   |           |           |           |           |             |
| Sp    |           |           |           |           |             |
| ecies |           |           |           |           |             |
| Less  |           |           |           |           |             |
| than  |           |           |           |           |             |
| 30 mm |           |           |           |           |             |
| Total |           |           |           |           |             |
| Shell |           |           |           |           |             |
| Le    |           |           |           |           |             |
| ngth) |           |           |           |           |             |
| and   |           |           |           |           |             |
| Un    |           |           |           |           |             |
| ionid |           |           |           |           |             |
| and   |           |           |           |           |             |
| Zebra |           |           |           |           |             |
| M     |           |           |           |           |             |
| ussel |           |           |           |           |             |
| De    |           |           |           |           |             |
| nsity |           |           |           |           |             |
| in    |           |           |           |           |             |
| the   |           |           |           |           |             |
| East  |           |           |           |           |             |
| Ch    |           |           |           |           |             |
| annel |           |           |           |           |             |
| of    |           |           |           |           |             |
| the   |           |           |           |           |             |
| Upper |           |           |           |           |             |
| M     |           |           |           |           |             |
| issis |           |           |           |           |             |
| sippi |           |           |           |           |             |
| R     |           |           |           |           |             |
| iver. |           |           |           |           |             |
| I     |           |           |           |           |             |
| nform |           |           |           |           |             |
| ation |           |           |           |           |             |
| from  |           |           |           |           |             |
| Corps |           |           |           |           |             |
| 1999  |           |           |           |           |             |
| u     |           |           |           |           |             |
| npubl |           |           |           |           |             |
| ished |           |           |           |           |             |
| data. |           |           |           |           |             |
+-------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-------------+
| Year  | No. of    | Unionid   |           | Mean      |             |
|       | Quadrants |           |           | Density   |             |
|       |           | Re        |           |           |             |
|       |           | cruitment |           | Indiv     |             |
|       |           |           |           | iduals/sq |             |
|       |           |           |           | m         |             |
+-------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-------------+
|       |           | \% Ind.   | \%        | Unionids  | Zebra       |
|       |           |           | Species   |           | Mussels     |
|       |           | \< 30mm   |           |           |             |
|       |           |           | \< 30mm   |           |             |
+-------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-------------+
| 1984  | 20        | 10.7      | 45.8      | 113.6     |             |
+-------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-------------+
| 1985  | 30        | 15.2      | 66.7      | 149.1     |             |
+-------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-------------+
| 1987  | 30        | 34.4      | 75.0      | 68.5      |             |
+-------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-------------+
| 1988  | 30        | 24.5      | 52.0      | 79.5      |             |
+-------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-------------+
| 1989  | 10        | 16.3      | 44.4      | 83.6      |             |
+-------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-------------+
| 1990  | 30        | 14.8      | 42.1      | 80.0      |             |
+-------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-------------+
| 1992  | 30        | 17.6      | 36.8      | 44.7      |             |
+-------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-------------+
| 1993  | 30        | 41.5      | 44.4      | 28.3      | 2.0         |
+-------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-------------+
| 1994  | 40        | 20.7      | 52.0      | 63.4      | 36.5        |
+-------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-------------+
| 1996  | 60        | 32.4      | 66.7      | 59.2      | 10,853.0    |
+-------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-------------+
| 1998  | 60        | 25.8      | 45.0      | 10.1      | 1,762.0     |
+-------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-------------+
| 1999  | 60        | 0.0       | 0.0       | 1.7       | 56,507.0    |
+-------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-------------+

> For the first 10 years (from 1984 to 1994), evidence of recent
> recruitment for native mussels was highly variable and obviously
> unaffected by zebra mussels. For example, the percentage of live
> unionids less than 30 mm total shell length during this period varied
> from 10.7 percent in 1984 to a maximum of 41.5 percent in 1993. The
> percentage of species showing at least some evidence of recent
> recruitment ranged from a low of 36.8 percent in 1992 to a high of 75
> percent in 1987. In 1996, when zebra mussel density was at its
> maximum, there were still juvenile native mussels present. However,
> the percentage of recent native mussel recruits, both species and
> individuals, dropped to 0.0 in 1999. This was certainly the result of
> the high zebra mussel densities in 1996 and 1997 that virtually
> eliminated recruitment of native species.
>
> Mean density of all unionids varied from a maximum of 149
> individuals/sq m to a minimum of 28.3 individuals/sq m in the first 10
> years (1984-1994; Figure 1). Year- to- year variation could have been
> caused by slight differences in sample site locations, mortality of
> older age classes, and variation in recruitment. However, the rapid
> decline in native mussel density after 1996, first noted in 1998 (10.1
> individuals/sq m) and continuing in 1999 (1.7 individuals/sq m) is
> certainly related to the presence of zebra mussels.
>
> Live specimens of *L. higginsi* were not collected at the east channel
> location in 1999. In all previous study years this species was
> collected in the east channel, typically representing approximately
> one percent or less of the total native mussel fauna. It should be
> noted that this species is often collected alive where zebra mussels
> are present. In 1999 quantitative and qualitative samples were also
> collected in the main channel of the UMR, at a location approximately
> 1 mile from where samples were taken in the east channel. In a
> qualitative sample obtained in the main channel, consisting of 198
> native mussels, 5, or approximately 2.5 percent, were live *L.
> higginsi*. Zebra mussel densities have always been less in the main
> channel than the east channel; hence, the impacts to native species is
> greater in the latter location.
>
> Figure 1. Density of native mussels collected at a reference site in
> the East Channel Essential Habitat Area, Upper Mississippi River, at
> Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin. (Corps, unpublished 1999 data).

5.2.6 Commercial Harvest

> The commercial harvest of native freshwater mussels in the UMR peaked
> during the pearl button period of the 1920\'s and later during the
> cultured pearl era in the late-1980\'s and early 1990\'s. There are
> few documented reports of commercial clammers taking Higgins= eye.
> Other than harvest activities such as brailing that may have
> influenced the entire mussel community, little is known regarding the
> direct impacts of commercial harvest on Higgins= eye. Mathiak (1979),
> based on observations he made at a commercial clamming operation,
> concluded that hundreds of Higgins= eye had probably been harvested in
> 1975 before the species was placed on the endangered species list
> (paragraph from Hornbach 1999).
>
> 5.2.7 Summary
>
> Since construction of the 9-Foot Channel Project approximately 60
> years ago, the UMR continues to adjust from a riverine to a reservoir
> system. Because of the general lack of pre-project mussel data, it is
> impossible to assess with any certainty the impacts of the original
> 9-Foot Channel Project on Higgins= eye for use in establishing the
> environmental baseline for the Biological Opinion. In general, most
> adverse impacts to Higgins= eye were associated with the construction,
> operation and maintenance of the original 9-Foot Channel Project, and
> thousands of channel structures preceding it, for commercial
> navigation; these impacts are largely unknown and occurred nearly a
> century ago.
>
> Studies before 1993 found no significant declines in the distribution
> and abundance of Higgins= eye on the UMR; since completion of the
> original Recovery Plan in 1983, its known range has been extended by
> 180 river miles and the Higgins= eye Recovery Team tentatively
> proposed an additional three Essential Habitat Areas (Hornbach 1999).
> For the species, the outlook was cautiously optimistic; it seemed
> plausible to consider that Higgins= eye populations were stable and
> perhaps recovering. Following the Flood of 1993, the Higgins= eye
> Recovery Team reassembled and began updating the original recovery
> plan.
>
> Unfortunately, the recent invasion of the exotic zebra mussel has
> significantly changed this scenario. Due to upstream transport by
> commercial barge traffic, zebra mussels are now found throughout the
> UMR and have had a significant adverse impact on Higgins= eye and
> other native freshwater mussels. Based on Corps unpublished 1999 data
> on freshwater mussels from the Prairie du Chien Essential Habitat
> Area, and observations and recommendations of the Higgins= Eye
> Pearlymussel Recovery Team (Hornbach 1999), it is evident that zebra
> mussels are a significant threat to native freshwater mussels on the
> UMR, including Higgins= eye.
>
> The environmental baseline for this Biological Opinion includes
> approximately 60 years of operation and maintenance of the original
> 9-Foot Channel Project. The environmental baseline also includes
> significant adverse impacts to Higgins= eye from the exotic zebra
> mussel at the Prairie du Chien Essential Habitat Area; it is probable
> that similar impacts have occurred to the other Essential Habitat
> Areas on the mainstem UMR. Fortunately, at this time, the
> existing/proposed Essential Habitat Areas on the Lower St. Croix
> (Karns 2000) and Lower Wisconsin Rivers are not infested with zebra
> mussels. The Proposed Action by the Corps of Engineers is to continue
> existing operation and maintenance activities for another 50 years.
> The effects of this action on Higgins= eye are described below.

5.3 Effects of the Proposed Action

> 5.3.1 Direct Effects
>
> Direct effects in Biological Opinions are the direct or immediate
> effects on listed species caused by the proposed Federal agency action
> (including action to be permitted or authorized by the Federal
> agency). Direct effects of the proposed action include the effects of
> interrelated actions and interdependent actions. In this Biological
> Opinion, direct effects are effects likely to result to Higgins= eye
> from continued operation and maintenance of the 9-Foot Channel Project
> for the next 50 years.
>
> The Biological Assessment (Corps 1999) was used in our assessment of
> project effects on Higgins= eye. As noted in the Biological
> Assessment, the Corps will consult with the Service on future
> operation and maintenance projects which may affect Higgins= eye to
> avoid and minimize adverse effects to the species. We also used
> information and observations of the Higgins= Eye Pearlymussel Recovery
> Team in determining effects of the Proposed Action on the species
> (Hornbach 1999). Our assessment of direct effects to Higgins= eye from
> continuing operation and maintenance of the 9-Foot Channel Project for
> an additional 50 years included the following parameters.
>
> 5.3.1.1 Operation of the 9-Foot Channel Project
>
> 5.3.1.1.1 Water Level Regulation
>
> Refer to Section 5.3.1.1.2, Impoundment
>
> 5.3.1.1.2 Impoundment
>
> The major adverse effects of water level regulation and impoundment of
> the UMR for an additional 50 years are associated with continuing the
> upstream transport of exotic zebra mussels by commercial barge
> navigation as discussed in Section 5.3.2.1.4, Exotic Species. Other
> impacts to Higgins= eye from continuing existing water regulation and
> impoundment activities by the Corps of Engineers for an additional 50
> years are considered to be minor in comparison to zebra mussel impacts
> and any major physical changes to Higgins= eye habitat which occurred
> in the years following construction of the 9-Foot Channel Project
> approximately 60 years ago.
>
> Water level management projects are being proposed on the UMR by the
> Corps of Engineers in cooperation with natural resource agencies as a
> tool to restore aquatic vegetation in the navigation pools. These
> projects will likely involve partial drawdowns of 1-3 feet at the dam
> in selected pools. Impacts to freshwater mussels including Higgins=
> eye will be assessed separately, including Section 7 consultation, as
> each project is developed. Through the Section 7 process, impacts to
> Higgins= eye will be avoided/minimized.
>
> 5.3.1.2 Maintenance of the 9-Foot Channel Project
>
> 5.3.1.2.1 Dredging
>
> Refer to Section 5.3.1.2.1, Disposal
>
> 5.3.1.2.1 Disposal
>
> Adverse impacts may occur to individual Higgins= eye on a
> site-specific basis from continuing modern dredging and disposal
> activities for another 50 years on the UMR. Unless relocated, any
> Higgins= eye located within the boundaries of a new/historic dredge
> cut will be killed as a result of the project.
>
> No impacts are anticipated for upland disposal sites having 100
> percent containment of dredged materials and effluent. Unless
> relocated, all Higgins= eye located within the boundaries of a
> new/historic dredged material placement site will be killed. Higgins=
> eye may also be killed as a result of dredging necessary to reach the
> disposal site, and placement of pipeline(s).
>
> Use of temporary dredged material transfer sites may affect mussels
> through direct coverage, but the likelihood of Higgins= eye mussels
> colonizing open water areas of the transfer sites is quite low. The
> shifting sand substrates in these areas are typically poor habitat for
> freshwater mussels and are secluded from the UMR flow and these areas
> are frequently disturbed either through placement of dredged
> materials, or excavation of materials during transfer operations.
>
> In-water placement of dredged material including thalweg disposal may
> affect freshwater mussels through direct burial. Depending on the
> thickness of the material, mussels buried by in-water placement of
> dredged material may perish as a result of asphyxiation and/or
> starvation. Although no permanent in-water placement of dredged
> material is proposed in the upstream pools, it is a common practice in
> lower reaches of the UMR (Corps 1999); it could also be considered in
> the future for other reaches (Corps 1996). In addition to the
> potential for burial, mussels inhabiting re-handling sites could be
> re-dredged and deposited on upland locations, leading imminently to
> death.
>
> Today, channel maintenance activities associated with the 9-Foot
> Channel Project are routinely coordinated with such interagency groups
> as the On-Site Inspection Teams, River Resources Forum and River
> Resources Coordinating Team to avoid/minimize project impacts to fish
> and wildlife resources of the UMR, including freshwater mussels. The
> Corps of Engineers will continue to conduct individual Section 7
> consultation on all projects which are likely to affect Higgins= eye
> (Corps 1999). Through the Section 7 process, impacts to Higgins= eye
> will be avoided/minimized. Based on the above, we do not anticipate
> major adverse impacts to Higgins= eye from continued maintenance
> dredging and disposal activities on the UMR for an additional 50
> years.
>
> 5.3.1.2.3 Clearing and Snagging
>
> Removal of trees or other obstructions from the navigation channel
> could affect Higgins\' eye through disturbance of bottom substrates.
> Most snagging, however, occurs on the Minnesota River, outside the
> current known range of Higgins\' eye. Higgins\' eye does occur in the
> Lower St. Croix River, but any snag removal is conducted only upon
> request of the National Park Service. Snag removal has not been
> requested for the past 20 years and in that time the National Scenic
> Riverway was established. The Corps does not anticipate snagging on
> the St. Croix River during the next 50 years (Corps 1999); we
> therefore do not anticipate major adverse impacts to Higgins= eye from
> clearing and snagging operations. In addition, the Corps of Engineers
> will enter into Section 7 consultation with the Service for any
> clearing and snagging project which is likely to affect Higgins= eye.
> Through the Section 7 process, impacts to Higgins= eye will be
> avoided/minimized.
>
> 5.3.1.2.4 Channel Structures/Revetment
>
> 5.3.1.2.4.1 Wingdams
>
> Refer to Section 5.3.1.2.4.5, Closing Structures
>
> 5.3.1.2.4.2 Bendway Weirs - Not applicable
>
> 5.3.1.2.4.3 Bank Revetment/Off-Bank Revetment - Not applicable
>
> 5.3.1.2.4.4 Chevron Dikes - Not applicable
>
> 5.3.1.2.4.5 Closing Structures
>
> Unless relocated, all Higgins= eye located within the boundary of
> proposed modifications to existing rock structures, or new closing
> dams, wing dams or rip rap will be killed. The Corps of Engineers will
> continue to conduct individual Section 7 consultation on all projects
> which are likely to affect Higgins= eye (Corps 1999). Through the
> Section 7 process, impacts to Higgins= eye will be avoided/minimized.
> Based on the above, we do not anticipate major adverse impacts to
> Higgins= eye from maintenance activities or new channel structures
> during the next 50 years.
>
> 5.3.1.2.5 Lock and Dam Rehabilitation
>
> A programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on major rehabilitation
> of locks and dams 2-22 (Corps 1989) exists and is incorporated by
> reference. The Service\'s biological opinion on the project found the
> rehabilitation action was likely to incidentally take Higgins\' eye.
> Rehabilitation of lock and dam structures would not cause permanent
> loss or disturbance of aquatic habitat. The work would entail repair
> or replacement of existing structures with very little intrusion into
> aquatic habitat during future rehabilitation. Petroleum or other
> hazardous materials can spill during construction, so contractors
> working on rehabilitation would have approved Environmental Protection
> Plans with spill prevention measures and spill response plans to
> minimize the likelihood of a spill. Once the structures are
> rehabilitated, their operation would be more efficient and safer for
> traffic, thereby reducing the spill potential. Riprapping is
> occasionally performed in downstream portions of spillways. Many of
> these areas attract high fish concentrations, hence some have rich
> mussel assemblages. Unless relocated, any Higgins= eye present in the
> riprap placement area(s) would be killed by the construction
> activities.
>
> 5.3.1.3 Summary of Direct Effects
>
> Although the major direct effects to Higgins= eye from the 9-Foot
> Channel Project and preceding navigation projects occurred nearly a
> century ago, continued channel maintenance activities (dredging,
> disposal, clearing and snagging, channel structures/revetment) for an
> additional 50 years may affect individuals or populations of Higgins=
> eye at a local scale. As noted in the Biological Assessment (Corps
> 1999), the Corps will consult with the Service on future operation and
> maintenance projects which may affect Higgins= eye. Through the
> Section 7 process, impacts to Higgins= eye will be avoided/minimized.
>
> 5.3.2 Indirect Effects
>
> Indirect effects in Biological Opinions are project impacts produced
> after the action has been completed or after the permitted activity
> terminates. Indirect effects are caused by or result from the proposed
> action, are later in time, and are reasonable certain to occur. They
> may occur outside the area directly affected by the proposed action.
>
> 5.3.2.1 Navigation Related Indirect Effects
>
> 5.3.2.1.1 Tow Traffic
>
> Since most commercial navigation occurs in the main navigation channel
> and has been on-going since the project was completed early this
> century, impacts to Higgins= eye from individual tows (e.g., prop
> wash, increase in suspended sediments, physical impacts from
> grounding) are considered to be minor in nature and of a local scale.
> Any major physical changes to Higgins= eye from commercial navigation
> traffic in the main navigation channel occurred in the years following
> construction of the 9-Foot Channel Project.
>
> Continued commercial barge transportation on the UMR for an additional
> 50 years will continue to transport zebra mussels on the UMR upstream
> from the Illinois River within the range of Higgins= eye to the
> detriment of freshwater mussels in general, and Higgins= eye in
> particular. Continued upstream transport of zebra mussels is a
> significant adverse impact to the species (Refer to Section 5.3.2.1.4,
> Exotic Species).
>
> 5.3.2.1.2 Fleeting
>
> Continued use of existing barge fleeting areas, or development of new
> fleeting areas may adversely affect freshwater mussels including
> Higgins= eye. Under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of March
> 3, 1899, the placement of permanent structures below ordinary high
> water on navigable waterways require a Department of Army permit.
> Where installation involves discharge of dredge or fill materials,
> permits under Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977 are
> required. Future expansion of fleeting areas or terminals will be
> subject to regulation and environmental review including Section 7
> consultation with the Service. Through the Section 7 process, impacts
> to Higgins= eye will be avoided/minimized.
>
> 5.3.2.1.3 Port Facilities
>
> Continued use of existing port facilities, or development of new port
> facilities may adversely affect freshwater mussels including Higgins=
> eye. Under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of March 3, 1899,
> the placement of permanent structures below ordinary high water on
> navigable waterways require a Department of Army permit. Where
> installation involves discharge of dredge or fill materials, permits
> under Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977 are
> required. Any future expansion or new construction projects, or
> maintenance of existing facilities, would follow Section 404
> permitting guidelines; Section 7 consultation with the Service would
> occur through the application process. Through the Section 7 process,
> impacts to Higgins= eye will be avoided/minimized.
>
> 5.3.2.1.4 Exotic Species
>
> The major adverse effect of the Proposed Action on Higgins\' eye is
> from indirect effects of zebra mussels, an exotic species which is
> transported upstream from the Illinois River by commercial barge
> traffic dependent on the 9-Foot Channel Project. Zebra mussels are
> considered to be a significant threat to Higgins= eye populations on
> the UMR (Hornbach 1999). Continued operation and maintenance of the
> 9-Foot Channel Project for an additional 50 years will facilitate the
> continued upstream transport of zebra mussels by commercial barge
> traffic if they are infested with zebra mussels. The upstream
> transport of zebra mussels will continue to replenish zebra mussels in
> the UMR, encompassing all UMR mainstem Higgins\' eye Essential Habitat
> Areas, and potentially the existing/proposed Essential Habitat Areas
> on the Lower St. Croix and Lower Wisconsin Rivers which are not
> currently infested with zebra mussels.
>
> Unfortunately, the likelihood of another exotic species invading the
> UMR is high; one exotic mussel that could impact Higgins\' eye in the
> same fashion as the zebra mussel over the next 50 years is the quagga
> mussel (*Dreissena bugensis*). In 1997, it was well established in the
> lower Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence Seaway and has been found at
> one location in the UMR near St. Louis, Missouri (see Internet site
> www.entryway.com/seagrant/feb97q.jpg).
>
> 5.3.2.1.5 Contaminants
>
> A large spill of salt, fertilizer, ammonia or petroleum products from
> a tow(s) could kill all freshwater mussels in its path. The overall
> consequence however, can not be predicted, but would depend on the
> amount and type of substance spilled, the effectiveness of spill
> containment and cleanup, river stage, and other factors (USFWS 1993).
> The same conditions apply to contaminants hauled by rail; in most
> cases railroad facilities are located on both sides of the UMR
> floodplain. We would anticipate that a spill(s) may adversely affect
> Higgins= eye on a local scale.
>
> 5.3.2.2 Recreation Related Indirect Effects
>
> 5.3.2.2.1 Facilities
>
> Any future expansion or new construction projects, or maintenance of
> existing facilities, would follow Section 10/404 permitting
> guidelines. Section 7 endangered species consultation with the Service
> would occur through the permit application process. Through the
> Section 7 process, impacts to Higgins= eye will be avoided/minimized.
>
> 5.3.2.2.2 Large Vessels
>
> Large recreational vessels will also continue to transport zebra
> mussels on the UMR within the range of Higgins= eye to the detriment
> of freshwater mussels in general, and Higgins= eye in particular
> referenced in Section 5.3.2.1.4, Exotic Species. However, while
> recreational boats may transport zebra mussels on the UMR, commercial
> barge transportation is the predominant upstream carrier. Barges have
> larger submerged surface areas than recreational craft for mussel
> attachment; they remain for long periods in the water (exposure and
> attachment time); they travel long distances within the UMR, from
> below lock and dam 26 to the head of navigation in Minneapolis,
> Minnesota; and they travel within and downstream of the Illinois
> River, a constant source of zebra mussels from Lake Michigan to the
> UMR.
>
> 5.3.2.2.3 Beach Use B Not applicable
>
> 5.3.2.2.4 Exotic Species
>
> Refer to Section 5.3.2.1.4, Exotic Species
>
> 5.3.2.2.5 Contaminants
>
> The risk to Higgins= eye and other freshwater mussels from small
> contaminant spills from recreational craft are considered to be minor
> in comparison to the potential for a large spill from commercial
> navigation or rail traffic. Refer to Section 5.3.2.1.5, Contaminants.
>
> 5.3.2.3 Summary of Indirect Effects
>
> The indirect effects to Higgins= eye from continued zebra mussel
> persistence in the UMR are significant. As long as commercial barges,
> towboats and other equipment are infested with zebra mussels,
> continued operation of the 9-Foot Channel Project will facilitate the
> upstream transport of zebra mussels to the detriment of Higgins= eye
> and other native freshwater mussels on the UMR. Based on Corps
> unpublished 1999 data on freshwater mussels from the Prairie du Chien
> Essential Habitat Area, and observations and recommendations of the
> Higgins= Eye Pearlymussel Recovery Team (Hornbach 1999), it is evident
> that zebra mussels are a significant threat to native freshwater
> mussels on the UMR, including Higgins= eye. Due to upstream
> transportation by commercial barge traffic, zebra mussels are now
> found throughout the UMR. The indirect effect of continued operation
> and maintenance of the 9-Foot Channel Project for another 50 years
> will continue to facilitate this upstream transportation vector, and
> increase the risk of establishing zebra mussels at currently
> uninfested mussel beds containing Higgins= eye in the Lower St. Croix
> and Lower Wisconsin Rivers.
>
> 5.3.3 Interrelated Effects
>
> An interrelated activity is an activity that is part of the proposed
> action and depends on the proposed action for its justification.
>
> 5.3.3.1 Timber Management B Not applicable
>
> 5.3.3.2 Cabin Leases - Not applicable
>
> 5.3.3.3 General Plan Lands - Not applicable
>
> 5.3.3.4 Public Use Sites - Not applicable
>
> 5.3.3.5 Corps Port Facilities
>
> Two Corps-operated port facilities exist within the range of Higgins\'
> eye: one in the St. Paul District (Fountain City, Wisconsin) and one
> in the Rock Island District (LeClaire, Iowa). No live Higgins\' eye
> have been found recently near the Fountain City Base. The LeClaire
> Service Base is located immediately downstream of a high quality
> mussel bed. Any future maintenance or construction activities at these
> locations will be coordinated with the Service under Section 7 of the
> Endangered Species Act. Through the Section 7 process, impacts to
> Higgins= eye will be avoided/minimized.
>
> 5.3.4 Interdependent Effects
>
> An interdependent activity is an activity, not part of the proposed
> project, that has no independent utility apart from the proposed
> action under consultation.
>
> 5.3.4.1 Missouri River Navigation - Not applicable
>
> 5.3.4.2 U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Buoy Tending
>
> A potential impact of buoy placement and maintenance by USCG is the
> transport of zebra mussels into previously unoccupied habitat; USCG
> buoy tending vessels entering the St. Croix River from the Mississippi
> River would very likely carry zebra mussels from the Mississippi into
> the St. Croix. This could lead to establishment of a zebra mussel
> population in the St. Croix River. However, on September 27, 1999, a
> Service representative met with representatives of the U.S. Coast
> Guard and other Federal, State, and local stakeholders regarding the
> maintenance of navigation aids in the St. Croix River. It was agreed
> that the USCG would replace the existing heavy metal buoys with
> lighter easy‑to‑service buoys and with on‑shore daymarkers. This
> action will preclude the USCG having to bring zebra mussel‑infested
> cutters and work barges into the St. Croix River.
>
> 5.3.5 Cumulative Effects
>
> Cumulative effects in biological opinions are effects of future state,
> local, or private actions, not involving Federal action, reasonably
> certain to occur in the action area \[50 CFR 402.14 (g)(3) & (4)\].
> Cumulative effects include the effect of future State, Tribal, local
> or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action
> area considered in this Biological Opinion. Future Federal actions
> unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section
> because they will undergo separate consultation pursuant to Section 7
> of the Act.
>
> Cumulative effects will not be subject to future Section 7 review
> because no Federal action is associated with them. The Service knows
> of no projects reasonably certain to occur in the action area that
> will produce cumulative effects. Residential, industrial, and
> recreational uses will likely continue to increase on the UMR and may
> change habitat conditions for Higgins\' eye.

5.4 Conclusion

> 5.4.1 Jeopardy Analysis
>
> After reviewing the current status of Higgins\' eye pearlymussel, the
> environmental baseline for the action area, the effects of the
> proposed action, the cumulative effects, and effects of exotic zebra
> mussels, it is the Service\'s biological opinion that the action, as
> proposed, is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Higgins\'
> eye pearlymussel. No critical habitat has been designated for this
> species, therefore, none will be affected.
>
> The problem is not commercial barge transportation, per se. The
> ongoing problem is commercial barge transportation on the UMR with
> vessels and equipment infested with zebra mussels. The major adverse
> effect of the project on Higgins\' eye is from the indirect effects of
> zebra mussels, an exotic species which is maintained by the conditions
> created from the operation and maintenance of the 9-Foot Channel
> Project and is transported upstream from the Illinois River by
> commercial barge transportation dependent on the navigation project.
> This jeopardy opinion is based on the Service=s assessment of the
> project in light of information on Higgins\' eye=s range wide
> population size, distribution, and status and on reasonably likely
> zebra mussel impacts. Continued operation and maintenance of the
> 9-Foot Channel Project will facilitate upstream transport of zebra
> mussels by large vessels using navigation locks, thereby continuing to
> replenish zebra mussels in the UMR and encompassing all UMR mainstem
> Higgins\' eye Essential Habitat Areas. Continued operation and
> maintenance of the 9-Foot Channel Project also facilitates maintenance
> of existing populations of zebra mussels in navigation pools and lock
> chambers, which are more hospitable for zebra mussels than unimpounded
> riverine conditions.
>
> The proposed project makes possible large-scale commercial barge
> transportation on the UMR. But for the project, there would be no
> commercial barge navigation. But for the commercial barge traffic,
> there would be no continuous, large-scale transport and replenishment
> of zebra mussels in the UMR upstream of the Illinois River. While
> recreational boats may transport zebra mussels on the UMR, commercial
> barge transportation is the predominant upstream carrier. Barges have
> larger submerged surface areas than recreational craft for mussel
> attachment; they remain for long periods in the water (exposure and
> attachment time); they travel long distances within the UMR, from
> below Lock and Dam 26 to the head of navigation in Minneapolis,
> Minnesota; and they travel within and downstream of the Illinois
> River, a constant source of zebra mussels from Lake Michigan to the
> UMR. Furthermore, the proposed project provides ideal habitat for
> zebra mussel colonization (Corps 1999). Zebra mussel colonization is
> restricted by water velocity. Colonization is most successful in
> slow-moving water. The operation and maintenance of the 9-Foot Channel
> Project provides these ideal slow-moving water conditions.
>
> Zebra mussels affect native freshwater mussels like Higgins= eye by
> competing for food and by attaching to native mussels in such large
> numbers that infested mussels cannot travel or burrow. When infested
> by many zebra mussels, native mussels cannot open their shells to
> respire, feed, burrow, or move, nor can they close their shells for
> protection. Zebra mussels can build up on native mussels in such
> numbers that waves and currents can dislodge native mussels from the
> substrate. Any of these impacts or combination of impacts can lead to
> the death of the infested mussel; if enough adults die, reproduction
> and recruitment may be limited to the point that the mussel population
> and community cannot be maintained.
>
> Thus, the Service believes it is reasonably certain that operation and
> maintenance of the navigation pools and project-dependent commercial
> barge transportation will facilitate zebra mussel persistence in the
> UMR to the extent that the likelihood of recovery and survival of
> Higgins\' eye is appreciably reduced.
>
> 5.4.2 Reasonable and Prudent Alternative
>
> Regulations (50 CFR 402.02) implementing Section 7 of the Act define
> reasonable and prudent alternatives as alternative actions, identified
> during formal consultation, that: (1) can be implemented in a manner
> consistent with the intended purpose of the action; (2) can be
> implemented consistent with the scope of the action agency=s legal
> authority and jurisdiction; (3) are economically and technologically
> feasible; and (4) would, the Service believes, avoid the likelihood of
> jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species or
> resulting in the destruction or adverse modification of critical
> habitat.
>
> The continued operation and maintenance of the 9-Foot Channel Project
> facilitates a continued and maintained source of zebra mussels in the
> UMR, and thus, appreciably reduces the likelihood of survival and
> recovery of Higgins\' eye. To avoid jeopardizing the continued
> existence of the species, while continuing operation and maintenance
> of the 9-Foot Channel Project, guarding against further Higgins= eye
> population loss due to zebra mussel infestation is imperative. To
> achieve this, it is necessary to (1) establish, reestablish, or
> augment Higgins= eye populations in areas currently uninfested by
> zebra mussels, (2) prevent zebra mussel infestation above Lock and Dam
> 3 and into the Lower Wisconsin River, and (3) reverse current zebra
> mussel population trends in the UMR, especially downstream of Lock and
> Dam 3 to the confluence of the Illinois River.
>
> Continued operation and maintenance of the 9-Foot Channel Project will
> facilitate zebra mussel persistence in the UMR, and is likely to
> decimate all Higgins= eye Essential Habitat Areas on the UMR. To
> insure against the eventual loss of these essential populations,
> Higgins= eye populations need to be relocated into areas unaffected by
> zebra mussels. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WIDNR)
> and Illinois Natural History Survey surveyed zebra mussel veligers
> from Lock and Dam 2 to Lock and Dam 11, and at the mouth of the St.
> Croix River (WI DNR unpublished 1998 data). No veligers were found
> coming from the St. Croix River, indicating it did not support a
> reproducing population of zebra mussels in 1998. During August 1999,
> the WIDNR conducted another veliger survey in the St. Croix River and
> found 17 veligers in a sample taken from the mouth of the river just
> downstream of the railroad bridge at the City of Prescott, Wisconsin.
> The veliger density was 0.18 veligers per liter with a bimodal size
> distribution (Benjamin per comm 1999). Veligers were found at all UMR
> locks and dams sampled in 1998 (Locks and Dams 2 through 11). Very few
> veligers, however, were found in the tailwater of Lock and Dam 3 (0.1
> veligers per liter) compared to the tailwater of the downstream dams
> (range 18 to 487 veligers per liter; WIDNR unpublished 1998 data).
>
> Zebra mussel densities at Corps locks and dams in the St. Paul
> District are substantially lower upstream of Lock and Dam 3 than
> downstream. Corps personnel have routinely monitored zebra mussels at
> locks and dams in the St. Paul District (Upper St. Anthony Falls to
> Lock and Dam 10) since 1992. Combined zebra mussel densities for 1993
> and 1994 averaged 0.9 individuals/ sq m at upstream locks (Upper St.
> Anthony Falls to and including Lock and Dam 3), and 18.4 individuals/
> sq m at downstream locks (Locks and Dams 4 - 10). By 1995, zebra
> mussel densities were so large at downstream locks that they were
> described as being Ain layers and too numerous to count by divers;@ in
> comparison, zebra mussel densities at upstream sites were only 3.8 and
> 6.6 individuals/ sq m in 1995 and 1999, respectively (Yaeger 1999).
>
> Based on these data, we conclude that there is limited to absent zebra
> mussel reproduction occurring upstream of Lock and Dam 3, in the St.
> Croix River, Lower Wisconsin River, and in other tributaries. Thus, in
> protecting these currently uninfested areas from zebra mussel impacts,
> and mussel relocation sites per implementation of the Reasonable and
> Prudent Alternative (Section 5.4.2), it is also necessary to minimize
> the probability of zebra mussel transport upstream from Lock and Dam
> 3.
>
> A Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA) is for the Corps to (1)
> develop a Higgins= eye Pearlymussel Relocation Action Plan and (2) to
> conduct a reconnaissance study to control zebra mussels in the UMR.
> This RPA will involve the following:

22224. Conduct a Higgins= eye relocation feasibility analysis and
       prepare a Higgins= eye Pearlymussel Relocation Plan to address
       the feasibility of the Reasonable and Prudent Alternative in
       avoiding jeopardy and reducing incidental take. This will be an
       interdisciplinary/interagency effort designed to determine the
       most efficient and cost effective combination of methods and
       measures to provide for relocation of Higgins= eye. The effort
       will follow the Corps= traditional six-step planning process and
       include the utilization of pilot field studies if necessary. A
       report on the findings of this effort will be provided to the
       Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4101 East
       80^th^ Street, Bloomington, Minnesota, 55425-1665, by April 30,
       2001, for approval. If the feasibility study concludes that
       relocation of Higgins= eye is not feasible, the Corps will
       immediately reinitiate consultation with the Service under
       Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act to develop an alternative
       RPA to avoid jeopardy. If relocation is feasible, implementation
       of the Higgins= eye Pearlymussel Relocation Plan is to commence
       by June 1, 2001. The feasibility analysis will include, but not
       be limited to, the following:

> Development of milestones or success criteria and time frames for
> achieving such goals,
>
> Development of a relocation site criteria plan based on political,
> institutional and

biological parameters,

> Development of a search plan for candidate relocation sites,
>
> Implementation of the search plan, including pilot projects necessary
> to develop site suitability criteria and to evaluate candidate
> relocation sites,
>
> Preparation of a prioritized list of candidate relocation sites, with
> narrative
>
> evaluation,
>
> Evaluation of relocation methods including relocation of adult and
> juvenile Higgins= eye from existing populations, hatchery (*in situ*)
> propagation and rearing where juveniles would be used in relocation,
> and release of glochidia-laden host fish,
>
> Funding the relocation of Higgins\' eye at selected site(s) and
> evaluating success at
>
> the site(s). The relocation plan will include a monitoring component
> to determine the effectiveness of the relocation program in
> re-establishing viable populations of *L. higginsi*. Annual status
> reports of the relocation and monitoring program will be submitted for
> approval to the Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4101
> East 80^th^ Street, Bloomington, Minnesota, 55425-1665,
>
> Support and continuation of pilot projects to evaluate relocation
> techniques. Biologists from the Wisconsin and Minnesota Departments of
> Natural Resources and Service are planning to conduct emergency
> relocation efforts for Higgins= eye in fiscal year 2000, perhaps
> before this formal Section 7 consultation is completed. The Corps will
> continue to support these actions when Section 7 consultation is
> completed, including post-relocation monitoring of pilot projects.

1.  Conduct a zebra mussel reconnaissance study to determine the
    necessary measures, projected costs, and likelihood of success in
    controlling zebra mussels in the UMR. This will be an
    interdisciplinary/interagency effort designed to determine the most
    efficient and cost effective combination of measures necessary to
    control zebra mussels. Based on these findings, the Corps will
    pursue, for those actions that fall within their perview, the
    appropriate project planning and other steps to implement the
    necessary measures. Also, the Corps and the Service will seek the
    assistance of other agencies in pursuing those additional actions,
    which are within the authorities of those agencies and deemed
    necessary to control zebra mussel infestation. The reconnaissance
    report will be provided to the Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service, 4101 East 80^th^ Street, Bloomington, Minnesota,
    55425-1665, by April 30, 2002, for approval. If the zebra mussel
    control program is feasible, it will include a monitoring component
    to determine the effectiveness of the program in controlling zebra
    mussel abundance and distribution. Annual status reports of the
    zebra mussel control and monitoring program will be submitted for
    approval to the Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
    4101 East 80^th^ Street, Bloomington, Minnesota, 55425-1665.

> If the reconnaissance report or a subsequent feasibility report
> concludes that zebra mussel control in the UMR is not feasible, or
> feasible actions under the perview of the Corps are not implemented
> within two years of their identification, the Corps will immediately
> reinitiate consultation with the Service under Section 7 of the
> Endangered Species Act to develop an alternative RPA to avoid
> jeopardy.
>
> Because this Biological Opinion has found jeopardy to Higgins\' eye
> pearlymussel, the Corps is required to notify the Service of its final
> decision on the implementation of the reasonable and prudent
> alternative.

5.5 Incidental Take Statement

Section 9 of the Act and Federal regulation pursuant to Section 4(d) of
the Act prohibits the take of endangered and threatened species without
special exemption. Take is defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt,
shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or to attempt to engage in
any such activity. Harm is further defined by the Service to include
significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or
injury to listed species by significantly impairing essential behavioral
patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Harass is defined
by the Service as intentional or negligent actions that create the
likelihood of injury to listed species to such an extent as to
significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which include, but are
not limited to, breeding, feeding, and sheltering. Incidental take is
defined as take incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out
of an otherwise lawful activity. Under the terms of Section 7(b)(4) and
Section 7(o)(2), take incidental to and not an intended part of the
agency action is not considered prohibited taking under the Act,
provided such taking is in compliance with the terms and conditions of
this Incidental Take Statement.

The measures described below are non-discretionary, and must be
undertaken by the Corps for the exemption in Section 7(o)(2) to apply.
The Corps has a continuing duty to regulate the activity covered by this
incidental take statement. If the Corps fails to assume and implement
the terms and conditions, the protective coverage of Section 7(o)(2) may
lapse. In order to monitor the impact of incidental take, the Corps must
report the progress of the action and its impact on the species to the
Service as specified in the incidental take statement (50 CFR,
402.14(I)(3)).

> 5.5.1 Level of Take
>
> The Service has developed the following incidental take statement
> based on the premise that the RPA will be implemented. The Service
> anticipates that incidental take of Higgins= eye will occur between
> issuance of this biological opinion and complete implementation of the
> RPA, as well as, for a short period following implementation of the
> RPA (perhaps a 5 to 10-year period). During this period, zebra mussels
> will continue to adversely affect Higgins\' eye in the UMR mainstem,
> and, to a lesser extent, in the St. Croix River as well. Incidental
> take will occur in the form of harassment (e.g., competition for food,
> locomotion impairment) and harm (e.g., suffocation, starvation). Based
> on current zebra mussel densities, we anticipate all UMR Higgins= eye
> essential populations, except the Orion population, could be harassed
> or harmed during this interim period. In a few of these areas, adverse
> impacts could lead to complete loss of recruitment and substantial
> mortality.
>
> Incidental take will be difficult to detect and monitor, however. The
> reasons for this are as follows. First, changes to fitness parameters
> (e.g., decreased recruitment) often are not manifested in a year or
> two but rather over several years (e.g., 5 to 10 years). This is
> especially true for species that occur at low densities. Second,
> detection of impaired or recently morbid specimens is unlikely given
> the low abundance of Higgins= eye. Third, the normal variance in
> Higgins= eye population trend is great, a consequence of low
> densities, and thus, identifying a declining trend over such a short
> time-frame is problematic. We believe, however, the level of take can
> be monitored by observing the population trends of other native
> freshwater mussels and zebra mussel densities. At high infestations,
> the differences in mussel susceptibility to mortality and stress from
> zebra mussels are likely minor (Corps 1999). If other native
> co-habitant species are reduced by zebra mussels, it is also likely
> true for Higgins= eye. Thus, the general level of Higgins= eye take
> can be determined by monitoring the trend of the co-existing mussel
> community and the concurrent trend of zebra mussels.
>
> Although we suspect that nearly all reproductive potential will be
> lost and that mortality could be substantial in some Essential Habitat
> Areas during this interim period, we do not anticipate that
> recruitment will be impaired or that mortality will be significant in
> the following four Essential Habitat Areas: Interstate Park, Hudson,
> Prescott, and Orion. Based on population monitoring at Prairie du
> Chien (at Prairie du Chien, natural density fluctuations in the native
> mussel community were typically less than 50 percent of mean values),
> we anticipate that the native mussel diversity and density should not
> decline by more than 40 percent and that zebra mussel density in these
> four areas will not exceed 6000/m^2^, a density at which native mussel
> impacts have been observed (Cope *et al* 1997), within the next 8 to
> 10 years in any of the four Essential Habitat Areas identified above.
>
> We believe that this anticipated interim level of take due to zebra
> mussel infestation is unlikely to jeopardize the continued existence
> of Higgins= eye. Zebra mussels obtain greater abundance in areas of
> high native mussel densities. Thus, zebra mussel occurrence (and
> consequently, adverse impacts) is likely to be greater in areas
> supporting high density mussel beds, i.e., Essential Habitat Areas. It
> is, therefore, unlikely that residual populations occurring outside
> these Essential Habitat Areas will be substantially impacted during
> this 8 to 10-year period. Although the majority of take will be
> concentrated in Essential Habitat Areas in the UMR and this take is
> likely to include a substantial reduction in recruitment, it is
> unlikely that all individuals within these areas will be lost during
> this interim period. Hence, throughout the implementation phase of the
> RPA, Higgins= eye populations in the UMR are likely to persist and
> future reproductive potential will likely be maintained. Furthermore,
> based on recent surveys, zebra mussel densities are much lower in the
> upper pools (above Lock and Dam 3) and are unlikely to have
> significant adverse impacts to Higgins= eye populations in such areas
> during this time-frame. Thus, an upstream source for re-colonization
> and augmentation will persist. Lastly, following implementation of the
> RPA, relocated populations will provide additional sources of
> specimens to replenish once infested Essential Habitat Areas. In
> short, the impact of the anticipated take will be marked but the
> effects will be short-term and mitigated following implementation of
> the RPA.
>
> In addition to impacts associated with zebra mussels, continued
> operation and maintenance of the project may result in the take of
> Higgins= eye from specific channel maintenance activities such as
> dredging and modification of channel control structures. However, this
> programmatic biological opinion does not authorize any incidental take
> associated with such channel maintenance activities that may occur.
> These actions will require further Section 7 review. Although the
> level of anticipated incidental take from these actions is currently
> unknown, we believe such take will not rise to the level of jeopardy.
> The reasons for this are (1) in most instances, such projects will
> occur in the main navigation channel, and thus, will not affect
> Essential Habitat Areas, (2) such projects will have localized effects
> affecting only a few individuals, and (3) as the specific locations
> and project descriptions are developed and undergo Section 7 review,
> measures further minimizing the impacts of any such incidental take
> will be required and implemented.
>
> 5.5.2 Reasonable and Prudent Measures
>
> The measures described below are non-discretionary, and must be
> implemented by the agency for the exemption in Section 7(o)(2) to
> apply. The Corps has a continuing duty to implement the activity
> covered by this incidental take statement. If the Corps fails to
> adhere to the terms and conditions of the incidental take statement,
> the protective coverage of Section 7(o)(2) may lapse.
>
> The Service believes the following Reasonable and Prudent Measures
> (RPM) are necessary and appropriate to minimize take of Higgins\' eye:

22740. Implement a monitoring program for Higgins\' eye and other
       unionids in the UMR,

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  Investigate and implement opportunities to protect live Higgins= eye
    individuals within Essential Habitat Areas in the UMR during the
    interim period between issuance of the biological opinion and
    implementation of the RPA,

2.  Develop and implement an action plan to monitor abundance and
    distribution of zebra mussels on the Upper Mississippi River System
    (UMRS; navigable portions of the UMR, Illinois, Black, Lower
    Minnesota and Lower St. Croix Rivers, Lower Wisconsin River, and the
    Upper St. Croix River upstream of Taylors Falls, Minnesota). This
    should include continuing the monitoring of zebra mussel impacts to
    Higgins\' eye at the Prairie du Chien Essential Habitat Area. These
    studies are currently being conducted by personnel from the Corps of
    Engineers Waterways Experiment Station (WES) and are critical to
    understanding zebra mussel impacts to native species.

> 5.5.3 Terms and Conditions
>
> To be exempt from the prohibitions of Section 9 of the Act, the Corps
> must comply with the following terms and conditions which implement
> the reasonable and prudent measures described above and outline
> required reporting/monitoring requirements. These terms and conditions
> are non-discretionary.

1.  In monitoring Higgins= eye and other native mussel populations,
    assessments will include estimates of density, recruitment and
    genetic variability among populations in Essential Habitat Areas as
    well as secondary habitats identified in the Higgins= Eye
    Pearlymussel Recovery Plan (Hornbach 1999). Annual reports on the
    findings of this effort will be provided for approval to the Field
    Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4101 East 80^th^ Street,
    Bloomington, Minnesota, 55425-1665.

2.  In developing and implementing the feasible provisions of a plan to
    protect live Higgins= eye individuals within Essential Habitat
    Areas, the Corps may involve an interdisciplinary/interagency effort
    designed to determine the most efficient and cost effective
    combination of methods and measures to protect Higgins= eye
    individuals at Essential Habitat Areas downstream of the St. Croix
    River and Wisconsin River (Hornbach 1999). Annual reports on the
    findings of this effort shall be provided for approval to the Field
    Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4101 East 80^th^ Street,
    Bloomington, Minnesota, 55425-1665.

3.  The zebra mussel monitoring effort will also include assessing the
    ongoing effects of zebra mussel densities on Higgins= eye and other
    native mussels in the 10 Essential Habitat Areas and secondary
    habitats (Hornbach 1999). The plan will also evaluate dispersal of
    zebra mussel veligers, and develop models to determine source
    populations and population dynamics of zebra mussels on the UMRS.
    The action plan will include a specific plan for the Lower St. Croix
    River and Lower Wisconsin River that would avoid or minimize
    colonization by zebra mussels. Annual reports on the findings of
    this effort shall be provided for approval to the Field Supervisor,
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4101 East 80^th^ Street,
    Bloomington, Minnesota, 55425-1665.

4.  The Service believes that all Higgins= eye essential populations may
    experience some incidental take as a result of the proposed action.
    However, this incidental take will be difficult to detect and
    monitor. As an indicator of Higgins= eye take, we believe that no
    more than a 40 percent decline in the native mussel densities will
    occur and that zebra mussel densities will not exceed 6000/m^2^ in
    any of the four currently uninfested Essential Habitat Areas during
    the interim period. The reasonable and prudent measures, with their
    implementing terms and conditions, are designed to minimize the
    impact of incidental take that might otherwise result from the
    proposed action. If, during the course of the action, this level of
    incidental take is exceeded, such incidental take represents new
    information requiring reinitiation of consultation and review of the
    reasonable an prudent measures provided. The Federal agency must
    immediately provide an explanation of the causes of the taking and
    review with the Service the need for possible modification of the
    reasonable and prudent measures.

5.6 Conservation Recommendations

Section 7(a)(1) of the Act directs Federal agencies to utilize their
authorities to further the purposes of the Act by carrying out
conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and threatened
species. Conservation recommendations are discretionary agency
activities to minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on
listed species or critical habitat, to help implement recovery plans, or
to develop information.

23772. Conduct a feasibility analysis using the traditional Corps
       planning process to enhance the opportunity for fish passage at
       locks and dams for species of fish that are hosts of the *L.
       higginsi* glochidia. Implement feasible measure(s). Existing
       locks and dams are semi-permeable barriers to fish movement
       between navigation pools on the UMR. Water control gates at Lock
       and Dam 5 are raised out of the water less frequently than other
       navigation dams on the UMR in the St. Paul District. There has
       been only one live *L. higginsi* found in the UMR upstream of
       Lock and Dam 6 (Pool 1 in 1993; Cawley 1996). Since upstream
       expansion of *L. higginsi* is dependent on transport of glochidia
       by host fish species, existing locks and dams are restricting the
       upstream distribution of *L. higginsi*. Priority should be given
       to locks and dams in the St. Paul District. Existing data
       indicate the majority of the population of *L. higginsi* in the
       UMR occurs in Pool 10 and downstream areas (Cawley 1996).
       Enhancing fish passage at Locks and Dams 9, 10 and upstream sites
       may increase the number of host fish carrying glochidia to the
       upper navigation pools.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  Implement a public outreach effort, in coordination with the Service
    and other resource agencies, as a means to disseminate information
    on life history and distribution of zebra mussels, ecological
    importance of native mussels to include Higgins\' eye, control
    measures to limit the spread of zebra mussels on the UMR and
    tributaries, and status of mussel relocation efforts.

In order for the Service to be kept informed of actions minimizing or
avoiding adverse effects or benefitting listed species or their
habitats, the Service requests notification of the implementation of any
conservation recommendations.

5.7 Literature Cited

Baker, F.C. 1928. The fresh water mollusca of Wisconsin. Bulletin of the
University of Wisconsin, Ser. No. 1527, Gen. Series No. 1301.

Baker, S.M., and D.J. Hornbach. 1997. Acute physiological effects of
zebra mussel infestation on two native mussel mussels, *Actinonaias
ligamentina* and *Amblema plicata*. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and
Aquatic Sciences 54:512-519.

Benjamin, R. 1999. Personal communication. Biologist, Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources, Wisconsin. Conversation with R.N.
Rowse, biologist, Twin Cities Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Bloomington, Minnesota.

Benson, A.J., and C.P. Boydstun. 1995. Invasion of the zebra mussel in
the United States. *In* LaRoe, E.T., G.S. Farris, C.E. Puckett, P.D.
Doran, and M.J. Mac, (eds.). Our living resources: A report to the
nation on the distribution, abundance, and health of U.S. plants,
animals, and ecosystems. U.S. Department of the Interior, National
Biological Service, Washington, D.C. Pp. 445-446.

Burky, A.J. 1983. Physiological ecology of freshwater bivalves. Pp.
281-327. *In* Russell-Hunter, W.D. (ed.). The Mollusca, Vol. 6.,
Ecology. Academic Press, New York.

Carlton, J.T. 1993. Dispersal mechanisms of the zebra mussel (*Dreissena
polymorpha*). *In* Zebra Mussels Biology, Impacts, and Control. T.F.
Nalepa, and D.W. Schloesser (eds.). Lewis Publishers. Ann Arbor,
Michigan. Pp. 677-697.

Cawley, E.T. 1984. Report on mussel survey of high quality beds, pools
17, 18, 19. Upper Mississippi River Environmental Research Center, Loras
College.

\_\_\_\_\_. 1996. A compendium of reports of mussel studies containing
*Lampsilis higginsi* from the period 1980-1996. Environmental Research
Center, Loras College, Dubuque, Iowa.

Coker, R.E. 1919. Freshwater mussels and mussel industries of the United
States. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bulletin of the Bureau of Fisheries
36:13-89.

\_\_\_\_\_. 1930. Studies of the common fishes of the Upper Mississippi
River at Keokuk \[Iowa\]. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
Fisheries. Fisheries Document No. 1072, pp. 141-225.

Cope, W.G., M.R. Bartsch, and R.R. Hayden. 1997. Longitudinal patterns
in abundance of the zebra mussel (*Dreissena polymorpha*) in the Upper
Mississippi River. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 12:35-238.

Cummings, K.S., and C.A. Mayer. 1992. Field guide to freshwater mussels
of the Midwest. Manual 5. Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign,
Illinois.

Duncan, R.E., and P.A. Thiel. 1983. A survey of the mussel densities in
Pool 10 of the Upper Mississippi River. Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources, Technical Bulletin No. 139.

Eckblad, J. 1999. Evaluation of native mussel colonization of dredge
cuts and dredged material placement sites in pools 11-22 of the Upper
Mississippi River. Project Report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Rock
Island District.

Ellis, M.M. 1936. Erosion silt as a factor in aquatic environments.
Ecology 17:29-42.

Fremling, C.R., and T.O. Claflin. 1984. Ecological history of the Upper
Mississippi River. Pp. 5-24 *in* Weiner, J.G., R.V. Anderson, and D.R.
McConville (eds.). 1984. Contaminants in the Upper Mississippi River.
Butterworth Publishers, Boston, Massachusetts.

Fuller, S.L.H. 1980. Freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Native
musselae) of the Upper Mississippi River: observations at selected sites
within the 9-foot navigation channel project for the St. Paul District,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1977-1979. Vols. I and II. Academy of
Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Gillis, P.L., and G.L. Mackie. 1991. The effect of the exotic zebra
mussel (*Dreissena polymorpha*) on native bivalves (Native musselae) in
Lake St. Clair. Presented at the 1991 Electric Utility Zebra Mussel
Control Technology Conference (October 22-23, 1991). Chicago, Illinois.

Haag, W.R., D.J. Berg, D.W. Garton, and J.L. Farris. 1993. Reduced
survival and fitness in native bivalves in response to fouling by the
introduced zebra mussel (*Dreissena polymorpha*) in western Lake Erie.
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 50:13-19.

Havlik, M.E. 1980. The historic and present distribution of the
endangered Naiad mollusk *Lampsilis higginsi* (Lea, 1857). Bulletin of
the American Malacological Union for 1980:9-22.

\_\_\_\_\_. 1987. Naiad mollusks (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Native musselae)
of the St. Croix River at seven proposed bridge/tunnel sites,
Stillwater, Minnesota. Minnesota Department of Transportation, St. Paul,
Minnesota.

Holland-Bartels, L.E. and D.L. Waller. 1988. Aspects of the life history
of the endangered Higgins\' eye pearly mussel, *Lampsilis higginsi*
(Lea, 1857). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Fisheries Research
Center \[presently U.S. Geological Survey, Upper Midwest Environmental
Sciences Center\], La Crosse, Wisconsin.

Hornbach, D.J., J.G. March, and T. Deneka. 1995a. The potential factors
influencing the distribution of freshwater mussel communities within the
St. Croix and Upper Mississippi Rivers and the examination of factors
influencing the distribution of *Quadrula fragosa* (Conrad) and
*Lampsilis higginsi* (Lea). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ft.
Snelling, Minnesota.

\_\_\_\_\_, P. Baker, and T. Deneka. 1995b. Abundance and distribution
of the endangered mussel, *Lampsilis higginsi* in the lower St. Croix
River, Minnesota and Wisconsin. Final Report to US Fish and Wildlife
Service, Contract \# 14-48-000394-1009.

\_\_\_\_\_. 1999. Technical/Agency Draft revised Higgins= eye
pearlymussel recovery plan.

Hunter, R.D., S.A. Toczylowski, and M.G. Janech. 1997. Zebra mussels in
a small river: impact on native mussels. *In* Zebra mussels and aquatic
nuisance species. F.M. D=Itri (ed.). Ann Arbor Press, Chelsea, Michigan,
pp 161-186.

Karns, B. 2000. 1999 zebra mussel response plan, final report. St. Croix
National Scenic Riverway, National Park Service, St. Croix Falls,
Wisconsin, 32pp.

Keevin, T.J., R.E. Yarborough, and A.C. Miller. 1992. Long-distance
dispersal of zebra mussels (*Dreissena polymorpha*) attached to hulls of
commercial vessels. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 7:437.

Masteller, E.C., and D.W. Schloesser. 1991. Infestation and impact of
zebra mussels on the native mussel population at Presque Isle State
Park, Erie, Pennsylvania. Presented at the 1991 Zebra Mussel Control
Technology Conference (October 22-23, 1991). Chicago, Illinois.

Mathiak, H.A. 1979. A river survey of the unionid mussels of Wisconsin,
1973-1977. Sand Shell Press, Horicon, Wisconsin. 75pp.

Miller, A.C. 1995. Personal communication with G. Bade, biologist, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Rock Island Field Office, Rock Island,
Illinois.

\_\_\_\_\_, and B.S. Payne. 1992. The effects of increased commercial
navigation traffic on freshwater mussels in the Upper Mississippi River:
1989 studies. Tech. Report EL-91-3. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

\_\_\_\_\_. 1993. Qualitative versus quantitative sampling to evaluate
population and community characteristics at a large-river mussel bed.
*The American Midland Naturalist* 130:133-145.

\_\_\_\_\_. 1996. Effects of increased commercial traffic on freshwater
mussels in the Upper Mississippi River: Final synthesis report.
Technical Report EL-96-0. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

\_\_\_\_\_. 1997. Value of selected mussel beds in the Upper Mississippi
River for *Lampsilis higginsi*. Technical Report EL-97-13, U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

\_\_\_\_\_. 1998. Effects of disturbances on large-river mussel
assemblages. Regulated Rivers: Resource Management 14:179-190.

Ohnesorg, K.L., R.D. Smithee, G.D. Longton, W.P. Kovalak, and D.W.
Schloesser. 1993. Impact of the zebra mussel (*Dreissena polymorpha*) on
native mussels (Native musselae) in the Detroit River. Third
International Zebra Mussel Conference. Toronto, Ontario. (abstract
only).

Romano, M.A., D.B. Markillie, and R.V. Anderson. 1991. Electrophoretic
analysis of the host parasite relationship between flathead catfish and
the mapleleaf mussel. Proceedings of the Mississippi River Research
Consortium, Inc., Vol. 23. La Crosse, Wisconsin.

Schneider, D.W., D.E. Ellis, and K.S. Cummings. 1998. A transportation
model assessment of the risk to native mussel communities from zebra
mussel spread. Conservation Biology 12:788-800.

Theler, J.L. 1987. Prehistoric freshwater mussel assemblage of the
Mississippi River in Southwestern Wisconsin. Nautilus 101:143-150.

Thiel, P.A. 1981. A survey of native mussel mussels in the Upper
Mississippi river. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Technical
Bulletin No. 124.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1989. Final programmatic environmental
impact statement for the major rehabilitation effort of Mississippi
River locks and dams 2-22, Illinois Waterway from LaGrange to Lockport
locks and dams. Rock Island District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

\_\_\_\_\_. 1992. Zebra mussels: biology, ecology, and recommended
control strategies. Zebra mussel research technical note ZMR-1-101. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg,
Mississippi.

\_\_\_\_\_. 1996. Channel Maintenance Management Plan. U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, April, 1996, St. Paul, Minnesota.

\_\_\_\_\_. 1997. Final environmental impact statement for the 9-foot
channel project channel maintenance management plan, Upper Mississippi
River head of navigation to Guttenberg, Iowa. St. Paul District, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota.

\_\_\_\_\_. 1999. Biological Assessment for operation and maintenance of
the Upper Mississippi River Navigation Project within the St. Paul, Rock
Island, and St. Louis Districts. Mississippi Valley Division, Vicksburg,
Mississippi.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983. Higgins= eye mussel recovery plan.
Ft. Snelling, Minnesota.

\_\_\_\_\_. 1993. Biological opinion on the effects of Corps of
Engineers navigation channel maintenance and permit activities on
*Lampsilis higginsi* in the East Channel of the Upper Mississippi River
at Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin. Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building, 1
Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, Minnesota, June 28, 1993, 31pp.

U.S. 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. 236pp.

Waller, D.L. 1995. Personal communication. Research biologist, Upper
Mississippi Environmental Sciences Center, U.S. Geological Service, La
Crosse, Wisconsin. Conversation with G. Bade, biologist U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Rock Island Field Office, Rock Island, Illinois.

\_\_\_\_\_, and L.E. Holland-Bartels. 1988. Fish hosts for glochidia of
the endangered freshwater mussel *Lampsilis higginsi* Lea (Bivalvia:
Native musselae). Malacological Review 21:119-122.

Whiting, R.J. 1999. Personal communication. Aquatic ecologist, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Environmental and Economic Analysis Branch, St.
Paul, Minnesota. Conversation with C.G. Kjos, biologist, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Twin Cities Field Office, Bloomington, Minnesota.

\_\_\_\_\_. 2000. Personal communication. Aquatic ecologist, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Environmental and Economic Analysis Branch, St.
Paul, Minnesota. Conversation with G.J.Wege, biologist, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Twin Cities Field Office, Bloomington, Minnesota.

Wilcox, D.B., D.D. Anderson, and A.C. Miller. 1993. Survey procedures
and decision criteria for estimating the likelihood that *Lampsilis
higginsi* is present in areas within the Upper Mississippi River System.
Pp. 163-167. *In* Proceedings of a Upper Mississippi River Conservation
Committee symposium on conservation and management of freshwater
mussels, K.S. Cummings, A.C. Buchanan, and L.M. Koch (eds.). October
12-14, 1992. St. Louis, Missouri.

Wilcox, D.B., J. Wlosinski, S. Maracek, and S. Gutreuter. Unpublished
1998 Draft. Fish passage through navigation dams on the Upper
Mississippi River.

Yager, T.K., R. Sikkila, T. Hemstreet, K. Schroeder, E. Strand, R. Piel,
R. Bauers, and B. Wolfe. 1994. Zebra mussel monitoring 1994. St. Paul
District, Corps of Engineers. Unpublished report.

\_\_\_\_\_. 1999. Zebra mussel monitoring 1999. St. Paul District, Corps
of Engineers. Unpublished report.

**6.0 Winged mapleleaf mussel**

6.1 Status of the Species

The winged mapleleaf was listed in 1991 as endangered because (1) the
species has been eliminated from nearly all of its original 11-state
range and at listing was known from only one population along a 13-mile
segment of the St. Croix River, (2) its population was small and
therefore vulnerable to catastrophic stochastic events, such as toxic
spills or low water levels, (3) its reproductive success was threatened
by its low population, and (4) changes in land use practices in the
watershed were anticipated because the watershed is close to a growing
metropolitan area (USFWS 1997). The plan recognized zebra mussels as a
grave potential threat. Zebra mussels are repeatedly found on
recreational boats entering the St. Croix River from the Mississippi
River and the reduction of the threat of zebra mussel invasion is a
priority to the Winged Mapleleaf Recovery Team (USFWS 1997); for these
reasons zebra mussels is a major concern to the well-being of the winged
mapleleaf.

Little is known of the details of winged mapleleaf reproduction, feeding
ecology, and specific habitat requirements (USFWS 1997). The brooding
period for winged mapleleaf was presumed to be late May to the middle of
July (Baker 1928). Recent investigation, however, revealed the brooding
period of winged mapleleaf extended from about mid-September to
mid-October in the St. Croix River (Heath *et al*. 1999). Hove *et al*.
1999 have begun laboratory studies to determine the host fish species
for winged mapleleaf. In 38 trials on 29 fish species and on one species
of mudpuppy, no species were found to provide complete winged mapleleaf
glochidial metamorphosis. Recently, two glochidia successfully were
released from a channel catfish in the laboratory (Hove 2000). However,
the host glochidial species for winged mapleleaf remains unknown.

Much research on habitat requirements of the remnant St. Croix River
population has been done during the last decade. Winged mapleleaf occurs
in riffles with clean gravel, sand, and rubble substrates in rivers with
clear water (USFWS 1997). It was found to be most abundant in shallow
areas with fast current. Hornbach *et al.* (1995a) reported winged
mapleleaf occur at an average depth of 3.0 ft (0.93 m), ranging from 1.4
to 6.2 ft (0.42 to 1.9 m). Winged mapleleaf are associated with three
mussel species, deertoe (*Truncilla truncata*), monkeyface (*Quadrula
metanevra*), and fawnsfoot (*Truncilla donaciformis*) (Hornbach *et al.*
1996). Hornbach *et al.* (1995b) concludes winged mapleleaf is only
found in habitats that are generally high quality habitats for other
mussel species. They also found considerable variation in flow
conditions where winged mapleleaf occurred. Water velocity ranged from
0.13 ft/s (0.04 m/s) to 1.12 ft/s (0.34 m/s) with a mean of 0.58 ft/s
(0.178 m/s) (Hornbach *et al.* 1995a).

Historically, winged mapleleaf was found in 34 rivers across 12 states
from Ohio in the east to Kansas in the west and south to Oklahoma (USFWS
1997). There is uncertainty over its occurrence in Oklahoma due to
unresolved taxonomic classification; however, it has been reported as a
new state record in the Ouachita River, Arkansas (Posey *et al.* 1996).
The range of the winged mapleleaf has been reduced by more than 90
percent. Factors that may have contributed to its decline include
predators (e.g., muskrat, mink, raccoons, turtles, and waterbirds),
disturbances (e.g., illegal harvest for consumption or bait, swimming,
wading, physical disturbance of substrate from recreational and
commercial boating), competitors (e.g., interspecific competition for
resources), parasites, and disease. The winged mapleleaf, due to its
single, small geographically extant population in the St. Croix River,
is particularly vulnerable to stochastic events such as low water
levels, toxic spills, or climatic episodes (USFWS 1997).

Currently, the winged mapleleaf population is known only in a 12.4 mile
(20km) stretch of the St. Croix River from the hydropower dam at St.
Croix Falls south to Osceola, Wisconsin (RM 44 to RM 52) (Hornbach *et
al.* 1998; USFWS 1997).

The St. Croix River, bounded along part of its length by the states of
Minnesota and Wisconsin, begins in Wisconsin and flows in a southerly
direction for 154 miles until it joins the Mississippi River at
Prescott, Wisconsin. The river forms part of the St. Croix National
Scenic Riverway, administered by the National Park Service, and the
Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverways, administered by the Minnesota
and Wisconsin Departments of Natural Resource in partnership with the
National Park Service. The river is unique because it has its complete
native mussel fauna of 40 species; which includes 13 Wisconsin and 17
Minnesota threatened and endangered mussels (Hornbach *et al.* 1995a).

In recent years, recruitment to the population has been low and the last
large cohort recruitment was in 1987 (Heath 1999). On September 24,
1997, one gravid female was found among approximately 250 winged
mapleleafs collected and examined in biweekly surveys in summer and fall
of 1997. The glochidia in the female were immature, suggesting late
September was the beginning of winged mapleleaf\'s brooding period.
Winged mapleleaf would be unusual in having a September-October brooding
period as almost all other members of the winged mapleleaf\'s subfamily
brood in spring and early summer (Corps 1999). The glochidial host fish
for winged mapleleaf is unknown, but may be a member of the catfish
family, based on known glochidial host fish of other *Quadrula* species
(USFWS 1997).

A recent threat to winged mapleleaf comes from zebra mussels (*Dreissena
polymorpha*), freshwater mussels native to the Black and Caspian Seas.
Zebra mussels were introduced into Lake Erie in the late 1980s from ship
ballast water discharge (Benson and Boydstun 1995). The species is now
reproducing and invading North America\'s lakes and rivers, including
the Mississippi River.

6.2 Environmental Baseline

This section is an analysis of the effects of past and ongoing human and
natural factors leading to the current status of the species, its
habitat, and ecosystem within the action area. The purpose is to analyze
the effects on the species at the action level. Factors affecting the
species include recreation and exotic species.

Currently, the species is known from one locality, the St. Croix River
between St. Croix Falls and Osceola, Wisconsin.

> 6.2.4 Recreation
>
> There is evidence that recreational boats (paddlewheel boats and
> smaller motorboats) may have caused significant local disturbance to
> mussel beds by physical disturbance of the substrate and by enabling
> boaters access to otherwise isolated mussel beds (USFWS 1997). There
> has also been considerable wading and swimming activity in the
> vicinity of the mussel beds where winged mapleleaf are known to occur.
> People have been observed collecting mussels at some beach sites;
> indiscriminate collections may have included winged mapleleafs at some
> locations (Whiting 2000). Currently, the NPS is consulting with the
> Service during the development of the *Draft Cooperative Management
> Plan Environmental Impact Statement; Lower St. Croix National Scenic
> Riverway* (National Park Service1999).
>
> 6.2.5 Exotic Species
>
> Of major concern to the well being of mussels in general, and winged
> mapleleaf in particular, was the introduction of zebra mussels to the
> Mississippi River. Zebra mussels have been found throughout the
> Mississippi River and have the potential to kill or otherwise
> eliminate native mussels, including winged mapleleaf.
>
> Adult zebra mussels attach themselves by byssal threads to hard
> substrates including rocks, native mussels, wood, aquatic plants, and
> other zebra mussels. Zebra mussels may also colonize soft substrates,
> such as aquatic vegetation or soft mud (Whitney *et al.* 1996). They
> also attach to man-made materials including fiberglass, iron, plastic,
> concrete, and other surfaces (Corps 1992). Male zebra mussels release
> sperm directly into the water to fertilize eggs released by the female
> zebra mussels. Large females can release up to one million eggs per
> season (Corps 1992). Eggs are released when water temperatures reach
> 52-54 ^o^F. Immature zebra mussels (veligers) spread via passive drift
> on water currents. Adults and veligers attach to boat hulls, lower
> power drives, trim tabs, wet compartments, containers, and submerged
> boat equipment.
>
> Zebra mussels affect other mussels by competing for food and by
> attaching to mussels in such numbers that infested mussels cannot
> travel or burrow. When infested by approximately 100 or more zebra
> mussels, native mussels can neither open their shells to properly
> respire, feed, burrow, or move, nor can they close their shells for
> protection. Zebra mussels can build up on native mussels in such
> numbers that waves and currents can dislodge native mussels from the
> substrate. Recent observations suggest infested native mussels may
> remove themselves from the substrate to escape zebra mussels (Miller
> 1995). Any of these impacts, singly or in combination, can kill the
> infested mussel. Recreational and commercial water craft are the main
> vectors of this species throughout inland waters, while passive drift
> of veligers and juveniles facilitates downstream dispersal.
>
> Zebra mussels reach a maximum length of about two inches, and hundreds
> of thousands can colonize a square meter. Up to 10,000 zebra mussels
> have been counted on a single native mussel (Corps 1992). In
> Michigan\'s Lakes Erie and St. Clair, where zebra mussels have existed
> for several years, native mussel populations have been devastated, and
> in some areas eradicated (Masteller and Schloesser 1991, Gillis and
> Mackie 1991). Gillis and Mackie (1991) found a positive correlation
> between large increases in the average number of zebra mussels
> attached to native mussel shells and a decline in live native mussel
> numbers in Lake St. Clair. They also found approximately 2,000 zebra
> mussels on a native mussel shell occluded the siphon region
> completely, affecting the infested mussel\'s ability to filter.
> Colonization rates of approximately 0.4 to 1.0 g of zebra mussels per
> g of native mussel (dry mass) were recorded in native mussels
> immediately before extirpation of native mussels from the Canadian
> side of the Detroit River (Ohnesorg *et al.* 1993).
>
> Zebra mussels may have greater impact on some native mussel species
> than others, although this is not conclusive. Haag *et al.* (1993), in
> a test of six species, found species in the Anodontinae subfamily to
> be the most sensitive to zebra mussels, followed by Lampsilinae and
> Ambleminae. Winged mapleleaf is a member of the subfamily Ambleminae.
> Hunter *et al*. (1997 and references within) also found some species
> to be more sensitive than others. Giant floater (*Anodonta grandis*)
> was the most sensitive, followed by fragile papershell (*Leptodea
> fragilis*), fatmucket (*Lampsilis siliquoidea*), pink heelsplitter
> (*Potamilus alatus*), and black sandshell (*Ligumia recta*).

Zebra mussels were first discovered in Lake St. Clair in 1988 and in all
the Great Lakes in 1989. The first zebra mussel collected from the
Mississippi River was taken in 1991, south of La Crosse, Wisconsin
(Corps 1999). The first discovery of zebra mussels on recreational boats
in the St. Croix River was in 1994. Every year since 1994, boats have
been observed with zebra mussels attached. During dive surveys in 1999,
32 boats checked had zebra mussels attached (Karns 2000). During the
same sampling period, 51 live zebra mussels were found in the St. Croix
River. Zebra mussels have been found attached to native mussels, rip
rap, rock, refuse, and bridge piers. Currently, the St. Croix River
remains uninfested by zebra mussels despite these incidents of zebra
mussels on the river substrate, on native mussels, or on boats.

> The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WI DNR) and Illinois
> Natural History Survey have conducted surveys of zebra mussel veligers
> from the mouth of the St. Croix River (Benjamin per comm 1999). In
> 1998, no veligers were found coming from the St. Croix River,
> indicating it did not support a reproducing population of zebra
> mussels in 1998. During August 1999, the WI DNR conducted another
> veliger survey in the St. Croix River and found 17 veligers in a
> sample taken from the mouth of the river just downstream of the
> railroad bridge at the City of Prescott. The veliger density was 0.189
> veligers per liter with a bimodal size distribution (Benjamin per comm
> 1999). Few veligers, however, were found upstream of Lock and Dam 3
> compared to downstream areas. Surveys by Corps and Service biologists
> in 1998 and 1999 confirmed the presence of significantly fewer adult
> zebra mussels upstream of Lock and Dam 3 (Yager 1999).
>
> Once firmly attached, adult zebra mussels can withstand water velocity
> up to approximately 6 ft/sec (1.8 m/s) (Claudi and Mackie 1994). They
> appear adapted to lotic conditions, but when the complete life history
> of zebra mussels is considered, its lotic (flowing water) adaptability
> is doubtful. Successful lotic mussels have internal fertilization, the
> females holding eggs in marsupial chambers in their gills, where the
> eggs are fertilized, and where development proceeds to the glochidial
> stage. The glochidia are released, attach to fish, develop,
> metamorphose, and drop from the fish to the river bottom. Reliance on
> external fertilization and planktonic larvae is not typical of mussels
> in lotic environments. Native mussels have possible advantages over
> zebra mussels in their ability to bury into the substrate: longer life
> span, possibly greater energy reserves, thicker shells, and
> reproductive strategy suited for lotic habitats. The concern for the
> negative effects of zebra mussels on native riverine mussels may not
> be fully realized, as was the case with the Asian clam (Miller and
> Payne 1996), but this is by no means clear.
>
> Strayer (1991) concluded zebra mussels do not exist in rivers less
> than 30 m (98.4 ft) wide. Lakes and run-of-river-reservoirs along
> large rivers are the primary habitats of zebra mussels. Hunter *et
> al.* (1997 and references within) showed zebra mussel settlement is
> restricted by water velocity. Settlement is most successful in
> slow-moving water (\<10 cm/s) (3.9 in/s), and, within velocity refuges
> from even such slow-moving water. Successful colonization of smaller
> river systems by zebra mussels may depend in part on lakes, large
> pools, and impoundments along the river\'s course where reproducing
> groups of zebra mussels can establish (Hunter *et al.* 1997).
> Impoundments along a smaller river enhance conditions for successful
> zebra mussel colonization, but the overall susceptibility of such a
> river to heavy infestation by zebra mussels is lower than for lakes
> and for long, low-velocity sections of large rivers. However, S.J.
> Nichols (date unavailable) reported that zebra mussel adults are
> attracted to water current and will colonize areas with water
> velocities up to 6.6 ft/s (2 m/s). He also reported that water
> velocities over 6.6 ft/s (2 m/s) discourage the settling of veligers.
>
> Zebra mussels disperse by three natural mechanisms (water currents,
> birds, and other animals) and 20 human-related mechanisms (Carlton
> 1993, Schneider *et al*. 1998). Johnson *et al.* (1994) reported that
> although waterfowl can transport zebra mussels, the actual numbers of
> zebra mussels moved by ducks were quite low (0 to 0.25 zebra
> mussels/duck) and thus waterfowl do not represent a rapid means of
> spreading zebra mussels between bodies of water.
>
> Human mechanisms are preponderantly important in the upstream and
> overland transport of zebra mussels and larvae. Carlton (1993)
> suggests zebra mussels on boats and other movable substrates leads to
> rapid \"hopscotching\" over suitable habitat, with Abackfilling@
> likely to occur later. It is uncertain to what extent these
> introductions lead to infestation. Johnson and Carlton (1992)
> state: 1) the introduction of only a few zebra mussels creates a low
> probability that a self-sustaining population will develop, 2)
> repeated introductions into a water body could be required for an
> outbreak, 3) overland transport requiring extended survival of mussels
> out of water is rarely successful, and 4) it is difficult to predict
> when invasion will occur, despite the high likelihood of eventual
> zebra mussel invasion \-- it could require decades. Schneider *et al.*
> (1998) developed a transportation model for use in Illinois and found
> that the risk of spread of zebra mussels depends on the number of boat
> trips from infested waters, which in turn depends on the distance from
> an infested water, boat use at the site, and the position of a lake
> within a river system. They determined that the invasion of inland
> lakes and reservoirs in Illinois was predicted to occur first at areas
> of high boat use close to currently infested waters.
>
> Zebra mussels have been documented to spread via divers through their
> gear (Kraft 1995, 1996). He found three inland lakes known to be
> colonized by zebra mussels in quarries frequented by divers. Kraft
> (1994) also reported that a 20-acre quarry, only few miles overland
> from Lake Michigan and frequented by divers near Racine, Wisconsin,
> had been infested with zebra mussels. The quarry has no public boat
> launch.
>
> Native mussels vary by species and size in their susceptibility to
> mortality and stress from zebra mussels, but these distinctions
> probably do not matter at high infestations. Winged mapleleaf is rare
> and sparsely distributed and may, therefore, be more vulnerable to
> harm from high zebra mussel infestations than are more common mussel
> species. Potential zebra mussel affect on winged mapleleaf
> reproduction was addressed in winged mapleleaf population and habitat
> viability report (Kjos, *et al*. 1998). The report, in discussing
> computer simulated zebra mussel infestation, stated that the most
> profound risk faced by this remnant population appears to be an
> infestation by zebra mussels. Direct impacts on female fecundity and
> adult mortality of this \[simulated\] infestation cause affected
> populations to decrease rapidly toward extinction following the
> introduction of zebra mussels into winged mapleleaf habitat.

6.2.7 Summary

The range of the winged mapleleaf has been reduced by more than 90
percent; the species is presently known only in the St. Croix River. In
1991, the species was listed as endangered because it had been
eliminated from nearly all of its original range, its population is
vulnerable to catastrophic stochastic events, its reproductive success
is threatened by its low population numbers, and anticipated changes in
land use practices within in the watershed are anticipated. Recreational
activities, such as tour-boating, wading, and direct handling, are
having minor adverse effects to winged mapleleaf. A recent threat to
native mussels comes from zebra mussels. Dense zebra mussel colonization
on native mussels has severely impacted native mussel communities in the
Mississippi River. Consequently, zebra mussels are a major concern to
the well-being of the winged mapleleaf.

6.3 Effects of the Proposed Action

This section includes an analysis of the direct and indirect effects of
the proposed action on the species and its interrelated and
interdependent activities.

> 6.3.1 Direct Effects
>
> The Biological Assessment (Corps 1999) was used in our assessment of
> project effects on winged mapleleaf. We also used information and
> observations of the Winged Mapleleaf Recovery Team in determining
> effects of the Proposed Action on the species (Hornbach 1999). Our
> assessment of direct effects to winged mapleleaf from continuing
> operation and maintenance of the 9-Foot Channel Project for an
> additional 50 years included the following parameters.
>
> 6.3.1.2 Maintenance of the 9-Foot Channel Project
>
> 6.3.1.2.3 Clearing and Snagging
>
> Clearing and snagging could affect winged mapleleaf through
> disturbance of bottom substrate and by stimulating premature release
> of glochidia. Snag removal on the St. Croix River, however, is
> conducted only when requested by the National Park Service because of
> its wild and scenic river status (Corps 1996) and has not been
> performed in the past 20 years. In 1972 the Lower St. Croix National
> Scenic Riverway was established on the St. Croix. The Corps does not
> anticipate snag removal on the St. Croix during the next 50 years
> (Corps 1999); we therefore do not anticipate major adverse impacts.
> Should the National Park Service request snag removal, consultation
> would be initiated with the Fish and Wildlife Service prior to any
> snag removal.
>
> 6.3.2 Indirect Effects
>
> 6.3.2.1 Navigation Related Indirect Effects
>
> 6.3.2.1.1 Tow Traffic
>
> Commercial barge traffic is involved in the transport and replenishing
> of zebra mussel populations at upstream locations (Carlton 1993,
> Keevin *et al.* 1992). Recently, commercial barge traffic has occurred
> during the I-94 bridge construction project, the construction of the
> City of Stillwater levee project, and for the Lake Mallalieu dam
> rehabilitation project. For all of these projects, the action agencies
> have consulted with the Service regarding the impacts to Higgins= eye
> and winged mapleleaf. The impact of zebra mussels on winged mapleleaf
> is discussed under exotic species.
>
> 6.3.2.1.3 Port Facilities
>
> There is one commercial port facility on the St. Croix River. Northern
> States Power Company (NSP) owns and operates the King generating plant
> near the City of Stillwater, approximately 22 miles downriver of
> winged mapleleaf area. The port facility is no longer active and NSP
> is considering removing the barge docking and unloading facility as
> part of a bridge project being funded by the Minnesota Department of
> Transportation. Except as a possible zebra mussel infestation source
> for further spread, the port facility and port operations should have
> no affect on winged mapleleaf.
>
> 6.3.2.1.4 Exotic Species
>
> The proposed project makes possible large-scale commercial barge
> transportation on the Mississippi River. But for the project, there
> would be no commercial barge navigation. But for the barge traffic,
> there would be no continuous, large-scale transport and replenishment
> of zebra mussels in the Mississippi River mainstem. Furthermore, the
> proposed project also provides ideal habitat for zebra mussel
> colonization (Corps 1999). Zebra mussel colonization seems most
> successful in slow-moving water. The operation and maintenance of the
> 9-foot channel project provides these ideal slow-moving water
> conditions. Thus, the proposed project ensures the zebra mussel=s
> persistence in the UMR-mainstem.
>
> Currently, zebra mussels have not infested the St. Croix River,
> although they continue to be found on rock and artificial substrate at
> extremely low densities. Zebra mussels are brought into the St. Croix
> River via recreational boats from the Mississippi River despite
> Minnesota and Wisconsin state laws prohibiting the transport of zebra
> mussels into the St. Croix River. Thus, but for the continued
> persistence of zebra mussels in the UMR-mainstem, continued transport
> of zebra mussels into the St. Croix River would not likely occur.
>
> Although commercial barges are the overwhelmingly preponderant carrier
> of zebra mussels in the Mississippi River mainstem, recreational
> traffic also facilitates the spread of zebra mussels throughout the
> system and to other tributaries. Barges have larger submerged surface
> areas than recreational craft for mussel attachment; they remain for
> long periods in the water (exposure and attachment time), they travel
> long distances within the Mississippi River, from below Lock and Dam
> 26 to the head of navigation in Minneapolis, Minnesota; and they
> travel within and downstream of the Illinois River, a constant source
> of zebra mussels from Lake Michigan to the Mississippi River. For
> these reasons, commercial barge traffic appears more important than
> recreational vessel traffic in the transport and maintenance of zebra
> mussels in the Mississippi River.
>
> As there is no regular commercial barge traffic on the St. Croix
> River, the most likely vector for zebra mussel occurrence in the St.
> Croix River is recreational boat traffic. Although the recreational
> boat traffic is not as effective as commercial barge traffic in
> facilitating zebra mussel spread, a transportation model risk
> assessment of zebra mussel spread (Schneider *et al.* 1998) suggested
> that the St. Croix River may still be at risk of zebra mussel spread.
> Given the persistence of zebra mussels in the Upper Mississippi River
> mainstem and the movement of recreational traffic between the Upper
> Mississippi River mainstem and the St. Croix River, we believe it is
> likely that recreational traffic will continue to spread zebra mussels
> into the St. Croix River, but it is not likely that this vector alone
> will result in zebra mussel infestation. In addition to a lack of a
> continuous source of zebra mussels from barge traffic, the National
> Park Service=s boater check station at RM 30 will greatly minimize the
> likelihood of zebra mussel infestation in the St. Croix River. The low
> densities of zebra mussel occurrence in the St. Croix River to date,
> relative to the recent zebra mussel trends in the Upper Mississippi
> River mainstem, support this contention.
>
> As previously explained, exotic species infestations resulting from
> human introduction could impact winged mapleleaf by direct mortality
> and by chronic impacts.
>
> The likelihood for another exotic species invading the Mississippi and
> St. Croix rivers is high and the degree of impact upon the native
> fauna is impossible to determine, but it is probably negative. One
> species that could impact winged mapleleaf in the same fashion as the
> zebra mussel is the quagga mussel (*Dreissena bugensis*). Quagga
> mussels have been spread into Lakes St. Clair, Lake Ontario, and Lake
> Erie in a similar way to the zebra mussel. Morton (1997) predicted
> zebra mussels will spread to the uninfested rivers of North America
> having suitable water quality and substrate, the only question being
> how soon.
>
> 6.3.4 Interdependent Effects
>
> An interdependent activity is an activity, not part of the proposed
> project, that has no independent utility apart from the proposed
> action under consideration.
>
> 6.3.4.2 U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Buoy Tending
>
> A potential impact of buoy placement and maintenance by USCG is the
> transport of zebra mussels into previously unoccupied habitat; USCG
> buoy tending vessels entering the St. Croix River from the Mississippi
> River would very likely carry zebra mussels from the Mississippi into
> the St. Croix. This could facilitate the establishment of a zebra
> mussel population in the St. Croix River. However, on September 31,
> 1999, a Service representative met with representatives of the U.S.
> Coast Guard and other Federal, State, and local stakeholders regarding
> the maintenance of navigation aids in the St. Croix River. The USCG
> agreed to replace the existing heavy metal buoys with lighter
> easy‑to‑service buoys and with on‑shore daymarkers. This action will
> preclude the USCG having to bring zebra mussel‑infested cutters and
> work barges into the St. Croix River. Thus, buoy tending is unlikely
> to greatly influence zebra mussel densities in the St. Croix River,
> and therefore, is unlikely to adversely affect winged mapleleaf.
>
> 6.3.5 Cumulative Effects
>
> Cumulative effects include the effect of future State, Tribal, local,
> or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action
> area considered in this Biological Opinion. Future Federal actions
> unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section
> because they will undergo separate consultation pursuant to Section 7
> of the Act.
>
> Cumulative effects will not be subject to future Section 7 review
> because no Federal action is associated with them. The Service knows
> of no projects reasonably certain to occur in the action area that
> will produce cumulative effects. Residential, industrial, and
> recreational uses will likely continue to increase on the St. Croix
> River and may negatively change habitat conditions for winged
> mapleleaf but the extent of this change is unknown.
>
> 6.3.6 Summary of Effects
>
> The current conservation status of winged mapleleaf is critical. As
> only one small population persists, the species is vulnerable to even
> small perturbations. Although there are other adverse effects
> associated or concurrently occurring with the proposed action,
> including recreational effects and effects from the operation of the
> NSP dam upstream, the primary concern of the proposed project is
> continuation of the threat of zebra mussel infestation into the St.
> Croix River. The proposed action ensures a continued source of zebra
> mussels at the confluence of the St. Croix and Mississippi rivers.
> Although the primary vector (barge traffic) of zebra mussel spread
> will not occur, recreational traffic will continue to transport zebra
> mussels into the St. Croix. This is particularly more likely in the
> future as zebra mussel densities continue to increase in the Upper
> Mississippi River mainstem.
>
> As explained previously, zebra mussels are maintained in the
> Mississippi River by the conditions created from the operation and
> maintenance of the 9-foot channel project. The proposed project\'s
> purpose is continued enablement of commercial barge travel on the
> Mississippi River. Continued operation and maintenance of the 9-Foot
> Channel Project will facilitate upstream transport of zebra mussels by
> large vessels using navigation locks, thereby continuing to replenish
> zebra mussels in the Mississippi River mainstem and continuing to be a
> source of zebra mussels for the St. Croix River. Continued operation
> and maintenance of the 9-foot channel project also facilitates
> maintenance of existing populations of zebra mussels in navigation
> pools and lock chambers, which are more hospitable for zebra mussels
> than unimpounded riverine conditions.
>
> Zebra mussels may affect winged mapleleaf by competing for food and
> impairing locomotion, respiration, and feeding. Thus, we believe that
> the continued operation and maintenance of the 9-Foot Channel project
> will adversely affect individual winged mapleleaf mussels through the
> indirect effects of zebra mussel spread into the St. Croix River.

6.4 Conclusion

After reviewing the current status of winged mapleleaf mussel, the
environmental baseline for the action area and range of the species, the
effects of the proposed action and the cumulative effects, it is the
Service\'s biological opinion that the action, as proposed, is not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence and recovery of winged
mapleleaf mussel. No critical habitat has been designated for this
species, therefore, none will be affected.

As explained above, the primary concern to the well being of the winged
mapleleaf, is the introduction of zebra mussels to the St. Croix River.
Zebra mussels have been found throughout the Mississippi River,
including the St. Croix River, and thus, have and will continue to
threaten winged mapleleaf mussels. However, the St. Croix River remains
uninfested despite ongoing incidents of zebra mussels on the river
substrate, on native mussels, and on boats. Undoubtably, zebra mussel
infestation into the St. Croix River would substantially threaten the
survival and recovery of the winged mapleleaf. This is unlikely to
occur, however

The upstream colonization of zebra mussels in rivers depends on an
upstream vector. As there is no regular commercial barge traffic on the
St. Croix River, the most likely vector for zebra mussel infestation of
the St. Croix River is recreational boat traffic. Although a definite
factor, recreational traffic is not an efficient vector in the spread of
zebra mussels. Furthermore, the distance between the confluence with the
Mississippi River and the winged mapleleaf population in the St. Croix
River, and the zebra mussel check stations greatly reduce the likelihood
of zebra mussel infestation occurring in the upper St. Croix River. The
steady rate of occurrence of zebra mussels into the St. Croix River
relative to the Mississippi River mainstem supports this contention.

Based on the above, we believe it is reasonably certain that navigation
pools and project-dependent commercial barge transportation will
perpetuate zebra mussels persistence in the Mississippi River mainstem,
but it is unlikely that zebra mussel densities will reach infestation
levels in the St. Croix. Thus, the proposed project will not appreciably
reduce the likelihood of recovery and survival of winged mapleleaf.

6.5 Incidental Take Statement

Section 9 of the Act and Federal regulation pursuant to Section 4(d) of
the Act prohibit the take of endangered and threatened species,
respectively, without special exemption. Take is defined as to harass,
harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or to
attempt to engage in any such activity. Harm is further defined by the
Service to include significant habitat modification or degradation that
results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing
essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or
sheltering. Harass is defined by the Service as intentional or negligent
actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed species to such
an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which
include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, and sheltering.
Incidental take is defined as take incidental to, and not the purpose
of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. Under the terms of
Section 7(b)(4) and Section 7(o)(2), take incidental to and not an
intended part of the agency action is not considered prohibited taking
under the Act, provided such take is in compliance with the terms and
conditions of this Incidental Take Statement.

The measures described below are non-discretionary, and must be
undertaken by the Corps for the exemption in Section 7(o)(2) to apply.
The Corps has a continuing duty to regulate the activity covered by this
incidental take statement. If the Corps fails to assume and implement
the terms and conditions, the protective coverage of Section 7(o)(2) may
lapse. To monitor the impact of incidental take, the Corps must report
the progress of the action and its impact on the species to the Service
as specified in the incidental take statement \[50 CFR 402.14(I)(3)\].

> 6.5.1 Level of Take
>
> The Service anticipates that incidental take of winged mapleleaf
> mussel from the proposed action will be harassment and harm of winged
> mapleleaf from zebra mussels occurring in the St. Croix River or its
> tributaries. Continued operation and maintenance of the 9-Foot Channel
> Project, which includes the St. Croix River, for an additional 50
> years, will facilitate commercial navigation for that time period.
> Commercial navigation will facilitate continued transport,
> replenishment, and maintenance of zebra mussels in the Mississippi
> River mainstem up to the confluence of the St. Croix River. Although
> commercial barge traffic does not regularly occur in the St. Croix
> River, recreational watercraft or other vessels entering and
> navigating the St. Croix River from the Mississippi River provide an
> upstream vector for zebra mussels. As there is a likelihood that zebra
> mussels will be deposited near the winged mapleleaf population over
> the next 50 years, incidental take will occur in the form of
> harassment (i.e., competition for food, locomotion impairment) and
> harm (i.e., suffocation and starvation).
>
> Incidental take will be difficult to detect and monitor, however. The
> reasons for this are as follows. First, changes to fitness parameters
> (e.g., decreased recruitment) often are not manifested in a year or
> two but rather over several years (e.g., 5 to 10 years). This is
> especially true for species that occur at low densities. Second,
> detection of impaired specimens is unlikely given the low abundance of
> winged mapleleaf. Third, the normal variance in population size may be
> great, due to the low densities, and thus, identifying a declining
> trend over a short time-frame is problematic. We believe, however, the
> level of take can be monitored by observing the population trend of
> zebra mussel densities.
>
> Despite probable zebra mussel occurrence in winged mapleleaf habitat,
> we believe population densities will not reach infestation levels as
> observed in the mainstem of the Mississippi River. As such, we do not
> anticipate persistence of zebra mussel veligers in the water column or
> adult zebra mussel densities exceeding 10/m2 in the St. Croix River
> upstream of the Highway 10 bridge at Prescott, Wisconsin. The
> occurrence of either of these parameters would indicate the presence
> of a reproducing population of zebra mussels in the St. Croix River.
> If this were to occur, incidental take of winged mapleleaf mussels
> would greatly increase. Conversely, the lack of veligers and a low
> density of adult zebra mussels indicate that a reproducing zebra
> mussel population is not established in the St. Croix River. Under
> this scenario, we anticipate incidental take of a small number of
> individuals but not to the extent that population level effects would
> occur.
>
> In addition to impacts associated with zebra mussels, continued
> operation and maintenance of the project may result in the take of
> winged mapleleaf from specific channel maintenance activities such as
> dredging and modification of channel control structures. As the Corps
> does not anticipate any such activities to occur and as this is a
> programmatic biological opinion, incidental take associated with
> future channel maintenance activities is not authorized. These actions
> will require further Section 7 review.
>
> In the accompanying biological opinion, the Service determined that
> this level of anticipated take is not likely to result in jeopardy to
> the species or destruction or adverse modification of critical
> habitat.
>
> 6.5.2 Reasonable and Prudent Measures
>
> The measures described below are non-discretionary, and must be
> implemented by the agency for the exemption in Section 7(o)(2) to
> apply. The Corps has a continuing duty to implement the activity
> covered by this incidental take statement. If the Corps fails to
> adhere to the terms and conditions of the incidental take statement,
> the protective coverage of Section 7(o)(2) may lapse.
>
> The Service believes the following reasonable and prudent measures are
> necessary and appropriate to minimize impacts of incidental take of
> winged mapleleaf mussel.
>
> 1\. Develop and implement an action plan to monitor and control the
> abundance and distribution of zebra mussels on the St. Croix River.

2.  Conduct a winged mapleleaf mussel relocation feasibility analysis
    and prepare a Winged Mapleleaf Mussel Relocation Plan to address the
    feasibility of reducing incidental take.

> 6.5.3 Terms and Conditions
>
> To be exempt from the prohibitions of Section 9 of the Act, the Corps
> must comply with the following terms and conditions which implement
> the reasonable and prudent measure described above and outline
> required reporting/monitoring requirements. These terms and conditions
> are non-discretionary.
>
> 1\. The action plan will include monitoring and controlling the
> abundance and distribution of zebra mussels on the St. Croix River.
> The action plan shall be provided for approval to Field Supervisor,
> U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4101 East 80th Street, Bloomington,
> Minnesota, 55425‑1665 by April 30, 2002.
>
> 2\. In developing and implementing the feasible provisions of a plan
> to protect live winged mapleleaf individuals in the St. Croix River,
> the Corps may involve an interdisciplinary - interagency effort
> designed to determine the most efficient and cost effective
> combination of methods and measures. Annual reports on the findings of
> this effort shall be provided for approval to Field Supervisor, U.S.
> Fish and Wildlife Service, 4101 East 80th Street, Bloomington,
> Minnesota, 55425‑1665.
>
> The Service believes that a few winged mapleleaf mussels will be
> incidentally taken as a result of the proposed project. However, this
> incidental take will be difficult to detect and monitor. As an
> indicator of winged mapleleaf incidental take, adult zebra mussel
> densities will not exceed 10/m2, and zebra mussel veligers will not
> persist in the water column upstream of the Highway 10 bridge at
> Prescott, Wisconsin. The reasonable and prudent measures, with their
> implementing terms and conditions, are designed to minimize the impact
> of incidental take that might otherwise result from the proposed
> action. If, during the course of the action, this level of incidental
> take is exceeded, such incidental take represents new information
> requiring reinitiation of consultation and review of the reasonable
> and prudent measures provided. The Federal agency must immediately
> provide an explanation of the causes of the taking and review with the
> Service the need for possible modification of the reasonable and
> prudent measures.

6.6 Conservation Recommendations

Section 7(a)(1) of the Act directs Federal agencies to utilize their
authorities to further the purposes of the Act by carrying out
conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and threatened
species. Conservation recommendations are activities to be conducted at
your agency\'s discretion. They are designed to minimize or avoid
adverse effects of a proposed action on listed species or critical
habitat, to help implement recovery plans, or to develop information.

1\. Implement public outreach effort, in coordination with the Service
and other resource agencies, as a means to disseminate information on
life history and distribution of zebra mussels, ecological importance of
native mussels including winged mapleleaf, control measures to limit the
spread of zebra mussels on the Mississippi River and tributaries, and
status of mussel relocation efforts.

In order for the Service to be kept informed of actions minimizing or
avoiding adverse effects or benefitting listed species or their
habitats, the Service requests notification of the implementation of any
conservation recommendations.

6.7 Literature Cited

Baker, F.C. 1928. The fresh water mollusca of Wisconsin. Bulletin of the
University of Wisconsin, Serial No. 1527, Gen. Series No. 1301.

Benjamin, R. 1999. Personal communication. Biologist, Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources, Wisconsin. Conversation with R.N.
Rowse, biologist, Twin Cities Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Bloomington, Minnesota.

Benson, A.J., and C.P. Boydstun. 1995. Invasion of the zebra mussel in
the United States. *In* LaRoe, E.T., G.S. Farris, C.E. Puckett, P.D.
Doran, and M.J. Mac (eds.). Our living resources: a report to the nation
on the distribution, abundance, and health of U.S. plants, animals, and
ecosystems. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Biological
Service, Washington, D.C. Pp. 445-446.

Carlton, J.T. 1993. Dispersal mechanisms of the zebra mussel (*Dreissena
polymorpha*). *In* Zebra Mussels Biology, Impacts, and Control. T.F.
Nalepa and D.W. Schloesser (eds.). Lewis Publishers, Ann Arbor,
Michigan. Pp. 677-697.

Claudi, R., and G.L. Mackie. 1994. Practical Manual for Zebra Mussel
Monitoring and Control. Lewis Publishers, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Gillis, P.L., and G.L. Mackie. 1991. The effect of the exotic zebra
mussel (*Dreissena polymorpha*) on native bivalves (Unionidae) in Lake
St. Clair. Presented at the 1991 Zebra Mussel Control Technology
Conference, October 22-23, 1991. Chicago, Illinois.

Haag, W.R., D.J. Berg, D.W. Garton, and J.L. Farris. 1993. Reduced
survival and fitness in native bivalves in response to fouling by the
introduced zebra mussel (*Dreissena polymorpha*) in western Lake Erie.
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 50:13-19.

Heath, D. 1999. Biologist, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,
Wisconsin. Email communication with R.N. Rowse, biologist, Twin Cities
Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington, Minnesota.

\_\_\_\_\_, R. Benjamin, M. Endris, D.J. Hornbach, J. Kroese, B. Miller,
M.C. Hove, J.E. Kurth, J.L. Sieracki, and A.R. Kapuscinski. 1999.
Determination of basic reproductive characteristics of the winged
mapleleaf mussel (*Quadrula fragosa*) relevant to recovery. Preliminary
Report No. 2. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3, Fort Snelling,
Minnesota.

Hornbach, D. J., J.G. March, and T. Deneka. 1995a. The potential factors
influencing the distribution of freshwater mussel communities within the
St. Croix and Upper Mississippi Rivers and the examination of factors
influencing the distribution of *Quadrula fragosa* (Conrad) and
*Lampsilis higginsi* (Lea). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ft.
Snelling, Minnesota.

\_\_\_\_\_, P. Baker, and T. Deneka. 1995b. Abundance and distribution
of the endangered mussel, *Lampsilis higginsi* in the lower St. Croix
River, Minnesota and Wisconsin. Final Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Contract No. 14-48-000394-1009.

\_\_\_\_\_, J.G. March, T. Deneka, N.H. Troelstrup, Jr., and J.A. Perry.
1996. Factors influencing the distribution and abundance of the
endangered winged mapleleaf mussel *Quadrula fragosa* in the St. Croix
River, Minnesota and Wisconsin. Am. Midl. Nat. 136: 278-286.

\_\_\_\_\_, J. Kroese, and B. Miller. 1998. Examination the larval stage
(glochidia) of the winged mapleleaf mussel (*Quadrula fragosa*). Final
report to National Park Service and Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources.

Hove, M.C. 2000. Personal communication. Mussel researcher with the
University of Minnesota, St. Paul. Conversation with R.N. Rowse,
biologist, Twin Cities Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Bloomington, Minnesota.

Hove, M. C., J. E. Kurth, J. L. Sieracki, and A. R. Kapuscinski. 1999.
Suitable host fishes for the winged mapleleaf (Quadrula fragosa): 1998
annual report. Submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Office,
Bloomington, Minnesota. 6 pp.

Johnson, S.L. 1995. Instream flow requirements of *Quadrula fragosa* and
the aquatic community in the lower St. Croix River downstream of the
Northern States Power hydroelectric dam at St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Report, 38pp.

Johnson, L.E., and J.T. Carlton. 1992. Counter-productive public
information: the Noah fallacy and mussel myths. *Dreissena polymorpha*
Information Review 3:(3)2-6.

Johnson, L., M. Furman, and J. Carlton. 1994. The potential overland
dispersal of zebra mussels by waterfowl. 4^th^ International Zebra
Mussel Conference, March 1994, Madison, WI.

Karns, B. 2000. 1999 Zebra mussel response plan, final report. National
Park Service, St. Croix National Scenic Riverway. 32pp.

Keevin, T.J., R.E. Yarborough, and A.C. Miller. 1992. Long-distance
dispersal of zebra mussels (*Dreissena polymorpha*) attached to hulls of
commercial vessels. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 7:437.

Kjos, C., O. Byers, P. Miller, J. Borovansky, and U.S. Seal (eds.).
1998. Population and habitat viability assessment workshop for the
winged mapleleaf mussel (*Quadrula fragosa*): Final Report. Conservation
Breeding Specialist Group, Apple Valley, Minnesota.

Kraft, C. 1994. New sightings in Wisconsin. Zebra Mussel Update #22.
University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute.

Kraft, C. 1995. Divers suited for veliger transport. Zebra Mussel Update
#23. University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute.

Kraft, C. 1996. Decontaminating divers. Zebra Mussel Update #28.
University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute.

Masteller, E.C., and D.W. Schloesser. 1991. Infestation and impact of
zebra mussels on the native unionid population at Presque Isle State
Park, Erie, Pennsylvania. Presented at the 1991 Zebra Mussel Control
Technology Conference, October 22-23, 1991. Chicago, Illinois.

Miller, A.C. 1995. Personal communication with G. Bade, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Rock Island Field Office, Rock Island, Illinois.

\_\_\_\_\_, and B.S. Payne. 1996. Effects of increase commercial traffic
on freshwater mussels in the Upper Mississippi River. Final synthesis
report. Technical Report EL-96-0. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Morton, B. 1997. The aquatic nuisance species problem: A global
perspective and review. *In*: Zebra mussels and aquatic nuisance
species. F.M. D=Itri (ed.). Ann Arbor Press, Chelsea, Michigan.

National Park Service. 1999. Draft Cooperative Management Plan; Lower
St. Croix National Scenic Riverway, Minnesota and Wisconsin. 324pp.

Nichols, S.J. date unavailable. Life history and ecological requirements
of the zebra mussel - North American experience through 1992. National
Biological Survey. http:/ / www.nsgo.seagrant.org/ research/
nonindigenous/ zmlifehistory.html.

Ohnesorg, K.L., R.D. Smithee, G.D. Longton, W.P. Kovalak, and D.W.
Schloesser. 1993. Impact of the zebra mussel (*Dreissena polymorpha*) on
native mussels (Unionidae) in the Detroit River. Third International
Zebra Mussel Conference. Toronto, Ontario. (abstract only).

Posey, W.R., J.L. Harris, and G.L.Harp. 1996. New distributional records
for freshwater mussels in the Ouachita River, Arkansas. Proc. Arkansas
Acad. Science., Vol. 50, pp 133-135.

Schneider, D.W., D.E. Ellis, and K.S. Cummings. 1998. A transportation
model assessment of the risk to native mussel communities from zebra
mussel spread. Conservation Biology 12:788-800.

Strayer, D.A. 1991. Projected distribution of the zebra mussel,
*Dreissena polymorpha*, in North America. Canadian Journal of Fisheries
and Aquatic Sciences 48: 1389-1395.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1992. Zebra mussels: biology, ecology, and
recommended control strategies. Zebra mussel research technical note
ZMR-1-101. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg,
Mississippi.

\_\_\_\_\_. 1996. Channel maintenance management plan. St. Paul
District.

\_\_\_\_\_. 1999. Biological assessment for operation and maintenance of
the Upper Mississippi River Navigation Project within the St. Paul, Rock
Island, and St. Louis Districts. Mississippi Valley Division, Vicksburg,
Mississippi.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Endangered and threatened wildlife
and plants; determination of endangered status for the winged mapleleaf
freshwater mussel. Federal Register. 56(119): 28345-28349, June 20,
1991.

\_\_\_\_\_. 1997. Winged mapleleaf mussel (*Quadrula fragosa*) recovery
plan. Ft. Snelling, Minnesota.

Whiting, R.J. 2000. Personal communication. Biologist, Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources, Wisconsin. Conversation with R.N.
Rowse, biologist, Twin Cities Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Bloomington, Minnesota.

Whitney, S.D., K.D. Blodgett, and R.E. Sparks. 1996. A comprehensive
evaluation of three mussel beds in Reach 15 of the Upper Mississippi
River. Illinois Natural History Survey Aquatic Ecology Technical Report
1996(7). Reprinted as LTRMP 97-R022 by U.S. Geological Survey,
Environmental Management Technical Center, Onalaska, Wisconsin, October
1997.

Yager, T.K., R. Sikkila, T. Hemstreet, K. Schroeder, E. Strand, R. Piel,
R. Bauers, and B. Wolfe. 1994. Zebra mussel monitoring 1994. St. Paul
District, Corps of Engineers. Unpublished report.

Yager, T.A. 1999. Zebra mussel monitoring 1999. St. Paul District, Corps
of Engineers. Unpublished report.

**7.0 Bald Eagle**

7.1 Status of the Species

This section presents the biological or ecological information relevant
to formulating the biological opinion. Appropriate information on the
species= life history, its habitat and distribution, and other data on
factors necessary to its survival, is included to provide background for
analysis in later sections. This analysis documents the effects of all
past human and natural activities or events that have led to the current
range-wide status of the species. This information is presented in
listing documents, the Northern States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan (USFWS
1983), a proposal to delist the bald eagle (64 FR 36454), and the
Biological Assessment (USACE 1999).

The bald eagle (*Haliaeetus leucocephalus*) was first listed as
endangered under the Endangered Species Protection Act of 1966 on March
11, 1967 (32 FR 4001). On February 14, 1978 (43 FR 6233), the species
was listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 in 43
states except Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan,
where it was listed as threatened. On July 12, 1995 (60 FR 36000) the
eagle was reclassified as threatened in all 48 conterminous states. On
July 6, 1999 (64 FR 36454), the Service proposed to delist the species
in the 48 conterminous states. The bald eagle also occurs in Alaska and
Canada, where it is not at risk and is not protected under the Act; and
in small numbers in northern Mexico.

Shortly after World War II, the use of DDT and other organochlorine
pesticides became widespread. Initially, DDT was sprayed extensively
along coastal and other wetland areas to control mosquitos. Later it was
used as a general insecticide. Eagles ingested DDT by eating
contaminated fish. The pesticide caused the shells of the bird\'s eggs
to thin and resulted in nesting failures. Loss of nesting habitat also
contributed to the population decline. In 1972, the Environmental
Protection Agency banned the use of DDT in the United States. This was
the first step on the road to recovery for the bald eagle.

At its low point in 1963, there were an estimated 487 nesting pairs of
bald eagles in the lower 48 states. In 1998, due to the recovery efforts
of the Service in partnership with other federal agencies, tribes, state
and local governments, conservation organizations, universities,
corporations and thousands of individual Americans, this number has
risen to nearly 6000 nesting pairs with close to 7000 young produced.

The recovery goal for the northern states recovery region, which
includes the project area, is to re-establish a self-sustaining
population and to have 1,200 occupied breeding areas by the year 2000
(USFWS 1983). In 1998, there were over 2000 occupied territories in this
region, far exceeding the delisting goal.

7.2 Environmental Baseline

This section is an analysis of the effects of past and ongoing human and
natural factors leading to the current status of the species, its
habitat, and ecosystem within the action area. The purpose is to
describe the current status of the species within the action area and
those factors that have contributed to this state.

> 7.2.1 Status of the Species in the Action Area
>
> The UMRS is a significant winter use area for the bald eagle. Winter
> use is highest where the river is ice-free and adequate perch sites
> are available. These areas are important, providing stable feeding
> sites during high caloric demand periods. Large concentrations of
> eagles often are associated with open water areas bordered by suitable
> perch trees. High use areas within the project area include many of
> the tailwaters below the locks and dams, constrictions in the river
> which remain free of ice, mouths of large tributary rivers or the
> heated effluent discharged by power plants. During most winters,
> winter feeding sites are not limiting, as there is much open water.
> Known winter roost sites are located in Mississippi River pools 2, 3,
> 4, 5, 9, 14, 16 and 19.
>
> There are basically three habitat components to winter management of
> bald eagles: feeding areas, daytime perching areas, and night roosts.
> Martell (1992) describes these components and provides management
> recommendations. The availability of food will dictate bald eagle use
> of an area during winter. They will congregate where open water
> conditions or other factors provide a food base. Daytime perching
> areas are near their foraging areas and are used to hunt from, eat in,
> or rest on. Trees within 100 feet of the shore are preferred.
>
> Winter communal roosting behavior is found in a wide variety of
> habitats and is important for winter survival. Roost sites probably
> are selected because they offer bald eagles special advantages such as
> proximity to feeding areas, protection from the wind and cold,
> favorable sun exposure, and isolation. Removal or disturbance of roost
> sites could cause abandonment of a wintering area, causing stress
> during a critical period of the year and potentially affecting
> survival. Protection of roost sites is therefore important. Communal
> roosts receive high bald eagle use during the winter, with some sites
> supporting up to 50 eagles at a time. Roost sites are commonly used
> during evenings, but may be used during the day in inclement weather.
> There are two types of roosts: critical and secondary (Martell 1992).
> The critical roosts are those used more than 14 nights per season by
> local breeding eagles, or used more than 14 nights per season by more
> than 15 eagles per night, or one that has been documented as active
> for more than 5 years. Secondary roosts do not meet the above criteria
> and may form temporary foraging areas.
>
> The UMRS is becoming more important for bald eagle nesting which is
> known to occur within the St. Croix, Minnesota, Upper Mississippi, and
> Illinois River corridors. In general, nesting activity has increased
> dramatically in recent years. As an example, in 1988 there were 6
> occupied territories in Iowa with 7 young produced. A decade later in
> 1998, there were 83 occupied territories and 80 young produced. In
> Illinois in 1988 there were 6 occupied territories with 7 young
> produced. In 1998 there were 43 occupied territories with 55 young
> produced. Not all of these territories were within the UMRS corridor
> but many were. Eagle production is steadily climbing as eagles are
> nesting in previously unoccupied areas. At the present time, there are
> 167 known eagle nest sites in the UMRS corridor (USFWS/USGS 2000).
>
> 7.2.2 Factors Affecting the Species
>
> 7.2.2.1 Impoundment and Water Level Regulation
>
> The construction of navigation dams in the 1930\'s altered the
> hydrology of the river system. The lower two-thirds of each navigation
> pool became more reservoir like, while the upper one-third remains
> most similar to pre-impoundment. This pooling of the river raised
> water levels and inundated portions of the floodplain. Impoundment
> directly impacted floodplain forest and has been implicated in
> long-term changes. While altered hydrology has contributed to the
> alteration of species diversity and composition of the floodplain
> forest, other factors also played important roles. These include
> extensive logging and conversion to agriculture in the 19th century,
> as well as urban development. Estimates from 1989 satellite data
> indicate that approximately 304,000 acres of the UMR floodplain
> remains forested. This is subdivided into bottomland forests covering
> 18.6% of the land surface of the UMR and 17.6% of the Illinois River.
> Species composition is estimated to be 80% silver maple, 10%
> oak-hickory, 5% willow and cottonwood, and 5% other (USACE 1999).
>
> The effects of water level changes on floodplain forests have been
> discussed and documented in various publications. Reviews of
> Government Land Office (GLO) survey records have estimated the
> pre-settlement landscape of the floodplain in the area of the
> confluence of the Illinois and Mississippi Rivers (Nelson *et al.*
> 1994). Estimates indicate that approximately 56% of the floodplain was
> forested and 41% was prairie. GLO records from Pool 17 indicate that
> 57% of the floodplain was prairie and 26% was forested. The forest
> described in the records, however, was less dense than what we know
> today, and forests were mainly restricted to river banks and islands,
> with prairies and savanna dominating the floodplain (Nelson *et al*
> 1998). Historic surveys of the forest do show that silver maple was a
> co-dominant species by 1817 and prior to impoundment in 1938 had
> become dominant in the area between the Illinois and Mississippi
> Rivers (Nelson and Sparks 1997). Additionally, Moore (1988) found by
> reconstructing GLO records from 1837 that silver maple, elm, and ash
> were dominant species in the Effigy Mounds area in northeast Iowa and
> continued to be so in 1983 (Yin *et al.* 1997).
>
> Water levels were most severely altered in the areas immediately
> upstream of each dam. Yeager (1949) found that after 6 years of
> completion of Lock and Dam 26 in 1938, the trees on the lowest and
> thus permanently inundated floodplain were nearly eliminated. Where
> the groundwater level was raised, only the most flood-tolerant species
> remained, and on higher elevation areas species such as pin oak showed
> heavy mortality (Yin and Nelson 1995). Changes in forest composition
> within the open river reach also occurred. Where oak *(Quercus* spp.),
> American beech *(Fagus* *grandifolia),* walnut *(Juglans* spp.), and
> hickory *(Carya* spp.) were once found adjacent to the river on higher
> elevation areas, they have largely disappeared and have been replaced
> by silver maple and willow *(Salix* spp.) (Yin and Nelson 1995).
> Silver maple and willow were historically found on river fronts,
> islands, and low-lying floodplain areas and continue to be found there
> (Yin 1999).
>
> Mississippi River Pools 11-22 (Rock Island Corps District) have been
> inventoried through stand mapping and entered into a Geographic
> Information System (GIS). That system provides detailed data on the
> forest resources of the Mississippi River Project. A summary of that
> data shows an example of species composition change. Table 7-1 below
> summarizes the forest composition of areas that had been cruised
> (20,000-25,000 ac) in 1943.

+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| TABLE 7.1. Mississippi River forest   |                              |
| composition in 1943, percent of tree  |                              |
| species (based on merchantable timber |                              |
| that had been cruised).               |                              |
+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| Silver Maple                          | 50%                          |
|                                       |                              |
| Cottonwood                            | 15%                          |
|                                       |                              |
| Elm                                   | 15%                          |
|                                       |                              |
| Oak                                   | 10%                          |
|                                       |                              |
| Green Ash                             | 3%                           |
|                                       |                              |
| River Birch                           | 2%                           |
|                                       |                              |
| Other \*                              | 5%                           |
+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| > \* Includes Locust, Pecan, Hickory, |                              |
| > Sycamore, Hackberry, Willow,        |                              |
| > Kentucky Coffee Tree, Walnut, and   |                              |
| > Basswood.                           |                              |
+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+

> Table 7-2 shows the percent composition of the roughly 50,000 acres in
> the current inventory. Though the two tables are not directly
> comparable, they provide a picture of the change in forest composition
> and current species composition in Pools 11 through 22. The increase
> in stands with silver maple and cottonwood as dominant components is
> clear. What the tables do not show, however, is that the 25,000-30,000
> acres not considered to be merchantable timber in 1943 has all grown
> to be forest.

+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| TABLE 7-2. Mississippi River forest |                                |
| composition in the 1980\'s-1990\'s, |                                |
| percent of forest stands with named |                                |
| species as a dominant or            |                                |
| co-dominant component.              |                                |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Silver Maple                        | 87%                            |
|                                     |                                |
| Cottonwood                          | 36%                            |
|                                     |                                |
| Green Ash                           | 33%                            |
|                                     |                                |
| Black Willow                        | 22%                            |
|                                     |                                |
| Hackberry                           | 12%                            |
|                                     |                                |
| Elm                                 | 20%                            |
|                                     |                                |
| River Birch                         | 10%                            |
|                                     |                                |
| Pin Oak                             | 8%                             |
|                                     |                                |
| Sycamore                            | 3%                             |
|                                     |                                |
| Pecan                               | 2%                             |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| > NOTE: stands can, and do, include |                                |
| > more than one species and         |                                |
| > therefore this table is not       |                                |
| > additive.                         |                                |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+

> In addition to, and perhaps more significant than, the species
> composition is the size class of existing forest. Generally,
> Mississippi River forests are aging and not regenerating in a smooth
> transition. As can be seen from Table 7-3 below, approximately 41 % of
> the 52,818 acres in the database is 18.1 inches dbh or greater.
> Following are 11.8-18.1 inches dbh (34%), 4.7-11.8 inches (22%), and
> 1.0-4.7 inches dbh (3%) size classes. Size class is nearly a direct
> relationship to age (USACE 1999) and, therefore, it appears that much
> of the forest is aging and not regenerating in a smooth transition.
> Though not extensive, regeneration is occurring in some areas of the
> floodplain. The Rock Island District has been doing regeneration
> surveys at clear-cut sites for approximately 10 years. Data show that
> silver maple, ash, cottonwood, mulberry, willow, and elm are
> regenerating when there is sufficient light (USACE 1999). Regeneration
> after the flood of 1993 has also been shown on the open river reach.
> Yin (1999) found that the mortality caused by the flood of 1993
> allowed cottonwood and willow to regenerate.

+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| Table 7-3. Size class (dbh)   |                                      |
| distribution, Pools 11-22.    |                                      |
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| [Size Class]{.underline}      | [Percent]{.underline}                |
|                               |                                      |
| \>18.1 in.                    | 41                                   |
|                               |                                      |
| 11.8-18.1 in.                 | 34                                   |
|                               |                                      |
| 4.7-11.8 in.                  | 22                                   |
|                               |                                      |
| 1.0-4.7 in.                   | 3                                    |
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+

> The 9-Foot Channel Navigation Project has contributed to hydrological
> changes of the river floodplain and initially caused the conversion of
> some bottomland forest to aquatic and wetland habitat. However, on the
> positive side, many acres of farmed lands were purchased as part of
> the project and allowed to grow to forest. Were it not for the 9-Foot
> Channel Navigation Project and acquisition of lands by the Federal
> Government, much of the remaining forest would most likely have been
> cleared and would not exist today. Much of this remaining bottomland
> forest is managed for natural resource benefits in the St. Paul and
> Rock Island Corps Districts, and efforts are under way to maintain
> forest age class and diversity. The St. Louis District does not
> directly manage any of its forest lands; rather, it oversees the
> management of its fee title lands managed by state and federal
> agencies such as the Fish and Wildlife Service.
>
> In addition, impoundment has enhanced winter feeding opportunities for
> the eagle. Prior to lock and dam construction, the rivers would freeze
> over leaving few, if any, areas of open water for eagles to feed in.
> The navigation dams created a turbulent tailwater area for some
> distance downstream that results in open water throughout the winter.
> Consequently, during particularly cold weather, eagles tend to
> congregate near the dams to feed.
>
> While it is obvious that impoundment has contributed to hydrological
> changes in the floodplain of the project area and has affected forest
> composition, the magnitude of this impact cannot be evaluated due to
> lack of historical data. In total, however, the 9-Foot Navigation
> Project has been beneficial to the eagle.
>
> 7.2.2.2 Dredging and Disposal
>
> Dredging not only affected the main channel of the river, but also
> affected side channels, sloughs and backwater lakes and ponds through
> increased turbidity levels and resuspension of pollutants. This may
> have affected the bald eagles= food source. Deepening of the channel
> may have resulted in changes in species composition from shallow-water
> fish to deep-water species, making them less available as prey. The
> local fish base is the main staple diet item to bald eagles. Fish are
> susceptible to local extermination, and can be affected by turbidity,
> intake of resuspended pollutants, and reduced oxygen levels. Suspended
> solids and sedimentation due to dredging can cause clogging and
> abrasion of gills and other respiratory surfaces in fish, can affect
> spawning beds, and feeding. This may have affected bald eagle feeding
> patterns during the dredging operations. However, the magnitude of
> this impact cannot be determined due to a lack of historical data.
>
> Dredging occurs during the open water season and, therefore, no
> disturbance to wintering bald eagles has occurred. Dredging operations
> can begin in April during the critical nesting period, which may have
> disturbed bald eagle nesting activities. Dredging in the vicinity of a
> nest may have caused nest failures or abandonment due to disturbance,
> depending upon the time of year, duration of dredging, and proximity
> of the nest to dredging activity. However, the average date of first
> dredging is mid-May, after the most critical period. Dredging
> operations may add an incremental increase to the disturbance of
> eagles, although dredging operations are typically of short duration,
> usually lasting only a couple of days. The magnitude of this impact
> cannot be determined due to a lack of historical data.
>
> Disposal of dredged material may have affected bald eagles in two
> ways: (1) causing sufficient disturbance during placement activities
> to have an impact on nesting, feeding or perching; or (2) changing the
> conditions of habitat.
>
> Disturbance can result from increased human activity within 0.6 mile
> of an active nest site. Human disturbance has been shown to negatively
> affect bald eagle nesting. Eagles are most sensitive to disturbance
> during the critical nesting period when they are involved with
> courtship, egg-laying, and incubation. The critical nesting period for
> the study area is generally from March 15 to May 15. The moderately
> critical period is one month before and after the critical nesting
> period. From February 15 to March 15, the eagles are becoming
> physiologically conditioned for breeding. From May 15 to June 15, the
> newly hatched eagles require frequent brooding and feeding. Eagles
> tolerate moderate amounts of human presence during the low critical
> period from June 15 to October 1, when young are in the post-fledgling
> stage. The magnitude of this impact cannot be determined due to a lack
> of historical data.
>
> Historically, dredged material has been placed on islands, in
> backwaters, wetlands, side channels, and along shorelines in the Rock
> Island and St. Paul Districts. In some instances a temporary in-water
> rehandling site was used. In-water disposal is a normal method of
> handling dredge material in the St. Louis District. Destruction or
> modification of habitat may have included removal of nesting, perching
> and roosting trees, or changes in the suitability of feeding areas.
> Sediment quality in terms of contaminants may also have been a factor
> in the effects to bald eagles. In areas with sediment contamination
> problems, effluent discharge from disposal sites may have affected the
> fisheries downstream of the discharge through reduced water quality,
> both in fish densities and contaminant buildup in fish tissue. This
> may have affected bald eagles by decreasing the food supply and
> through bioaccumulation of contaminants in the food chain. The
> magnitude of this impact cannot be determined due to a lack of
> historical data.
>
> 7.2.2.3 Clearing and Snagging
>
> Removal of trees or other obstructions from the navigation channel may
> have affected bald eagles by removing nesting, perching, or roosting
> trees along the shoreline. However, the magnitude of this impact
> cannot be determined due to a lack of historical data.
>
> 7.2.2.4 Channel Structures/Revetment
>
> Channel structures are designed to concentrate flows in the main
> channel and, therefore, primarily affect flow patterns along with
> sedimentation patterns. Construction related impacts of channel
> control structures may have occurred in areas near nesting or roosting
> sites. Closing dams were constructed to reduce flows into side-channel
> areas. Impacts such as reduced volume of flow, reduced current
> velocities, reduced sediment input, and increased water residence time
> in backwaters would have occurred in these habitats and may have
> affected the fish species inhabiting side channel areas. Subsequently,
> the increased flows in the main channel resulting from side channel
> closure may have affected main channel and channel border habitats as
> well. Changes in the dynamics of side channels may have altered the
> local fishery, thereby affecting bald eagle feeding opportunities.
> Placement of stone protection on shoreline areas may have affected
> bald eagles if bank reshaping, including tree removal, was included in
> the plan, especially if the project is within nesting or roosting
> zones. The magnitude of these impacts cannot be determined due to a
> lack of historical data.
>
> 7.2.2.5 Tow Traffic
>
> Bald eagles may have been impacted by tow traffic resulting from
> either disturbance around activity areas or by
> destruction/modification of bald eagle habitat. Eagles are more
> tolerant of vehicular traffic than they are of humans and they have
> become accustomed to tow traffic in the project area, as evidenced by
> the steady increase in nesting numbers. The magnitude of these impacts
> cannot be determined due to a lack of historical data.
>
> Shoreline erosion may have resulted from propeller wash as tows pass
> by eagle activity areas or while tows are awaiting lockage. As a
> result of this erosion, trees may have toppled and certain backwater
> habitats may have been affected by increased sediment transport.
> However, the magnitude of these impacts cannot be determined due to a
> lack of historical data.
>
> 7.2.2.6 Fleeting
>
> Development of fleeting areas may have affected bald eagles in two
> ways: (1) causing sufficient disturbance to have an impact on nesting,
> feeding or perching; or (2) changing the conditions of habitat. The
> discussion above regarding dredging and disposal (Section 7.2.1.2.1)
> is applicable here. In addition, barges have been tied off to
> shoreline trees in the past which may have resulted in their being
> girdled and killed representing a loss of potential perch trees. The
> magnitude of these impacts cannot be determined due to a lack of
> historical data.
>
> 7.2.2.7 Port Facilities
>
> Terminal or port facilities have typically been constructed in urban
> or industrial areas, usually within floodplain habitat. There are two
> Corps of Engineers port facilities within the range of the bald eagle:
> one in the St. Paul District (Fountain City, MN) and one in the Rock
> Island District (LeClaire Service Base, IA), and numerous private
> facilities. In non-urban situations, eagle habitat has likely been
> destroyed or modified in the construction of port facilities. It is
> likely that eagle use of these areas would have been avoided due to
> disturbance from the high level of human activity. The magnitude of
> these impacts cannot be determined due to a lack of historical data.
>
> 7.2.2.8 Exotic Species - not applicable
>
> 7.2.2.9 Contaminants
>
> There have been numerous studies linking declines in productivity and
> complete nesting failures with exposure to a range of environmental
> contaminants. Most of the contaminants responsible for the long-term
> decline of the bald eagle are no longer used in the U.S. However, due
> to their widespread use and persistent nature, some may still be a
> contributing factor impacting eagle survival and productivity. Many
> organisms have been shown to be sensitive to a wide range of
> contaminants including ammonium, pesticides, and petroleum products,
> all of which are commonly transported on the UMR. On the positive
> side, water quality in the UMRS is improving and should continue to
> improve in the future.
>
> Contaminants can enter the system via a spill, or those already in
> river sediments can be resuspended by towboat propellers or by
> dredging activities. Contaminants then enter the eagle through
> ingestion of contaminated prey, as was the case with DDT. There is no
> historical information available by which to analyze the effects of
> project-related contamination on the bald eagle.
>
> 7.2.2.10 Recreation Related Indirect Effects
>
> Development and use of recreational facilities such as campgrounds,
> boat launch facilities, marinas, and beaches, have impacted bald
> eagles in two ways: 1) modification of habitat and 2) disturbance.
> Habitat modification would include loss of shoreline trees which may
> have been used by eagles for perching and roosting. Human activity or
> recreational boat traffic may have disturbed eagles resulting in their
> abandoning such areas or aborting nesting activities. The magnitude of
> this impact cannot be evaluated due to a lack of historical
> information.
>
> 7.2.2.11 Cabin Leases
>
> Development and use of cabin lease sites has impacted bald eagles in
> two ways: 1) modification of habitat and 2) disturbance. Habitat
> modification includes loss of shoreline trees which may have been used
> by eagles for perching and roosting. Human activity may have disturbed
> eagles resulting in their abandoning such areas or aborting nesting
> activities. The magnitude of this impact cannot be evaluated due to a
> lack of historical information.
>
> 7.2.2.12 General Plan Lands Management
>
> The Corps has the responsibility and authority to manage the natural
> resources on fee title lands. The goals of the Corps= forest
> management in the project area are described in section 1.2.3 of this
> document.
>
> As with most habitat management projects, the prescribed forest
> management practices may have caused temporary adverse impacts, but
> provided long-term benefits to the habitat (i.e. forest regeneration).
> All forest management prescriptions are evaluated for presence of
> threatened or endangered species, or species of special concern and
> actions are taken to avoid impacts to species. This includes
> designation of special management zones, observance of seasonal
> restrictions and provision of buffers. Forest management practices are
> carried out through close coordination with state and federal resource
> agencies including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Forestry
> practices diversify the habitat and strive to maintain size class
> diversity. Specific actions are described in the operating management
> plan (OMP) and five year plan and environmental assessment prepared
> for forestry, fish and wildlife management within the St. Paul and
> Rock Island Districts. Forest management practices that maintain
> forest age class and diversity have contributed to the conservation of
> the species through provision and maintenance of suitable habitat into
> the future.
>
> Management of General Plan lands by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
> and state natural resource agencies may have resulted in changes to
> bald eagle habitat. Within the range of the bald eagle, these areas
> include the Illinois River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge, Mark
> Twain National Wildlife Refuge, Upper Mississippi National Wildlife &
> Fish Refuge, Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge, and various
> areas managed by state agencies. Detailed descriptions of the Refuges
> are included in their respective refuge Master Plans. In general, the
> management practices on General Plan lands that have maintained forest
> age class and diversity have contributed to the conservation of bald
> eagle habitat. However, those activities that have increased human
> activity near nesting sites during critical periods, or cleared
> bottomland forest may have negatively impacted the bald eagle.
>
> The magnitude of this impact cannot be evaluated due to a lack of
> historical information.

7.3 Effects of the Action

This section includes an analysis of the anticipated direct and indirect
effects of the proposed action on the species and its interrelated and
interdependent activities.

7.3.1 Direct Effects

> 7.3.1.1 Operation of the 9-Foot Channel Project
>
> 7.3.1.1.1 Impoundment and Water Level Regulation
>
> The long-term impact of impoundment and water level regulation upon
> the bottomland forest and species composition is not yet fully
> understood. However, trees will continue to produce seeds as they have
> in the past, so the reproductive potential of the bottomland species
> is present as long as there are mature trees. As mentioned in Section
> 7.2.1, it appears that much of the forest is aging and not
> regenerating in a smooth transition. If forests are allowed to undergo
> natural succession, bald eagle habitat could decline over the 50-year
> life of the project. However, the St. Paul and Rock Island Corps
> Districts have operational management plans which incorporate forest
> management practices that will benefit the eagle. In addition, the
> Corps= Conservation Measure for the Indiana bat (section 1.3.1)
> wherein Aforest management efforts within the range of the bat will be
> carried out to establish and maintain forest species and size class
> diversity in order to ensure a long-term supply of potential Indiana
> bat roost trees@, should benefit the bald eagle as well. Yin (1999)
> concluded that the composition of the present ­day forest will be
> sustained over the next 50 years.
>
> Impoundment also affects the geomorphology of the river system. Island
> habitat has declined since impoundment, and will likely continue to
> decline in the future. In a change assessment of the aquatic guilds in
> pools 4 through 26 (USACE 1999), it was estimated that island habitat
> would decrease from 107,135 acres in 1998 to 104,940 acres in 2050
> (-2%). This assessment predicted out of the 2,195 acres of island
> habitat lost in the 50-year period, 1,942 acres (88.5%) would be from
> pools 4-10. Island habitat in pools 4-10 is currently estimated at
> 46,588 acres and it is predicted to decline by 8.5% by 2050. In pools
> 11-26, island habitat is predicted to increase by nearly 3% to 62,315
> acres by 2050.
>
> The general habitat needs for the bald eagle include mature trees for
> nesting, perching and roosting. Assuming that the island habitat that
> is being lost mostly consists of suitable habitat for the bald eagle,
> a 2% decline will impact bald eagle nesting, perching, and roosting in
> the project area. However, bald eagle numbers in the project area have
> increased dramatically in the past two decades despite the continual
> loss of bottomland forest and island habitat. Flooding will continue
> to be the most significant factor affecting bottomland hardwood
> forest, as it has been for centuries, and that forest should continue
> to support bald eagle habitat.
>
> While impoundment and water level regulation will continue to
> contribute to hydrological changes in the floodplain of the project
> area which, in turn, will affect forest composition and extent, that
> impact will be mitigated by the Corps= operational management plans
> for forest management. Therefore, impacts to individual birds will be
> offset and will not rise to the level of harm or harassment; i.e. will
> not cause death or injury of individual birds or significantly disrupt
> normal behavior patterns including breeding, feeding or sheltering.
> The survival and recovery of the species within the action area will
> not be threatened.
>
> 7.3.1.2 Maintenance of the 9-Foot Channel Project
>
> 7.3.1.2.1 Dredging and Disposal
>
> Channel dredging and disposal will continue over the life of the
> project and may affect bald eagles through disturbance of nesting
> birds. Both the St. Paul and Rock Island Districts currently have
> dredged material placement coordination processes in place. Prior to
> the discharge of any dredged material, representatives of the Corps
> and state and federal resource agencies meet to determine the
> preferred placement site for the dredged material. Consideration of
> endangered species impacts is a part of this process. Potential
> impacts of dredged material placement can be minimized or avoided and,
> if necessary, Tier II Section 7 Consultation will be conducted while
> the species is still listed. All dredged material in the St. Louis
> District is disposed of in the water and does not affect bald eagle
> habitat. Therefore, while dredging and disposal may affect individual
> birds through disturbance, it will not rise to the level of harm or
> harassment; i.e. will not cause death or injury of individual birds or
> significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns including breeding,
> feeding or sheltering. The survival of the species will not be
> threatened in the action area.
>
> 7.3.1.2.2 Clearing & Snagging
>
> The majority of snagging presently occurs on the Minnesota River and
> is performed on the St. Croix River upon request of the National Park
> Service. The future need for snagging on these rivers is unknown.
> However, given appropriate coordination with the Service in all Corps
> Districts, any potential impacts can be minimized or avoided.
> Therefore, while clearing and snagging may affect individual birds
> through disturbance, it will not rise to the level of harm or
> harassment; i.e. will not cause death or injury of individual birds or
> significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns including breeding,
> feeding or sheltering. The survival of the species will not be
> threatened in the action area.
>
> 7.3.1.2.3 Channel Structure/Revetment
>
> The planning and design of regulatory structures includes
> consideration of environmental impacts and compliance with various
> regulations. The process varies within each Corps district, but
> involves coordination with other agencies. In St. Paul District, the
> process includes project review by the River Resources Forum which is
> composed of Federal and State representatives of agencies with
> management or regulatory responsibilities along the Mississippi River.
> The Rock Island District has the Committee to Assess Regulatory
> Structures (CARS), which consists of representatives from the
> engineering, operations, and environmental offices and the U.S. Fish
> and Wildlife Service. Consideration of endangered species impacts is a
> part of this process. In addition, a document produced by the St.
> Louis District describes their environmental river engineering project
> in which biologists and engineers cooperate to improve navigation and
> habitat diversity through the use of river structures (USACE 1999).
>
> Given appropriate coordination, impacts to the bald eagle in all
> Districts can be minimized or avoided. Tier II Section 7 Consultation
> will be conducted where necessary while the species is still listed.
> Therefore, while construction and maintenance of river structures and
> revetment may affect individual birds through disturbance, it will not
> rise to the level of harm or harassment; i.e. will not cause death or
> injury of individual birds or significantly disrupt normal behavior
> patterns including breeding, feeding or sheltering. The survival of
> the species will not be threatened in the action area.
>
> 7.3.1.2.4 Lock and Dam Rehabilitation
>
> The main impact of future rehabilitation work for the lock and dams
> within the project area would be mainly through disturbances resulting
> from increased human activity and associated construction equipment.
> Depending upon the scope and/or timing of the proposed work,
> rehabilitation of the locks and dams could affect bald eagle nesting,
> feeding, or winter roosting. Changes in habitat conditions would not
> result because rehabilitation entails repair of the existing
> structures currently in place, not increasing the footprint of the
> project area. In these cases, there would be negligible disturbance to
> areas outside the existing disturbed area so no additional bald eagle
> habitat would be impacted.
>
> Bald eagle nests are not likely to be located near a lock and dam
> because of high human activity. Rehabilitation activities during
> winter may impact feeding activities of eagles downstream of the
> structure in the open water areas. However, this impact is expected to
> be minor because eagles are somewhat tolerant of human activity during
> the winter at feeding areas. Since rehabilitation occurs at only one
> lock and dam at a time, additional feeding areas would be available at
> structures upstream and downstream, as well as other open water areas
> in the vicinity of the lock and dam being rehabilitated.
>
> A Progammatic Environmental Impact Statement on major rehabilitation
> of Locks and Dams 2-22 was completed by the Rock Island District,
> Corps of Engineers was completed in 1989 (USACE 1989b). The biological
> opinion rendered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concluded that
> rehabilitation would have no effect on the bald eagle (USFWS 1989) and
> is incorporated herein by reference.
>
> 7.3.2 Indirect Effects
>
> 7.3.2.1 Navigation Related Indirect Effects
>
> 7.3.2.1.1 Tow Traffic
>
> Tow traffic is projected to increase over the life of the project. The
> impact of this increase on bald eagle nesting, or nesting habitat,
> within the project area is unknown. However, due to the fact that
> eagles have demonstrated some tolerance of passing tows, and the
> number of nests in the UMRS has increased dramatically in the last
> decade, it is apparent that any impacts to the bald eagle due to tow
> traffic are likely to be negligible and will not rise to the level of
> harm or harassment; i.e. will not cause death or injury of individual
> birds or significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns including
> breeding, feeding or sheltering. The survival of the species will not
> be threatened in the action area.
>
> 7.3.3.1.2 Fleeting
>
> The future need for fleeting areas will likely increase as tow traffic
> increases over the life of the project. However, potential impacts of
> development of fleeting areas will be minimized or eliminated through
> appropriate coordination with the Service. The States of Minnesota,
> Wisconsin, and Iowa regulate barge-fleeting activities through their
> own regulations and Illinois and Missouri regulate it through review
> of the Federal permitting process (Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
> and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act). Given appropriate
> coordination, potential impacts can be minimized or avoided. Tier II
> Section 7 Consultation will be conducted as necessary while the
> species is still listed. Therefore, while fleeting may affect
> individual birds through disturbance, it will not rise to the level of
> harm or harassment; i.e. will not cause death or injury of individual
> birds or significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns including
> breeding, feeding or sheltering. The survival of the species will not
> be threatened in the action area.
>
> 7.3.2.1.3 Port Facilities
>
> The two Corps of Engineers port facilities within the range of the
> bald eagle will continue to operate which could potentially disturb
> bald eagle nesting, feeding, and roosting behavior. However, neither
> base has plans for expansion, so no additional habitat would be
> impacted. There are no known nests near the bases, which are located
> within urban areas of high human use. Operational activities at each
> service base do not increase human activity at either site
> substantially. Any future expansion at these facilities would have to
> be determined on a case by case basis to determine potential impact
> upon the bald eagle.
>
> The future need for private port facilities is unknown although it
> will likely increase as tow traffic increases. If construction
> requires the removal of trees suitable for bald eagle perching or
> nesting, it may adversely affect the species. However, construction of
> terminals would be subject to floodplain regulations and environmental
> review. Given appropriate coordination, potential impacts can be
> minimized or avoided. Tier II Section 7 Consultation will be conducted
> as necessary while the species is still listed. Therefore, while
> construction and operation of port facilities may affect individual
> birds through disturbance, it will not rise to the level of harm or
> harassment; i.e. will not cause death or injury of individual birds or
> significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns including breeding,
> feeding or sheltering. The survival of the species will not be
> threatened in the action area.
>
> 7.3.2.1.4 Exotic Species - not applicable
>
> 7.3.2.1.5 Contaminants
>
> The potential impacts of contaminants from navigation related effects
> include mortality and reduced nesting success. Navigation has been
> made safer on the UMR and the potential for a hazardous spill has been
> greatly reduced. However, there are still accidents occurring which
> may result in a spill. Due to the nature of these spills, most
> organisms would be acutely exposed to contaminants where there would
> be less bio-accumulation than in a chronic situation. If
> concentrations of the spilled material are high enough, many aquatic
> organisms would be killed through acute exposure. A bald eagle preying
> on a fish killed by an acute exposure, would ingest less of the
> material but could be affected to some degree up to and including
> death. Due to the low frequency of spills on the UMRS, impacts to the
> bald eagle due to contamination may affect individual birds to a minor
> extent but will not threaten the survival and recovery of the species
> in the action area.
>
> 7.3.2.2 Recreation Related Indirect Effects
>
> Considering current population trends, human use of, and demand for
> recreational facilities in the UMRS corridor will likely increase,
> which will increase the potential for impact on the bald eagle. Human
> activity at public use sites has the potential to disrupt bald eagle
> nesting, feeding, and roosting behavior depending upon the level and
> timing of activity and the location of bald eagle use sites. Based
> upon recent trends of bald eagles using habitats near areas of human
> disturbance, however, the overall impact may not have the same
> consequence as previous research has speculated (Mathieson *et al*.
> 1977).
>
> Operation of Corps= recreational facilities includes routine
> maintenance, such as mowing, but there is no plan to expand or
> increase the number of such facilities (USACE 1999). The future need
> for private or local government facilities is unknown but could impact
> eagles through loss of habitat and an incremental increase in
> disturbance. Recreational boat traffic and beach use could impact bald
> eagles through disturbance during the nesting season.
>
> Development of recreational facilities would be subject to floodplain
> regulations and environmental review. Given appropriate coordination,
> potential impacts can be avoided. Tier II Section 7 consultation will
> be conducted as necessary while the species is listed. Based on the
> dramatic increase of bald eagle nesting in the UMRS corridor in the
> last two decades, recreational impacts appear to be negligible.
> Therefore, while construction of recreational facilities and
> recreational use of the UMRS may affect individual eagles through
> disturbance, it will not rise to the level of harm or harassment; i.e.
> will not cause death or injury of individual birds or significantly
> disrupt normal behavior patterns including breeding, feeding or
> sheltering. The survival of the species will not be threatened in the
> action area.

7.3.3 Interrelated Effects

7.3.3.1 Timber Management - see 7.3.3.3 below

> 7.3.3.2 Cabin Leases
>
> The lease of cabin sites by the Corps of Engineers has the potential
> to impact bald eagle nesting, roosting and feeding through disturbance
> and habitat loss in the Rock Island and St. Louis Districts, although
> eagles will likely avoid areas of human activity. There are no cabin
> lease agreements in the St. Paul District. Private recreational and
> residential leases within both districts affect approximately 700
> acres. There will be no new leases issued, but those in existence will
> be maintained. All leases returned to the Corps are released and
> natural resource management prescriptions are implemented. This
> usually includes closure or removal of the access road and conversion
> to natural habitat (USACE 1999). All new maintenance actions taken by
> lessees are subject to review and therefore impacts to bald eagles
> would be considered at that time. Therefore, while continued
> maintenance of cabin leases may affect individual birds through
> disturbance, it will not rise to the level of harm or harassment; i.e.
> will not cause death or injury of individual birds or significantly
> disrupt normal behavior patterns including breeding, feeding or
> sheltering. The survival of the species will not be threatened in the
> action area.
>
> 7.3.3.3. Management of General Plan Lands
>
> Management of General Plan Lands will follow existing prescriptions of
> the responsible federal and state agencies, although the Service=s
> Refuges are currently in the process of revising their management
> goals and objectives. In general, those prescriptions that provide for
> maintenance of forest age class and diversity will be of benefit to
> the eagle. Therefore, any adverse impacts associated with General Plan
> Land management will not rise to the level of harm or harassment; i.e.
> will not cause death or injury of individual birds or significantly
> disrupt normal behavior patterns including breeding, feeding or
> sheltering. The survival of the species will not be threatened in the
> action area..
>
> 7.3.3.4 Public Use Sites - see 7.3.2.2 above.
>
> 7.3.3.5 Corps Port Facilities - see 7.3.2.1.3 above.
>
> 7.3.4 Interdependent Effects - none
>
> 7.3.5 Cumulative Effects
>
> Cumulative effects include the effects of future State, local or
> private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action
> area considered in, this biological opinion. Future Federal actions
> that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this
> section because they require separate consultation pursuant to section
> 7 of ESA.
>
> The Service is unaware of any non-Federal actions that are reasonably
> certain to occur which may affect the bald eagle. However, most
> activities within the UMRS corridor are regulated under the Clean
> Water Act or River and Harbors Act or other floodplain regulations.
> Given appropriate environmental coordination, impacts to the bald
> eagle can be avoided. Therefore, any cumulative effects due to
> non-Federal actions will not threaten the survival and recovery of the
> species and are considered negligible.

7.3.6 Summary of Effects

> In summary, on-going project impacts to the bald eagle may result from
> continued operation and maintenance of the 9-Foot Navigation Project
> in the form of disturbance and minor habitat alteration. However, as
> explained previously, these impacts are likely to be negligible or
> offset by habitat management activities. Furthermore, all the above
> activities, with the exception of continued impoundment and water
> level regulation, will be subject to environmental review by the
> Service, and, if necessary, additional measures to further minimize
> potential impacts will be implemented via a Tier II Section 7
> consultation as long as the species is listed.
>
> Similarly, indirect and interrelated activities such as tow traffic
> and fleeting, construction and operation of port facilities, release
> of environmental contaminants, river recreation, and General Plan Land
> management may affect individual eagles through disturbance and minor
> habitat alteration. These impacts are likely to be negligible or
> offset by habitat management activities. Any activities requiring
> authorization under the Clean Water Act or River and Harbors Act will
> be reviewed by the Service and, if necessary, undergo a Tier II
> Section 7 consultation as long as the species is listed.

7.4 Conclusion

After reviewing the current status of the bald eagle, the environmental
baseline for the action area, the effects of the proposed action, and
the cumulative effects, it is the Service\'s biological opinion that the
proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
the Northern population of the species.

Potential impacts will be negligible, offset by forest management
prescriptions, or will be avoided or minimized through appropriate
environmental coordination. As any adverse effects will be minimized,
the long-term persistence of the bald eagle within the action area will
not be threatened. Thus, the proposed action is also unlikely to
appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the
species rangewide. No Critical Habitat has been designated for the bat
within the action area.

7.5 Incidental Take

Section 9 of the Act and Federal regulation pursuant to Section 4(d) of
the Act prohibits the take of endangered and threatened species without
special exemption. Take is defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt,
shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or to attempt to engage in
any such activity. Harm is further defined by the Service to include
significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or
injury to listed species by significantly impairing essential behavioral
patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Harass is defined
by the Service as intentional or negligent actions that create the
likelihood of injury to listed species to such an extent as to
significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which include, but are
not limited to, breeding, feeding, and sheltering. Incidental take is
defined as take incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out
of an otherwise lawful activity. Under the terms of Section 7(b)(4) and
Section 7(o)(2), take incidental to and not an intended part of the
agency action is not considered prohibited taking under the Act,
provided such taking is in compliance with the terms and conditions of
this Incidental Take Statement.

The measures described below are non-discretionary, and must be
undertaken by the Corps for the exemption in Section 7(o)(2) to apply.
The Corps has a continuing duty to regulate the activity covered by this
incidental take statement. If the Corps fails to assume and implement
the terms and conditions, the protective coverage of Section 7(o)(2) may
lapse. In order to monitor the impact of incidental take, the Corps must
report the progress of the action and its impact on the species to the
Service as specified in the incidental take statement (50 CFR,
402.14(I)(3)).

The Service does not anticipate that the proposed action will
incidentally take any bald eagles.

7.6 Conservation Recommendations

Section 7(a)(1) of the Act directs Federal agencies to utilize their
authorities to further the purposes of the Act by carrying out
conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and threatened
species. Conservation recommendations are discretionary agency
activities to minimize or avoid adverse effects of proposed action on
listed species or critical habitat, to help implement recovery plans, or
to develop information. The following conservation measures are
recommended:

1.  Initiate and continue forest management practices on Corps managed
    lands that will preserve species diversity and maintain size-class
    structure for roosting and nesting. This measure will address the
    aging and regeneration of eagle habitat.

2.  Implement nesting and wintering management guidelines in the course
    of all operations. This measure will protect eagles from disturbance
    and harassment.

7.7 Literature Cited

Martell, M. 1992. Bald eagle winter management guidelines. Unpubl. Rept.
to Mn. Dept. Nat. Resour. 14 pp.

Mathieson, J.E., D.J. Sorenson, L.D. Frenzel, and T.C. Dunstan. 1977.
Management strategy for bald eagles. Trans. 42^nd^ N. Am. Wildl. Nat.
Resour. Conf., Wildl. Manage. Inst. Pp. 86-92.

Moore, G.F. 1998. Plant communities of Effigy Mounds National Monument
and their relationship to presettlement vegetation. M.S. Thesis, U. of
WI, Madison.

Nelson, J.C., A. Redmond, and R.E. Sparks. 1994. Impacts of settlement
on floodplain vegetation at the confluence of the Illinois and
Mississippi Rivers. Transactions of the IL St. Acad. Sci. (1994). Vol.
87, Nos. 3 and 4, pp. 117-133.

Nelson, J.C.. And R.E. Sparks. 1997. Forest compositional change at the
confluence of the Illinois and Mississippi Rivers. Trans. Il. St. Acad.
Sci. Vol. 91, Nos. 1 and 2, pp. 33-46. Reprinted by the U.S.G.S., Envl.
Mgmt. Tech. Cent., Onalaska, WI. September 1998. LTRMP 98-R011. 14 pp.

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1989. Final programmatic
environmental impact statement, major rehabilitation effort, Mississippi
River locks and dams 2-22; and the Illinois Waterway from La Grange to
Lockport locks and dams: Iowa, Illinois, Missouri, Minnesota, and
Wisconsin. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Rock Island District, Rock
Island, IL. March 1989.

\_\_\_\_\_. 1999. Tier I of a two-tiered biological assessment -
operation and maintenance of the Upper Mississippi River navigation
project within the St. Paul, Rock Island, and St. Louis Districts.
Mississippi Valley Division, Vicksburg, MS. 111 pp. plus appendices.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1983. Northern states bald eagle
recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 6. Denver, CO. 76
pp.

\_\_\_\_\_. 1989. Biological opinion of the effects of a major
rehabilitation effort, Mississippi River and Illinois Waterwat locks and
dams. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Rock Island, IL.

USFWS/USGS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Geological Survey).
2000. Natural Resources Inventory of the Upper Mississippi and Illinois
Rivers. Unpublished GIS database compiled for the Upper Mississippi
River ‑ Illinois Waterway System Navigation Study. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Rock Island Field Office, Rock Island, IL.

Yin, Y. 1999. Flooding and forest succession in a modified stretch along
the Upper Mississippi River. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management,
14:217-225. Reprinted by U.S.G.S. Upper Midwest Envl. Sci. Cent., La
Crosse, WI. Jan. 1999. LTRMP 99-R002. 9 pp.

Yin, Y. and J.C. Nelson. 1995. Modifications of the Upper Mississippi
River and their effects on floodplain forests. Nat. Biol. Surv., Envl.
Mgmt. Tech. Cent., Onalaska, WI. Feb. 1995. LTRMP 95-T003. 17 pp.

Yin, Y., J.C. Nelson, and K.S. Lubinski. 1997. Bottomland hardwood
forests along the Upper Mississippi River. Natural Areas Journal 17(2):
164-173. Reprinted by U.S.G.S. Envl. Mgmt. Tech. Cent., Onalaska, WI.
Nov. 1997. LTRMP 97-R025. 10pp.

**8.0 Pallid Sturgeon**

8.1 Status of the Species

> 8.1.1 Species Description
>
> The pallid sturgeon, *Scaphirhynchus albus*, was originally described
> as a species by Forbes and Richardson in 1905. The type specimens for
> identification were collected at or near Grafton, Illinois, on the
> lower Illinois and Mississippi Rivers (Forbes and Richardson 1905).
> The species is described as having a flattened, shovel-shaped snout;
> long, slender, and completely armored caudal peduncle; and lacks a
> spiracle (Smith 1979). The mouth is toothless, protrusible, and
> ventrally positioned under the snout, as with other sturgeon. Pallid
> sturgeon are similar in appearance to the more common and darker
> shovelnose sturgeon (*S.* *platyrhynchus*). Pflieger (1975) reported
> the principal features distinguishing pallid sturgeon from shovelnose
> sturgeon as the paucity of dermal ossifications on the belly, 24 or
> more anal fin rays and 37 or more dorsal fin rays.
>
> 8.1.2 Historic and Current Rangewide Distribution
>
> The historic range of the pallid sturgeon as described by Bailey and
> Cross (1954) encompassed the middle and lower Mississippi River, the
> Missouri River and the lower reaches of the Platte, Kansas and
> Yellowstone Rivers. The type specimens utilized by Forbes and
> Richardson (1905) were caught at or near Grafton, Illinois, which is
> approximately 22 miles above the mouth of the Missouri River. Bailey
> and Cross (1954) noted a pallid sturgeon captured at Keokuk, Iowa at
> the Iowa and Missouri state border. Duffy, *et al*. (1996) stated that
> the historic range of pallid sturgeon once included the Mississippi
> River upstream to Keokuk, Iowa, before the river was converted into a
> series of locks and dams for commercial navigation (Coker 1930).
>
> Carlson and Pflieger (1981) stated that pallid sturgeon are rare, but
> widely distributed in the Missouri River and in the Mississippi River
> downstream from the mouth of the Missouri River. According to USFWS
> (1993), since 1980, reports of most frequent occurrence are from the
> Missouri River between the Marias River and Ft. Peck Reservoir in
> Montana; between Ft. Peck Dam and Lake Sakakawea (near Williston,
> North Dakota); within the lower 113 km of the Yellowstone River to
> downstream of Fallon, Montana; in the headwaters of Lake Sharpe in
> South Dakota; and from the Missouri River near the mouth of the Platte
> River near Plattsmouth, Nebraska. Areas of most recent and frequent
> occurrence on the Mississippi River are near Chester, Illinois;
> Caruthersville, Missouri; and in both the Mississippi and Atchafalaya
> Rivers in Louisiana at the Old River Control Complex where the
> Atchafalaya diverges from the Mississippi River. Of 622 pallid
> sturgeon sightings prior to 1994, 70.7% were reported from the
> Missouri River, 12.6% from the Atchafalaya River, 10.8% from the
> Mississippi River, 5% from the Yellowstone River, and less than 1%
> from the St. Francis, Platte, Ohio, Kansas, and Big Sunflower Rivers
> (Constant *et al*. 1997). The total present range of the pallid
> sturgeon is 5635 km (3500 miles).
>
> 8.1.3 Life History
>
> 8.1.3.1 Reproductive Biology
>
> Little is known about reproduction or spawning activities of pallid
> sturgeon. Even basic parameters such as spawning locations, substrate
> preference, water temperature, or time of year have not been well
> documented. No spawning beds have been located, although Bramblett
> (1996) speculated that potential spawning areas were in the
> Yellowstone River from about river km 6 to river km 14. Breder and
> Rosen (1966) report that as a group, sturgeon exhibit uniform spawning
> behavior; and thus, such information can be used to make inferences
> about pallid sturgeon behavior. All sturgeon species spawn in the
> spring or early summer, are multiple spawners, and release their eggs
> at intervals. The adhesive eggs are released in deep channels or
> rapids and are left unattended (Gilbraith *et al*. 1988). The larvae
> of Acipenserids are pelagic, becoming buoyant or active immediately
> after hatching (Moyle and Cech 1982). Although the downstream
> migration and behavior of young sturgeon is poorly understood, recent
> work by Kynard *et al*. (1998) indicates that the migration period for
> young pallid sturgeon begins day-0 at hatching and continues up to
> day-13, with a decline after day-8. With this information it has been
> possible to estimate that larval pallid sturgeon may drift in the
> water column for a distance of over 400 miles (Steve Krentz, USFWS,
> pers. comm.).
>
> Time of spawning has not been well documented, but is believed to
> occur sometime between March through July depending on location
> (Forbes and Richardson 1905, Gilbraith *et al*. 1988; Keenlyne and
> Jenkins 1993). Females collected in June and July in Lake Sharpe, a
> reservoir on the Missouri River in South Dakota, contained mature ova
> and presumably were ready to spawn. However, there has been no
> evidence of successful reproduction during 10 years of sampling for
> young-of-the-year fish in Lake Sharpe (Kallemeyn 1983).
>
> Kallemeyn (1983) reported that pallid sturgeon males reach sexual
> maturity at 53.3-58.4 cm, however, size and age of females at sexual
> maturity were unknown at that time. Conte *et al*. (1988) indicated
> that females of most sturgeon in North America do not mature until 7
> years of age and typically require several years for eggs to mature
> between spawnings. The age of sexual maturity and intervals between
> spawning were estimated for nine pallid sturgeon by recording what
> were interpreted to be spawning events from pectoral fin ray cross
> sections. Sexual maturity for males was estimated to be 7 to 9 years,
> with 2 to 3 year intervals between spawning years. Females were
> estimated to reach sexual maturity in 15 to 20 years, with 3 to 10
> year intervals between spawning years (Keenlyne and Jenkins 1993).
> Time of sexual maturity and the age intervals between spawning years
> is likely to be influenced by available forage, environmental
> conditions and other factors (USFWS 1993), and thus, likely varies to
> some degree between river reaches.
>
> Keenlyne *et al*. (1992) estimated fecundity for a female pallid
> sturgeon taken from the upper Missouri River. The authors found the
> mass of mature eggs weighed 1,952 g, which represented 11.4 percent of
> total body weight. Total fecundity was estimated at 170,000 eggs for
> this female. Females may take up to 10 years between spawnings
> depending on the quality and quantity of food available in their
> natural habitat (Keenlyne and Jenkins 1993). Therefore, fecundity of a
> female may vary considerably, with an individual female spawning only
> a few times during her normal life span (Duffy *et al*. 1996).
>
> 8.1.3.2 Food and Feeding Habits
>
> Carlson *et al*. (1985) determined composition of food categories, by
> volume and frequency of occurrence, in the diet of shovelnose sturgeon
> (n=234), pallid sturgeon (n=9), and presumed hybrids (n=9). Although
> benthic macroinvertebrates characteristic of lotic habitats are
> important dietary components (Modde and Schmulbach 1977, Carlson *et
> al*. 1985), the occurrence of lentic and terrestrial invertebrates in
> sturgeon stomachs suggest that drifting invertebrates may also be
> important forage organisms (Modde and Schmulbach 1977, Contant *et
> al*. 1997). Aquatic invertebrates (principally the immature stages of
> insects) compose most of the diet of shovelnose sturgeon, while pallid
> sturgeon and presumed hybrids consume a greater proportion of fish
> (mostly cyprinids). Other researchers also reported a higher incidence
> of fish in the diet of pallid sturgeon than in the diet of shovelnose
> sturgeon (Cross 1967, Held 1969). Most piscivorous Missouri River
> species eat large quantities of aquatic insect larvae in early life
> and even as adults (Modde and Schmulback 1977).
>
> 8.1.3.3 Age and growth
>
> Little is known about age and growth of pallid sturgeon. The total
> length of pallid sturgeon was significantly greater than that of
> shovelnose in the lower Missouri and Mississippi Rivers for each age
> group in which comparable data were available (Carlson *et al*. 1985).
> Fogle (1963) estimated growth rates using cross sections of pectoral
> fin rays from six pallid sturgeon from Lake Oahe in South Dakota. He
> estimated that growth of these fish was relatively rapid during the
> first 4 years, but that growth decreased to approximately 70 mm per
> year between ages 5 and 10. Carlson and Pflieger (1981) presented data
> (n=8) from the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers in Missouri, which
> showed slightly slower growth than from pallid sturgeon in South
> Dakota.
>
> It should be noted that recent efforts to validate pallid sturgeon age
> estimates from pectoral fin rays have questioned the accuracy and
> precision of this aging technique. Hurley (1999) documented that the
> majority of pallid sturgeon age estimates based on pectoral fin rays
> were incorrect, with the most frequent error being three years. He
> noted a tendency to underage, rather than overage pallid sturgeon
> samples. Large variations between first and second age estimates for
> the same fish by each reader (within reader variation) were noted.
> Hurley (1999) found only 28% accuracy and up to four years of
> variation utilizing pectoral fin rays for aging. Precision between
> readers was also low with estimates of the same fish by both readers
> differing by up to two years (Hurley 1999). However, a 3 to 4 year
> variation in age estimates may not be significant given the long life
> span of pallid sturgeon (40-50 years).
>
> 8.1.3.4 Movements
>
> Pallid sturgeon exhibit seasonal variation in movement patterns based
> upon temperature and discharge (Bramblett 1996, Constant *et al*.
> 1997, Sheehan *et al*. 1998). Movement patterns also vary between
> spawning versus non-spawning years (Bramblett 1996). Bramblett (1996)
> reported an average home range of 48.8 miles in the Yellowstone and
> Upper Missouri Rivers while Sheehan *et al*. (1998) reported a home
> range of 21.2 miles in the MMR. Sheehan *et al*. (1998) speculated
> that because habitat in the MMR is relatively uniform, large movements
> and home ranges may not be a beneficial in the MMR, as in Bramblett=s
> area, as it is unlikely that study fish may happen across new
> habitats.
>
> As a large river fish, pallid sturgeon are capable of moving large
> distances in search of favorable habitat. Sheehan *et al*. (1998)
> noted one study fish moving along a 60.3 mile stretch of river.
> Bramblett (1996) noted a maximum home range as large as 198.6 miles.
>
> 8.1.4 Population Status and Trends
>
> Because the pallid sturgeon was not recognized as a distinct species
> until 1905, it was not listed in early commercial fishery reports, so
> little is recorded about its abundance prior to this time. Even as
> late as the mid-1900\'s, it was common for pallid sturgeon to be
> tallied in commercial catch records as either shovelnose or lake
> sturgeon (Keenlyne 1995). Correspondence and notes of researchers
> suggest, however, that the pallid sturgeon was still fairly common in
> many parts of the Mississippi and Missouri River systems as late as
> 1967 (Keenlyne 1989). Review of the literature indicates that declines
> in populations has occurred in recent years coincidental with
> development of the Missouri and Mississippi River systems for flood
> control and navigation (Deacon *et al*. 1979, Keenlyne 1989).
> \[Excerpt from Duffy *et al*. 1996\].
>
> Pallid sturgeon were proposed for listing as an endangered species on
> August 30, 1989 (54 FR 35901-35904). The species was listed as
> endangered on October 9, 1990 (55 FR 36641-36647). The reasons for
> listing were habitat modification, apparent lack of reproduction,
> commercial harvest and hybridization in parts of its range. Most
> authors attribute the decline of pallid sturgeon to the massive
> habitat alterations that have taken place over virtually all of its
> range (Kallemeyn 1983, Gilbraith *et al*. 1988, Keenlyne 1989, USFWS
> 1993).
>
> Since 1988, pallid sturgeon researchers have collaborated on studies
> to gather information about the species including estimates of fish
> numbers (Keenlyne 1995). This has allowed workers to identify where
> populations still remain and to obtain rough estimates of present
> abundance of the species. Tag and recapture data have allowed
> researchers to estimate that 50 to 100 pallid sturgeon remain in the
> Missouri River above Ft. Peck Dam in Montana and between 200 and 300
> pallid sturgeon remain between the Garrison Dam in North Dakota and
> Fort Peck Dam which also includes the lower Yellowstone River (Steve
> Krentz, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. comm.). One to five
> sightings per year have been made of pallid sturgeon between the
> headwaters of Oahe Reservoir in South Dakota to the Garrison Dam and
> from the riverine reach in the Missouri River above Gavins Dam to Fort
> Randall Dam suggesting that, perhaps as many as 25 to 50 fish may
> remain in each of these areas. A small population also exists between
> Oahe Dam and Big Bend Dam on the Missouri River in South Dakota with
> perhaps 50 to 100 fish remaining in this riverine section.
> Unfortunately, no evidence has been obtained that any of these upper
> Missouri River system populations are reproducing for only large
> individuals are being reported (Keenlyne 1989). \[Excerpt from Duffy
> *et al*. 1996\]
>
> Obtaining estimates of abundance in the channelized Missouri River
> downriver from Sioux City, Iowa, to the mouth and the Mississippi
> River downstream from the mouth of the Missouri River is complicated
> by the difficulties of sampling rapidly flowing river sections.
> Abundance estimates by Duffy *et al*. (1996) were not considered
> reliable due to the lack of mark/recapture data. A comparison of
> pallid sturgeon and shovelnose sturgeon catch records provide an
> indication of the rarity of pallid sturgeon. Of 4355 sturgeon
> collected by Carlson *et al*. (1985) at 12 sampling stations on the
> Missouri and Mississippi Rivers from 1978-1979, 11 (0.25%) were
> identified as pallid sturgeon, 12 hybrids and the remainder shovelnose
> sturgeon. During systematic sampling on the Missouri and Yellowstone
> Rivers in 1995, the Montana Department of Game, Fish and Parks
> collected 10 (2.2%) pallid sturgeon compared to 444 shovelnose
> sturgeon (Liebelt 1995). Reed and Ewing (1993) collected 11 (11%)
> pallid sturgeon, 18 hybrids and 74 shovelnose sturgeon in the vicinity
> of the Old River Control Complex in Louisiana. Watson and Stewart
> (1991) noted one (0.29%) pallid sturgeon out of 350 sturgeon from the
> lower Yellowstone River in Montana.
>
> Glen Constant, at Louisiana State University, estimated the pallid
> sturgeon population in the Atchafalaya River to range from 2750 to
> 4100 fish. This is based on tag returns and telemetry studies.
> However, a high incidence of hybridization is occurring in the
> Atchafalaya River and Mississippi Rivers (Keenlyne *et al*. 1994)
> which makes estimation of the number of pure pallid sturgeon in these
> river systems difficult (Duffy *et al*. 1996).
>
> In recent years, pallid sturgeon populations have been augmented by
> release of hatchery reared fish. In 1994, the Missouri Department of
> Conservation (MoDOC) released approximately 7000 fingerlings in the
> Missouri and Mississippi Rivers and an additional 3000 fingerlings
> were stocked in 1997 (Graham 1997, 1999). Since stocking in 1994,
> approximately 86 pallid sturgeon returns have been reported, mostly in
> the Mississippi River downstream of St. Louis (Graham 1999).
> Thirty-five 12 to 14-inch fish raised at Natchitoches National Fish
> Hatchery were stocked in the Lower Mississippi River in 1998
> (Kilpatrick 1999). Also in 1998, 745 hatchery-reared yearling pallid
> sturgeon were released at three sites in the Missouri River above Ft.
> Peck Reservoir (Gardner 1999).
>
> Despite stocking efforts, pallid sturgeon remain rare compared to the
> shovelnose sturgeon. In 1997 and 1998, the MoDOC, LTRM Station at Cape
> Girardeau collected 7 pallid sturgeon (0.45%) compared to 1549
> shovelnose sturgeon in the MMR (Petersen 1999). Constant *et al*.
> (1997) noted that in surveys of commercial catch, shovelnose sturgeon
> accounted for between 52% and 98% of the total sturgeon catch, with
> the remainder composed of similar portions of hybrids (2% to 21%) and
> pallid sturgeon (0% to 26%).
>
> Evidence of successful pallid sturgeon reproduction and recruitment is
> rare throughout the range of the species, and is believed to be the
> primary limiting factor. In 1998, the MoDOC collected a
> young-of-the-year pallid sturgeon at approximate river mile 49.5(L)
> south of Cape Girardeau in the MMR (Petersen and Herzog 1999). More
> recently, in August 1999, one confirmed and two probable pallid
> sturgeon larvae were collected from the Lower Missouri River (Jim
> Milligan, USFWS, pers. comm.). These two instances represent the first
> evidence of successful pallid sturgeon reproduction in recent years
> and indicate that some suitable spawning habitat remains in the Lower
> Missouri River and, potentially, the MMR.
>
> Recent work in the Atchafalaya River has revealed fish of several age
> groups suggesting that some reproduction and recruitment may occur in
> the Atchafalaya River. However, the only physical evidence of
> reproduction was the observation of three gravid females (Constant *et
> al*. 1997). According to their data, pallid sturgeon collected in the
> Atchafalaya River and other areas of the Mississippi River have
> averaged less than 3 kg and length-at-age estimates calculated
> according to Fogle (1963) indicated that even the smallest fish were
> over age 6, with the oldest perhaps over age 14. The age of fish in
> their study indicates the most recent recruitment of pallid sturgeon
> to be from 1988 year class (Constant *et al*. 1997).
>
> Larval sturgeon of any species rarely have been collected from within
> the range of pallid sturgeon. This may be due to low reproductive
> success or the inability of standard sampling gear to capture larval
> sturgeon. Hesse and Mestl (1993) collected two sturgeon larvae from
> the Missouri River adjacent to Nebraska between 1983 and 1991. These
> larvae were among 147,000 fish larvae collected during filtration of
> 519,400 cubic meters of river water. Gardner and Stewart (1987)
> collected no sturgeon larvae in 339 samples from the Missouri River or
> in 77 samples from tributary streams where 3,124 and 5,526 fish larvae
> were collected, respectively. In three years of sampling in/near
> Lisbon Chute on the Missouri River, the Service=s Columbia Missouri
> Fishery Resources Office collected over 10,000 small fish utilizing
> seines, benthic trawls and fyke nets. In processing 9855 of these
> fish, 1 confirmed and 2 probable larval pallid sturgeon have been
> identified (Joanne Grady, USFWS, pers. comm.). These data suggest that
> spawning success and larval sturgeon abundance are low.
>
> Although Mayden and Kuhajda (1997) contend that there is no empirical
> evidence indicating that hybridization between shovelnose sturgeon and
> pallid sturgeon is common, they present no evidence to support this
> contention. Based on meristic and morphological characters, Carlson
> *et al*. (1985) noted hybrids as being prevalent in their samples,
> suggesting that hybridization between the species of *Scaphirhynchus*
> may occur frequently. Field surveys of *Scaphirhynchus* stocks suggest
> a relatively high incidence of hybridization between shovelnose
> sturgeon and pallid sturgeon in the MMR (Sheehan *et al*. 1997a,
> 1997b, 1998). Sheehan *et al*. (1997b) and Carlson and Pflieger (1981)
> noted a 3:2 ratio of hybrid sturgeon to pallid sturgeon. Sheehan *et
> al*. (1997b) speculated that if this is representative of the sturgeon
> population in the MMR, hybridization may pose a significant threat to
> pallid sturgeon as the species continues to introgress with shovelnose
> sturgeon.
>
> Sturgeons exhibit unusual combinations of morphology, habits, and life
> history characteristics, which make them highly vulnerable to impacts
> from human activities (Boreman 1997). Sturgeons generally have low
> mortality rates, long life spans and are K strategists with a
> relatively low capacity for population increase (Boreman 1997). As
> such, pallid sturgeon are well adapted to living in large rivers,
> where fluctuating environmental conditions, such as discharge, can
> affect reproductive success. However, these characteristics also make
> sturgeon species more sensitive to additional mortality factors,
> particularly human activities. Many anthropogenic impacts, such as
> those resulting in diminished spawning and nursery habitat, primarily
> affect the production and survival of age-0 fish (Dr. Robert Sheehan,
> Southern Illinois University at Carbondale (SIUC), pers. comm.).
> Sturgeon populations worldwide have declined because of anthropogenic
> influences. The structure and magnitude of genetic diversity of
> natural populations of sturgeon serves to buffer these fish against
> environmental variation and should be maintained (Wirgin *et al*.
> 1997).
>
> 8.1.5 Habitat Requirements
>
> Forbes and Richardson (1905), Schumulbach *et al*. (1975), Kallemeyn
> (1983), and Gilbraith *et al*. (1988) describe pallid sturgeon as
> being a fish well adapted to life on the bottom in swift waters of
> large, turbid, free-flowing rivers. Pallid sturgeon evolved in the
> diverse environments of the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers.
> Floodplains, backwaters, chutes, sloughs, islands, sandbars, and main
> channel waters formed the large-river ecosystem that provided
> macrohabitat requirements for pallid sturgeon and other native
> large-river fish. These habitats were historically in a constant state
> of change. Mayden and Kuhajda (1997) describe the natural habitats to
> which the pallid sturgeon is adapted as: braided channels, irregular
> flow patterns, flooding of terrestrial habitats, extensive
> microhabitat diversity and turbid waters. Today, these habitats and
> much of the once functioning ecosystem has been changed by human
> developments.
>
> The historic floodplain habitat of the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers
> provided important functions for the native large-river fish.
> Floodplains were the major source of organic matter, sediments and
> woody debris for the mainstem rivers when floodflows crested the
> river=s banks. The transition zone between the vegetated floodplain
> and the main channel included habitats with varied depths described as
> chutes, sloughs, or side channels. The chutes or sloughs between the
> islands and shore were shallower and had less current than the main
> channel. These areas provided valuable diversity to the fish habitat
> and probably served as nursery and feeding areas for many aquatic
> species (Funk and Robinson 1974). The still waters in this transition
> zone allowed organic matter accumulations, important to
> macroinvertebrate production. Both shovelnose sturgeon and pallid
> sturgeon have a high incidence of aquatic invertebrates in their diet
> (Carlson *et al*. 1985, Gardner and Stewart 1987). Floodflows
> connected these important habitats and allowed fish from the main
> channel to utilize these habitat areas to exploit available food
> sources.
>
> Floodflows also stimulated spawning migrations. Both shovelnose
> sturgeon and paddlefish spawning migrations occur in response to
> increased flows in June (Berg 1981). Although there is no information
> on pallid sturgeon spawning migrations, it is assumed these migrations
> would similarly occur in response to increased June flows.
>
> Carlson *et al*. (1985) captured both pallid sturgeon and shovelnose
> sturgeon in gear-sets along sandbars on the inside of riverbends, and
> in deeply scoured pools behind wing dams, indicating overlap of
> habitat use by the two species. However, 4 of 11 pallids were captured
> in gear-sets in swifter currents where shovelnose sturgeon were less
> numerous. Although pallid sturgeon and shovelnose sturgeon habitat use
> and movements are similar in certain aspects, important differences
> were noted by Bramblett (1996). Pallid sturgeon showed significant
> preferences for sandy substrates, particularly sand dunes and avoided
> gravel and cobble substrate (Bramblett 1996). In contrast, shovelnose
> sturgeon significantly preferred gravel and cobble substrates and
> avoided sand.
>
> Pallid sturgeon were also more specific and restrictive in their use
> of macrohabitat selection than shovelnose sturgeon (Bramblett 1996).
> According to this study, pallid sturgeon were found most often in
> sinuous channels with islands or alluvial bars present. Straight
> channels, and channels with irregular patterns or irregular meanders
> were only rarely used by pallid sturgeon. Seral stage of islands or
> bars near pallid sturgeon was most often subclimax (Bramblett 1996).
>
> Bramblett (1996) noted that because macrohabitats utilized by pallid
> sturgeon were more specific and restrictive than shovelnose sturgeon,
> features in these macrohabitats may be more important to pallid
> sturgeon than to shovelnose sturgeon. Bramblett (1996) found
> macrohabitats used by pallid sturgeon were diverse and dynamic. For
> example, pallid sturgeon utilized river reaches with sinuous channel
> patterns and islands and alluvial bars which generally have more
> diversity of depths, current velocities, and substrates than do
> relatively straight channels without islands or alluvial bars. The
> diversity of channel features such as backwaters and side channels was
> also higher. The subclimax riparian vegetational seres in these areas
> are indicative of a dynamic river channel and riparian zone (Johnson
> 1993).
>
> In telemetry studies of pallid sturgeon on the MMR, Sheehan *et al*.
> (1998) found a positive selection for main channel border and
> downstream islands tips and also for depositional areas between
> wingdams and deep holes off of wingdam tips. This seems to correlate
> well with Carlson *et al*. (1985). Sheehan *et al*. (1998) speculated
> that between wingdam areas and downstream island tips may be used as
> velocity refugia and/or feeding stations. Study sturgeon were found
> most often in main channel habitat, however, they exhibited selection
> against this habitat type. Their occurrence in such habitat was not
> surprising considering main channel comprised approximately 65% of the
> available habitat in the study reach (Sheehan *et al*. 1998).
>
> Constant *et al*. (1997) reported that sturgeon were most frequently
> found in low slope areas and that such areas were used in proportion
> to their availability. No sturgeon were observed on extremely steep
> slopes. They found that sand made up over 80% of the substrate in low
> slope areas where over 90% of pallid sturgeon were located. Constant
> *et al*. (1997) stated that the preference for sand substrates in low
> slope areas suggests that pallid sturgeon use such areas as current
> refugia. Sand substrates were found to have lower invertebrate
> densities than substrates of silt-clay which were generally located on
> areas of steep slope which were exposed by swift currents. As such, it
> would have been energetically costly for pallid sturgeon to remain
> near these substrates for extended periods of time. However, telemetry
> observations showed 55% of sturgeon locations occurred within 10m of
> steep slopes, suggesting that pallid sturgeon remained near areas of
> high food abundance (Constant *et al*. 1997).
>
> Some caution must be utilized in evaluating the results of habitat
> preference studies conducted in the highly altered river environments
> of today as there is no way to measure pallid sturgeon preference for
> habitats that no longer exist (Dr. Robert Sheehan, SIUC, pers. comm.).
> The results of studies by Sheehan *et al*. (1998), Constant *et al*.
> (1997) and Bramblett (1996) are indicative of the habitats being
> utilized by pallid sturgeon in the altered environment of today.
>
> 8.1.5.1 Microhabitat Characteristics
>
> Microhabitat characteristics of pallid sturgeon are just recently
> being described. Much of the microhabitat research to date is being
> located in the significantly altered environments of today. This
> research does not necessarily indicate preferred or required habitats;
> instead it may only indicate which habitats of those presently
> available are used by the pallid sturgeon. Also, capture locations may
> have conditions representing seasonal habitat preferences.
>
> 8.1.5.1.1 Current Velocity
>
> Findings from a study on the Missouri River in South Dakota indicate
> that pallid sturgeon most frequently occupy river bottoms where
> velocity ranges from 0 to 0.73 m/s (Erickson 1992). Other studies in
> Montana found that they are most frequently associated with water
> velocities ranging from 0.46 to 0.96 m/s (Clancey 1990). Bramblett
> (1996) noted pallid sturgeon occupying bottom velocities ranging from
> 0.0 to 1.37 m/s. These velocities are commonly found throughout the
> species= range.
>
> Pallid sturgeon collected from the Missouri River above Garrison
> Reservoir in North Dakota during spring and fall seasons of 1988 to
> 1991 were found in deep pools at the downstream end of chutes and
> sandbars, and in the slower currents of near-shore areas. These areas
> may have been providing good habitat for energy conservation and
> feeding (USFWS 1993). Sheehan *et al*. (1998) indicated that there
> were no shifts in habitat selection and avoidance by MMR pallid
> sturgeon under three different velocity regimes (low, medium and high
> discharge ranges of 0 - 165,000, 165,001 - 270,000 and \>270,000 cfs).
> Data collected by Constant *et al*. (1997) support observations that
> shovelnose sturgeon tolerate lower current velocities than pallid
> sturgeon (Carlson *et al*. 1985, Ruelle and Keenlyne 1994, Bramblett
> 1996). They found that pallid sturgeon catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE)
> declined following shutdown of the Old River Control Structure and
> that no pallid sturgeon were collected when current velocity was
> reduced to zero, although shovelnose sturgeon CPUE was highest at this
> time.
>
> 8.1.5.1.2 Turbidity
>
> Pallid sturgeon historically occupied turbid river systems. Turbidity
> levels where pallid sturgeon have been found in South Dakota range
> from 31.3 Nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) to 137.6 NTU (Erickson
> 1992). Pallid sturgeon avoid areas without turbidity and current
> (Bailey and Cross 1954, Erickson 1992) which may help explain why
> pallid sturgeon are no longer found in the Upper Mississippi River
> slackwater pools and the Missouri River reservoirs, and have not
> expanded into other rivers in the Mississippi drainage, even though
> access is available (Duffy *et al*. 1996).
>
> 8.1.5.1.3 Water Depth
>
> The range of water depths where pallid sturgeon were frequently found
> in South Dakota are 2 to 6 m (Erickson 1992). In Montana, pallid
> sturgeon were captured from depths that ranged from 1.2 to 3.7 m in
> the summer, but they were captured in deeper waters during winter
> (Clancey 1990). Other pallid sturgeon collected in the upper Missouri,
> Yellowstone and Platte Rivers were captured in depths ranging from 1
> to 7.6 m (Watson and Stewart 1991, USFWS 1993). Bramblett (1996) found
> pallid sturgeon in depths ranging from 0.6 to 14.5 m. This contrasts
> with Constant *et al*. (1997) which found pallid sturgeon at mean
> depths of 15.2 m and observed pallid sturgeon at depths of 7 and 21 m
> with greater frequency than such areas were available. They also found
> pallid sturgeon almost completely avoiding areas \<7m in depth.
>
> 8.1.5.1.4 Substrate
>
> Pallid sturgeon are most frequently caught over a sand bottom, which
> is the predominant bottom substrate within the species= range on the
> Missouri and Mississippi Rivers. Constant *et al*. (1997) noted that
> pallid sturgeon spent considerable time associated with sand
> substrates. They noted that preference for sand substrates in low
> slope areas suggests that pallid sturgeon use such areas as current
> refugia (e.g., utilize sand-wave troughs created as bed-material moves
> along the river bottom (Gordan *et al*. 1992)). The pallid sturgeon
> collected on the Yellowstone River in July 1991 by Watson and Stewart
> (1991) was over a bottom of mainly gravel and rock, which is the
> predominant substrate at that capture site. Reed and Ewing (1993)
> found sturgeon occurring in the man-made rip-rap lined outfall
> channels of the Old River Control Complex in Louisiana. Bramblett
> (1996) found that pallid sturgeon preferred sandy substrates,
> particularly sand dunes and avoided substrates of gravel and cobble.
> Pallid sturgeon have adhesive eggs. Thus, spawning is thought to occur
> over hard substrates of gravel or cobble with moderate flow (Dr.
> Robert Sheehan, SIUC, pers. comm.).
>
> 8.1.5.1.5 Temperature
>
> Pallid sturgeon inhabit areas where the water temperature ranges from
> 0 C to 30C, which is the range of water temperature on the Missouri
> and Mississippi Rivers. Sheehan *et al*. (1998) noted that sturgeon
> habitat use in the MMR did not change with changes in temperature
> regimes and stated that temperature would not seem to have an affect
> on either habitat use or habitat selection by MMR pallid sturgeon.
> Curtiss (1990) found no relation between surface water temperatures
> and depth used by shovelnose sturgeon on the Mississippi River and no
> indication that shovelnose sturgeon were moving into deeper, cooler
> water (if available) as water temperature increased. Current research,
> however, indicates that pallid sturgeon spawning is directly linked to
> water temperature. As water temperature increases to 62-65F, pallid
> sturgeon initiate spawning activity (Steve Krentz, USFWS, pers.
> comm.).
>
> 8.1.6 Rangewide Distribution and Abundance of Habitat
>
> The historic range of the pallid sturgeon as described by Bailey and
> Cross (1954) encompassed the middle and lower Mississippi River, the
> Missouri River and the lower reaches of the Platte, Kansas and
> Yellowstone Rivers. Duffy, *et al*. (1996) stated that the historic
> range of pallid sturgeon once included the Mississippi River upstream
> to Keokuk, Iowa, before the river was converted into a series of locks
> and dams for commercial navigation (Coker 1930). Pallid sturgeon
> evolved in the diverse environments of these river systems.
> Floodplains, backwaters, chutes, sloughs, islands, sandbars, and main
> channel waters formed the large river ecosystem that provided the
> macrohabitat requirements for pallid sturgeon. These habitats were
> historically in a constant state of change. Today, natural fluvial
> processes have been altered by human modification of the river systems
> which have anchored the river channels in place. Such modifications
> have affected the abundance and distribution of pallid sturgeon
> habitat.
>
> The current range of the pallid sturgeon includes the Mississippi
> River from its mouth upstream to Melvin Price Locks and Dam (river
> mile 202.0), the Missouri River, the lower Yazoo/Big Sunflower and St.
> Francis Rivers, the lower Kansas and Yellowstone Rivers and the
> Atchafalaya River. The total length of the species range is
> approximately 3500 miles. However, approximately 51% of this area has
> been channelized for navigation and 28% has been impounded. The
> remaining 21% of the range is below dams and, therefore, has altered
> temperature, flow and sediment dynamics (Keenlyne 1989, Bramblett
> 1996). Approximately 49% of the species= current range is considered
> unsuitable habitat due to impoundments. The remaining 51% of the
> species range has been significantly affected by channelization. The
> amount of potentially suitable pallid sturgeon habitat remaining
> within this area is currently unknown.
>
> The 1993 Pallid Sturgeon Recovery Plan indicates six recovery-priority
> management areas. These areas provide the greatest probability for
> recovering the species, and include: (1) the Missouri River from the
> mouth of the Marias River to the headwaters of Ft. Peck Reservoir; (2)
> the Missouri River from Ft. Peck Dam to the headwaters of Lake
> Sakakawea, including the Yellowstone River upstream of the mouth of
> the Tongue River; (3) the Missouri River from 20 miles upstream of the
> mouth of the Niobrara River to Lewis and Clark Lake; (4) the Missouri
> River below Gavins Point Dam to its confluence with the Mississippi
> River; (5) the Mississippi River from its confluence with the Missouri
> River to the Gulf of Mexico; and (6) the Atchafalaya River
> distributary system of the Gulf of Mexico.
>
> 8.1.7 Factors Affecting Pallid Sturgeon Rangewide
>
> 8.1.7.1 Habitat Loss and Degradation
>
> Alteration of habitat has been a major factor in the decline of pallid
> sturgeon populations. Approximately 51% of its range has been
> channelized, 28% impounded and the remaining 21% affected by upstream
> impoundments by altering flow regimes, temperatures and sediment
> dynamics. All of these factors have adversely affected the fish by
> blocking movements to spawning and/or feeding areas, destroying
> spawning habitats, altering conditions or flows of potential remaining
> spawning areas, reducing food sources and/or the ability to obtain
> food, or altering remaining substrates and conditions necessary for
> the fish=s survival (Keenlyne 1989).
>
> 8.1.7.2 Commercial Harvest
>
> Historically, pallid, shovelnose, and lake sturgeon (*Acipenser*
> *fulvescens*) were commercially harvested on the Missouri and
> Mississippi Rivers (Helms 1974). The larger lake and pallid sturgeon
> were sought for their eggs which were sold as caviar, whereas
> shovelnose sturgeon were destroyed as a by catch.
>
> Commercial harvest of all sturgeon has declined substantially since
> record keeping began in the late 1800\'s. Most commercial catch
> records for sturgeon have not differentiated between species. Combined
> harvests as high as 195,450 kg (430,889 lbs) were recorded in the
> Mississippi River in the early 1890\'s, but had declined to less than
> 9,100 kg (20,062 lbs) by 1950 (Carlander 1954). Lower harvests
> reflected a decline in shovelnose sturgeon abundance since the early
> 1900\'s (Pflieger 1975).
>
> 8.1.7.3 Pollution/Contaminants
>
> Although more information is needed, pollution is a likely threat to
> the species over much of its range. Pollution of the Missouri River by
> organic wastes from towns, packing houses, and stockyards was evident
> by the early 1900\'s and continued to increase as populations grew and
> additional industries were established along the river (Whitely and
> Campbell 1974). Due to the identified presence of a variety of
> pollutants, numerous fish-harvest and consumption advisories have been
> issued over the last decade or two from Kansas City, Missouri, to the
> mouth of the Mississippi River. This represents about 45% of the
> pallid sturgeon=s range.
>
> Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB=s), cadmium, mercury, and selenium have
> been detected at elevated concentrations in tissue of three pallid
> sturgeon collected from the Missouri River in North Dakota and
> Nebraska. Detectable concentrations of chlordane, DDE, DDT, and
> dieldrin also were found (Ruelle and Keenlyne 1993). Abandoned
> landfills, mines, sewage treatment plants, and industries have a high
> potential to contaminate pallid sturgeon habitats in several states.
> The prolonged egg maturation cycle of the pallid sturgeon, combined
> with an inclination for certain contaminants to be concentrated in
> eggs, could make contaminants a likely agent adversely affecting
> developing eggs, development of embryos, or survival of fry, and
> thereby, reduce reproductive success.
>
> 8.1.7.4 Hybridization
>
> Carlson *et al*. (1985) studied morphological characteristics of 4,332
> sturgeon from the Missouri and Middle Mississippi Rivers. Out of this
> group, he identified 11 pallid sturgeon and 12 pallid/shovelnose
> sturgeon hybrids. Suspected hybrids have been noted in commercial fish
> catches on the lower Missouri and middle and lower Mississippi Rivers.
> Bailey and Cross (1954) did not report hybrids, which may indicate
> that hybridization is a recent phenomenon resulting from environmental
> changes caused by human-induced reductions in habitat diversity and
> measurable changes in environmental variables such as turbidity, flow
> regimes, and substrate types (Carlson *et al*. 1985). A study by
> Keenlyne *et al*. (1994) concluded that hybridization may be occurring
> in half of the river reaches within the range of pallid sturgeon and
> that hybrids may represent a high proportion of remaining sturgeon
> stocks. Hybridization could present a threat to the survival of pallid
> sturgeon, through genetic swamping if the hybrids are fertile, and
> through competition for limited habitat (Carlson *et al*. 1985).
> Keenlyne *et al*. (1994) noted few hybrids showing intermediacy in all
> characteristics as would be expected in a first generation cross. This
> provides some indication the hybrids are fertile and reproducing.
>
> Campton *et al*. (1995) collected data that support the hypothesis
> that pallid and shovelnose sturgeon are reproductively isolated in
> less-altered habitats, such as the Upper Missouri River. Bramblett
> (1996) found substantial differences in habitat use and movements
> between adult pallid and shovelnose sturgeon. Presumably, the loss of
> habitat diversity caused by human induced environmental changes
> inhibits naturally occurring reproductive isolating mechanisms
> (Campton *et al*. 1995). Sheehan *et al*. (1997b) noted that
> hybridization points to the fact that similar areas are being used by
> both species for spawning.
>
> Hubbs (1955) indicated that the frequency of natural hybridization in
> fish was a function of the environment, and the seriousness of
> consequences of hybridization was dependent on hybrid viability.
> Hybridization can occur in fish if spawning habitat is limited, if
> many individuals of one potential parent species lives in proximity to
> a limited number of the other parent species, if spawning habitat is
> modified and rendered intermediate, if spawning seasons overlap, or
> where movement to reach suitable spawning habitat is limited (Hubbs
> 1955). All of these conditions exist to some extent within the range
> of pallid and shovelnose sturgeon. Any of these conditions, or a
> combination of them, could be causing the apparent breakdown of
> isolating mechanisms which prevented hybridization between these
> species in the past (Keenlyne *et al*. 1994).
>
> Sheehan *et al*. (1997b) speculated that incidental harvest of pallid
> sturgeon by the commercial shovelnose sturgeon fishery may be a factor
> in hybridization between the two species. Male pallid sturgeon reach
> sexual maturity at 5-7 years while females reach sexual maturity at
> approximately 15 years (Keenlyne and Jenkins 1993, Keenlyne *et al*.
> 1992). For this reason, females are at a greater risk of mortality
> before maturity and, as such, incidental or illegal harvest of female
> pallid sturgeon may skew the sex ratios. This would then possibly
> increase the incidence of hybridization as mature male pallid
> sturgeon, unable to find mature females, spawn with shovelnose
> sturgeon (Sheehan *et al*. 1997b). Sheehan *et al*. (1997b) and
> Carlson and Pflieger (1981) noted a 3:2 ratio of hybrid sturgeon to
> pallid sturgeon. Sheehan *et al*. (1997b) speculated that if this is
> representative of the sturgeon population in the MMR, hybridization
> may pose a significant threat to pallid sturgeon as the species
> continues to introgress with shovelnose sturgeon.
>
> 8.1.8 Summary
>
> Pallid sturgeon distribution and abundance have drastically declined.
> In various studies, pallid sturgeon have represented from 0.29% to 11%
> of total sturgeon collected. In commercial catch surveys, pallid
> sturgeon have composed 0 to 26% of sturgeon collected. Habitat
> modification is considered the primary factor affecting pallid
> sturgeon populations. Approximately 49% of the pallid sturgeon=s
> historical range has been modified to the extent that it is no longer
> suitable. All remaining habitat has been substantially impacted by
> channelization. The species is now relegated to three genetically
> isolated sub-populations (Upper Missouri River, Lower Missouri
> River-MMR-Lower Mississippi River, Atchafalaya River). Within these
> sub-populations are even smaller, perhaps non-viable and isolated
> populations. The populations have little opportunity for genetic
> exchange. Evidence of successful reproduction is rare and
> documentation of recent recruitment is non-existent.
>
> As habitat loss continues, other factors affecting pallid sturgeon,
> such as incidental/illegal harvest and hybridization, become more
> problematic. Further, habitat modification exacerbates the effects of
> these factors, such as hybridization.
>
> Although specific microhabitat data are limited, we know the general
> habitat needs of the species. These include braided channels,
> irregular flow patterns, flood flows, turbidity, and extensive
> microhabitat diversity. Further, it is reasonable to draw inferences
> from data collected for other large river fish which evolved under
> similar river conditions.

8.2 Environmental Baseline

The Section 7 environmental baseline for this biological opinion is an
analysis of the effects of past and ongoing human and natural factors
leading to the current status of the species, its habitat, and
ecosystem, within the action area. Along with a discussion of the past
and present impacts associated with construction, operation and
maintenance of the 9-Foot Channel Project, the baseline includes the
following: 1) State, local and private actions already affecting the
species or that will occur contemporaneously with this consultation; 2)
unrelated Federal actions affecting pallid sturgeon that have completed
formal or informal consultations; and 3) Federal and other actions
within the action area that may benefit pallid sturgeon.

> 8.2.1 Status of the species in the action area
>
> The action area for this analysis encompasses the Mississippi River
> from the confluence of the Ohio River (river mile 0.0) to
> Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota (river mile 854.0) and portions of the
> Lower Missouri River and Lower Mississippi River. It also includes the
> navigable portions of the Illinois, Kaskaskia, Minnesota, Black and
> St. Croix Rivers.
>
> 8.2.1.1 Historic and current distribution in the action area
>
> The current range of pallid sturgeon in the action area includes the
> Mississippi River from the confluence of the Ohio River to the mouth
> of the Missouri River (river mile 196.0), locally referred to as the
> Middle Mississippi River (MMR), the mouth of the Missouri River to
> Melvin Price Locks and Dam (river mile 202.0), the Lower Missouri
> River and the Lower Mississippi River. The historic range of pallid
> sturgeon within the action area also included the Mississippi River
> upstream to Keokuk, Iowa, (UMR mile 364.0) (Duffy *et al*. 1996).
>
> 8.2.1.2 Population status and trends in the action area
>
> Little is known about historic abundance of pallid sturgeon in the
> MMR. As late as the mid-1900\'s, it was common for pallid sturgeon to
> be tallied in commercial catch records as either shovelnose or lake
> sturgeon (Keenlyne 1995). However, correspondence and notes of
> researchers suggest that pallid sturgeon was still fairly common in
> many parts of the Mississippi and Missouri River systems as late as
> 1967 (Keenlyne 1989). Declines of pallid sturgeon populations in the
> MMR appears to have occurred in recent years coincidental with the
> development of the river for flood control and navigation (Deacon *et
> al*. 1979, Keenlyne 1989).
>
> Pallid sturgeon have been captured in the MMR in the vicinity of Ste.
> Genevieve, Missouri, Chester, Illinois, and Cape Girardeau, Missouri.
> While population estimates are lacking, recent collection efforts
> indicate that pallid sturgeon are now rare in the MMR. Carlson *et
> al*. (1985), for example, collected 1 pallid sturgeon, 7 hybrids and
> 1897 shovelnose sturgeon at two MMR sampling stations during
> 1978-1979. Similarly, sampling in 1997 and 1998, by the MoDOC,
> collected 7 pallid sturgeon compared to 1549 shovelnose sturgeon
> (Petersen 1999). Significantly, however, in 1998, they also collected
> a young-of-the-year pallid sturgeon. This is one of only two instances
> in recent years, throughout the range of the species, indicating
> successful pallid sturgeon reproduction.
>
> In response to obvious declines in pallid sturgeon numbers, MoDOC
> began an augmentation effort by releasing fingerlings raised at Blind
> Pony State Fish Hatchery. Approximately 7000 fingerlings were released
> in the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers in 1994 and an additional 3000
> fingerlings were released in 1997 (Graham 1997, 1999). Since the
> release, approximately 86 tagged pallid sturgeon have been reported.
> Most of these fish are being reported below St. Louis likely due to
> higher numbers of commercial fisherman in the Mississippi River
> (Graham 1999).
>
> Field surveys of *Scaphirhynchus* stocks suggest a relatively high
> incidence of hybridization between shovelnose sturgeon and pallid
> sturgeon in the MMR (Sheehan 1997a, 1997b, 1998). Sheehan *et al*.
> (1997b) and Carlson and Pflieger (1981) noted a 3:2 ratio of hybrid
> sturgeon to pallid sturgeon. Sheehan *et al*. (1997b) speculated that
> if this is representative of the sturgeon populations in the MMR,
> hybridization may pose a significant threat to pallid sturgeon as the
> species continues to introgress with shovelnose sturgeon.
>
> The MMR constitutes approximately 5% of the pallid sturgeon=s total
> range. However, approximately 49% of the species= range has been
> affected by impoundments and is currently considered unsuitable pallid
> sturgeon habitat. Therefore, the MMR represents approximately 10% of
> the species= range which is unaffected by impoundments and which may
> potentially provide suitable habitat.
>
> According to the recovery plan, the MMR is part of recovery-priority
> area #5 which consists of the Mississippi River from its confluence
> with the Missouri River to the Gulf of Mexico. Recovery-priority areas
> were selected based upon most recent pallid sturgeon records of
> occurrence and the probability that the areas still provide suitable
> habitat for restoration and recovery of the species. These areas are
> typically the least degraded and have the highest habitat diversity,
> and in some reaches still exhibit a natural channel configuration of
> sandbars, side channels, and varied depths.
>
> Little is also known about the historic abundance of pallid sturgeon
> in the Lower Missouri River and the Lower Mississippi River. The
> current population size in both areas is unknown, however, records
> indicate that pallid sturgeon in these river segments remain rare and
> widely scattered. Carlson *et al*. (1985) collected 5 pallid sturgeon
> and 4 hybrids from the Lower Missouri River and 5 pallid sturgeon and
> 1 hybrid from the Lower Mississippi River from 1978-1979. Constant *et
> al*. (1997) collected 2 hybrids from the Lower Mississippi River from
> 1993-1995. Hybridization with shovelnose sturgeon appears prevalent in
> both river segments. Evidence of successful reproduction has been
> lacking until recently. In August 1999, one confirmed and two probable
> pallid sturgeon larvae were collected from the Lower Missouri River
> (Jim Milligan, USFWS, pers. comm.).
>
> As previously discussed (see Status Section), the pallid sturgeon
> range has become reproductively fragmented. Some remnants of its
> historical connectedness, however, persist with genetic exchange still
> likely among the Lower Missouri River, MMR, and the Lower Mississippi
> River. As such, the MMR serves as an important genetic conduit for the
> pallid sturgeon populations occurring in the Lower Missouri and Lower
> Mississippi Rivers. Pallid sturgeon movements can occur over great
> distances. Bramblett (1996) noted a maximum home range on the
> Yellowstone River of approximately 199 miles. Other studies indicate
> movements of 60 or more miles (Sheehan *et al*. 1998). In addition,
> larval pallid sturgeon may drift in the water column up to 13 days
> (Kynard *et al*. 1998). Calculations of velocities, therefore,
> indicate that larval sturgeon may drift for a distance of potentially
> over 400 miles (Steve Krentz, USFWS, pers. comm.). These particular
> life history characteristics underscore the importance of the
> interconnectedness of the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers in terms of
> pallid sturgeon population biology. For example, adult pallid sturgeon
> in the MMR may migrate upstream to the Lower Missouri River to spawn.
> Larval sturgeon may then drift only a short distance over a period of
> a couple of days and settle out in the Lower Missouri River.
> Alternatively, these larval fish may drift over a long distance over a
> period of 8 or more days and settle out in the MMR. The areas where
> larval sturgeon settle out are likely dependent upon a number of
> factors including habitat availability. This same scenario is possible
> for pallid sturgeon in the Lower Mississippi River which may migrate
> to the MMR to spawn.
>
> The interconnectedness of these river systems helps maintain the
> genetic connectivity and continuity of pallid sturgeon by ensuring
> that genetic material is dispersed throughout the population and
> genetic diversity is maintained. According to Wirgin *et al*. (1997),
> the structure and magnitude of genetic diversity of natural
> populations of sturgeons serves to buffer these species against
> environmental variation and should be maintained.
>
> 8.2.1.3 Distribution and abundance of habitat in the action area
>
> The MMR historically had a meandering pattern and shifted its course
> over the years, leaving oxbow lakes and backwaters (Theiling 1999).
> The undeveloped river was shallow and characterized by a series of
> runs, pools and channel crossings that provided a diversity of depth
> (Theiling 1999). In 1824, the MMR surface area totaled 109 mi^2^
> (87.2% riverbed, 12.8% islands) (Simons *et al*. 1974). In 1796,
> Collot (1826) surveyed the river and mapped 55 side channels. His
> historical account describes a very dynamic system with the capability
> to create and maintain a diversity of habitat types. In describing the
> great potential for change in the system, Collot (1826) wrote:
>
> *AThe Mississippi River has not only the inconvenience of being of an
> immense extent, of winding in a thousand different directions, and of
> being intercepted by numberless islands; its current is likewise
> extremely unequal, sometimes gentle, sometimes rapid; at other times
> motionless; which circumstances will prevent, as long as both sides
> remain uninhabited, the possibility of obtaining just data with
> respect to distances. But an insurmountable obstacle will always be
> found in the instability of the bed of this river, which changes every
> year; here a sharp point becomes a bay; there an island disappears
> altogether. Further on, new islands are formed, sand-banks change
> their spots and directions, and are replaced by channels; the
> sinuosities of the river are no longer the same; here where it once
> made a bend it now takes a right direction, and there the straight
> line becomes a curve; here ravages and disorders cannot be arrested or
> mastered by the hand of man, and it would be extreme folly to
> undertake to describe them, or pretend to give a faithful chart of
> this vast extent of waters, as we have done for the course of the
> Ohio, since it would not only be useless but dangerous.@*
>
> Today, the natural meandering processes of the MMR have been altered
> through channelization. Wingdams, revetments, closing structures and
> bendway weirs have fixed the channel in place, disrupting the dynamic
> processes that create and maintain pallid sturgeon habitat. As a
> result, the diverse habitats to which pallid sturgeon are adapted
> (e.g., braided channels, irregular flow patterns, flood cycles,
> extensive microhabitat diversity and turbid waters) continue to
> decline in quality and quantity. By 1968, the river surface area had
> declined to 100 mi^2^ and the river width to an average 3200 feet
> (Simons *et al*. 1974). Today only 25 side channels remain (USACE
> 1999b). Recent studies by Theiling *et al*. (1999) indicate that river
> surface area and width continues to decline and side channels continue
> to be lost.
>
> According to the Corps= biological assessment (USACE 1999a), there are
> 16,966 acres of sandbar below the LWRP+10 feet on the MMR. This
> habitat is available to the pallid sturgeon depending upon river
> stage. Of this amount, approximately 11,699 acres occur below the LWRP
> and is available to pallid sturgeon approximately 97% of the time. It
> is unknown how much sandbar habitat occurring at shallow water
> elevations historically occurred in the MMR. Trends in the Lower
> Mississippi River provide some indication of the amount of sandbar
> habitat which may have been lost. According to information provided by
> the Corps, 85,165 acres of sandbar habitat occurred below the LWRP in
> 1948. The amount of habitat has fluctuated over time and totaled
> 81,414 acres in 1994. This reflects a 4.4% decline in sandbar habitat
> occurring below the LWRP. Sandbar area below the LWRP +10 elevation
> declined by 13.7% from 1948 (151,796 acres) to 1994 (131,008 acres).
> Sandbar area below LWRP +20 declined by 25% from 1948 (209,082 acres)
> to 1994 (156,904 acres). The amount of sandbar habitat below LWRP +20
> has declined steadily from 1948 to 1994 including a 21.1% decline from
> 1965 to 1994 and a 10.7 % decline from 1988 to 1994.
>
> The natural meandering processes of the Lower Missouri River and Lower
> Mississippi River have also been altered through channelization. Such
> alteration has affected the distribution and abundance of habitat in
> these river segments in much the same way the MMR has been affected.
>
> 8.2.2 Factors affecting the species environment within the action area
>
> 8.2.2.1 Channel Training Structures
>
> Channel training structures have adversely affected pallid sturgeon by
> affecting the quality and quantity of habitats in the MMR to which the
> species is adapted (e.g., braided channels, irregular flow patterns,
> flood cycles, extensive microhabitat diversity and turbid waters).
> This loss of habitat has reduced pallid sturgeon reproduction, growth
> and survival by (1) decreasing the availability of spawning habitat;
> (2) reducing larval and juvenile pallid sturgeon rearing habitat; (3)
> reducing the availability of seasonal refugia; and (4) reducing the
> availability of foraging habitat. In addition, loss of habitat is
> believed to have contributed to the hybridization of pallid and
> shovelnose sturgeon (Carlson *et al*. 1985, Keenlyne *et al*. 1993,
> Campton *et al*. 1995). These habitat changes have also reduced the
> natural forage base of the pallid sturgeon, which is another likely
> contributing factor in its decline (Mayden and Kuhajda 1997).
>
> The MMR historically had a meandering pattern and shifted its course
> many times over the years, leaving oxbow lakes and backwaters
> (Theiling 1999). The undeveloped river was shallow and characterized
> by a series of runs, pools and channel crossings that provided a
> diversity of depth along the main channel (Theiling 1999). Currently
> the MMR channel is fixed as a result of channel training structures
> and no longer allowed to meander across the floodplain. In 1824, the
> MMR surface area totaled 109 mi^2^ (87.2% riverbed, 12.8% islands),
> and in 1888, surface area increased to 163 mi^2^ (78.5% riverbed,
> 21.5% islands). Average river width increased from 3600 feet in 1824
> to 5300 feet in 1888 (Simons *et al*. 1974). This increase in surface
> area and width is thought to have been caused by a series of floods
> between 1844 and 1888 and by changes in land use (e.g., clearing of
> floodplain timber for steamboat fuel and lumber and conversion of
> floodplain to agricultural use) (Simons *et al*. 1974, Strauser 1993).
> These examples are an indication of the river=s surface area and width
> at particular points in time. However, the magnitude of the change
> from 1824 to 1888 is indicative of the dynamic nature of the MMR and
> the great potential for change described by Collot (1826), indicating
> that river surface area and width has probably never been static. In
> 1968, due to the construction of channel training structures
> (dikes/revetments), the river surface area had decreased to 100 mi^2^
> and the river width to an average of 3200 feet. From 1888 to 1968
> there was a 38.7% decrease in river surface area and a 39.6% decrease
> in average river width (Simons *et al*. 1974, Fremling *et al*. 1986).
> Fixing the river channel in place and reducing river surface area and
> width have affected natural river processes that create and maintain
> aquatic habitats over time and the quantity of those habitats.
>
> The effect of channel training structures in reducing channel width
> and surface area, and thereby habitat diversity, was most apparent
> within a few years of construction. However, although occurring at a
> slower rate, the effects are ongoing. For example, in evaluating side
> channel sedimentation and land cover change in the MMR, Theiling *et
> al*. (1999) found that main channel habitat decreased by 1667 acres in
> the six study reaches during the period 1950 to 1994. Of this amount,
> approximately 412 acres were lost from 1975 to 1994. In addition,
> dikes and revetments have not only narrowed the river channel, but
> deepened it as well (Chen and Simons 1986, Nielson *et al*. 1984).
> Simons *et al*. (1974) gave the following example of riverbed
> degradation in a 14-mile reach of the MMR due to channel constriction:
>
> *ABy 1966 the river had been contracted to an average width of 1800
> feet. The riverbed had lowered about 8 feet between 1889 and 1966. In
> July 1967, the Corps of Engineers selected this 14-mile reach as a
> test reach to develop design criteria on obtaining and maintaining a
> dependable 9-foot deep navigation channel. \[Degenhardt 1973\].
> Between 1967 and 1969, this test reach narrowed from 1800 feet to 1200
> feet in width. In 1971, the riverbed was resurveyed. The contraction
> from 1800 feet to 1200 feet had resulted in a 3-foot lowering of the
> riverbed \[Degenhardt 1973\]. In 1971 the low-water riverbed in the
> 14-mile reach between mile 140 and 154 was on the average 11 feet
> lower than in 1889.@*
>
> Channel training structures have also altered the natural hydrograph
> of the MMR by contributing to higher water surface elevations at lower
> discharges than in the past and to a downward trend in annual minimum
> stages (Simons *et al*. 1974, Wlosinski 1999). Wlosinski (1999) found
> water-surface elevations have decreased at the same low discharge of
> 60,000 cfs during the period from 1880 to present. The downward shift
> of annual minimum stages can be partially attributed to the
> degradation of the low-water channel by wingdams (Simons *et al*.
> 1974). River stages fluctuate as much as 15 m annually, effectively
> dewatering some secondary channels during low stages (Fremling *et
> al*. 1989). As a result, previously aquatic habitats are now dry at
> low discharges (Wlosinski 1999). This has potentially reduced the
> availability of pallid sturgeon spawning habitat through the loss of
> habitat complexity.
>
> Side channels serve as important nursery areas and as refugia from the
> swift currents and harsh environments of the thalweg (Environmental
> Sci. and Eng. 1982, Fremling *et al*. 1989). Recent evidence suggests
> that side channels may be important rearing areas for larval pallid
> sturgeon. In 1999, one confirmed and two probable larval pallid
> sturgeon were collected from a large sandbar complex at the lower end
> of Lisbon Chute, a reconnected side channel of the Missouri River
> (Missouri River mile 214.7) (Jim Milligan and Joanne Grady, USFWS,
> pers. comm.). In addition, adult pallid sturgeon have been captured in
> MMR side channels (Mike Peterson, MoDOC, LTRM Station, pers. comm.).
> Furthermore, side channels are an integral component of the habitat
> complexity of the MMR ecosystem. These areas not only provide nursery
> areas and refugia for fish, but serve an important role in the cycling
> of nutrients and in the production of food organisms for many species.
>
> In its natural state, an alluvial river divides itself into two or
> more channels by the processes of either erosion or deposition. Side
> channels which are obliterated by deposition are replaced by new side
> channels caused by floods and/or river migrations. In the MMR, the
> river is no longer free to migrate and produce new side channels
> (Simons *et al*. 1974) due to channel training structures (e.g.,
> wingdams, revetments, closing structures). Side channels in the MMR
> have been closed off and others have sedimented in (Simons *et al*.
> 1975, Theiling 1999). The loss of side channels is well documented. In
> 1797 there were 55 side channels (Collot 1826), 35 in 1860 (Simons *et
> al*. 1974), 27 in 1968 (Simons *et al*. 1974), and only 25 today
> (USACE 1999b). Many of those that remain are degraded and much smaller
> than in the past (Theiling *et al*. 1999). For example, within the six
> study reaches analyzed, Theiling *et al*. (1999) noted that
> approximately 918 acres of secondary channel habitat was lost during
> the period 1950 to 1994 due to closing structures and resulting
> sediment accumulation and terrestrial encroachment. Of this amount,
> approximately 275 acres were lost from 1975 to 1994. In the absence of
> further human-induced changes in hydrology or geomorphology of the
> MMR, most of the remaining side channels may disappear (Theiling
> 1999). The loss of side channels has reduced larval and juvenile
> rearing habitat, reduced the availability of seasonal refugia, reduced
> the availability of foraging habitat and reduced the natural forage
> base of pallid sturgeon by reducing the nutrient cycling ability of
> the MMR.
>
> Just as changes in river processes have eliminated channel meandering
> that creates new side channels, development of new sand bar habitat
> (aquatic and terrestrial) is also inhibited. Bendway weirs were
> developed to inhibit point-bar establishment in bends and channel
> crossings and to reduce the need for dredging in these areas. They
> consist of a series of submerged dikes (\>3m below the LWRP) generally
> constructed around the outer edge of a river bend. In recent years,
> bendway weirs have also been utilized in other depositional areas in
> the MMR. Each dike is angled 30 degrees upstream of perpendicular to
> divert flow, in progression, towards the inner bank. The result is
> hydraulically controlled point bar development and reduced channel
> downcutting throughout the bend.
>
> Resource agencies have expressed concern over the effect bendway weirs
> have on the aquatic environment. As a result, a Bendway Weir Fish
> Sampling Team was established and various studies have been conducted
> to document the effects of bendway weirs. Hydroacoustic surveys of
> fishes were conducted in August 1994 and September 1995 in four river
> bends in the MMR (Kasul and Baker 1995, 1996). In 1994, two of the
> four river bends had bendway weirs. In 1995, all four bends had
> bendway weirs. An additional bend without weirs was also sampled in
> 1995. According to the Corps= biological assessment, based on the 1994
> data, the two bends with weirs (Dogtooth and Price) had a 2.2x higher
> density of fishes than the two bends without weirs. This is accurate
> for the data collected on the outside bank. However, the mean number
> of fish per hectare for the entire bend was higher for bends without
> weirs (1894) than for the bends with weirs (1402). In addition, the
> bends without weirs had a significantly higher number of fish per
> hectare located on the inside bank than the bends with weirs (Kasul
> and Baker 1995).
>
> A comparison of 1994 and 1995 data for Greenfield and Cape bend
> provides between year information for bends without weirs (1994) and
> bends with weirs (1995). The mean number of fish in Greenfield bend
> increased for the entire bend area from 1994 to 1995. Much of this
> increase occurred along the outside bank. Fish numbers along the
> inside bank declined from 2599 in 1994 to 1506 in 1995 indicating a
> redistribution of fish across the cross-section of the channel from
> the inside bank to the outside bank. The mean number of fish per
> hectare within the entire bend and both the outside bank and inside
> bank also increased in Cape bend from 1994 to 1995. The mean number of
> fish per hectare also increased between 1994 and 1995 for Dogtooth and
> Price bends (with weirs). There was a significant increase in the mean
> number of fish occurring along the inside bank of Dogtooth bend from
> 1994 (287) to 1995 (1138). This may reflect the re-establishment of
> channel equilibrium following bendway weir construction and recovery
> of the benthic macroinvertebrate community. Scutters bend is the only
> bend without weirs analyzed in 1995. The mean number of fish per
> hectare for this bend was higher than the numbers for Price and Cape
> bends, but lower than Greenfield and Dogtooth bends. \[Data from Kasul
> and Baker 1995 and 1996\]
>
> In addition, the effects of bendway weirs on point-bar fishery habitat
> were studied on the Lower Mississippi River (Schramm *et al*. 1997,
> 1998) by comparing the changes in late-falling and low-river stage
> electrofishing catch rates of prevalent fishes before (1994) and after
> (1996 and 1997) installation of bendway weirs at Victoria Bend
> relative to the changes in catch rates of the same fishes at Rosedale
> Bend, a nearby reference site without bendway weirs. Large interyear
> variation in catch rates were observed and, for most prevalent
> species, catch rates declined from 1994 to 1996 in sandbar habitats.
> However, significant declines in catch rates of prevalent species at
> Victoria Bend relative to changes in catch rates at the reference site
> were only noted for gizzard shad. Conversely, catch rates for goldeye,
> channel catfish, and flathead catfish at sandbar habitat during
> late-falling river stage significantly declined from 1994 to 1996 at
> Rosedale Bend while catch rates remained similar at Victoria Bend.
> \[excerpt from USACE 1999a\]
>
> No data for pallid sturgeon were collected for the above referenced
> study. However, pallid sturgeon fall within a guild of fishes referred
> to as rheophilic. Rheophilic fish are found in swift-flowing main and
> secondary channel habitats. These species are adapted to live at the
> bottom of the river where currents are slower and to seek shelter in
> flow refugia such as dike fields and snags (USACE 1999b). Blue catfish
> and channel catfish are also rheophilic fish. Therefore, data from
> Schramm *et al*. (1997, 1998) concerning blue catfish and channel
> catfish may provide insight regarding the effects of bendway weirs on
> pallid sturgeon. According to Schramm *et al*. (1997, 1998), catch
> rates for channel catfish during late-falling river stages at sandbar
> habitat declined from 1994 (16.00 +/- 5.0SE) to 1996 (0.20 +/- 0.20SE)
> at Rosedale Bend in 1997. No channel catfish were collected in sandbar
> habitat at Rosedale Bend during late-falling river stages. Channel
> catfish also declined in sandbar habitat during late-falling river
> stages at Victoria Bend from 1994 (1.86 +/- 0.51SE) to 1996 (0.25 +/-
> 0.25SE) and from 1994 to 1997 (1.50 +/- 0.87SE). Blue catfish declined
> at sandbar habitat during late-falling river stages at both Rosedale
> Bend and Victoria Bend from 1994 to 1996 and 1997.
>
> During low river stages in sandbar habitat blue catfish increased at
> both Victoria Bend and Rosedale Bend from 1994 to 1996. Blue catfish
> numbers increased slightly in 1997 (2.0 +/- 1.15SE) at Victoria Bend
> compared to 1994 (0.2 +/- 0.20SE) and decreased slightly in Rosedale
> Bend from 1994 (1.0 +/- 1.0SE) to 1997 (0.0). According to Schramm *et
> al*. (1997), channel catfish increased during low river stages on
> sandbar habitat at Victoria Bend from 1994 (0.0) to 1997 (5.25 +/-
> 2.59). A slight increase in channel catfish was also noted at Rosedale
> Bend. However, it should be noted that Schramm *et al*. (1998) did not
> report catch rates for channel catfish during low river stages for
> 1994 and 1996. Similar trends for both blue catfish and channel
> catfish were noted for revetted habitat. These data indicate some
> interyear variation in catch rates for channel catfish and blue
> catfish. However, the data do not present sufficient information to
> develop conclusions concerning the effects of bendway weirs on
> rheophilic fish.
>
> In general terms, the results of various studies indicate that fish
> redistribute across the channel cross-section from the inside bank to
> the outside bank as a result of bendway weirs. This is most likely in
> response to increases in macroinvertebrate abundance (Ecological
> Specialists, Inc. 1997a) and the low velocity fields that develop
> behind each weir. Bendway weirs also cause channel bottom aggradation
> along the outside bend, which may have some benefit by reducing water
> level fluctuations in adjacent side channels. This benefits pallid
> sturgeon by (1) increasing the availability of larval and juvenile
> rearing habitat; (2) increasing the availability of seasonal refugia;
> and (3) increasing substrate diversity, which influences
> macroinvertebrate production, thus, increasing the natural forage base
> of pallid sturgeon.
>
> While the above beneficial effects of bendway weirs is noted, the
> effect of bendway weirs on inside bend point bar habitat is unclear.
> As stated previously, bendway weirs control point bar development and
> are also being utilized to address other depositional areas. Bendway
> weirs also increase water velocities along the inside bend by
> redirecting channel flow. Shallow water, low slope, sandbar habitat is
> thought to be important to juvenile pallid sturgeon, and perhaps,
> other life stages. This is the habitat type in which a
> young-of-the-year pallid sturgeon has recently been captured in the
> MMR (Petersen and Herzog 1999) and larval pallid sturgeon were
> recently collected from a large sandbar complex on the Missouri River
> (Jim Milligan, USFWS, pers. comm.). According to Sheehan *et al*.
> (1998) pallid sturgeon exhibited a positive selection for downstream
> island tips (depositional areas) in terms of habitat use versus
> availability. As existing sandbar habitat continues to accrete and
> revert to woody vegetation, aquatic sandbar habitat will continue to
> decline in quantity. Thus, bendway weirs likely reduce larval and
> juvenile rearing habitat and feeding habitat for all life stages.
>
> According to the Corps= biological assessment (USACE 1999a), there are
> approximately 16,966 acres of sandbar habitat below the LWRP+20
> elevation in the MMR. Of this amount, 11,699 acres occurs below the
> LWRP and is available to pallid sturgeon approximately 97% of the time
> The remainder is available to pallid sturgeon depending on river
> stage. However, much of this sandbar habitat occurs in relatively
> straight reaches of the main channel where current velocities are most
> extreme. Although pallid sturgeon are adapted to high velocity
> habitats, they typically seek out lower velocity refugia within these
> high velocity areas. Therefore, much of the existing sandbar habitat
> is not likely suitable habitat for pallid sturgeon.
>
> Although it is unknown how much sandbar habitat, at shallow water
> elevations, historically occurred in the MMR, the loss of channel
> surface area and width, riverbed degradation, past dredging practices
> and sediment accretion suggest that much of this habitat type has been
> lost. Existing sandbar habitat continues to accrete and revert to
> woody vegetation, affecting the quantity of aquatic sandbar habitat in
> the MMR. As an example, during the period 1950 to 1994, Theiling *et
> al*. (1999) found that approximately 293 acres of aquatic habitat had
> transitioned to terrestrial sand/mud habitat and approximately 1300
> acres converted to wooded terrestrial habitat within the six study
> reaches analyzed. Much of this change can be attributed to
> sedimentation induced by channel training structures. This has
> adversely affected pallid sturgeon by reducing larval and juvenile
> rearing habitat and feeding habitat for all life stages.
>
> Aquatic habitats, such as backwaters, side channels and channel border
> eddies, have been described as hydraulic retention devices (Bhowmik
> and Adams 1990). They slow the movement of water through a river
> reach, which concentrates nutrients and primary productivity. In low
> current areas with high water clarity, algae and submersed aquatic
> plants can greatly increase riverine productivity. Backwaters with
> permanent connections to the river can shunt energy to the channel
> environment. Flood flows can connect isolated backwaters and
> distribute pulses of energy to other environments (Theiling *et al*.
> 1999). Channel training structures have disrupted natural geomorphic
> processes and affected natural hydrologic variability in the MMR. This
> has reduced riverine productivity by destroying and/or isolating
> important floodplain features (Theiling *et al*. 1999) and other
> aquatic habitats. This has reduced the natural forage base of pallid
> sturgeon.
>
> Furthermore, large woody debris alters channel morphology by
> influencing sediment routing, thus creating pools, gravel bars and
> depositional sites (Bilby and Ward 1991). Bilby and Likens (1980)
> suggested that a large part of stream organic matter is associated
> with woody debris. Trees of all types and sizes were essential as
> aquatic insect substrate, and they provided localized zones of reduced
> velocity for fish. Snags reduced mean stream velocity, increased the
> stream top width, provided long-term organic matter supplies, and
> aided in fine organic matter retention (Benke *et al*. 1985, Hesse *et
> al*. 1988, Hesse *et al*. 1993). The disruption of natural geomorphic
> processes (e.g., meandering, erosion) has also eliminated much of the
> woody debris from the MMR. This has reduced overall habitat diversity
> and organic matter input. This has reduced microhabitat diversity for
> pallid sturgeon and reduced the natural forage base of pallid
> sturgeon.
>
> Lastly, channel training structures have influenced the incidence of
> hybridization between pallid and shovelnose sturgeon. Approximately
> 114 species of fish inhabit the MMR and they exhibit a wide range of
> habitat requirements (Pitlo *et al*. 1995, Fremling *et al*. 1989).
> Each species is adapted to particular river conditions and many
> species= habitat requirements change seasonally. Quiet waters may be
> required for spawning or for juvenile rearing habitat, while adults
> may inhabit swifter waters of the main channel (Pflieger 1975,
> Welcomme 1979, Becker 1983). Different habitats may also be required
> under different temperature conditions (Sheehan *et al*. 1990a and
> 1990b, Bodensteiner *et al*. 1990, Bodensteiner and Lewis 1992). The
> distribution, availability, and quality of aquatic habitats in the UMR
> (including the MMR), have been altered by the construction of channel
> training structures, dikes, and dredging (Theiling 1999).
>
> Hubbs (1955) indicated that the frequency of natural hybridization in
> fish was a function of the environment, and the seriousness of
> consequences of hybridization were dependent on hybrid viability.
> Hybridization can occur in fish if spawning habitat is limited, if
> many individuals of one potential parent species live in proximity to
> a limited number of the other parent species, if spawning habitat is
> modified and rendered intermediate, if spawning seasons overlap, or
> where movement to reach suitable spawning habitat is limited (Hubbs
> 1955). Channel training structures have altered the distribution,
> availability and quality of aquatic habitats required for pallid
> sturgeon. Therefore, channel training structures have contributed to
> pallid sturgeon hybridization with shovelnose sturgeon by
> altering/eliminating spawning habitat and potentially limiting the
> movement of sturgeon species to spawning habitat.
>
> 8.2.2.2 Locks and Dams
>
> Impoundment and water level regulation due to construction of locks
> and dams have adversely affected pallid sturgeon by (1) impeding
> seasonal migration and elimination of the species from a portion of
> its historic range, thus decreasing the availability of spawning
> habitat; (2) reducing the quantity and quality of habitat in the MMR,
> thus decreasing the availability of spawning habitat, reducing larval
> and juvenile rearing habitat and reducing the availability of seasonal
> refugia; (3) increasing hybridization with shovelnose sturgeon through
> reduced substrate diversity; (4) increasing the risk of predation with
> other fish; and (5) increasing competition with other fish and
> decreasing pallid sturgeon foraging capability.
>
> The historic range of the pallid sturgeon included the UMR upstream to
> Keokuk, Iowa (Duffy *et al*. 1996, Bailey and Cross 1954). The
> upstream movement of pallid sturgeon to this area was eliminated as
> the river was converted into a series of locks and dams (Coker 1930).
> Although Coker=s 1916 record of a pallid sturgeon taken near Keokuk
> dam has been disputed, the sturgeon group=s potadromy and affinity for
> rock riffle or coarse substrate during the spawning period are well
> known. The completion of the power dam at Keokuk in 1913 resulted in
> the loss of spawning habitat suitability by impoundment of Keokuk
> rapids, in conjunction with physically blocking spawning runs of all
> sturgeon species. Therefore, we believe, impoundment has eliminated
> the pallid sturgeon from a portion of its former range and has
> decreased the availability of spawning habitat, and thus, reproductive
> potential.
>
> Dams were constructed on the UMR for the specific purpose of
> increasing low and moderate flow water surface elevations to maintain
> a continuous nine-foot navigation channel from St. Louis, Missouri to
> Minneapolis, Minnesota (USACE 1999a). Dams on the UMR have affected
> the MMR by affecting the hydrologic cycle and sediment inputs. The MMR
> receives 60% of its flow from the Mississippi River basin (Fremling
> *et al*. 1989). Thus, impoundment of the UMR through dam construction
> has likely contributed in some part to the downward shift in annual
> minimum stages in the MMR, which affected the quality and availability
> of pallid sturgeon habitat.
>
> One of the effects of impoundment of the UMR is a reduction in
> suspended sediment load in the MMR. MMR sediment load has declined 66%
> from pre-1935 levels mainly due to sediment entrapment in Missouri
> River impoundments (Fremling *et al*. 1989). However, as the UMR
> presently contributes approximately 20% of the average suspended
> sediment load to the MMR (Tuttle and Pinner 1982), UMR dams have also
> contributed to the sediment load reductions. This lack of sediment
> delivery upset the natural channel equilibrium and was replaced by a
> variety of nonequilibrium processes such as hydraulic sorting and bed
> paving, which eventually will eliminate all sediment movement (USFWS
> 1993). This has already occurred to some extent and has resulted in
> reduced bed roughness, and therefore, reduced substrate diversity
> (USFWS 1993). Although little is known about the specific spawning
> requirements of pallid sturgeon, they have adhesive eggs, which means
> that a firm substrate with moderate flow is required for spawning.
> Reductions in substrate diversity have likely eliminated pallid
> sturgeon spawning habitat, and may have lead to an increased incidence
> of hybridization with the closely related shovelnose sturgeon.
>
> The associated turbidity caused by suspended sediment also provided
> the pallid sturgeon and other native fish, adapted to living in a
> nearly sightless world, with cover while moving from one snag or
> undercut bank to another. Today, water clarity has increased
> dramatically due to reduced suspended sediment loads, and this
> essential cover is gone. Under such conditions, predation by
> sight-feeding predators can be expected to significantly impact native
> species not equipped with good eyesight (USFWS 1993). For this reason
> larval and juvenile pallid sturgeon are subject to increased
> probability of predation.
>
> It is also suspected that reduced turbidity has affected food
> availability by changing species composition and by making it more
> difficult for pallid sturgeon, and other native species, to capture
> prey in the clearer water environment. In the Missouri River, pelagic
> planktivores and sight-feeding carnivores have increased in abundance,
> whereas species specialized for life in the turbid, predevelopment
> river (like pallid sturgeon) have decreased in abundance (Pflieger and
> Grace 1987). Similar changes in species composition are also occurring
> in the MMR (Bob Hrabik, MoDOC, LTRM Station, pers. comm.). This change
> in community structure is less apparent where changes in the natural
> hydrograph, temperature regime, and turbidity are less pronounced
> (USFWS 1993). Therefore, pallid sturgeon have increased competition
> for available food resources and their ability to capture prey has
> been adversely affected.
>
> 8.2.2.3 Dredging/Disposal
>
> Dredging and disposal of dredged material have adversely affected
> pallid sturgeon by (1) reducing the availability and quantity of the
> natural forage base of pallid sturgeon; (2) reducing the quantity and
> availability of juvenile and adult habitat; and (3) contributing to
> the transference of contaminants, potentially affecting pallid
> sturgeon reproductive success.
>
> Dredging occurs in depositional areas and channel crossings to
> maintain a nine-foot navigation channel with disposal occurring in the
> adjacent main channel border areas near shore. From 1978 to 1998, the
> St. Louis District dredged an average of 6.0 million cubic yards (mcy)
> of material per year in the MMR. This ranged from a low of 0.5 mcy in
> 1993 to a high of 20.5 mcy in 1988 (USACE 1998). The amount of
> material dredged varies from year to year depending on river stages.
> In addition, there has been no consistent pattern in the locations of
> dredging activities as this also varies depending on river conditions.
>
> Dredging disturbs main channel habitat, killing the resident benthic
> macroinvertebrates and temporarily leveling the dune and swale bed
> forms. The bed forms re-form rapidly, but macroinvertebrate
> recolonization may take at least one growing season (USACE 1999b).
> Sheehan *et al*. (1998) found pallid sturgeon utilizing main channel
> habitat more than any other type. This was not surprising since
> approximately 65% of the study area consisted of main channel habitat.
> This indicates that past dredging may have affected pallid sturgeon
> food resources. The extent of the adverse affect is unknown at this
> time as there has never been a quantification of the areal extent of
> aquatic habitat affected by dredging and disposal activities.
>
> In recent years, the St. Louis District has been following general
> dredge disposal guidelines developed to protect important aquatic
> habitat, such as side channels. However, implementation of disposal
> guidelines for the beneficial use of dredge material is virtually
> non-existent in the MMR. Material has been deposited in the adjacent
> main channel border area. Recovery times for these sites have not been
> well documented, but may take a year or longer. Researchers for the
> Illinois Natural History Survey found no recolonization of sand
> dredged material disposal sites within one year following disposal on
> the Illinois River (Stevenson and Koel 1999). This is consistent with
> information from Lake Erie which indicated that more than a year was
> required to reestablish a community structure similar to unaffected
> areas (Flint 1979). Studies conducted by Sheehan *et al*. (1998)
> indicated pallid sturgeon exhibited a positive selection for main
> channel border habitat. In addition, a recent collection of a
> young-of-the-year pallid sturgeon near Cape Girardeau, Missouri,
> occurred in main channel border habitat on an inside bend point bar
> (Petersen and Herzog 1999). This indicates that both rearing and/or
> feeding areas for adult and juvenile pallid sturgeon, and potentially
> larval pallid sturgeon, have been adversely affected by past dredge
> disposal practices.
>
> Dredging disturbs bottom sediments and associated contaminants. Main
> channel dredge cut sediment is periodically sampled and analyzed to
> determine bulk chemical concentrations of contaminants for use in
> assessing the water quality effects of dredging. However,
> concentrations of some contaminants (e.g., PCB=s chloradane, dieldrin
> and DDE) occur below detection levels in sediment, but accumulate in
> fish (Mike Coffey, USFWS, pers. comm.). Although dredge material
> consists mainly of sand, some amount of silts are disturbed during the
> dredging process. In addition, some contaminated materials exist as
> sand-sized particles and can be transported in the bed load (Mike
> Coffey, USFWS, pers. comm.). The concentrations of some contaminants,
> such as PCB=s, have been homogenized in the Mississippi River due to
> repeated deposition and resuspension of contaminated silts (Rostad *et
> al*. 1995). No analysis of the effects of dredging on the mass balance
> of contaminant mobilization and transport in the UMR has been
> conducted (USACE 1999b). It is likely that dredging contributed to
> some degree to the homogenization of contaminant concentrations in the
> Mississippi River and potentially contributed to the transference of
> contaminants downstream.
>
> A recent sturgeon health assessment in the MMR suggests that pallid
> sturgeon are at risk from exposure to contaminants present in their
> habitat (Coffey *et al*. 1999). This study found evidence of possible
> endocrine disruption, which has the potential to cause reproductive
> impairment (USGS 1998). Coffey *et al*. (1999) also noted a
> significant difference between reference site sturgeon and MMR
> sturgeon for some organochlorine chemicals. This has likely resulted
> in reduced fish health and reproductive impairment.
>
> 8.2.2.4 Commercial Navigation Traffic
>
> Commercial navigation traffic has adversely affected pallid sturgeon
> directly through entrainment mortality. However, the degree of impact
> is uncertain. Studies have been conducted to determine the impacts of
> commercial navigation on aquatic resources as a result of the current
> Navigation Systems Study for the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois
> Rivers. Gutreuter *et al*. (1998) developed a method for estimation of
> tow-induced mortality of adult fishes in commercially navigated
> waterways. However, the results of the study to estimate entrainment
> mortality of adult fish are indeterminate due to high variance. Based
> on their results, they cannot determine whether towboat entrainment is
> an important source of mortality for fish species that utilize the
> main channel. However, they state that a prudent interim conclusion is
> that entrainment mortality of certain larger fishes, such as
> shovelnose sturgeon, may be an important factor influencing their
> abundance and dynamics in the Upper Mississippi River System. In
> addition, the ancillary estimates of kills of \>adult= shovelnose
> sturgeon were 2.4 fish/km of tow travel. As pallid sturgeon and
> shovelnose sturgeon exhibit similar life history characteristics,
> pallid sturgeon may have been significantly affected by entrainment
> mortality, however, as yet there have been no studies to determine the
> effect on pallid sturgeon populations. It should be noted that
> according to the Corps, independent statisticians that reviewed the
> Gutreuter *et al*. (1998) draft report indicated that the use of
> ancillary estimates of fish kills was inappropriate.
>
> 8.2.2.5 Commercial and Sport Fishing for Sturgeon
>
> Mortality of pallid sturgeon occurs as a result of illegal and
> incidental harvest from both sport and commercial fishing activities.
> In addition, such illegal and incidental harvest may skew pallid
> sturgeon sex ratios such that hybridization with shovelnose sturgeon
> is exacerbated.
>
> Historically, pallid, shovelnose and lake sturgeon were commercially
> harvested on the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers (Helms 1974). The
> larger lake and pallid sturgeon were sought for their eggs which were
> sold for caviar, whereas, shovelnose sturgeon were destroyed as a
> bycatch. Commercial harvest of all sturgeon has declined substantially
> since record keeping began in the late 1800\'s. Most commercial catch
> records for sturgeon have not differentiated between species. Combined
> harvests as high as 195,450 kg were recorded in the Mississippi River
> in the early 1890\'s, but had declined to less than 9,100 kg by 1950
> (Carlander 1954). Lower harvests reflected a decline in shovelnose
> sturgeon abundance since the early 1900\'s (Pflieger 1975).
>
> Currently, only a sport and/or aboriginal fishery exists for lake
> sturgeon due to such low population levels (Todd 1998). Shovelnose
> sturgeon is commercially harvested in eight states, including Illinois
> and Missouri (Todd 1998) and a sport fishing season exists in a number
> of states (Mosher 1998). Although information on the commercial
> harvest of shovelnose sturgeon is limited, Illinois reported the
> commercial harvest of shovelnose sturgeon was 19,689 kg of flesh and
> 106 kg of eggs in 1997 and Missouri reported harvest of 3,700 kg of
> flesh and an unknown quantity of eggs (Todd 1998). Missouri also has a
> sport fishery for shovelnose sturgeon but has limited data on the
> quantities harvested (Mosher 1998).
>
> Sturgeon species, in general, are highly vulnerable to impacts from
> fishing mortality due to unusual combinations of morphology, habits
> and life history characteristics (Boreman 1997). In 1990, the head of
> a pallid sturgeon was found at a sport-fish cleaning station in South
> Dakota, and in 1992 a pallid sturgeon was found dead in a commercial
> fisherman=s hoop net in Louisiana. In 1997, four pallid sturgeon were
> found in an Illinois fish market (Sheehan *et al*. 1997b). Currently,
> there are no methods to differentiate between pallid and shovelnose
> sturgeon eggs. It is probable that pallid sturgeon are significantly
> affected by the illegal take of eggs for the caviar market.
>
> Sheehan *et al*. (1997b) speculated that incidental harvest of pallid
> sturgeon by the commercial shovelnose sturgeon fishery may be a factor
> in hybridization between the two species. Male pallid sturgeon reach
> sexual maturity at 5-7 years while females reach sexual maturity at
> approximately 15 years (Keenlyne and Jenkins 1993, Keenlyne *et al*.
> 1992). For this reason, females are at a greater risk of mortality
> before maturity and, as such, incidental or illegal harvest of female
> pallid sturgeon may skew the sex ratios. This would then possibly
> increase the incidence of hybridization as mature male pallid
> sturgeon, unable to find mature females, spawn with shovelnose
> sturgeon (Sheehan *et al*. 1997b). Sheehan *et al*. (1997b) and
> Carlson and Pflieger (1981) noted a 3:2 ratio of hybrid sturgeon to
> pallid sturgeon. Sheehan *et al*. (1997b) speculated that if this is
> representative of the sturgeon population in the MMR, hybridization
> may pose a significant threat to pallid sturgeon as the species
> continues to introgress with shovelnose sturgeon.
>
> 8.2.2.6 Commercial Sand and Gravel Dredging
>
> Commercial sand and gravel dredging operations adversely affect pallid
> sturgeon due to (1) reduced quantity and availability of spawning
> habitat; (2) reduced availability and quantity of forage organisms;
> and (3) by contributing to the transference of contaminants,
> potentially affecting pallid sturgeon reproductive success.
>
> The Service has completed a number of informal Section 7 consultations
> with the St. Louis District, Corps of Engineers on the effects of
> reissuing commercial sand and gravel dredging permits in the MMR. As a
> result of these consultations, permit conditions restrict dredging
> operations to defined river reaches within the channel to avoid
> impacts to aquatic habitats, which may be important to pallid sturgeon
> (e.g., side channels, tributary mouths, point bars, shallow water).
> These conditions have been implemented for many years to protect
> aquatic habitats. Currently, permit conditions also prohibit dredging
> of gravel during the pallid sturgeon spawning season. However,
> dredging of gravel outside the spawning season may affect the quantity
> and availability of spawning habitat.
>
> Commercial dredging principally occurs in the main channel border
> area. Dredging in these areas destroys the benthic macroinvertebrate
> community. Macroinvertebrate recolonization of dredged areas may take
> a year or longer. According to Sheehan *et al*. (1998), pallid
> sturgeon exhibited a positive selection for main channel border
> habitat, indicating this is possibly a preferred habitat type.
> Commercial dredging operations typically dredge in the same locations
> regularly, which tend to be depositional areas. Locally, such
> operations may increase short-term turbidity and affect the
> availability of food resources for pallid sturgeon.
>
> Dredging disturbs bottom sediments and associated contaminants.
> Although the dredged material consists mainly of sand, some amounts of
> silts are disturbed during the dredging process. The concentrations of
> some contaminants, such as PCB=s, have been homogenized in the
> Mississippi River due to repeated deposition and resuspension of
> contaminated silts (Rostad *et al*. 1995). It is likely that
> commercial sand and gravel dredging has contributed to some degree to
> the homogenization of contaminant concentrations in the Mississippi
> River, and potentially, contributed to the transference of
> contaminants downstream.
>
> A recent sturgeon health assessment in the MMR suggests that pallid
> sturgeon are at risk from exposure to contaminants present in their
> habitat (Coffey *et al*. 1999). This study found evidence of possible
> endocrine disruption, which has the potential to cause reproductive
> impairment (USGS 1998). Coffey *et al*. (1999) also noted a
> significant difference between reference site sturgeon and MMR
> sturgeon for some organochlorine chemicals. This may result in reduced
> fish health and reproductive impairment.
>
> 8.2.2.7 Flood Control Projects
>
> Flood control projects in the MMR have adversely affected pallid
> sturgeon by (1) decreasing the availability of habitat for all life
> stages, including the loss of seasonal refugia and feeding areas; and
> (2) reducing riverine productivity, thereby, affecting the natural
> forage base of pallid sturgeon.
>
> Approximately 80% of the floodplain in the MMR (approximately 500,000
> acres) has been isolated from the main channel due to levee
> construction. Interior drainage ditches and large pumps drain
> groundwater seepage (Theiling 1999) and interior floodflows. This has
> allowed the conversion of floodplain habitats to agriculture and other
> land uses. Isolated backwaters, side channels and wetlands have been
> degraded due to incompatible agricultural practices, poor stormwater
> management and sedimentation. Destruction and isolation of these
> important floodplain features has reduced riverine productivity
> (Theiling *et al*. 1999) by decreasing energy inputs (organic matter,
> carbon) into the main channel. Isolation of wetlands reduces their
> habitat value to riverine fish, which make seasonal movements to
> backwaters and floodplains (USACE 1999b). Levees also contribute to
> increased flood heights and increased water level variability because
> floodwaters are confined in a smaller cross-sectional area (Belt 1975,
> Chen and Simons 1986, Bellrose *et al*. 1983). As a result, flood
> control projects in the MMR may have affected the production of forage
> food organisms for pallid sturgeon (macroinvertebrates and fish) and
> may have isolated pallid sturgeon from important rearing/feeding areas
> and seasonal refugia.
>
> 8.2.2.8 Fleeting
>
> Fleeting has adversely affected pallid sturgeon by (1) reducing the
> natural forage base of pallid sturgeon; (2) resuspending sediments
> that may be contaminated, thus, affecting pallid sturgeon
> reproduction; and (3) potentially causing direct mortality due to
> towboat entrainment.
>
> Fleeting areas are typically constructed within main channel border
> habitats. Towboats maneuvering within fleeting areas cause
> resuspension of sediments. In addition, fleeting areas may
> occasionally require dredging, which also disturbs bottom sediments.
> As such, fleeting operations likely affect macroinvertebrate
> production on a local scale. According to the work of Sheehan *et al*.
> (1998), pallid sturgeon exhibited a strong preference for main channel
> border habitat. It is difficult to determine to what degree fleeting
> may have affected pallid sturgeon. However, fleeting adversely affects
> the natural forage base of pallid sturgeon, and may cause resuspension
> of contaminated sediments, thereby, potentially reducing pallid
> sturgeon reproductive capacity.
>
> Towboats maneuver and reconfigure barges in fleeting areas. Gutreuter
> *et al*. (1998) could not determine whether towboat entrainment is an
> important source of mortality of fish species that utilize the main
> channel as the results of the study to estimate tow-induced mortality
> of adult fish are indeterminate due to high variance. The results of
> this study indicate that main channel fish are susceptible to
> mortality due to propeller strikes. Therefore, it is likely that
> fleeting has caused some degree of fish mortality. However, the effect
> of this mortality on pallid sturgeon is unknown.
>
> 8.2.2.9 Missouri River Impoundments
>
> Missouri River impoundments have adversely affected pallid sturgeon in
> the MMR due to (1) reduced substrate diversity, and therefore, reduced
> reproductive success; (2) increased predation; (3) increased
> competition with other species due to species composition shifts; and
> (4) reduced pallid sturgeon foraging success.
>
> The MMR currently receives about 80% of its average suspended sediment
> load from the Missouri River and 20% from the UMR watershed. The
> sediment load is 109.8 million tons/year. This represents a 66%
> decline from pre-1935 levels, mainly due to retention by Missouri
> River reservoirs (Fremling *et al*. 1989). This lack of sediment
> delivery upset the natural channel equilibrium and was replaced by a
> variety of nonequilibrium processes such as hydraulic sorting and bed
> paving, which eventually will eliminate all sediment movement (USFWS
> 1993). This has already occurred to some extent and resulted in
> reduced bed roughness, and therefore, reduced substrate diversity
> (USFWS 1993). Little is known about the specific spawning requirements
> of pallid sturgeon; however, they have adhesive eggs, which means that
> a firm substrate with moderate flow is required for spawning.
> Reduction in substrate has likely eliminated or reduced pallid
> sturgeon spawning habitat and may have lead to hybridization with the
> closely related shovelnose sturgeon.
>
> The associated turbidity caused by suspended sediment also provided
> the pallid sturgeon and other native fish, adapted to living in a
> nearly sightless world, with cover while moving from one snag or
> undercut bank to another. Today, as a result of decreased sediment
> load, water clarity has increased dramatically, and this essential
> cover is gone. Under such conditions, predation by sight-feeding
> predators can be expected to significantly impact native species not
> equipped by evolution with good eyesight. For this reason larval and
> juvenile pallid sturgeon are subject to increased probability of
> predation.
>
> It is also suspected that reduced turbidity has affected food
> availability by changing species composition and by making it more
> difficult for pallid sturgeon, and other native species, to capture
> prey in the clearer water environment. In the Missouri River, pelagic
> planktivores and sight-feeding carnivores have increased in abundance,
> whereas species specialized for life in the turbid, predevelopment
> river (like pallid sturgeon) have decreased in abundance (Pflieger and
> Grace 1987). Similar changes in species composition are also occurring
> the MMR (Bob Hrabik, MoDOC, LTRM Station, pers. comm.). This change in
> community structure is less apparent where changes in the natural
> hydrograph, temperature regime, and turbidity are less pronounced
> (USFWS 1993). Therefore, pallid sturgeon are subjected to increased
> competition for available food resources and their ability to capture
> prey has been impaired.
>
> 8.2.2.10 Avoid and Minimize Program
>
> In October 1992, the St. Louis District issued Design Memorandum No.
> 24, AAvoid and Minimize Measures@ developed as a result of commitments
> made in the Record of Decision of the Environmental Impact Statement
> for the Second Lock at Melvin Price Locks and Dam. The purpose of the
> Avoid and Minimize Program is to implement various measures to avoid
> and minimize impacts associated with operation and maintenance of the
> 9-Foot Channel Project.
>
> The Avoid and Minimize Program is beneficially affecting pallid
> sturgeon by restoring/enhancing habitat in the MMR. Projects completed
> to date have improved habitat complexity in the MMR and potentially
> have benefitted pallid sturgeon due to (1) increasing access to a side
> channel; (2) increasing seasonal refugia diversity; and (3) increasing
> the forage base of pallid sturgeon by improving the nutrient cycling
> ability of a side channel.
>
> In 1997, six short stub dikes and bank revetment were placed in Santa
> Fe Chute between river miles 35-40(L). The purpose of the structures
> was to restore habitat diversity by creating a meandering channel and
> restoring water depth diversity in the side channel. Physical
> monitoring thus far indicates the upper two dikes have created scour
> holes approximately 20 feet in depth and hydroacoustic soundings also
> suggest the desired thalweg meander was forming (USACE 1997). However,
> the stub dikes were not built to micro-model specifications. Bed
> material in the sidechannel has been redistributed, and as a result,
> has exacerbated filling of the lower end of the side channel (Jenney
> Frazier, MoDOC LTRM Station, pers. comm.). Currently, there is
> insufficient data to assess the project=s impact on biological
> communities and the chute=s limnology (Frazier 1998).
>
> Also in 1997, hard points were placed in the side channel between the
> mainland and the sandbar at Owl Creek, river miles 84-86(R). Although
> the purpose of this project was to isolate an existing sandbar to
> improve nesting habitat for least terns; the hardpoints create a flow
> in the side channel that induces scour and creates a deeper channel;
> which contributes to overall aquatic habitat diversity (USACE 1997).
> This project has benefitted pallid sturgeon by increasing seasonal
> refugia diversity.
>
> In 1998, the upper closing structure of Marquette Chute, river mile
> 51.0(R), was modified by placing a series of shallow notches in the
> structure. The idea was to create a Astring of pools@ which may
> someday connect to each other downstream of the closing structure. Two
> of the notches were designed to enhance an existing half-acre, shallow
> pool located on the adjacent sand bar. The intent was to increase the
> wetted edge of this seasonal, temporary habitat for wading birds and
> to provide more water for amphibians and reptiles (Frazier and Hrabik
> 1998). This project has benefitted pallid sturgeon by increasing
> access to the side channel, increasing seasonal refugia diversity and
> increasing the nutrient cycling ability of the side channel, thereby,
> increasing the forage base of pallid sturgeon.
>
> The Avoid and Minimize Program was originally proposed for
> implementation from 1994 to 2000 with an estimated cost of
> approximately 14 million dollars (2 million/year). After 2000, the
> program is to be completely absorbed into the normal operation and
> maintenance program or become a part of the Integrated River
> Management Program (USACE 1992). Due to recovery efforts from the
> Great Flood of 1993, program construction did not become active until
> 1995 (USACE 1995). Since that time, the program has been extended to
> 2002 but funding has been reduced to 1-1.5 millions dollars/year
> (USACE 1997). Funding for the Avoid and Minimize Program is currently
> divided between the impounded reaches of the St. Louis District (Pools
> 24, 25 and 26) and the MMR with work in the MMR beginning in 1997.
>
> The projects constructed by the Avoid and Minimize Program have served
> to increase aquatic habitat diversity in the MMR. This is a benefit to
> the pallid sturgeon, which is adapted to a dynamic environment with
> diverse habitat components. In addition, physical and biological
> monitoring has provided data that may be used to further refine
> structures for environmental benefits. However, the Avoid and Minimize
> Program can only implement small-scale improvements given funding
> limitations and the necessity to distribute those resources over a
> large area of river (approximately 300 miles).
>
> 8.2.2.11 Refuge Land Acquisition and Management
>
> Refuge land acquisition and management is beneficially affecting
> pallid sturgeon by restoring/enhancing habitat in the MMR. Benefits
> include improved access to off-channel habitat during flood stages and
> increasing the natural forage base of pallid sturgeon by improving the
> nutrient cycling ability of the MMR.
>
> Prior to the Flood of 1993, public land ownership in the MMR was
> virtually nonexistent. However, following the Flood of 1993, many
> private landowners and levee and drainage districts expressed the
> desire to sell their flood prone property. In response, Congress
> appropriated funding for the Emergency Wetland Reserve Program of the
> Department of Agriculture and for the Fish and Wildlife Service
> (Service) to assist with purchasing property from landowners who had
> been plagued by flooding and wanted to dispose of their flood prone
> property.
>
> The Service completed an Environmental Assessment in 1995 that
> evaluated four locations (totaling 11,400 acres) of floodplain habitat
> in the MMR which contained unprotected wetlands, cropland and aquatic
> areas. The four specific areas identified included:
>
> 1\) Meissner Island, 1,650 acres in Monroe County, Illinois at river
> miles 153 - 156;
>
> 2\) Harlow Island, 1,050 acres in Jefferson County, Missouri at river
> miles 141 - 145;
>
> 3\) Wilkinson Island, 2,700 acres in Jackson County, Illinois and
> Perry County, Missouri at river miles 88 - 94, and;
>
> 4\) Powers Island, 6,000 acres in Scott County, Missouri at river
> miles 34 - 39 (USFWS 1995).
>
> To date the Service has purchased 1,224 acres on Harlow Island, 2,532
> acres on Wilkinson Island and less than 100 acres on Meissner Island.
> These areas are part of the Mark Twain National Wildlife Refuge
> (MTNWR) for management and administrative purposes. The purchased
> lands contribute to MTNWR goals and objectives by restoring habitat
> conditions on lands that will also increase floodplain functionality
> and the ecological integrity of the river. Acquisition of the
> properties has allowed flood-damaged agricultural lands to return to a
> more natural state by minimizing the reliance on levees and restoring
> the natural functions of the Mississippi River floodplain through
> re-connection with the river. This re-connection improves riverine
> fish access, including pallid sturgeon, to off-channel areas during
> flood stages. Restoration of habitat and improved floodplain function
> will increase organic matter and carbon inputs into the river locally
> while reducing nitrate input. This nutrient cycling function will
> benefit aquatic resources, including pallid sturgeon, in this portion
> of the river.
>
> 8.2.2.12 Land-Use Changes
>
> Land-use changes in the UMR basin have affected channel morphology in
> the MMR and thus have contributed to changes in quantity, quality and
> diversity of aquatic habitat. Due to the incredibly complex nature of
> how these land-use changes interact to affect channel morphology, the
> long time period which must be considered and the various changes in
> land-use and land management practices during that time that have
> affected the movement of sediment and water throughout the system, it
> is unclear how land-use change may have affected pallid sturgeon.
>
> River channel morphology is formed by the movement of sediment and
> water in relation to the material locally available in the bed and
> banks (Brookes 1996). A natural channel is neither straight nor
> uniform (Brookes 1996). Hydraulic and morphological variability
> through space and time determine the different habitats found both
> within a given river channel and also in the adjacent riparian and
> floodplain zones (Brookes 1996). A number of hydraulic factors
> determine the cross-sectional shape, pool-riffle formation and meander
> shape of alluvial river channels. This includes depth, slope and
> velocity which produce bank erosion and sediment transport (Brookes
> 1996).
>
> Land-use changes in the drainage basin (e.g., agriculture, forestry,
> mining, grazing and urbanization) alter runoff and sediment yield
> relationships (Brookes 1996). These land-use changes have an indirect
> effect on channel characteristics by altering depth, slope and
> velocity. Land-use change in the central portion of the UMR basin was
> accelerated with development of the moldboard plow in 1837, and, after
> World War II with the shift toward intensive mechanized row crop
> farming (Theiling 1999).
>
> Theiling (1999) noted that land-use and land management practices
> within the basin have increased the rates of upland erosion and
> discharge of sediment from tributaries to the UMR over presettlement
> rates (Knox *et al*. 1975, Knox 1977, Demissie *et al*. 1992). Upland
> erosion and UMR tributary sediment yields in Wisconsin were highest
> during periods of intensive farming and runoff during the 1850\'s
> through the 1920\'s, with erosion rates declining since then because
> of improved land-management practices (Knox *et al*. 1975, Trimble and
> Lund 1982; Trimble 1983).
>
> However, large amounts of sediment has been stored in the banks and
> beds of tributaries during the past century (Knox 1977, Demissie *et
> al*. 1992). According to Demissie *et al*. (1992) it may take 100-200
> years for these sediments to be transported from tributary streams.
> Even so, the discharge of sediment from many tributaries to the UMR,
> exclusive of the Missouri River, has increased substantially over
> presettlement rates (Knox *et al*. 1975, Knox 1977, Demissie *et al*.
> 1992, Soballe and Wiener 1999). Much of this sediment is being held in
> the impoundments of the UMR.
>
> These land-use changes work in combination with a number of other
> factors in highly altered river environments. Dam construction and
> channelization also affect the movement of sediment and water through
> river systems, affecting channel morphology (Brookes 1996). For this
> reason, the effect of land-use change on MMR channel morphology, and
> therefore, aquatic habitat, is incredibly complex. It is not possible
> to quantify the effect land-use changes have had on the quantity,
> quality and diversity of habitat in the MMR, and therefore, pallid
> sturgeon. However, we can say that those changes have contributed to
> some degree to changes in channel morphology, and therefore, aquatic
> habitat composition.
>
> 8.2.3 Summary
>
> As explained in the status section, pallid sturgeon were historically
> more abundant. The decline in pallid sturgeon numbers and distribution
> were coincidental with flood control and navigation projects. Since
> such projects, pallid sturgeon collection has been rare. Despite this
> rarity, there is recent evidence of reproduction in MMR. Successful
> recruitment appears rare, and thus, the extent to which MMR currently
> provides suitable spawning and larval rearing habitat is unknown.
>
> Many factors have influenced pallid sturgeon habitat availability and
> abundance in the MMR, with the most pervasive effect being a decrease
> in habitat quantity and quality as a result of channel training
> structures, lock and dams, dredging and disposal, commercial sand and
> gravel dredging, fleeting operations, and impoundment of the Missouri
> River. An apparent secondary effect caused by this habitat loss is
> hybridization between pallid and shovelnose sturgeon. Similarly,
> changes in habitat quality has also impaired the pallid sturgeon=s
> ability to compete for food resources and rendered the species more
> vulnerable to predation.
>
> As a result of these factors, pallid sturgeon numbers and distribution
> within the action area have appreciably declined.

8.3 Effects of the Action

> 8.3.1 Direct Effects
>
> Aquatic features in rivers and floodplains are transient (Leopold *et
> al*. 1964, Shields and Abt 1989, Salo 1990, Amoros 1990). Natural
> river systems are subject to high and low flow events and biological
> processes that can cause rapid changes in successional stage of a
> particular river feature (Theiling *et al*. 1999). A natural channel
> is neither straight nor uniform (Brookes 1996). Hydraulic and
> morphologic variability through space and time determine the different
> habitats found both within a given river channel and also in the
> adjacent riparian and floodplain zones (Brookes 1996).
>
> The proposed project (operation and maintenance of the 9-Foot Channel
> Project) will continue to arrest some of the natural processes that
> provide dynamic physical change in rivers (Theiling 1999). As
> explained previously, the dynamic equilibrium of the MMR has been
> interrupted and replaced by unstable processes and hydraulic and
> morphologic variability has declined as the result of past operation
> and maintenance activities. This disruption will have continuing,
> ongoing effects. The result will be continued homogenization of the
> river system and degradation of aquatic habitat.
>
> Since pallid sturgeon require diverse and dynamic habitats, it is
> likely that this species will be extirpated from the MMR. The
> elimination of this genetic conduit between the Lower Missouri River
> and the Lower Mississippi River will significantly reduce the
> survival, growth and recovery of the species throughout its range.
>
> 8.3.1.1 Operation of the 9-Foot Channel Project
>
> 8.3.1.1.1 Water Level Regulation
>
> Water level regulation will continue to affect pallid sturgeon by
> affecting the quantity and quality of aquatic habitat in the MMR,
> thus, (1) reducing larval and juvenile rearing habitat; (2) reducing
> the availability of seasonal refugia; and (3) reducing the natural
> forage base of pallid sturgeon by reducing nutrient cycling in the
> MMR.
>
> During previous discussions with the Corps for preparation of the
> biological assessment, we concluded that water level regulation
> effects were not applicable to pallid sturgeon. However, in further
> reviewing this issue, we believe this is not the case. Dams were
> constructed on the UMR for the specific purpose of increasing low and
> moderate flow water surface elevations to maintain a continuous
> nine-foot navigation channel. Wlosinski (1999) found that water
> surface elevations in the MMR decreased at the same low discharge of
> 60,000 cfs during the period 1880 to present. This downward trend is
> likely to continue as a result of the proposed project. This downward
> shift in annual minimum stages has been attributed primarily to the
> degradation of the low water channel due to channel constriction by
> wingdams and levees (Simons *et al*. 1974). The MMR receives 60% of
> its flow from the Mississippi River basin (Fremling *et al*. 1989). It
> is likely that holding water to maintain a 9-Foot Channel in the pools
> contributes to the low water surface elevations in the MMR at low
> discharges. Therefore, water level regulation contributes to water
> level fluctuations in aquatic habitats in the MMR. This can affect the
> availability of larval and juvenile rearing habitat and the
> availability of seasonal refugia. In addition, loss of aquatic habitat
> will reduce the nutrient cycling ability of the MMR, therefore,
> reducing the natural forage base of pallid sturgeon.
>
> 8.3.1.1.2 Impoundment
>
> Impoundment due to construction of dams on the UMR will continue to
> affect pallid sturgeon by (1) blocking migration routes; (2) reducing
> substrate diversity, therefore, reducing the availability of spawning
> habitat; (3) increasing hybridization with shovelnose sturgeon through
> reduced substrate diversity (e.g., spawning habitat); (4) increasing
> the risk of predation by other fish; (5) increasing competition with
> other fish; and (6) decreasing pallid sturgeon foraging capability.
>
> Impoundment of the UMR has effectively converted much of the
> free-flowing, lotic river habitat to a lentic, pooled condition which
> is unsuitable for pallid sturgeon. The dams are physical barriers
> which potentially inhibit upstream migration of riverine fish,
> including pallid and/or shovelnose sturgeon. Gravel bars and other
> habitats have filled with sediment due to the lotic conditions. It is
> uncertain to what degree pallid sturgeon may have historically
> utilized the UMR above the mouth of the Missouri River. However, to
> some degree operation of UMR dams continues to reduce the availability
> of pallid sturgeon spawning habitat, and potentially, block pallid
> sturgeon migration routes. Operation of UMR dams may also block the
> migration of shovelnose sturgeon leading to increased instances of
> hybridization as the two species compete for suitable spawning habitat
> (Steve Krentz, USFWS, pers. comm.).
>
> The UMR contributes approximately 20% of the suspended sediment load
> to the MMR (Tuttle and Pinner 1982). Impoundment due to UMR dams will
> continue to contribute to the reduction of sediment to the MMR.
> Theiling (1999) found that navigation pools may continue to accumulate
> this sediment. The lack of sediment delivery upset the natural channel
> equilibrium. This has been replaced by a variety of nonequilibrium
> processes, such as, hydraulic sorting and bed paving, which will
> eventually eliminate all sediment movement (USFWS 1993). This has
> already occurred to some extent and has resulted in reduced bed
> roughness, and therefore, reduced substrate diversity (USFWS 1993).
> Because the system is not at equilibrium, substrate diversity will
> continue to decline. Reduced substrate diversity will reduce pallid
> sturgeon spawning habitat, thereby, reducing reproductive success
> and/or result in increased hybridization with the closely related
> shovelnose sturgeon.
>
> Impoundments will continue to contribute to reduced suspended sediment
> (i.e., turbidity), which provides essential cover for pallid sturgeon.
> Under such conditions, predation by sight-feeding predators can be
> expected to significantly impact native species not equipped with good
> eyesight. This effect of impoundment is ongoing. For this reason,
> pallid sturgeon continue to be subject to increased probability of
> predation.
>
> As explained previously, it is suspected that reduced turbidity
> affects food availability by changing species composition and by
> making it more difficult for pallid sturgeon, and other native species
> to capture prey in the clearer water environment. Therefore, it is
> expected that species composition in the MMR will continue to change
> with a shift to species adapted to clear water environments. This will
> lead to an increase in competition for species less adapted to this
> altered environment (clear water). That is, pallid sturgeon will
> likely face increased competition for available food resources and
> their ability to capture prey will continue to be adversely affected.
>
> 8.3.1.2 Maintenance of the 9-Foot Channel Project
>
> Maintenance of the 9-Foot Channel Project consists of channel
> maintenance dredging and disposal, maintenance of existing channel
> training structures and construction of new channel training
> structures. These activities will work in combination to significantly
> alter the natural processes that provide dynamic physical change in
> the MMR (Theiling 1999). Such changes will continue to affect the
> pallid sturgeon in numerous ways.
>
> a\. Changes in river processes result in continued habitat loss and
> modification.
>
> The environmental baseline section of this biological opinion
> describes how channel training structures/revetments have altered the
> MMR and its aquatic environments. Humans have manipulated the UMR
> system and arrested some of the natural processes that provided
> dynamic physical changes in the rivers (Theiling 1999). Early snag
> removal destroyed the structural complexity of the channel
> environment. In the natural river, snags and log jams would cause
> scour and filling that provided a highly variable river bottom. Bank
> stabilization has largely arrested meander cuts and bank erosion.
> Wingdams have constrained the river width (Shields 1995) and incised
> the channel (Simons *et al*. 1975a, Wlosinski 1999). Closing
> structures have isolated side channels and accelerated their rate of
> filling. This is a significant change in the habitats to which the
> pallid sturgeon is adapted (e.g., braided channels, irregular flow
> patterns, flood cycles, extensive microhabitat diversity and turbid
> waters). Continued maintenance of the 9-Foot Channel Project will
> result in further homogenization of the river environment, and thus,
> cause further declines in habitat quality, quantity and diversity.
>
> As explained in the Status and Environmental Baseline sections, the
> implications of such loss include: (1) reduced substrate diversity,
> thus, reduced availability of spawning habitat; (2) reduced
> availability of larval and juvenile rearing habitat; (3) reduced
> availability of seasonal refugia; (4) reduced quantity and
> availability of forage food; (5) increased incidence of hybridization
> with shovelnose sturgeon; and (6) continued transference and
> homogenization of contaminants in the river system, which may reduce
> fish health and impair reproduction.
>
> This has great implications for the pallid sturgeon, since the MMR
> represents one of only two areas within the range of the species in
> which evidence of successful reproduction has been noted in recent
> years.
>
> b\. Loss of habitat quality, quantity and diversity will likely result
> in extirpation of pallid sturgeon from the MMR, thus reducing the
> genetic continuity of the species.
>
> The MMR represents an important genetic conduit between the Lower
> Missouri River and the Lower Mississippi River. The sturgeons, as a
> group, exhibit potadromy and occupy different habitats throughout
> their life cycle. Adult pallid sturgeon may range over distances of 60
> or more miles (Bramblett 1996, Sheehan *et al*. 1998) in search of
> suitable habitat. In addition, larval sturgeon may drift for distances
> of over 400 miles depending on current velocity (Steve Krentz, USFWS,
> pers. comm.). These particular life history characteristics underscore
> the importance of the interconnectedness of the Missouri and
> Mississippi Rivers in terms of pallid sturgeon population biology. The
> interconnectedness of these river systems helps maintain the genetic
> connectivity and continuity of pallid sturgeon by ensuring that
> genetic material is dispersed throughout the population and genetic
> diversity is maintained.
>
> Continued maintenance of the 9-Foot Channel Project is expected to
> result in homogenization of the MMR, essentially making the MMR
> unsuitable to pallid sturgeon. Hence, pallid sturgeon are likely to be
> extirpated from this area. Therefore, important spawning and
> larval/juvenile rearing habitat will be eliminated and the genetic
> conduit between the Lower Missouri River and the Lower Mississippi
> River will be impaired. Furthermore, as the MMR is interconnected with
> the Lower Missouri and Lower Mississippi rivers, any adverse impact to
> the MMR population will undoubtably influence the viability of the
> populations occurring in these river reaches as well.
>
> c\. Altered environments may lead to increased hybridization with
> shovelnose sturgeon, thus altering the genetic integrity of the
> species.
>
> As explained previously, data suggest that hybridization between
> pallid and shovelnose sturgeon is a recent phenomenon as a result of
> human-induced reductions in habitat diversity and measurable changes
> in variables such as turbidity, flow regimes, and substrate types
> (Carlson *et al*. 1995). Data also suggest that pallid sturgeon and
> shovelnose sturgeon are reproductively isolated in less-altered
> habitats, such as portions of the Upper Missouri River (Campton *et
> al*. 1995). Based on these data, we believe that as maintenance
> activities degrade and eliminate habitat, pallid and shovelnose
> sturgeon will be forced to further share spawning habitats, which
> would not have occurred under non-degraded conditions. Thus, continued
> maintenance will exacerbate degradation of present habitat conditions
> to the extent that we believe the incidence of hybridization will
> increase. This not only decreases reproductive success but could also
> lead to genetic swamping and loss of the MMR pallid sturgeon
> population.
>
> d\. Nutrient cycling disruption due to changes in river processes that
> inhibit or reduce floodplain inputs into the river, affecting the
> forage base of pallid sturgeon.
>
> As explained in the environmental baseline section, channel training
> structures (e.g., wingdams, revetments) cause the disruption of
> natural geomorphic processes (e.g., channel meandering, erosion,
> deposition) and hydrologic variation in the MMR, which will reduce
> riverine productivity. This loss of nutrient inputs reduces
> invertebrate and fish production which are the primary forage foods of
> pallid sturgeon. Channel training structures are typically constructed
> of rock which adds microhabitat/substrate diversity and complexity
> leading to increases in macroinvertebrate production on a local scale
> but do not contribute organic matter or carbon to the riverine system.
> In addition, different types of insects grow on different types of
> substrates. The declines in insect abundance and diversity may be
> linked to changes in fish abundance (Hesse *et al*. 1993). For
> example, flathead chubs primarily use terrestrial insects which fall
> into the river from woody debris protruding from the water or along
> the bank (Hesse *et al*. 1993). Flathead chubs are thought to be
> extirpated from the MMR.
>
> Maintenance of existing channel training structures and future
> construction of such structures will contribute further to the
> disruption of the natural geomorphic processes that inhibit channel
> meandering. This will likely decrease the availability and diversity
> of forage food for pallid sturgeon.
>
> 8.3.1.2.1 Dredging
>
> Dredging will continue to adversely affect pallid sturgeon by (1)
> reducing the availability and quantity of the natural forage base of
> pallid sturgeon; (2) reducing the quantity and availability of
> larval/juvenile and adult habitat; and (3) contributing to the
> transference and homogenization of contaminants, potentially affecting
> pallid sturgeon health and reproductive success. In addition, dredging
> may result in mortality of juvenile pallid sturgeon.
>
> Dredging occurs in depositional areas and channel crossings to
> maintain a nine-foot navigation channel. As explained previously, the
> amount of material dredged in the MMR will vary from year to year
> depending on river stages, and based on past data, there does not
> appear to be a consistent pattern in the locations of dredging
> activities (USACE 1998).
>
> Sheehan *et al*. (1998) documented pallid sturgeon utilizing water
> depths ranging from 1.82 to 19.17 m with 87.7% of all relocations
> occurring in water with maximum depths of 6 to 12 m. This compares
> favorably with the results of other studies, which indicate pallid
> sturgeon may occur in a variety of water depths (Constant *et al*.
> 1997, Bramblett 1996, Erickson 1992). The study sturgeon were
> primarily found in the main channel and main channel border habitats
> with depths in this range. This was not surprising since main channel
> habitat comprised approximately 65% of the available habitat in the
> study reach. Significantly, however, the analysis of habitat data
> indicated a negative selection against main channel habitat more than
> any other habitat. Dredging disturbs main channel habitat, killing the
> resident benthic macroinvertebrates and temporarily leveling the dune
> and swale bed forms. The bed forms re-form rapidly, but
> macroinvertebrate recolonization may take at least one growing season
> (USACE 1999b). Thus, dredging will likely affect the natural forage
> base of pallid sturgeon.
>
> Currently, dredging does not occur during the presumed window of
> pallid sturgeon spawning from 12 April to 30 June (USACE 1999a).
> However, dredging occurs in depositional areas and channel crossings
> to maintain the nine-foot navigation channel. Sheehan *et al*. (1998)
> noted that pallid sturgeon exhibited a strong preference for
> downstream island tips (Sheehan *et al*. 1998), which are typically
> depositional areas, and thus, possibly prime dredging locations. In
> addition, the young-of-the-year pallid sturgeon collected in trawling
> surveys near Cape Girardeau was collected in main channel border
> habitat located on an inside bend sandbar in water depth of
> approximately 2.7 m (Petersen and Herzog 1999). Therefore, dredging in
> depositional areas may also affect the quality and availability of
> larval/juvenile rearing habitat and/or the availability of feeding
> habitat for all age classes.
>
> Dredging also disturbs bottom sediments and associated contaminants as
> discussed in the Environmental Baseline section. Dredging in the MMR
> will likely further contribute to the homogenization of contaminant
> concentrations in the Mississippi River, and potentially, exacerbate
> the transference of contaminants downstream. This may result in
> reduced fish health and reproductive impairment.
>
> Finally, dredging may cause direct larval or juvenile pallid sturgeon
> mortality. Adams *et al*. (1999) found that juvenile pallid sturgeon
> have the capability of occupying habitat that contains water
> velocities ranging from 15-30 cm/sec for extended periods depending on
> size. Adams *et al*. (1999) documented speeds of 55 and 40 cm/sec as
> representing burst swimming speeds for large and small size fish,
> respectively. However, they were unable to measure the entire range of
> burst speeds. Bramblett (1996) and Constant *et al*. (1997) found
> adult pallid sturgeon associated with sand substrate, where fish
> presumably find refuge from currents within deep scour holes or behind
> sand dunes and islands. Adams *et al*. (1999) stated that despite
> lower relative performance, juvenile pallid sturgeon may inhabit high
> velocity macrohabitats by taking advantage of low velocity
> microhabitats. No information has been developed concerning flow
> fields created by dredging in the MMR, therefore, it is unknown if
> juvenile sturgeon, which may be utilizing depositional areas affected
> by dredging, can effectively escape dredging activities.
>
> 8.3.1.2.2 Disposal
>
> Disposal of dredged material will continue to affect pallid sturgeon
> by (1) reducing the quantity and availability of the natural forage
> base of pallid sturgeon; (2) reducing the availability of juvenile and
> adult feeding areas; and (3) reducing the quality and availability of
> juvenile and adult habitat. In addition, disposal activities may
> result in mortality of juvenile pallid sturgeon.
>
> Dredge disposal in the MMR generally occurs in the main channel border
> area. Characteristic water depths utilized by pallid sturgeon is
> variable (Constant *et al*. 1997, Bramblett 1996, Sheehan *et al*.
> 1998). As stated earlier, pallid sturgeon exhibited a positive
> selection of main channel border habitat in terms of use versus
> availability (Sheehan *et al*. 1998). Pallid sturgeon also exhibited a
> strong preference for downstream island tips, which are typically
> depositional areas. Main channel border areas tend to have higher
> concentrations of benthic macroinvertebrates than the main channel due
> to the presence of more favorable substrate (Solomon *et al*. 1974).
> These areas have been found to have higher fish species richness than
> deep water habitats (Tibbs 1995). We believe that these areas also
> provide juvenile rearing habitat (see Status Section). For this
> reason, disposal activities in the main channel border will likely
> reduce the natural forage base of pallid sturgeon, reduce the
> availability of juvenile/adult feeding areas and reduce the
> availability of juvenile rearing habitat.
>
> It is unclear whether juvenile pallid sturgeon occupying main channel
> border or depositional areas have the burst swimming speeds necessary
> to escape disposal activities (Adams *et al*. 1999). Therefore,
> disposal activities may also result in mortality of juvenile pallid
> sturgeon.
>
> 8.3.1.2.3 Snagging and Clearing
>
> A well defined navigation channel has been established in the MMR as a
> result of various channel training structures and is maintained by
> dredging operations. As a result, snagging and clearing operations no
> longer occur in the MMR.
>
> 8.3.1.2.4 Channel Structures/Revetment
>
> 8.3.1.2.4.1 Wingdams
>
> Wingdams are designed to direct flow towards the middle of the
> channel, thus reducing the natural meandering capability of the river.
> Dike systems (wingdams) may cause localized flattening of the channel
> slope, increased roughness, vertical accretion of bars, increases in
> main channel volume, and stage reductions at low discharges (Elliot
> *et al*. 1991). Existing wingdams have the ongoing effect of altering
> natural river processes, thereby, reducing the quality, quantity and
> diversity of habitat in the MMR (see Environmental Baseline section).
> Continued disruption of natural processes will affect pallid sturgeon
> by (1) reducing substrate diversity; (2) reducing the availability of
> larval and juvenile rearing habitat; (3) reducing the availability of
> seasonal refugia; and (4) reducing the nutrient cycling ability of the
> MMR, and therefore, reduce the natural forage base of pallid sturgeon.
> However, wingdams also add substrate diversity to the MMR which
> influences benthic macroinvertebrate production. This may affect
> macroinvertebrate production locally. However, by reducing the channel
> migrational capability, floodplain input (e.g., nutrients and
> substrates) is reduced, and thus, overall macroinvertebrate abundance
> and species richness are reduced.
>
> Wingdam systems in the MMR are maintained for the purpose of
> maintaining the nine-foot navigation channel. As such, they continue
> to reduce the natural meandering capability of the river. Thus, the
> river remains constricted and the channel bottom degraded. River
> migrations that would naturally create new habitat no longer occur. In
> addition, there is evidence that wingdams in the MMR continue to
> accrete sediment and revert to woody habitat, further constricting the
> channel.
>
> Further, wingdams are frequently constructed near the mouths of side
> channels which modifies river hydraulics and hastens side channel
> filling. From 1950 to 1994, Theiling *et al*. (1999) noted the loss of
> approximately 918 acres of secondary channel habitat in the six study
> reaches. Of this amount, approximately 275 acres were lost from 1975
> to 1994. Construction of wingdams near the mouths of side channels is
> at least partially responsible for this loss of habitat. This trend in
> side channel habitat loss is likely to continue as existing structures
> are maintained and new structures are developed.
>
> As a result, wingdams will contribute to further declines in habitats
> to which the pallid sturgeon are adapted (e.g., braided channels,
> irregular flow patterns, flood cycles, extensive microhabitat
> diversity, and turbid waters). That is, wingdams will continue to
> reduce substrate diversity, reduce larval and juvenile rearing habitat
> and the availability of seasonal refugia. Also, continued bed
> degradation and side channel filling is expected to occur in the MMR.
> This affects the connectivity of aquatic habitats to the main channel,
> affecting the availability of seasonal refugia. It also reduces the
> nutrient cycling capability of the MMR which reduces the natural
> forage base of pallid sturgeon.
>
> However, wingdams are constructed of rock riprap. These structures
> contribute to substrate diversity and are colonized by
> macroinvertebrates (Beckett *et al*. 1983, Bingham 1982, Nord
> Schmulbach 1973, Payne *et al*. 1989). This in turn attracts fish
> (Farabee 1986, Pennington *et al*. 1983). Thus, to some degree,
> wingdams contribute to the production of pallid sturgeon forage food.
> In addition, shovelnose sturgeon spawn on wingdams in the main stem of
> larger rivers (Christiansen 1975, Elser *et al*. 1977, Moos 1978,
> Helms 1974). The effect on the reproductive success of pallid sturgeon
> is unclear. Pallid sturgeon may also utilize these areas, due to the
> absence of other substrate types, thus, increasing the incidence of
> hybridization with shovelnose sturgeon. Alternatively, wingdams may
> provide shovelnose sturgeon with additional substrates away from
> pallid sturgeon spawning sites, thus reducing hybridization potential.
>
> According to Shields (1995) and Smith (1986) wingdams are currently
> constructed to avoid accretion of land and constriction of the
> channel; after an initial period of sandbar accretion, the habitat
> stabilizes. A Lower Mississippi River study found that within a short
> period of wingdam construction, aquatic volume and the area of
> associated low-velocity habitats declined. However, after initial
> adjustment, habitat area and volume fluctuated about a condition of
> dynamic equilibrium (Shields 1995). Smith (1986) noted similar
> behavior in MMR dike fields. Over 800 wingdams have been constructed
> in the MMR (Simons *et al*. 1974). Approximately 150 of these have
> been modified to provide better aquatic habitat conditions (Claude
> Strauser, USACE, pers. comm). However, the affect is minimal compared
> to the overall cumulative effects of wingdams in disrupting dynamic
> natural river processes, such as, channel meandering. In addition, the
> results of Theiling *et al*. (1999) indicate that wingdams in the MMR
> continue to accumulate sediment and further reduce channel width.
>
> 8.3.1.2.4.2 Bendway Weirs
>
> Bendway weirs are designed to reduce dredging requirements in river
> bends by controlling point bar development (Davinroy 1990). Bendway
> weirs affect pallid sturgeon by reducing larval and juvenile rearing
> habitat and feeding habitat for all life stages. However, bendway
> weirs also have beneficial effects for pallid sturgeon. These include:
> (1) reducing channel degradation which may reduce water level
> fluctuations in adjacent side channels, thus, increasing the
> availability of larval and juvenile rearing habitat and seasonal
> refugia; (2) increasing substrate diversity which influences
> macroinvertebrate production which in turn increases the natural
> forage base of pallid sturgeon; and (3) reducing the amount of
> dredging needed to maintain the navigation channel.
>
> Based on information collected to date, the effect of bendway weirs on
> pallid sturgeon are inconclusive or may reflect a trade off in terms
> of habitat effects (see Environmental Baseline). Bendway weirs add
> microhabitat/substrate diversity locally, increasing the natural
> forage base of pallid sturgeon, and cause channel aggradation along
> the outside bend which may have some benefit by reducing water level
> fluctuations in adjacent side channels. However, bendway weirs were
> developed to inhibit and control point-bar development in bends and
> depositional areas in channel crossings. These types of habitats are
> thought to be important to pallid sturgeon, particularly larval and
> juvenile life stages. As bendway weirs contribute to inhibiting
> natural processes over time, existing sandbar habitats are likely to
> accrete to woody terrestrial habitat, further reducing habitat
> complexity. In addition, bendway weirs increase flow velocities toward
> the inside bank. It is unclear what impact this may have on fishery
> utilization of these inside bends, although there is a general trend
> for fish to redistribute across the cross-section of the channel.
> Although fish abundance may remain unchanged, it is probable that fish
> species richness is reduced. Tibbs (1995) found that small-fish
> abundance was higher in shallow-water habitats compared to deep-water
> habitats. He also found that small fish species richness was higher in
> shallow-water than in deep-water (Tibbs 1995).
>
> 8.3.1.2.4.3 Bank Revetment/Off-Bank Revetment
>
> Bank revetments are used to eliminate the tendency for the main
> channel to migrate within the floodplain. Revetments alter the
> sinuosity of the river channel and alter natural alluvial processes,
> such as erosion. This can affects pallid sturgeon by (1) reducing
> substrate diversity, thus, reducing the availability of spawning
> habitat; (2) reducing the availability of larval and juvenile rearing
> habitat; (3) reducing the availability of seasonal refugia; and (4)
> reducing the natural forage base of pallid sturgeon.
>
> Revetments located on outside river bends led to channel downcutting
> and riverbed degradation. Thus, revetments, in conjunction with
> wingdams, are responsible for MMR channel constriction and degradation
> that has reduced river surface area/width and has resulted in a
> downward shift of annual minimum stages resulting in degradation of
> aquatic habitats by dewatering (Simons *et al*. 1974, Fremling *et
> al*. 1989, Wlosinski 1999). Revetments prohibit natural channel
> migrations that would result in establishment of new side channels as
> old side channels fill in with sediment or are cut-off from the main
> channel. By prohibiting natural channel migrations, revetments also
> reduce the input of organic matter and nutrients (e.g., woody debris)
> to the river and contribute to reductions in suspended sediment loads.
>
> Thus, revetments will continue to contribute to declines in habitats
> to which the pallid sturgeon are adapted (e.g., braided channels,
> irregular flow patterns, flood cycles, extensive microhabitat
> diversity, turbid waters). Therefore, bank revetments reduce substrate
> diversity, reduce the availability of larval and juvenile rearing
> habitat, reduce the availability of seasonal refugia and reduce the
> natural forage base of pallid sturgeon.
>
> Although revetments contribute to the decline in aquatic habitat,
> these structures add to substrate diversity that allows colonization
> of macroinvertebrates (Beckett *et al*. 1983, Bingham 1982, Nord and
> Schmulbach 1973, Payne *et al*. 1989) which in turn attract fish
> (Farabee 1986, Pennington *et al*. 1983). In the Lower Mississippi
> River, Pennington *et al*. (1983), found that numbers of species
> collected on revetted banks and natural banks are similar. In this
> study, sport and commercial species were more abundant by weight on
> revetted banks. Mean catch per effort in numbers and weight were
> greater on natural banks during June but greater on revetted banks at
> other times. Farabee (1986) reported that 70% of fish collected were
> taken on revetted sites and also reported no difference in numbers of
> species between natural and revetted banks.
>
> It is evident from these two studies that large numbers of fish, but
> not necessarily different species of fish, generally utilize revetted
> banklines versus natural banklines. Given the degree to which
> banklines have been revetted and the lack of woody debris within the
> system, it is likely that fish redistribute within the system to take
> advantage of the macroinvertebrate community that develops along
> revetted banklines. For example, during 1994 hydroacoustic surveys of
> Greenfield bend, in excess of 29,000 fish per hectare were detected
> from a protected area near the downstream end of the bend where
> submerged trees provided inwater structure along a caved-in bank on
> the inside of the bend (Kasul and Baker 1995). Different species of
> insects utilize different types of substrates. Changes in fish
> abundance can partially be attributed to changes in abundance and
> diversity of insects (Hesse *et al*. 1993). For example, flathead
> chubs primarily utilize terrestrial insects, which fall into the river
> from woody debris protruding from the water or along the bank (Hesse
> *et al*. 1993). Flathead chubs are thought to be extirpated from the
> MMR. By prohibiting channel migrations, revetments reduce woody debris
> inputs into the river.
>
> Off-bankline revetments were designed to reduce bank stabilization
> costs and increase habitat diversity in main channel environments.
> They differ from standard revetment in that the riprap is placed
> several meters away from the bank in areas where there is a gradually
> sloping river bed. The result is the creation of artificial backwaters
> adjacent to the main channel. Fish movement is allowed through notches
> in the revetment. Recent fish work suggests that off-bank revetment
> provides useful and valuable habitat for a large variety of riverine
> fishes (Atwood 1996).
>
> Currently, there are no off-bankline revetments constructed in the
> MMR. Therefore, these structures are not effecting pallid sturgeon.
> Future construction of these structures in the MMR would increase
> off-channel habitat, therefore, increasing habitat diversity which
> would benefit pallid sturgeon. However, MMR banklines are already
> extensively revetted, therefore, the need for future revetment is
> uncertain. In addition, use of this type of revetment would generally
> be restricted to low velocity and gently sloping areas of the river
> (Rob Davinroy, USACE, pers. comm.), which may adversely affect larval
> and juvenile rearing habitat.
>
> 8.3.1.2.4.4 Chevron Dikes
>
> Chevron dikes were designed to divert flow into a portion of the
> navigation channel impacted by sediment accumulation on the point bar
> at a river bend where the river channel splits. The dikes divert flow
> into the main channel by presenting the hydraulic appearance of a
> solid object without isolating the side channel with a closing
> structure. Flow between the structures maintains a permanent side
> channel connection, which provides important off-channel habitat for
> fishes. The rock dike substrate provides habitat for epilithic
> macroinvertebrates that are capable of colonizing in very high
> densities and providing an important food source for fish. Chevron
> dikes also create habitat heterogeneity and appear to increase
> invertebrate abundance and diversity (Ecological Specialist, Inc.
> 1997b) and provide useful and valuable habitat for a large variety of
> riverine fishes (Atwood 1997).
>
> No chevrons have been constructed in the MMR. Therefore, these
> structures are not currently affecting pallid sturgeon. According to
> Sheehan *et al*. (1998), pallid sturgeon exhibit a strong preference
> for downstream island tips. Any future construction of chevrons in the
> MMR would likely benefit pallid sturgeon by improving habitat
> diversity, including restoration of shallow water sandbar habitat.
>
> 8.3.1.2.4.5 Closing Structures
>
> Closing structures for side channels were constructed to divert flow
> towards the main channel to maintain sufficient depth for the
> navigation channel. Thus, these structures have reduced flow into side
> channels causing the channel to fill with sediment. Recently, low
> dissolved oxygen and high ammonia levels have been documented in side
> channels isolated from the river (Bob Hrabik, MoDOC, LTRM Station,
> pers. comm.). Side channel closing structures also inhibit fish
> ingress/egress in side channels. Although Sheehan *et al*. (1998) did
> not note pallid sturgeon use of side channels, two of the study fish
> provided by the LTRM station at Cape Girardeau were collected from MMR
> side channels (Marquette and Santa Fe) (Mike Petersen, MoDOC, LTRM
> Station, pers. comm.). In addition, larval pallid sturgeon were
> recently collected at the lower end of a reconnected side channel on
> the Missouri River (Joanne Grady, USFWS, pers. comm.). This indicates
> pallid sturgeon utilize side channels to some degree. Therefore,
> closing structures continue to affect pallid sturgeon by (1) reducing
> the availability of spawning habitat; (2) reducing the availability of
> larval and juvenile rearing habitat; and (3) reducing the availability
> of seasonal refugia.
>
> As previously discussed, closing structures disrupt natural geomorphic
> processes by isolating/destroying important side channel and backwater
> habitat, thereby, reducing riverine productivity (Theiling *et al*.
> 1999). Closing structures are likely to contribute to ongoing declines
> in habitats to which pallid sturgeon are adapted (e.g., braided
> channels, irregular flow patterns, flood cycles, extensive
> microhabitat diversity, turbid waters) and reduce the quantity and
> availability of the natural forage food base of pallid sturgeon.
>
> 8.3.2 Indirect Effects
>
> 8.3.2.1 Navigation Related Indirect Effects
>
> 8.3.2.1.1 Tow Traffic
>
> Studies have been conducted to determine the impact of commercial
> navigation on aquatic resources as a result of the current Navigation
> Systems Study of the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois River.
> Gutreuter *et al*. (1998) developed a method for estimation of
> tow-induced mortality of adult fishes in commercially navigated
> waterways. The results of this study indicate that main channel fish
> are susceptible to mortality due to propeller strikes; although
> estimates adult entrainment mortality are indeterminate due to high
> variance. However, if their estimates are approximately correct,
> potentially large losses throughout the Upper Mississippi River System
> are possible.
>
> The ancillary estimates of kills of \>adult= shovelnose sturgeon were
> 2.4 fish/km of tow travel (Gutreuter *et al*. 1998). The effect of
> entrainment mortality on pallid sturgeon populations is unknown;
> although pallid sturgeon and shovelnose sturgeon exhibit similar life
> history characteristics, and thus, it is likely that pallid sturgeon
> will also be killed as a result of entrainment mortality. It should be
> noted that according to the Corps, independent statisticians that
> reviewed the Gutreuter *et al*. (1998) draft report indicated that the
> use of ancillary estimates of fish kills was inappropriate.
>
> In addition, tow traffic also contributes to the resuspension of
> bottom sediments in the main channel depending upon water depths. As
> such, tow traffic may contribute to the transference and
> homogenization of contaminants in the UMR as discussed previously.
> This may result in reduced pallid sturgeon health and reproductive
> impairment.
>
> 8.3.2.1.2 Fleeting
>
> Fleeting adversely affects pallid sturgeon by (1) reducing the quality
> of habitat in the MMR; (2) reducing the natural forage base of pallid
> sturgeon; (3) resuspending sediments that may be contaminated, thus,
> affecting pallid sturgeon health and reproduction; and (4) potentially
> causing direct mortality due to towboat entrainment.
>
> Fleeting areas are typically constructed within main channel border
> habitats. Towboats maneuvering within fleeting areas cause
> resuspension of sediments. In addition, fleeting areas may
> occasionally require dredging, which also disturbs bottom sediments.
> As such, fleeting operations likely affect macroinvertebrate
> production on a local scale. According to the work of Sheehan *et al*.
> (1998), pallid sturgeon exhibited a strong preference for main channel
> border habitat. It is difficult to determine to what degree fleeting
> will continue to affect pallid sturgeon. However, future fleeting will
> contribute to the overall continued decline in habitat quality,
> adversely affecting the natural forage base of pallid sturgeon and may
> cause resuspension of contaminated sediments, thereby, potentially
> reducing pallid sturgeon health and reproductive success.
>
> Towboats maneuver and reconfigure barges in fleeting areas. Although
> Gutreuter *et al*. (1998) could not determine whether towboat
> entrainment is an important source of mortality of fish species, the
> results of this study indicate that main channel fish are susceptible
> to mortality due to propellor strikes. Therefore, it is also likely
> that fleeting will cause some degree of fish mortality, including
> pallid sturgeon as they utilize main channel border habitats.
>
> 8.3.2.1.3 Port Facilities
>
> Development of port facilities requires various levels of habitat
> modification (USACE 1999a). It is unknown to what degree future
> development of port facilities may contribute to loss of habitat for
> pallid sturgeon.
>
> 8.3.2.1.4 Exotic Species
>
> There are no exotic species currently known to be affecting pallid
> sturgeon.
>
> 8.3.2.1.5 Contaminants
>
> As previously discussed, Ruelle and Keenlyne (1993) identified several
> contaminants in Missouri River pallid sturgeon that may adversely
> impact reproduction. A recent sturgeon health assessment in the MMR
> indicates that there appears to be sufficient evidence to suggest that
> pallid sturgeon are at risk from exposure to contaminants present in
> their habitat (Coffey *et al*. 1999). This study found evidence of
> possible endocrine disruption, which has the potential to cause
> reproductive impairment (USGS 1998). Coffey *et al*. (1999) also noted
> a significant difference between reference site sturgeon and MMR
> sturgeon for some organochlorine chemicals. This has likely resulted
> in reduced fish health and reproductive impairment. There are
> currently no data available for contaminant concentrations in pallid
> sturgeon ovaries. However, data for the shovelnose sturgeon indicate
> that values of organic compounds may be of concern for developing
> embryos (USACE 1999a).
>
> An indirect effect of maintaining the 9-Foot Channel is the spillage
> of hazardous materials or substances. An analysis of reported oil
> spills in a portion of the MMR indicates that these types of spills
> are quite common (from 11/26/98 to 7/26/99 there were 45 spills
> reported for the area between UMR miles 170.0 - 202.0) (Stan Smith,
> USFWS, pers. comm.). Most of the spills were small quantities of oil
> and/or diesel. The potential for such future spills to have direct or
> chronic effects on pallid sturgeon is unknown. However, such spills
> contribute to the accumulation of contaminants in the MMR which may
> impair reproduction or result in reduced fish health.
>
> 8.3.2.2 Recreation Related Indirect Effects
>
> Unlike the pooled portion of the UMR where the Corps maintains
> lake-like conditions and recreational facilities that are conducive to
> boating, no recreation facilities are maintained or planned for the
> MMR. Recreation activity in the MMR is not affected by maintenance of
> the 9-Foot Channel Project. Therefore, recreation related indirect
> effects to pallid sturgeon are not anticipated.
>
> 8.3.3 Interrelated Effects
>
> 8.3.3.1 Management of Corps Lands
>
> The Corps does not own nor manage any lands in the MMR. Therefore,
> interrelated effects to pallid sturgeon due to management of Corps
> lands are not anticipated.
>
> 8.3.3.2 Open River Habitat Enhancement Project
>
> The Corps recognizes that the degradation and loss of side channel
> habitat is of particular concern within the MMR. These habitats not
> only supply important nursery and overwintering areas, they are an
> extremely important carbon energy generating machine for the entire
> river system (USACE undated). As such, the St. Louis District is in
> the process of developing the Open River Habitat Enhancement Project
> to enhance and/or create side channel habitat in the MMR. In addition,
> the project proposes other activities, such as sandbar creation,
> riparian corridor restoration and restoring woody debris. These
> activities are thought to be beneficial for pallid sturgeon.
>
> While the Corps proposes to utilize some operation and maintenance and
> construction general funds to implement this program, much of the work
> is proposed under various cost-sharing mechanisms (e.g., Environmental
> Management Program, Section 1135, Section 206). As a result, the Corps
> cannot guarantee how much of this program will be implemented,
> therefore, the amount of habitat that will be restored or enhanced is
> unknown at this time.

8.3.4 Interdependent Effects

> 8.3.4.1 Missouri River Bank Stabilization and Navigation Project
>
> As the MMR and the Lower Missouri River are interconnected in terms of
> pallid sturgeon reproduction, the Missouri River Bank Stabilization
> and Navigation Project (Missouri River Project) will continue to
> affect pallid sturgeon survival and reproduction in the MMR by (1)
> reducing substrate diversity, including spawning habitat; (2) reducing
> the availability of seasonal refugia; and (3) reducing riverine
> productivity, thereby, reducing the natural forage base of pallid
> sturgeon.
>
> The Missouri River Project has restricted the Missouri River to a
> serpentine, self-cleaning navigation channel characterized by high
> water velocities. This has been accomplished through the use of
> wingdams and revetments which confine the river. Before the Missouri
> River was channelized and impounded, it annually eroded 3.1
> hectares/km of its floodplain (USACE 1981). Most of this erosion has
> stopped due to channelization and impoundment. Erosion was a natural
> function of the river system, and through erosion, inorganic
> sediments, organic matter, and large woody debris were introduced into
> the river. This material import was essential to the habitat dynamics
> and nutrient cycling of the river system. Such sediment and nutrient
> discharge are the raw materials for habitat development in the
> Missouri and Mississippi River system. By reducing erosion in the
> Missouri River, and thereby reducing suspended sediment load, the
> Missouri River Project contributes to the decline of pallid sturgeon
> in the MMR by reducing substrate diversity and reducing the natural
> forage base of pallid sturgeon.
>
> As a result of the Missouri River Project, wide bends in the river
> were cut off by rock revetments or physically separated from the main
> channel by cuts (USFWS 1980). Just as the 9-Foot Channel Project has
> reduced and continues to reduce habitat quality, quantity and
> diversity in the MMR, the Missouri River Project has a similar effect
> in the Missouri River. From 1912 to 1980 approximately 100,000 acres
> of aquatic habitat and approximately 65,000 acres of island/sandbar
> habitat was lost due to the Missouri River Project (USFWS 1980). As
> discussed previously, the Lower Missouri River and the MMR are
> interconnected in terms of pallid sturgeon population biology.
> Therefore, Missouri River Project contributes to the decline in pallid
> sturgeon survival and reproduction in the MMR by reducing substrate
> diversity, and therefore, spawning habitat, and reducing the
> availability of seasonal refugia for pallid sturgeon which may migrate
> during various seasons from the MMR to the Lower Missouri River.
>
> 8.3.4.2 USCG Buoy Tending
>
> USCG buoy tending activities are not known to affect pallid sturgeon.
>
> 8.3.5 Cumulative Effects
>
> Cumulative effects include the effects of future State, tribal, local
> or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action
> area considered in this biological opinion. Future Federal actions
> that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this
> section because they require separate consultation pursuant to section
> 7 of the Act.
>
> Mortality of pallid sturgeon occurs as a result of illegal and
> incidental harvest from both sport and commercial fishing activities.
> Sturgeon species, in general, are highly vulnerable to impacts from
> fishing mortality due to unusual combinations of morphology, habits
> and life history characteristics (Boreman 1997). In 1990, the head of
> a pallid sturgeon was found at a sport-fish cleaning station in South
> Dakota, and in 1992 a pallid sturgeon was found dead in a commercial
> fisherman=s hoop net in Louisiana. In 1997, four pallid sturgeon were
> found in an Illinois fish market (Sheehan *et al*. 1997b). Currently
> there are no methods to differentiate between pallid and shovelnose
> sturgeon eggs; however, it is believed that pallid sturgeon are
> significantly affected by the illegal take of eggs for the caviar
> market.
>
> Sheehan *et al*. (1997b) speculate that incidental commercial harvest
> of pallid sturgeon may indirectly lead to greater hybridization with
> shovelnose sturgeon as a result of skewed sex ratios. Pallid sturgeon
> males mature at 5-7 years of age while female pallid sturgeon first
> spawn at approximately 15 years (Keenlyne and Jenkins 1993). Once
> mature, pallid sturgeon may not spawn every year, but may take several
> years between spawning (Keenlyne and Jenkins 1993, Keenlyne *et al*.
> 1992). Due to its late maturity, pallid sturgeon may be exposed to
> many years of commercial fishing before they have a chance to spawn
> and contribute to the recruitment of the population. For those that do
> survive long enough to spawn once, they may have to survive multiple
> years of commercial fishing danger in order to spawn again. Being at
> great risk of being removed before maturity, incidental commercial
> harvest of females may skew the sex ratio of the mature sturgeon
> population. This could indirectly lead to greater hybridization rates
> as male pallid sturgeon, unable to find mature females to mate with,
> spawn with shovelnose sturgeon instead. \[excerpt from Sheehan *et
> al*. 1997b\]
>
> 8.3.6 Summary of Effects
>
> Operation and maintenance of the 9-Foot Channel Project will continue
> to disrupt and arrest some of the natural processes that provide
> dynamic physical change in the UMR. The dynamic equilibrium of the MMR
> has been interrupted and replaced by unstable processes that have
> continuing, ongoing effects. The result will be continued
> homogenization of the river system and degradation of aquatic habitat,
> which in turn affects the quantity, quality and diversity of aquatic
> habitats available to pallid sturgeon.
>
> Specific effects to pallid sturgeon are varied. The most important
> affect is the loss and degradation of aquatic habitat which reduces
> spawning substrate, larval and juvenile rearing habitat and seasonal
> refugia. The loss of habitat is believed to be a factor in increased
> incidences of hybridization with shovelnose sturgeon. Reduced
> suspended sediment transport is a factor in increased predation,
> competition with other species and reducing the foraging capability of
> pallid sturgeon. A number of operation and maintenance activities work
> in combination to reduce the quantity and quality of the natural
> forage base of pallid sturgeon. Migration routes are blocked by locks
> and dams which affects reproductive success. Operation and maintenance
> activities also contribute to the transference and homogenization of
> contaminants in the UMR, which may reduce fish health and impair
> reproduction. As a result of the above, it is likely that the MMR will
> become so homogenized that pallid sturgeon are likely to be extirpated
> from this area and/or hybridization will become so prevalent that
> genetic swamping will occur. Furthermore, because this action also
> influences pallid sturgeon in the Lower Missouri and Lower Mississippi
> Rivers, the viability of the Lower Missouri-MMR-Lower Mississippi
> population unit is also affected by continued operation and
> maintenance.

8.4 Conclusion

> 8.4.1 Jeopardy Analysis
>
> After reviewing the current status of pallid sturgeon, the
> environmental baseline for the MMR, the effects of continued operation
> and maintenance of the 9-Foot Channel Project and the cumulative
> effects, it is the Service=s biological opinion that the continued
> operation and maintenance of the 9-Foot Channel Project, as proposed,
> is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the pallid
> sturgeon. No critical habitat has been designated for this species,
> therefore, none will be affected.
>
> As discussed in the status section of this biological opinion, pallid
> sturgeon populations are declining throughout the range of the
> species. Although spawning is known to occur, there is little evidence
> of successful reproduction and no indication of recent recruitment.
> Upper Missouri River populations are reproductively isolated and
> aging. Hybridization appears to be prevalent throughout much of the
> species= range. The Atchafalaya River population has a diverse age
> structure, but is also hybridizing with shovelnose sturgeon and is
> reproductively isolated from the remainder of the species= range.
>
> The MMR is important to the survival and recovery of pallid sturgeon
> for a number of reasons. The MMR represents a significant portion of 1
> of 6 designated recovery priority management areas identified in the
> recovery plan (USFWS 1993). It is 1 of 3 areas in which we believe
> some natural reproduction may be occurring and it is believed to be an
> important juvenile rearing area. Furthermore, it is 1 of only 2 areas
> where we have evidence of reproduction in recent years. The MMR is
> approximately 5% of the pallid sturgeon=s total current range of
> approximately 3500 miles. However, it represents approximately 10% of
> the range that is believed to have suitable habitat (e.g., somewhat
> unaffected by impoundments on the Upper Missouri River).
>
> Finally, the MMR represents an important genetic conduit between the
> Lower Missouri River and the Lower Mississippi River. Impacts to the
> MMR influence pallid sturgeon the populations in both of these river
> sections (i.e., the area of impact to pallid sturgeon is much greater
> than just the MMR). Changes in the MMR are likely to affect the
> population viability in the Lower Missouri River and the Lower
> Mississippi River, and thus, influence the likelihood of survival and
> recovery of the entire Lower Missouri River-MMR-Lower Mississippi
> River population. In other words, the effects of the project
> compromise not only the persistence of the MMR pallid population but
> also the viability of pallid populations in the Lower Missouri and
> Lower Mississippi Rivers.
>
> The proposed project, continued operation and maintenance of the
> 9-Foot Channel for the next 50 years, will result in habitat loss and
> degradation, and perhaps more importantly, will continue to disrupt
> and alter dynamic natural river processes (e.g., channel meandering,
> erosion, deposition), leaving little opportunity for the
> reestablishment of important aquatic habitats. The most evident effect
> is the continued loss and degradation of existing aquatic habitat
> which reduces pallid sturgeon spawning substrate, larval and juvenile
> rearing habitat and seasonal refugia. This loss of habitat will likely
> lead to further reductions in the productivity of pallid sturgeon and
> increased incidences of hybridization with shovelnose sturgeon.
> Furthermore, the disruption and alteration of dynamic river processes
> also inhibits the creation and reestablishment of aquatic habitats
> which are important to pallid sturgeon. This effect will not only lead
> to further reductions in pallid sturgeon productivity, but also will
> prevent the increases in productivity that are necessary to ensure the
> continued survival and recovery of the species.
>
> In addition to these two primary effects, continued operation and
> maintenance will also result in a series of secondary effects that are
> also of importance. These include:

-   Reductions in suspended sediment transport.

-   Reductions in the quantity, quality and availability of the natural
    forage base.

-   Continued disruption of migration routes.

-   Transference and homogenization of contaminants.

> Reductions in suspended sediment transport is a factor in increased
> predation, competition with other species, and reducing the foraging
> capability of pallid sturgeon. Similarly, operation and maintenance
> activities will reduce the quantity, quality and availability of the
> natural forage base of pallid sturgeon. While past operation and
> maintenance activities have reduced this important resource,
> continuation of these activities will prevent its recovery. Migration
> routes will continue to be potentially blocked by locks and dams,
> which affects reproductive success. Lastly, operation and maintenance
> activities will contribute to the transference and homogenization of
> contaminants in the UMR, which may reduce fish health and impair
> reproduction. As a result of the above, it is likely that the MMR will
> become so homogenized that pallid sturgeon are likely to be extirpated
> from this area and/or hybridization will become so prevalent that
> genetic swamping will occur.
>
> These effects will have the greatest influence on the MMR, which is an
> important portion of the species range. However, as alluded to above,
> continued operation and maintenance will also substantially impact
> pallid sturgeon populations in both the Lower Missouri River and the
> Lower Mississippi River. That is, continued operation and maintenance
> will affect the core of the pallid sturgeon=s contiguous range, and
> hence, appreciably reduce the likelihood of both survival and recovery
> of the species.
>
> 8.4.2 Reasonable and Prudent Alternative
>
> Regulations (50 CFR \'402.02) implementing section 7 of the Act define
> reasonable and prudent alternatives as alternative actions, identified
> during formal consultation, that: (1) can be implemented in a manner
> consistent with the intended purpose of the action; (2) can be
> implemented consistent with the scope of the action agency=s legal
> authority and jurisdiction; (3) are economically and technologically
> feasible; and (4) would, the Service believes, avoid the likelihood of
> jeopardizing the continued existence of listed species or resulting in
> the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
>
> As stated previously, habitat loss and alteration, as well as
> disruption and alteration of the dynamic processes that create,
> restore, and maintain habitat, resulting from the continued operation
> and maintenance of the 9-Foot Channel Project are likely to jeopardize
> the continued existence of the pallid sturgeon. To avoid jeopardizing
> the continued existence of pallid sturgeon, it is necessary to (1)
> prevent further reductions in the total amount of habitat and (2)
> provide for the reestablishment of pallid sturgeon spawning, rearing,
> and refugia habitat to compensate for the curtailment of the dynamic
> processes that create and maintain such habitat. To achieve this,
> while continuing operation and maintenance of the 9-Foot Channel, it
> is necessary to: (1) implement a concurrent habitat restoration
> program with the goal of restoring habitat quality, quantity, and
> diversity so that the benefits of the dynamic natural river processes
> are restored, and, (2) conduct a comprehensive pallid sturgeon habitat
> study to better characterize spawning habitat and seasonal and various
> life stage use in the MMR to facilitate habitat restoration. We
> believe that these actions will assist in restoring and maintaining a
> functional ecosystem that is needed to ensure that the likelihood of
> survival and recovery of the pallid sturgeon is not appreciably
> reduced.
>
> A Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA) is for the Corps to (1)
> conduct a pallid sturgeon habitat study in the MMR, (2) facilitate
> development of a pallid sturgeon conservation and restoration plan,
> (3) implement a long‑term program of aquatic habitat restoration in
> the MMR that will mitigate future adverse effects of operation and
> maintenance of the 9-Foot Channel Project on pallid sturgeon habitat,
> including the adverse effects of curtailment of the dynamic processes
> that create and maintain such habitat, and (4) begin short‑term
> implementation of aquatic habitat restoration measures that may
> reasonably be expected to benefit pallid sturgeon in the MMR during
> the interim period between issuance of the biological opinion and
> implementation of component #3 (e.g. restoration of side channels,
> wingdam notching, chevron dike construction, etc.). This RPA involves
> the following:
>
> 1\. Conduct a pallid sturgeon habitat study in the MMR. The goal of
> this effort is to develop a comprehensive study of pallid sturgeon
> habitat to identify the habitat variables and related factors that are
> limiting population growth and distribution in the MMR. Although much
> data have been collected in recent years, more information relative to
> pallid sturgeon life history, particularly spawning and
> larval/juvenile life stages, is needed. Such studies would (1) help to
> better establish the connection between specific impacts of operation
> and maintenance of the 9-Foot Channel (and mitigatory actions needed
> on the part of the Corps to offset these impacts) and actual loss of
> sturgeon habitat, and (2) serve to help focus the implementation
> efforts of the pallid sturgeon conservation and restoration plan
> (described below).
>
> An interdisciplinary team composed of Service staff, biologists
> familiar with the pallid sturgeon, and potamologists or hydrologists
> familiar with the MMR will be organized to assist the Corps with
> developing the scope-of-work(s) for this study. This scope-of-work(s)
> will be completed and submitted to the Service for approval [within 1
> year]{.underline} of issuance of this biological opinion.
> Implementation of the study will begin [within 2 years]{.underline} of
> issuance of this biological opinion. A progress report describing the
> results of this study will be provided to the Service annually,
> beginning with the first report in [June 2002.]{.underline} If an
> approved scope-of-work or implementation of such study does not occur
> by this date, the Corps must promptly reinitiate section 7
> consultation with the Service.
>
> 2\. Facilitate development of a pallid sturgeon conservation and
> restoration plan (Plan). The goal of this effort is to develop a
> comprehensive plan (subject to periodic revision as new information
> becomes available) directed at mitigation of the adverse impacts of
> operation and maintenance of the 9-Foot Channel project occurring
> after the baseline year. This Plan may also identify additional
> sturgeon habitat restoration needs in the MMR that can be implemented
> by the Corps, the Service, the states of Illinois and Missouri and the
> private sector. This may include related issues such as a stocking
> program and means of regulating illegal or incidental take of pallid
> sturgeon by sport and commercial fishermen. As the Plan will include
> not only Corps mitigatory actions but may also include other
> restoration opportunities, it could become the Ablueprint@ guiding the
> overall pallid sturgeon habitat restoration and population recovery
> effort in the MMR.
>
> An interdisciplinary team (similar to that described in item 1 above)
> will be established to assist in drafting the Plan. The primary
> responsibility of this team is to provide guidance to the Corps on the
> habitat and ecological needs of the pallid sturgeon in the MMR. The
> Corps should also solicit the assistance of the team to review and
> apply new data as it becomes available. The Corps must submit the Plan
> to the Service for approval by [June 2004.]{.underline} Should the
> Corps fail to obtain an approved Plan by this date, section 7
> consultation must be reinitiated immediately with the Service. The
> Plan will include, but not limited to, the following:
>
> a\. A habitat restoration plan for each river compartment (or reach).
> As the Mississippi River is ecologically diverse, the various river
> reaches within the MMR are likely to have differing data collection
> and habitat restoration needs. Thus, the Plan will identify and
> prioritize distinct river compartments throughout the MMR, and will
> describe the restoration needs for each river compartment. Each river
> compartment plan will specifically identify those actions to be taken
> to mitigate the effects of continued operation and maintenance of the
> Nine Foot Channel Project. The Service supports the identification of
> other actions within the compartment plans which may be undertaken
> voluntarily by the Corps of Engineers or other agencies/groups that
> are in support of pallid sturgeon recovery. The Corps must submit,
> upon completion, each river compartment plan to the Service for
> approval to ensure the overall objective of the RPA is met.
>
> b\. A population and habitat restoration monitoring plan. Monitoring
> the effect of habitat restoration on sturgeon population reproduction,
> growth and survival and on the status and trends of habitat quality,
> quantity and diversity will be critical in measuring the success of
> the program and in guiding future decision making. Thus, the Plan must
> include a monitoring protocol. The monitoring plan will be developed
> and submitted to the Service [within one year]{.underline} of issuance
> of the biological opinion in order to expedite the collection of
> baseline data.
>
> 3\. Implement, as described in the Plan, a long‑term aquatic habitat
> restoration program in the MMR that will mitigate future adverse
> effects of operation and maintenance of the 9-Foot Channel Project on
> pallid sturgeon habitat. The Corps must implement those actions
> identified in the approved Plan to mitigate for the adverse effects of
> operation and maintenance of the 9-Foot Channel in the far term. As
> indicated in item 2 above, the Plan will include restoration plans for
> each river compartment. Each of these plans will identify specific
> timelines and benchmarks for its particular river reach, in addition
> to the benchmarks described below. Thus, an annual report describing
> progress the Corps has made toward meeting the timelines and
> benchmarks and the results of monitoring will be provided to the
> Service by [30 June]{.underline} of each year beginning with the first
> report in [June 2001.]{.underline} Should the Corps fail to meet the
> benchmarks described below or those identified in the river
> compartment plans, section 7 consultation must be reinitiated
> immediately with the Service. As more pallid sturgeon life history
> data and monitoring data are collected, the timelines and benchmarks
> of the plans may be modified with approval by the Service. The
> long‑term habitat restoration work will continue until such time as
> additional work is no longer warranted (due to the cumulative
> beneficial impacts of all pallid sturgeon conservation and restoration
> work completed in the MMR through implementation of the conservation
> and restoration plan) as determined in the Plan.
>
> 4\. During the interim period between issuance of the biological
> opinion and implementation of the Plan, the Corps will implement
> short‑term aquatic habitat restoration measures and studies that may
> reasonably be expected to benefit sturgeon in the MMR. There is
> sufficient information available to enable biologists who are familiar
> with pallid sturgeon to identify where initial habitat restoration
> should be focused. This element of the RPA requires the Corps to
> immediately begin proactively implementing certain habitat restoration
> measures (e.g., side channel restoration, wing dam notching, chevron
> dike construction) while habitat studies are underway and while the
> Plan is finalized and implemented. Habitat restoration measures and
> studies selected for implementation will be determined by the Corps,
> in consultation with biologists from the Service and the states of
> Illinois and Missouri. These short-term aquatic habitat restoration
> measures will be identified [within six months]{.underline} of
> issuance of the biological opinion and submitted to the Service for
> approval. Should the Corps fail to meet this deadline, section 7
> consultation must be reinitiated immediately with the Service.
>
> Several habitat restoration and enhancement measures (see table below)
> are critical to restoring habitat quantity, quality and diversity in
> the MMR, and will be used as a guide for both short-term and long-term
> restoration efforts until more information regarding pallid sturgeon
> habitat needs is obtained. The following habitat restoration and
> enhancement measures have been classified (by the Corps and FWS)
> according to priority needs and expected benefits to pallid sturgeon,
> and thus, will be used by the Corps to guide their restoration
> efforts:

  -------------- --------------------------- -------------------------------
  **Priority**   **Measure**                 **Expected Benefit**

  High           Restore gravel bars         spawning, early life history

  High           Restore sand bars           larval/juvenile habitat

  High           Restore side channels       all life stages, seasonal
                                             refugia

  Medium         Restore floodplain          nutrient cycling/productivity
                 connectivity                for forage food

  Medium         Restore woody debris        trophic and habitat diversity

  Medium         Modify training structures  all life stages, habitat
                                             diversity

  Low            Restore the riparian        nutrient cycling
                 corridor                    
  -------------- --------------------------- -------------------------------

[Benchmarks and Timelines]{.underline}

> To ensure expeditious progress is made in complying with the various
> elements of the RPA, the following benchmarks have been developed. The
> timeline for these benchmarks begins with the date of issuance of this
> biological opinion.
>
> Year 1 (2000) Establish the interdisciplinary team to assist with
> developing the Plan, monitoring plan(s), and scope(s)-of-work for the
> pallid sturgeon habitat study
>
> Identify and prioritize river compartments
>
> Develop the scope(s)-of-work for the pallid sturgeon habitat study
>
> Develop a monitoring plan for both habitat and sturgeon populations
>
> Identify short-term restoration measures and submit to the Service for
> approval (within 6 months of issuance of the biological opinion)
>
> Begin implementation of short-term restoration measures
>
> Year 2 (2001) Begin developing the Plan, including developing habitat
> restoration plans for 1/3 to 1/2 of the top ranked compartments
>
> Continue implementation of short-term restoration measures
>
> Begin pallid sturgeon habitat study
>
> Begin monitoring (e.g., collection of baseline data)
>
> Year 3 (2002) Continue developing the Plan, including developing plans
> for the next 1/3 to 1/2 of river compartments
>
> Continue implementation of short-term habitat restoration measures
>
> Continue pallid sturgeon habitat study
>
> Continue monitoring (e.g., finish baseline data collection)
>
> Year 4 (2003) Finish the Plan, including developing plans for the
> remainder of the river compartments as necessary
>
> Continue implementation of short-term habitat restoration measures
>
> Continue pallid sturgeon habitat study
>
> Year 5 (2004) Begin Plan implementation
>
> Continue monitoring as specified in the monitoring plan

A yearly report describing progress the Corps has made toward meeting
the timelines and benchmarks and the results of monitoring will be
provided to the Service by [June 30]{.underline} of each year beginning
with the first report in [June 2001]{.underline}. Should any of the
above benchmarks be unobtainable, the Corps must promptly reinitiate
section 7 consultation with the Service.

Because this biological opinion has found jeopardy, the Corps is
required to notify the Service of its final decision on the
implementation of the reasonable and prudent alternative.

8.5 Incidental Take Statement

Section 9 of the Act and Federal regulation pursuant to section 4(d) of
the Act prohibit the take of endangered and threatened species,
respectively, without special exemption. Take is defined as to harass,
harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or
attempt to engage in any such conduct. Harm is further defined by the
Service to include significant habitat modification or degradation that
results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing
essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or
sheltering. Harass is defined by the Service as intentional or negligent
actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed species to such
an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which
include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering.
Incidental take is defined as take that is incidental to, and not the
purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity. Under the terms
of section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to and
not intended as part of the agency action is not considered prohibited
taking under the Act provided that such taking is in compliance with the
terms and conditions of this incidental take statement.

The measures described below are non-discretionary, and must be
undertaken by the Corps so that they become binding conditions of any
contract, grant, or permit issued, as appropriate, for the exemption in
section 7(o)(2) to apply. The Corps has a continuing duty to regulate
the activity covered by this incidental take statement. If the Corps (1)
fails to assume and implement the terms and conditions or (2) fails to
require contractors to adhere to the terms and conditions of the
incidental take statement through enforceable terms that are added to
the contract, permit or grant document, the protective coverage of
section 7(o)(2) may lapse. In order to monitor the impact of incidental
take, the Corps must report the progress of the action and its impact on
the species to the Service as specified in this incidental take
statement. \[50 CFR \'402.14(i)(3)\]

While the overall effect of new construction projects (e.g., bendway
weirs, wingdams, etc.) are considered programmatically in this
incidental take statement, it is not possible to determine the
site-specific effects of these actions at this time. Therefore, all new
construction projects will require a Tier II level of review to
determine if formal section 7 consultation is necessary. A biological
assessment that incorporates measures to further minimize incidental
take and that contains pre-project physical and biological data, an
analysis of predicted post-project effects and monitoring of
post-project physical and biological effects will be developed for each
project and provided to the Service for review.

> 8.5.1 Amount or Extent of Take
>
> The Service has developed the following incidental take statement
> based on the premise that the reasonable and prudent alternative will
> be implemented.
>
> The Service anticipates that incidental take of pallid sturgeon will
> occur between issuance of this biological opinion and complete
> implementation of the RPA, as well as, for a short period following
> implementation of the RPA (approximately 10 years).

7.  During the interim period between issuance of this biological
    opinion and implementation of the reasonable and prudent
    alternative, continued operation and maintenance of the 9-Foot
    Channel Project will result in continued declines in pallid sturgeon
    habitat and continued disruption and alteration of the processes
    that create and maintain such habitat, and therefore, result in
    incidental take.

> The Service anticipates that incidental take of pallid sturgeon due to
> continued operation and maintenance activities will be difficult to
> detect and monitor for the following reasons: (1) pallid sturgeon are
> wide ranging, (2) occur in habitats and at densities that make
> detection difficult and finding a dead or impaired specimen is
> unlikely, and (3) changes to fitness parameters (e.g., decreased
> recruitment) are difficult to assess in small populations. We believe,
> however, the level of take can be detected by monitoring habitat loss
> and disturbance. Recent studies by Theiling, *et al*. (1999) indicate
> that main channel habitat in the six study reaches analyzed is
> currently being lost at a rate of approximately 1.2 acres/mile/year
> (1975-1994). Secondary channel (side channel) habitat is being lost at
> a rate of approximately 0.8 acres/mile/year (1975-1994). Thus, during
> this interim period, a maximum of 1.2 acres/mile/year of main channel
> habitat and a maximum of 0.8 acres/year/mile of side channel habitat
> is anticipated to be lost due to the on-going effects of continued
> operation and maintenance (including existing channel training
> structures and the dredging program).
>
> Adverse impacts will occur over the next 50 years, and as we have
> determined, will cause an appreciable reduction in the likelihood of
> survival and recovery of pallid sturgeon. Although the RPA provides a
> 4-year planning period, some short-term habitat restoration activities
> will occur within this interim period. The benchmarks for the first 4
> years following issuance of this biological opinion includes primarily
> planning and baseline monitoring with implementation not beginning
> until year 5. This is necessary in order to meet the needs of Corps=
> budgetary planning cycles. Also, as this is a programmatic biological
> opinion, future site-specific projects will undergo further section 7
> review, and as such, adverse affects will be minimized to the extent
> possible. Furthermore, we anticipate that some amount of habitat
> restoration/enhancement will occur within the 4-year planning period
> under the Avoid and Minimize Program and, potentially, the
> Environmental Management Program and/or Section 1135. Thus, we believe
> the adverse effects that may occur during the planning phase of the
> RPA will be minimized to the extent that an appreciable reduction in
> the likelihood of survival and recovery will not occur during this
> time.

8.  During the period following implementation of the RPA, pallid
    sturgeon habitat is likely to continue to decline as a result of
    continued operation and maintenance of the 9-Foot Channel Project
    and the processes that create and maintain such habitat will
    continue to be disrupted and altered. This is because the habitat
    restoration program is long-term and immediate trends in increasing
    habitat quality, quantity and diversity are not likely in the
    short-term (e.g., the amount of habitat restored is not initially
    likely to off-set the amount lost due to operation and maintenance
    activities). Therefore, incidental take, in the form of habitat loss
    and alteration due to operation and maintenance of channel training
    structures, is likely to continue for some time (approximated at 10
    years) following implementation of the RPA. In addition, incidental
    take in the form of habitat alteration due to the dredging program
    is likely to continue for the next 50 years.

> As explained above, we believe that incidental take of pallid sturgeon
> due to continued operation and maintenance activities will be
> difficult to detect. Although it is difficult to estimate the rate of
> habitat loss that will occur, we anticipate that habitat loss and the
> associated incidental take will not exceed the current rate of loss.
> Thus, during the first 10 years following implementation of the RPA, a
> maximum of 1.2 acres/mile/year of main channel habitat and a maximum
> of 0.8 acres/year/mile of side channel habitat is anticipated to be
> lost due to the on-going effects of continued operation and
> maintenance (including existing channel training structures and the
> dredging program). After this initial 10 year period, habitat quality,
> quantity and diversity are expected to increase as a result of
> implementation of the RPA.

9.  Implementation of a monitoring program for sturgeon in the MMR is
    likely to result in incidental take of pallid sturgeon as an
    artifact of sampling gears (e.g., trawling for young-of-the-year,
    hoop netting, gill netting). Similarly, monitoring efforts for
    specific operation and maintenance activities may also result in
    incidental take of pallid sturgeon. The Service anticipates that 10
    young-of-the-year pallid sturgeon/year and 1 juvenile/adult pallid
    sturgeon/year could be taken as a result of sturgeon monitoring.
    This incidental take is expected to be in the form of death of
    individual pallid sturgeon. This level of anticipated incidental
    take is based on current information. This level of anticipated
    incidental take may require revision once the monitoring plan for
    the RPA has been completed.

> 8.5.2 Effect of the Take
>
> In the accompanying biological opinion, the Service determined that
> this level of anticipated take is not likely to result in jeopardy to
> the species or destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat
> when the reasonable and prudent alternative is implemented.
>
> 8.5.3 Reasonable and Prudent Measures
>
> The Service believes the following reasonable and prudent measures
> (RPM=s) are necessary and appropriate to minimize take of pallid
> sturgeon:

1.  Channel training structure maintenance projects will incorporate
    modifications to improve aquatic habitat diversity (e.g, notching of
    wingdams, incorporating woody debris, etc.). This RPM addresses
    incidental take anticipated in 1 and 2 discussed above.

> 2\. Dredge material disposal in the MMR will be conducted in a manner
> to restore habitat or other beneficial use. To minimize impacts to
> pallid sturgeon habitat, dredge material will be disposed of in the
> thalweg of the channel, unless material is otherwise utilized in
> association with habitat restoration or other beneficial uses. This
> RPM addresses incidental take anticipated in 1 and 2 discussed above.
>
> 3\. Maintenance dredging will not occur during the presumed window of
> pallid sturgeon reproduction (12 April - 30 June). These dates may
> require revision as more information becomes available regarding
> pallid sturgeon spawning and larval stage development. This RPM
> addresses incidental take anticipated in 1 and 2 discussed above.
>
> 4\. All live pallid sturgeon caught in sampling gear and remaining in
> good condition will be released immediately following recording of
> relevant population/species data and collection of tissue samples.
> This RPM addresses incidental take anticipated in 3 discussed above.
>
> 5\. Data collected with implementation and monitoring of the RPA will
> be reviewed by the habitat restoration implementation team in order to
> further develop measures that minimize incidental take. The proposed
> measures will be incorporated into future operation and maintenance
> activities. This RPM addresses incidental take in 1 and 2 discussed
> above.
>
> 8.5.4 Terms and Conditions
>
> In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act,
> the Corps must comply with the following terms and conditions, which
> implement the reasonable and prudent measures described above and
> outline required reporting/monitoring requirements. These terms and
> conditions are non-discretionary.
>
> 1\. At the beginning of each fiscal year, the Corps will provide the
> Service a list of new construction projects for which Tier II
> evaluations are anticipated. This term and condition addresses
> incidental take in 1 and 2 discussed above.
>
> 2\. Channel training structure maintenance projects will be submitted
> to the Service for a 30 day review period. Service recommendations for
> aquatic habitat improvement will be incorporated into project
> construction plans. This term and condition addresses incidental take
> in 1 and 2 above.
>
> 3\. Monitoring will be conducted to measure the loss of main channel
> and side channel habitat. Such monitoring can be included in the
> monitoring plan developed for the RPA. This term and condition
> addresses incidental take in 1 and 2 discussed above.
>
> 4\. Dredging and disposal activities will continue to be coordinated
> with the Service, Illinois Department of Natural Resources and the
> Missouri Department of Conservation. This term and condition addresses
> incidental take in 1 and 2 discussed above.
>
> 5\. Should it become necessary for the Corps to dredge during the
> presumed window of pallid sturgeon reproduction (12 April - 30 June),
> reinitiation of formal section 7 consultation will be necessary to
> address further incidental take of pallid sturgeon. A Tier II
> biological assessment will be required to evaluate the effects of
> dredging during this time frame on pallid sturgeon. This term and
> condition addresses incidental take in 3 discussed above.

6.  A monitoring program will be implemented to monitor the effects of
    thalweg disposal on the aquatic environment and the navigation
    channel. This term and condition addresses incidental take in 1 and
    2 discussed above.

7.  An annual dredge material management report will be provided to the
    Service at the end of each dredging season. The report should
    include information concerning dredging/disposal locations,
    quantities of material, the results of sediment size analysis and
    methods of disposal. This term and condition addresses incidental
    take in 1 and 2 discussed above.

8.  All dead pallid sturgeon encountered during sampling and monitoring
    activities will be preserved on ice and provided to the University
    of Alabama per the Service=s cooperative agreement. This term and
    condition addresses incidental take in 3 discussed above.

> 8.5.5 Closing Paragraph
>
> The Service believes that no more than 16.8 acres/mile (1.2
> acres/mile/year X 14 years) of main channel habitat and 11.2
> acres/mile (0.8 acres/mile/year X 14 years) of side channel habitat
> will be incidentally taken as a result of the continued operation and
> maintenance of the 9-Foot Channel Project. The Service also believes
> that no more than 11 pallid sturgeon per year will be incidentally
> taken as a result of monitoring activities. The reasonable and prudent
> measures, with their implementing terms and conditions, are designed
> to minimize the impact of incidental take that might otherwise result
> from the on-going effects of continued operation and maintenance
> activities. If, during the course of continued operation and
> maintenance of the 9-Foot Channel Project, this level of incidental
> take is exceeded, such incidental take represents new information
> requiring reinitiation of consultation and review of the reasonable
> and prudent measures provided. The Federal agency must immediately
> provide an explanation of the causes of the taking and review with the
> Service the need for possible modification of the reasonable and
> prudent measures.

8.6 Conservation Recommendations

Section 7(a)(1) of the Act directs Federal agencies to utilize their
authorities to further the purposes of the Act by carrying out
conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and threatened
species. Conservation recommendations are discretionary agency
activities to minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on
listed species or critical habitat, to help implement recovery plans, or
to develop information.

1.  Lock and dam operations and other structures may impede shovelnose
    sturgeon migrations, thus contributing to hybridization between
    pallid sturgeon and shovelnose sturgeon. This may be a factor of
    concern with operations at both Melvin Price Locks and Dam and
    Kaskaskia Lock and Dam and with the low water rock weir in the Chain
    of Rocks. Therefore, we recommend the completion of a feasibility
    study to evaluate the effects of these structures on sturgeon
    spawning migrations and to recommend alternatives to enhance
    sturgeon passage should the study find that the structures are
    impeding spawning migrations.

2.  Provide funding to complete a sturgeon stock assessment in the MMR
    to obtain population information to assist in future management and
    recovery.

3.  Provide funding in support of pallid sturgeon
    reintroduction/augmentation programs being implemented by the
    Service and state resource agencies.

4.  Implement an education and outreach program for fisherman on
    identifying sturgeon species.

> 5\. Provide funding to develop and validate a sturgeon aging
> technique.

6.  Provide funding to determine the extent and management implications
    of hybridization between sturgeon species.

    Provide funding to conduct a Population Viability Analysis to
    determine appropriate recovery numbers.

In order for the Service to be kept informed of actions minimizing or
avoiding adverse effects or benefitting listed species or their
habitats, the Service requests notification of the implementation of any
conservation recommendations.

8.7 Literature Cited

Adams, S.R., J.J. Hoover, and K.J. Killgore. 1999. Swimming Endurance of
Juvenile Pallid Sturgeon, *Scaphirhynchus albus*. Copiea. 3:802-807.

Amoros, C. 1991. Changes in side-arm connectivity and implications for
river system management. Rivers. 2:105-112.

Atwood, B. 1996. Gosline Island off-bankline revetment study.
[In]{.underline}: Melvin Price Locks and Dam, Progress Report 1996 for
Design Memorandum No. 24, Avoid and Minimize Measures. U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, St. Louis District, St. Louis, Missouri.

Atwood, B. 1997. Cottonwood Island chevron dike fisheries evaluation
update. [In]{.underline}: Melvin Price Locks and Dam, Progress Report
1997 for Design Memorandum No. 24, Avoid and Minimize Measures. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District, St. Louis, Missouri.

Bailey, R.M., and B. Cross. 1954. River sturgeons of the American genus
*Scaphirhynchus*: characters, distribution and synonymy. Paper Michigan
Academy of Science, Art, and Letters. 39:169-208.

Beamsesderfer, R.C.P., and R.A. Farr. 1997. Alternatives for the
protection and restoration of sturgeon and their habitat. Environmental
Biology of Fishes. 48:407-417.

Becker, G.C. 1983. Fishes of Wisconsin. The Univ. of Wisconsin Press,
Madison. 1052 pp.

Beckett, D.C., C.R. Bingham, and L.R. Sanders. 1983. Benthic
macroinvertebrates of selected habitats of the lower Mississippi River.
J. of Freshwater Ecology. 2:247-261.

Bellrose, F.C., S.P. Havera, F.L. Paveglio, Jr., and D.W. Steffeck.
1983. The fate of lakes in the Illinois River Valley. Biological Notes
119. Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign, Illinois. 27 pp.

Belt, C.B. 1975. The 1973 flood and man=s constriction of the
Mississippi River. Science. 89:681-684.

Benke, A.C., R.L. Henry, III, D.M. Gillespie, and R.J. Hunter. 1985.
Importance of snag habitat for animal production in southeastern
streams. Fisheries. 10(5):8-13.

Berg, R.K. 1981. Fish populations of the wild and scenic Missouri River,
Montana. Montana Dept. of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. Restoration Project
FW-3-R. Job 1-A. 242pp.

Bilby, R.E., and G.E. Likens. 1980. Importance of organic debris dams in
the structure and function of stream ecosystems. Ecology. 61:1107-1113.

Bilby, R.E., and J.W. Ward. 1991. Characteristics and function of large
woody debris in streams draining old-growth, clear-cut, and
second-growth forests in southwestern Washington. Canadian J. of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 48:2499-2508.

Bingham, C.R. 1982. Benthic macroinvertebrate study of a stone dike.
Environmental Water Quality Operational Studies Information Exchange
Bulletin, Bol. E-82-4.

Bodensteiner, L.R., W.M. Lewis, and R.J. Sheehan. 1990. Difference in
the physical environment of the Upper Mississippi River as a factor in
overwinter survival of fish. Pages 109-117 [in]{.underline} Proceedings
of the Restoration of Midwestern Stream Habitat Symposium, Dec. 3-5,
1990, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Bodensteiner, L.R., and W.M. Lewis. 1992. Role of temperature, dissolved
oxygen, and backwaters in the winter survival of freshwater drum
(*Aplodinotus grunniens*) in the Mississippi River. Canadian J. of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 49:173-184.

Boreman, J. 1997. Sensitivity of North American sturgeons and paddlefish
to fishing mortality. Environmental Biology of Fishes. 48:399-405.

Bhowmik, N.G., and R.A. Adams. 1990. Sediment transport, hydraulic
retention devices, and aquatic habitat in sand bed channels. Pages
1110-1115 [in]{.underline} H.H. Chang and J.C. Hill, eds., Hydraulic
Engineering Vol. 2: Proceedings of the 1990 National Conference. San
Diego, California.

Bramblett, R.G. 1996. Habitat and movements of pallid and shovelnose
sturgeon in the Yellowstone and Missouri Rivers, Montana and North
Dakota. Ph.D. Dissertation. Montana State University, Bozeman. 210pp.

Breder, C.M., Jr., and D.E. Rosen. 1966. Modes of reproduction in
fishes. The Natural History Press. Garden City, New York.

Brookes, A. 1996. River Channel Change. Pages 221-242 [in]{.underline}
P. Geoffrey and P. Calow, eds., River Flows and Channel Forms: Selected
Extracts From The Rivers Handbook. Blackwell Science.

Campton, D.E., A.I. Garcia, B.W.Bowen, and F.A. Chapman.1995. Genetic
evaluation of pallid, shovelnose and Alabama sturgeon (*Scaphirhynchus
albus*, *S. platorhynchus*, and *S. suttkusi*) based on control Region
(D-loop) sequences of mitochondrial DNA. Report from Dept. of Fisheries
and Aquatic Sciences, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

Carlander, H.B. 1954. A history of fish and fishing in the Upper
Mississippi River. Special Publication, Upper Mississippi River
Conservation Commission. Iowa State University, Ames.

Carlson, D.M., and W.L. Pflieger. 1981. Abundance and life history of
the lake, pallid, and shovelnose sturgeons in Missouri. Missouri
Department of Conservation, Endangered Species Project SE-1-6, Jefferson
City, Missouri.

Carlson, D.M., W.L. Pflieger, L. Trial, and P.S. Haverland. 1985.
Distribution, biology, and hybridization of *Scaphirhynchus albus* and
*S. platorhynchus* in the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers. Environmental
Biology of Fishes. 14:51-59.

Chen, Y.H., and D.B. Simons. 1986. Hydrology, hydraulics, and
geomorphology of the Upper Mississippi River System. Hydrobiologia.
136:5-20.

Christiansen, C.C., 1975. Organochlorine pesticide and polychlorinated
biphenyl contamination of the channel catfish (*Ictalurus punctatus*) of
the Missouri River. Nebraska Dept. of Environmental Control, Lincoln.

Clancey, P. 1990. Fort Peck pallid sturgeon study. Annual Report.
Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, Helena.

Coffey, M., K. Phillips, C. Berg, J. Harshbarger, and T. Gross. 2000.
Middle Mississippi River Sturgeon Health Assessment, Illinois, Iowa and
Missouri. Draft Report.

Coker, R.E. 1930. Studies of common fishes of the Mississippi River at
Keokuk. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Fisheries Document.
1072:141-225.

Collot, V. 1826. A journey in North America. Arthur Bertrand,
Bookseller, Paris. 2 Volumes and 1 map atlas.

Constant, G.C., W.E. Kelso, D.A. Rutherford, and C.F. Bryan. 1997.
Habitat, movement and reproductive status of pallid sturgeon
(*Scaphirhynchus albus*) in the Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers.
Report prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans
District, New Orleans, Louisiana.

Conte, F.S., S.I. Doroshov, P.B. Lutes, and E.M. Strange. 1988. Hatchery
manual for the white sturgeon with applications to the North American
Acipenseridae. Publ. 3322, Univ. of California, Davis.

Cross, F.B. 1967. Handbook of fishes of Kansas. Museum of Natural
History, Univ. of Kansas, Public Education Series 3, Lawrence.

Curtiss, G.L. 1990. Habitat use by shovelnose sturgeon in pool 13, Upper
Mississippi River, Iowa. M.S. Thesis. Iowa State University, Ames.

Davinroy, R.D. 1990. Bendway weirs, a new structural solution to
navigation problems experienced on the Mississippi River. Permanent
International Association of Navigation Congresses. 69:5-18.

Deacon, J.E., G. Kobetich, J.D. Williams, and S. Contreras. 1979. Fishes
of North America, endangered, threatened, or of special concern: 1979.
Fisheries. 4(2):29-44.

De Finiels, N. 1989. An account of upper Louisiana. C.J. Ekberg and W.E.
Foley, eds., translated by C.J. Eckberg. Univ. of Missouri Press,
Columbia, Missouri. 153 pp.

Degenhardt, E.A., 1973. Channel Stabilization of the Middle Mississippi
River. M.S. Thesis. Colorado State University, Fort Collins.

Demissie, M., L. Keefer, and R. Xia. 1992. Erosion and sedimentation in
the Illinois River Basin. Illinois State Water Survey Contract Report
ILENR/RE WR 92/04. Champaign. 112 pp.

Duffy, W.G., C.R. Berry, and K.D. Keenlyne. 1996. Biology of the Pallid
Sturgeon with an Annotated Bibliography Through 1994. Cooperative Fish
and Wildlife Research Unit, Technical Bulletin 5. South Dakota State
University, Brookings.

Ecological Specialists, Inc. 1997a. Final Report: Macroinvertebrates
Associated with Bendway Weirs at Mississippi River Mile 30. Report
prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District, St.
Louis, Missouri.

Ecological Specialist, Inc. 1997b. Macroinvertebrates associated with
habitats of chevron dikes in Pool 24 of the Mississippi River. Report
prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District, St.
Louis, Missouri.

Elliot, C.M., R.R. Rentschler, and J.H. Brooks. 1991. Response of Lower
Mississippi River to low-flow stages. Proceedings of the U.S.
Interagency Sedimentation Conference. Vol. 1. Las Vegas, Nevada.

Elser, A.A., R.C. McFarland, and D. Schwehr. 1977. The effect of altered
stream flow on fish of the Yellowstone and Tongue Rivers. MT. Tech.
Report No. 8, Yellowstone Impact Study, Water Resources Division,
Montana Dept. of Natural Resources and Conservation, Helena.

Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. 1982. Final Report, GREAT
III Ecological Health Characterization. Report DACW43-81-C-00065
prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District, St.
Louis, Missouri.

Erickson, J.D. 1992. Habitat selection and movement of pallid sturgeon
in Lake Sharpe, South Dakota. M.S. Thesis. South Dakota State
University, Brookings.

Flint, R.W. 1979. Response of freshwater benthos to open-lake dredged
spoils disposal in Lake Erie. J. of Great Lakes Research. 5:264-275.

Fogle, N.E. 1963. Report of fisheries investigations during the fifth
year of impoundment of Oahe Reservoir, South Dakota. South Dakota
Department of Game, Fish, and Parks. D.J. Project F-1-R-12, Job
10-11-12. 35pp.

Forbes, S.A., and R.E. Richardson. 1905. On a new shovelnose sturgeon
from the Mississippi River. State Laboratory of Natural History
Bulletin. 7(4):37-44.

Farabee, G.F. 1986. Fish species associated with revetted and natural
main channel border habitats in Pool 24 of the Upper Mississippi River.
North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 6:504-508.

Frazier, J.J. 1998. Santa Fe Chute Side Channel Habitat Improvement
Project, Summary of Observations and Progress, October 1997-September
1998. [In]{.underline}: Melvin Price Locks and Dam, Progress Report 1998
for Design Memorandum No. 24 Avoid and Minimize Measures. U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District, St. Louis, Missouri.

Frazier, J.J., and R.A. Hrabik. 1998. A synopsis on habitat enhancement
work in Marquette Chute, September 1998. [In]{.underline}: Melvin Price
Locks and Dam, Progress Report 1998 for Design Memorandum No. 24 Avoid
and Minimize Measures. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District,
St. Louis, Missouri.

Fremling, C.R., J.L. Rasmussen, R.E. Sparks, S.P. Cobb, C.F. Bryan, and
T.O. Claflin. 1989. Mississippi River fisheries: A case history. Pages
309-351 [in]{.underline} D.P. Dodge, ed., Proceedings of the
International Large River Symposium. Canadian Special Publication of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 106. Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans,
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Funk, J.L., and J.W. Robinson. 1974. Changes in the channel of the lower
Missouri River and effects on fish and wildlife. Missouri Dept. of
Conservation, Aquatic Series 11, Jefferson City.

Gardner, W.M., and P. Stewart. 1987. The fishery of the Lower Missouri
River, Montana. Federal Aid to Fish and Wildlife Restoration, Project
F-46-R-5, Study Number 3. Montana Dept. of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks,
Helena.

Gardner, B. 1999. Pallid Sturgeon Studies Above Fort Peck Reservoir
1996-1998. [In]{.underline}. S. Krentz, ed., Pallid Sturgeon Recovery
Update, Issue No. 10.

Gilbraith, D.M., M.J. Schwalbach, and C.R. Berry. 1988. Preliminary
report on the status of pallid sturgeon, *Scaphirhynchus albus*, a
candidate endangered species. Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research
Unit, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, South Dakota State
University, Brookings, South Dakota. Unpubl. Report.

Gordan, N.G., T.A. McMahon, and B.L. Finlayson. 1992. Stream Hydrology.
John Wiley and Sons, England.

Graham, K. 1997. Missouri Department of Conservation Successfully Spawns
Pallid Sturgeon. [In]{.underline} M. Dryer, ed., Pallid Sturgeon
Recovery Update, Issue No. 9.

Graham, K. 1999. Pallid Sturgeon Reintroduction in Missouri.
[In]{.underline} S. Krentz, ed., Pallid Sturgeon Recovery Update, Issue
No. 10.

Gutreuter, S., J.M. Dettmers, and D.H. Wahl. 1998. Abundance of Fishes
in the Navigation Channels of the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers and
Entrainment Mortality of Adult Fish Caused by Towboat. Project
Completion Report prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey and Illinois
Natural History Survey for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Held, J.W. 1969. Some early summer foods of the shovelnose sturgeon in
the Missouri River. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society.
98:514-517.

Helms, D. 1974. Shovelnose sturgeon, *Scaphirhynchus platorhynchus*, in
the navigational impoundments of the Upper Mississippi River. Tech.
Series. Iowa State Conservation Commission. 74-3. 68 pp.

Hesse, L.W., and G.E. Mestl. 1993. An alternative hydrograph for the
Missouri River based on precontrol condition. North American J. of
Fisheries Management. 13:360-366.

Hesse, L.W., C.W. Wolfe, and N.K. Cole. 1988. Some aspects of energy
flow in the Missouri River ecosystem and a rationale for recovery. Pages
13-29 [in]{.underline} N.G. Benson, ed., The Missouri River: the
resources, their uses and values. North Central Division of the American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 8.

Hesse, L.W., G.E. Mestl, and J.W. Robinson. 1993. Status of selected
fishes in the Missouri River in Nebraska with recommendations for their
recovery. Pages 327-340 [in]{.underline} L.W. Hesse, C.B. Stalnaker,
N.G. Benson and J.R. Zuboy, eds., Proceedings of the Symposium on
Restoration Planning for the Rivers of the Mississippi River Ecosystem.
National Biological Survey, Biological Report 19.

Hubbs, C.L. 1955. Hybridization between fish species in nature.
Systematic Zoology. 4:1-20.

Hurley, K.L. 1999. Habitat Use, Selection, and Movements of Middle
Mississippi River Pallid Sturgeon and Validity of Pallid Sturgeon Age
Estimates From Pectoral Fin Rays. M.S. Thesis. Southern Illinois
University at Carbondale. 82pp.

Johnson, W.C. 1993. Divergent response of riparian vegetation to flow
regulations on the Missouri and Platte rivers. Pages 426-431
[in]{.underline} L.W. Hesse, C.B. Stalnaker, N.G. Benson, and J.R.
Zuboy, eds., Proceedings of the Symposium on Restoration Planning for
the Rivers of the Mississippi River Ecosystem. Biological Report 19.
National Biological Survey, USDI, Washington, DC.

Kallemeyn, L.W. 1983. Status of the pallid sturgeon (*Scaphirhynchus
albus*). Fisheries 8(1):3-9.

Kasul, R.L., and J.A. Baker. 1995. Results of August 1994 Hydroacoustic
Surveys of Fishes in Four River Bends of the Middle Mississippi River
(RM 2-50). Report prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St.
Louis District, St. Louis, Missouri.

Kasul. R.L., and J.A. Baker. 1996. Results of September 1995
Hydroacoustic Surveys of Fishes in Five River Reaches of the Middle
Mississippi River (RM 2-50). Report prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, St. Louis District, St. Louis, Missouri.

Keenlyne, K.D., 1989. A report on the pallid sturgeon. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Pierre, South Dakota. 20pp.

Keenlyne, K.D., E.M. Grossman and L.G. Jenkins. 1992. Fecundity of the
pallid sturgeon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society,
121:139-140.

Keenlyne, K.D. and L.G. Jenkins. 1993. Age at sexual maturity of the
pallid sturgeon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society,
122:393-396.

Keenlyne, K.D., L.K. Graham, and B.C. Reed. 1993. Natural hybrids
between two species of Scaphirhynchinae sturgeon. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Pierre, South Dakota. Unpubl. Report.

Keenlyne, K.D., L.K. Graham, and B.C. Reed. 1994. Hybridization Between
the Pallid and Shovelnose Sturgeons. Proc. South Dakota Academy of
Science. 73:59-66.

Keenlyne, K.D. 1995. Recent North American studies on pallid sturgeon,
*Scaphirhynchus albus* (Forbes and Richardson). Pages. 225-234
[in]{.underline} A.D. Gerschanovich and T.I.J. Smith, eds., Proceedings
of the International Symposium on Sturgeons, September 6-11, 1993. VNIRO
Publ., Moscow, Russia.

Kilpatrick, K. 1999. Pallid Sturgeon Spawned at Natchitoches NFH,
Louisiana, During 1998. [In]{.underline} S. Krentz, ed,. Pallid Sturgeon
Recovery Update, Issue No. 10.

Knox, J.C. 1977. Human impacts on Wisconsin stream channels. Annals of
the Association of American Geographers. 67:323-342.

Knox, J.C., P.J. Bartlein, K.K. Hirschboek, and R.J. Muchenhim. 1975.
The response of floods and sediment fields to climatic variation and
land use in the Upper Mississippi Valley. Univ. of Wisconsin, Institute
for Environmental Studies, Madison. Report 52. 76 pp.

Kynard, B., E. Henyey, and M. Horgan. 1998. Studies on Pallid Sturgeon.
Progress Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pallid Sturgeon
Recovery Team.

Leopold, L.B., M.G. Wolman, and J.P. Miller. 1964. Fluvial Processes in
Geomorphology. W.H. Freeman and Company. San Francisco. 522 pp.

Liebelt, J. 1995. Preliminary report: Fort Peck pallid sturgeon study -
1994. Pages 81-84 [in]{.underline} Proceedings of the first joint
meeting of the Montana/North Dakota pallid workgroup and the fluvial
arctic grayling workgroup. Montana Dept. of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks,
Helena.

Mayden, R.L., and B.R. Kuhajda. 1997. Threatened fishes of the world:
*Scaphirhynchus albus* (Forbes and Richardson, 1905) (Acipenseridae).
Environmental Biology of Fishes. 48:420-421.

Modde, T.C., and J.C. Schumlbach. 1977. Food and feeding behavior of the
shovelnose in the unchannelized Missouri River. Transactions of the
American Fisheries Society. 106(6):602-608.

Moos, R.E., 1978. Movement and reproduction of shovelnose sturgeon,
*Scaphirhynchus* *platorhynchus*, in the Missouri River, South Dakota.
PhD. Dissertation. Univ. of South Dakota, Vermillion. 216 pp.

Mosher, T.D., 1998. Sturgeon and Paddlefish Sportfishing in North
America. Pages 51-66 [in]{.underline} D.F. Williamson, G.W. Benz, and
C.M. Hoover, eds., Proceedings of the Symposium on the Harvest, Trade
and Conservation of North American Paddlefish and Sturgeon, May 7-8,
1998. Chattanooga, Tennessee.

Moyle, P.B. and J.J. Cech. 1982. Fishes: An introduction to ichthyology.
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

Nielson, D.N., R.G. Rada, and M.M. Smart. 1984. Sediments of the Upper
Mississippi River: Their sources, distribution, and characteristics.
Pages 67-98 [in]{.underline} J.G. Wiener, R.V. Anderson, and D.R.
McConville, eds., Contaminants in the Upper Mississippi River.
Butterworth Publishers, Stoneham, Massachusetts.

Nord, A.E., and J.C. Schmulbach. 1973. A comparison of the
macroinvertebrate attached communities in the unstabilized and
stabilized Missouri River. Proceedings of the South Dakota Academy of
Science. 52:127-139.

Ohlendorf, H.M., D.M. Swineford, and L.N. Locke. 1981. Organochlorine
residues and mortality of herons. Pesticides Monitoring Journal.
14(4):125-135.

Payne, B.S., C.R. Bingham, and A.C. Miller. 1989. Life history and
production of dominant larval insects on stone dikes in the Lower
Mississippi River. Lower Mississippi River Environmental Program 18.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mississippi River Commission, Vicksburg,
Mississippi.

Pennington, C.H., J.A. Baker, and M.E. Potter. 1983. Fish populations
along natural and revetted banks on the Lower Mississippi River. North
American J. of Fisheries Management. 3:204-211.

Petersen, M. 1999. Missouri=s LTRM Station Captures Seven Pallid
Sturgeon. [In]{.underline} S. Krentz, ed., Pallid Sturgeon Recovery
Update, Issue No. 10.

Petersen, M., and D. Herzog. 1999. Open River Field Station Report:
Young-of-the-year pallid sturgeon collected in the Mississippi River.
Missouri Department of Conservation, Long Term Resource Monitoring
Station, Cape Girardeau, Missouri.

Pflieger, W.L. 1975. The fishes of Missouri. Missouri Dept. of
Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri. 343 pp.

Pflieger, W.L., and T.B. Grace. 1987. Changes in the fish fauna of the
lower Missouri River, 1940-1983. Pages 166-177 [in]{.underline} W.
Matthews and D. Heines, eds. Community and Evolutionary Ecology of North
American Stream Fishes, Univ. of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Pitlo, J., A.V. Vooren, and J. Rasmussen. 1995. Distribution and
abundance of Upper Mississippi River fishes. Upper Mississippi River
Conservation Committee, Rock Island, Illinois 20pp.

Reed, B.C., and M.S. Ewing. 1993. Status and Distribution of Pallid
Sturgeon at the Old River Control Complex, Louisiana.

Rostad, C.E., L.M. Bishop, G.S. Ellis, T.J. Leiker, S.G. Monsterleet,
and W.E. Pereira. 1995. Polychlorinated Biphenyls and other Synthetic
Organic Contaminants Associated with Sediments and Fish in the
Mississippi River. Pages 103-113 [in]{.underline} R.H. Meade, ed.,
Contaminants in the Mississippi River. USGS Circular 1133.

Ruelle, R., and K.D. Keenlyne. 1991. A contaminant evaluation of
Missouri River Pallid Sturgeon. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pierre,
South Dakota. 25pp.

Ruelle, R. and K.D. Keenlyne. 1993. Contaminants in Missouri River
pallid sturgeon. Bull. of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology.
50:898-906.

Ruelle, R. and K.D. Keenlyne. 1994. The suitability of shovelnose
sturgeon as a surrogate for pallid sturgeon. Proceedings of the South
Dakota Academy of Science. 73:67-81.

Salo, J. 1990. External processes influencing origin and maintenance of
inland water-land ecotones. Pages 37-64 [in]{.underline} R.J. Naiman and
H. Decamps, eds., The ecology and management of aquatic-terrestrial
ecotones. UNESCO, Paris and the Parthenon Publishing Group. 316 pp.

Schmulbach, J.C., G. Gould, and C.L. Groen. 1975. Relative abundance and
distribution of fishes in the Missouri River, Gavins Point Dam to Rulo,
Nebraska. Proceedings South Dakota Academy of Science. 54:194-222.

Schramm, H.L., Jr., L.L. Pugh, and W.R. Davis. 1997. Lower Mississippi
River fisheries investigations, annual report. Mississippi Cooperative
Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Mississippi State, MS.

Schramm, H.L., Jr., L.L. Pugh, M.A. Eggleton, and R.M. Mayo. 1998. Lower
Mississippi River Fisheries Investigations 1996 Annual Report. Prepared
for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Lower Mississippi Valley Division,
Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Sheehan, R.J., L.R. Bodensteiner, W.L. Lewis, D.E. Logsdon, and S.D.
Scherck. 1990a. Long-term survival and swimming performance of
young-of-the-year river fishes at low temperatures: Links between
physiological capacity and winter habitat requirements. Pages 98-108
[in]{.underline} Proceedings of the Restoration of Midwestern Stream
Habitat Symposium, Dec. 3-5, 1990. Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Sheehan, R.J., W.M. Lewis, and L.R. Bodensteiner. 1990b. Winter habitat
requirements and overwintering of riverine fishes. Federal Aid in Sport
Fish Restoration, Final Report for Project F-79-R, Illinois Department
of Conservation, Springfield, Illinois.

Sheehan, R.J., R.C. Heidinger, P.S. Wills, M.A. Schmidt, G.A. Conover,
and K. Hurley. 1997a. Middle Mississippi River Pallid Sturgeon Habitat
Use Project. Fisheries Research Laboratory and Department of Zoology,
Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, Carbondale, Illinois.

Sheehan, R.L., R.C. Heidinger, K.L. Hurley, P.S. Wills, and M.A.
Schmidt. 1997b. Middle Mississippi River Pallid Sturgeon Habitat Use
Project: Year 2 Annual Progress Report, December 1997. Fisheries
Research Laboratory and Department of Zoology, Southern Illinois
University at Carbondale, Carbondale, Illinois.

Sheehan, R.J., R.C. Heidinger, K. Hurley, P.S. Wills, M.A. Schmidt.
1998. Middle Mississippi River pallid sturgeon habitat use project: Year
3 Annual Progress Report, December 1998. Fisheries Research Laboratory
and Department of Zoology, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale,
Carbondale, Illinois.

Sheehan, R.J., R.C. Heidinger, P.S. Wills, M.A. Schmidt, G.A. Conover,
and K.L. Hurley. 1999. Guide to Pallid Sturgeon/Shovelnose Sturgeon
Character Index (CI) and Morphometric Character Index (mCI). SIUC
Fisheries Bulletin No. 14. Fisheries Research Laboratory, Southern
Illinois University at Carbondale, Carbondale, Illinois.

Shields, F.D., and S.R. Abt. 1989. Sediment deposition in cutoff meander
bends and implications for effective management. Regulated Rivers:
Research and Management. 4:381-396.

Shields, F.D., Jr., 1995. Fate of Lower Mississippi River habitats
associated with river training dikes. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and
Freshwater Ecology 5(2):97-108.

Simons, D.B., S.A. Schumm, and M.A. Stevens. 1974. Geomorphology of the
Middle Mississippi River. Report DACW39-73-C-0026 prepared for the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District, St. Louis, Missouri. 110
pp.

Simons, D.B., P.F. Lagasse, Y.H. Chen, and S.A. Schumm. 1975a. The river
environment: a reference document. Colorado State University, Fort
Collins, Colorado.

Simons, D.B., M.A. Stevens, P.F. Lagasse, S.A. Schumm, and Y.H. Chen.
1975b. Environmental inventory and assessment of navigation Pools 24,
25, and 26, Upper Mississippi and Lower Illinois Rivers: a geomorphic
study. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District, St. Louis,
Missouri. 152 pp.

Smith, P.W., A.C. Lopinot, and W.L. Pflieger. 1971. A Distributional
Atlas of Upper Mississippi River Fishes. Illinois Natural History Survey
Biological Notes No. 73.

Smith, P.W. 1979. The fishes of Illinois. University of Illinois Press,
Urbana.

Smith, R.H. 1986. Engineering evaluation of Corps monitoring efforts at
eight selected dikes in the Middle Mississippi River. Potamology Study
S-27. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District, St. Louis,
Missouri.

Soballe, D., and J. Wiener. 1999. Water and Sediment Quality. Pages 7-1
to 7-24 [in]{.underline} USGS, ed., Ecological Status and Trends of the
Upper Mississippi River system. USGS Upper Midwest Environmental
Sciences Center, LaCrosse, Wisconsin. 241 pp.

Solomon, R.C., J.H. Johnson, C.R. Bingham, and B.K. Colbert. 1974.
Physical, biological and chemical inventory and analysis of selected
dredged and disposal sites, Middle Mississippi River. Waterways
Experiment Station Miscellaneous Paper Y-74-6. Report prepared for the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District, St. Louis, Missouri.

Stevenson, K.E., and T.M. Koel. 1999. Effects of dredge material
placement on macroinvertebrate communities. Report prepared for the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers by the Illinois Natural History Survey, LTRMP
Havana Field Station.

Strauser, C. 1993. Environmental engineering with dikes. Pages 77-84
[in]{.underline} Proceedings of the Forty-Ninth Annual Meeting of the
Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Upper Mississippi River
Conservation Committee. Rock Island, Illinois.

Theiling, C. H. 1999. River geomorphology and floodplain features. Pages
4-1 to 4-21 [in]{.underline} USGS, ed., Ecological status and trends of
the Upper Mississippi River system. USGS Upper Midwest Environmental
Sciences Center, LaCrosse, Wisconsin. 241 pp.

Theiling, C., M. Craig, and K. Lubinski. 1999. Side Channel
Sedimentation and Land Cover Change in the Middle Mississippi River.
Draft Report prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Rock
Island Field Office, Rock Island, Illinois.

Tibbs, J.E., 1995. Habitat use by small fishes in the lower Mississippi
River related to foraging by least terns (*Sterna antillarum*). M.S.
Thesis. Univ. of Missouri, Columbia. 186 pp.

Todd, R.M. 1998. Sturgeon and Paddlefish Commercial Fishery in North
America. Pages 42-50 [in]{.underline} D.F. Williamson, G.W. Benz, and
C.M. Hoover, eds., Proceedings of the Symposium on the Harvest, Trade
and Conservation of North American Paddlefish and Sturgeon, May 7-8,
1998. Chattanooga, Tennessee.

Trimble, S.W. 1983. A sediment budget for Coon Creek basin in the
Driftless Area, Wisconsin, 1853-1977. American J. of Science.
283:454-474.

Trimble, S.W., and S.W. Lund. 1982. Soil conservation and the reduction
of erosion and sedimentation in the Coon Creek Basin, Wisconsin. USGS
Professional Paper 1234. Washington, D.C. 35 pp.

Tuttle, J.R., and W. Pinner. 1982. Analysis of major parameters
affecting the behavior of the Mississippi River. Report 4, Potomology
Prog. (P-1). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Lower Mississippi Valley
Division, Vicksburg, MS. 30 p.+ tables.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1981. Missouri River bank stabilization
and navigation project final EIS for the fish and wildlife mitigation
plan. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, Omaha, Nebraska.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1992. Melvin Price Locks and Dam, Design
Memorandum No.24, Avoid and Minimize Measures. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, St. Louis District, St. Louis, Missouri.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1995. Melvin Price Locks and Dam, Progress
Report 1995, Design Memorandum No.24, Avoid and Minimize Measures. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District, St. Louis, Missouri.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1997. Melvin Price Locks and Dam, Progress
Report 1997, Design Memorandum No. 24, Avoid and Minimize Measures. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District, St. Louis, Missouri.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1998. Mississippi River Dredging Matrix
and Bar Charts for 1978 to 1998. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis
District, St. Louis, Missouri.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1999a. Tier I Biological Assessment for
Operation and Maintenance of the Upper Mississippi River Navigation
Project within the St. Paul, Rock Island, and St. Louis Districts.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1999b. Draft Upper Mississippi River and
Illinois Waterway Cumulative Effects Study. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Rock Island District, Rock Island, Illinois.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1999c. Biological Assessment for the
Interior Population of the Least Tern, *Sterna antillarum*. U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Lower Mississippi Valley Division, Vicksburg,
Mississippi.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Undated. Open River Enhancement Project.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District, St. Louis, Missouri.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
Report for the Missouri River Stabilization and Navigation Project,
Habitat Restoration. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Kansas City,
Missouri.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Pallid sturgeon recovery plan.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bismarck, North Dakota. 55 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Environmental Assessment prepared
for the Middle Mississippi River Division of the Mark Twain National
Wildlife Refuge.

U.S. Geological Survey. 1998. Investigations of Endocrine Disruption in
Aquatic Systems Associated with the National Water Quality Assessment
Program. USGS Fact Sheet FS-081-98.

Watson, J.H., and P.A. Stewart. 1991. Lower Yellowstone River pallid
sturgeon study. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Report. No. 1-FG-60-01840.
Montana Dept. of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, Miles City, Montana.

Welcomme, R.L. 1979. Fisheries ecology of floodplain rivers. Longman,
London, United Kingdom.

Whitley, and Campbell. 1974. Water quality and biology of the Missouri
River. Paper presented at the Annual Missouri River Resources Research
Center Conference. Univ. of Missouri, Columbia. 16pp.

Wirgin, I.I., J.E. Stabile, and J.R. Waldman. 1997. Molecular analysis
in the conservation of sturgeons and paddlefish. Environmental Biology
of Fishes, 48:385-398.

Wlosinski, J. 1999. Hydrology. Pages 6-1 to 6-10 [in]{.underline} USGS,
ed., Ecological status and trends of the Upper Mississippi River system.
USGS Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center, LaCrosse, Wisconsin.
241 pp.

**REINITIATION ‑ CLOSING STATEMENT**

This concludes formal consultation on the action(s) outlined in the
(request/reinitiation request). As provided in 50 CFR \'402.16,
reinitiation of formal consultation is required where discretionary
Federal agency involvement or control over the action has been retained
(or is authorized by law) and if: (1) the amount or extent of incidental
take is exceeded; (2) new information reveals effects of the agency
action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or
to an extent not considered in this opinion; (3) the agency action is
subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed
species or critical habitat not considered in this opinion; or (4) a new
species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by
the action. In instances where the amount or extent of incidental take
is exceeded, any operations causing such take must cease pending
reinitiation.