Long Term Resource Monitoring Program

Technical Report Technical Report

96-T004

Pool 25: Water Levels

Management Alternatives

and Their Effects on Habitat

This PDF file may appear different from the printed report

because of slight variations incurred by electronic transmission.

The substance of the report remains unchanged.

October 1996
 LTRMP Technical Reports provide Long Term Resource Monitoring Program

partners with scientific and technical support.

All reports in this series receive anonymous peer review.

Environmental Management

Technical Center

CENTER DIRECTOR

Robert L. Delaney

ECOLOGICAL MONITORING AND

RESEARCH DIRECTOR

Steve Gutreuter

MANAGEMENT APPLICATIONS AND

INTEGRATION DIRECTOR

Ken Lubinski 

INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY

SERVICES DIRECTOR

Norman W. Hildrum

INFORMATION TRANSFER AND

MEDIA SERVICES MANAGER

Terry D’Erchia

REPORT EDITOR

Deborah K. Harris

Cover graphic by Mi Ae Lipe-Butterbrodt

Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement

or recommendation for use by the U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior.

Printed on recycled paper 
Pool 25: Water Level Management

Alternatives and Their Effects on Habitat

by 

Joseph H. Wlosinski and James T. Rogala

U.S. Geological Survey

Environmental Management Technical Center

575 Lester Avenue

Onalaska, Wisconsin 54650

October 1996
Additional copies of this report may be obtained from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port

Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161 (1-800-553-6847 or 703-487-4650).

This report may be cited:

Wlosinski, J. H., and J. Rogala. 1996. Pool 25: Water level management alternatives and their effects on

habitat. National Biological Service, Environmental Management Technical Center, Onalaska,

Wisconsin, October 1996. LTRMP 96-T004. 85 pp. + Appendixes A–D.
iii

Contents

Page

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Introduction .......................................................... 1

Management Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Methods ............................................................. 2

Discharge–Elevation Relation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Water Level Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Water Level Coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Floodplain Elevation Coverage ........................................ 3

Levee Coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Habitat Coverages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Comparison of Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Discharge–Elevation Relation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Water Level Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Water Level Coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Floodplain Elevation Coverage ........................................ 6

Levee Coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Habitat Coverages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Comparison of Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Appendix A. The HEC-2 Model Representing 1993–1994 Conditions in Pool 25 . A-1

Appendix B. The Arc Macro Language Program for Creating Water Level

Elevation Templates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

Appendix C. The Long Term Resource Monitoring Program's Land 

Cover/Land Use Classification System for the Upper Mississippi

River System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

Appendix D. The Arc Macro Language Program for Comparing Water 

Level Management Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1
iv

Tables

Table 1. Definitions of terms used in this report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Table 2. Management scenarios tested for Pool 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Table 3. Average water levels (in feet) at five stations in Pool 25 at 

various discharges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Table 4. Long Term Resource Monitoring Program's 13-class generalized 

land cover/land use classification system for the Upper Mississippi 

River System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Table 5. Alternative management scenarios for Pool 25. The first digit 

of the scenario number represents levee options, the second digit 

represents management plans, and the last digit represents 

discharge regimes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Table 6. Predicted water elevations for each river mile using water 

level management (Plan 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Table 7. Predicted water elevations for each river mile using water 

level management (Plan 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Table 8. Predicted water elevations for each river mile using water 

level management (Plan 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Table 9. Predicted water elevations for each river mile using water 

level management (Plan 4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Table 10. Predicted water elevations for each river mile using water 

level management (Plan 5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Table 11. The predicted difference in water levels (in feet) from one end 

of Pool 25 to the other with various water level management 

alternatives and discharge regimes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Table 12. The amount of water level flexibility (in feet) among the various 

water level management plans and discharge regimes is given for 

locations at the headwater of Pool 25, near Mosier Landing, and at 

the tailwater of Pool 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Table 13. Acreages from the original land cover/land use classification for 

Pool 25 for the two levee options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Table 14. Acreages from the original aquatic areas classification for 

Pool 25 for the two levee options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Table 15. Land cover acreages for Pool 25 for various discharges using the 

present water level management plan with levees in place . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Table 16. Land cover acreages for the floodplain of Pool 25 for various 

discharges using the present water level management plan with 

levees removed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Table 17. Aquatic area acreages for the floodplain of Pool 25 for various 

discharges using the present water level management plan with 

levees in place . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Table 18. Aquatic area acreages for the floodplain of Pool 25 for various 

discharges using the present water level management plan with 

levees removed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Table 19. Acreages for land cover classes in Pool 25, with levees in place, 

at 19,000 cfs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Table 20. Acreages for land cover classes in Pool 25, with levees in place, 

at 56,000 cfs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
v

Table 21. Acreages for land cover classes in Pool 25, with levees in place, 

at 95,000 cfs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Table 22. Acreages for land cover classes in Pool 25, with levees in place, 

at 135,000 cfs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Table 23. Acreages for land cover classes in Pool 25, with levees removed, 

at 19,000 cfs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Table 24. Acreages for land cover classes in Pool 25, with levees removed, 

at 56,000 cfs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Table 25. Acreages for land cover classes in Pool 25, with levees removed, 

at 95,000 cfs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Table 26. Acreages for land cover classes in Pool 25, with levees removed, 

at 135,000 cfs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Table 27. Acreages for aquatic area classes in Pool 25, with levees in place, 

at 19,000 cfs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Table 28. Acreages for aquatic area classes in Pool 25, with levees in place, 

at 56,000 cfs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Table 29. Acreages for aquatic area classes in Pool 25, with levees in place, 

at 95,000 cfs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Table 30. Acreages for aquatic area classes in Pool 25, with levees in place, 

at 135,000 cfs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Table 31. Acreages for aquatic area classes in Pool 25, with levees removed, 

at 19,000 cfs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Table 32. Acreages for aquatic area classes in Pool 25, with levees removed, 

at 56,000 cfs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Table 33. Acreages for aquatic area classes in Pool 25, with levees removed, 

at 95,000 cfs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Table 34. Acreages for aquatic area classes in Pool 25, with levees removed, 

at 135,000 cfs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Table 35. The effect of various management alternatives on land cover 

classes in Pool 25, with levees in place, at 19,000 cfs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Table 36. The effect of various management alternatives on land cover 

classes in Pool 25, with levees in place, at 56,000 cfs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Table 37. The effect of various management alternatives on land cover 

classes in Pool 25, with levees in place, at 95,000 cfs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Table 38. The effect of various management alternatives on land cover 

classes in Pool 25, with levees in place, at 135,000 cfs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Table 39. The effect of various management alternatives on land cover 

classes in Pool 25, with levees removed, at 19,000 cfs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Table 40. The effect of various management alternatives on land cover 

classes in Pool 25, with levees removed, at 56,000 cfs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Table 41. The effect of various management alternatives on land cover 

classes in Pool 25, with levees removed, at 95,000 cfs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Table 42. The effect of various management alternatives on land cover 

classes in Pool 25, with levees removed, at 135,000 cfs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Table 43. The effect of various management alternatives on aquatic area 

classes in Pool 25, with levees in place, at 19,000 cfs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Table 44. The effect of various management alternatives on aquatic area 

classes in Pool 25, with levees in place, at 56,000 cfs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
vi

Table 45. The effect of various management alternatives on aquatic area 

classes in Pool 25, with levees in place, at 95,000 cfs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Table 46. The effect of various management alternatives on aquatic area 

classes in Pool 25, with levees in place, at 135,000 cfs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Table 47. The effect of various management alternatives on aquatic area 

classes in Pool 25, with levees removed, at 19,000 cfs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Table 48. The effect of various management alternatives on aquatic area 

classes in Pool 25, with levees removed, at 56,000 cfs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Table 49. The effect of various management alternatives on aquatic area 

classes in Pool 25, with levees removed, at 95,000 cfs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Table 50. The effect of various management alternatives on aquatic area 

classes in Pool 25, with levees removed, at 135,000 cfs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Figures

Figure 1. The present water level management plan for Pool 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Figure 2. Water levels as a function of discharge for the tailwater at Lock 

and Dam 25, 1986 to 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Figure 3. The discharge elevation relation developed for the tailwater of 

Lock and Dam 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Figure 4. The aquatic areas classification scheme developed for the 

Upper Mississippi River System (from Wilcox 1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Figure 5. Predicted water level elevations (in feet) at three locations in 

Pool 25 using Plan 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Figure 6. Predicted water level elevations (in feet) at three locations in 

Pool 25 using Plan 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Figure 7. Predicted water level elevations (in feet) at three locations in 

Pool 25 using Plan 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Figure 8. Predicted water level elevations (in feet) at three locations in 

Pool 25 using Plan 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Figure 9. Predicted water level elevations (in feet) at three locations in 

Pool 25 using Plan 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Figure 10. Predicted water level elevations (in feet) in Pool 25 at 19,000 cfs . . . . . . 67

Figure 11. Predicted water level elevations (in feet) in Pool 25 at 56,000 cfs . . . . . . 68

Figure 12. Predicted water level elevations (in feet) in Pool 25 at 95,000 cfs . . . . . . 69

Figure 13. Predicted water level elevations (in feet) in Pool 25 at 135,000 cfs . . . . . 70

Figure 14. The water level template for Pool 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Figure 15. The elevation coverage for the northern portion of Pool 25 . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Figure 16. The elevation coverage for the southern portion of Pool 25 . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Figure 17. Land cover/land use classes in the northern portion of the floodplain 

of Pool 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Figure 18. Land cover/land use classes in the southern portion of the floodplain 

of Pool 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Figure 19. Aquatic areas in the northern portion of the floodplain of Pool 25 . . . . . . 76

Figure 20. Aquatic areas in the southern portion of the floodplain of Pool 25 . . . . . . 77

Figure 21. Comparison between water level management plan (Plan 2) and 

the present plan (Plan 1) at 19,000 cfs for land cover classes in the 

northern portion of Pool 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
vii

Figure 22. Comparison between water level management plan (Plan 2) and 

the present plan (Plan 1) at 19,000 cfs for land cover classes in the 

southern portion of Pool 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Figure 23. Comparison between water level management plan (Plan 2) and 

the present plan (Plan 1) at 56,000 cfs for land cover classes in the 

northern portion of Pool 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Figure 24. Comparison between water level management plan (Plan 2) and 

the present plan (Plan 1) at 56,000 cfs for land cover classes in the 

southern portion of Pool 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Figure 25. Comparison between water level management plan (Plan 2) and 

the present plan (Plan 1) at 95,000 cfs for land cover classes in the 

northern portion of Pool 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Figure 26. Comparison between water level management plan (Plan 2) and 

the present plan (Plan 1) at 95,000 cfs for land cover classes in the 

southern portion of Pool 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Figure 27. Comparison between water level management plan (Plan 2) and 

the present plan (Plan 1) at 135,000 cfs for land cover classes in the 

northern portion of Pool 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Figure 28. Comparison between water level management plan (Plan 2) and 

the present plan (Plan 1) at 135,000 cfs for land cover classes in the 

southern portion of Pool 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
ix

Preface

The Long Term Resource Monitoring Program (LTRMP) was authorized under the

Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662) as an element of the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers' Environmental Management Program. The LTRMP is being

implemented by the Environmental Management Technical Center, a U.S. Geological

Survey science center, in cooperation with the five Upper Mississippi River System

(UMRS) States of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin. The U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers provides guidance and has overall Program responsibility. The mode

of operation and respective roles of the agencies are outlined in a 1988 Memorandum of

Agreement.

The UMRS encompasses the commercially navigable reaches of the Upper Mississippi

River, as well as the Illinois River and navigable portions of the Kaskaskia, Black, St. Croix,

and Minnesota Rivers. Congress has declared the UMRS to be both a nationally significant

ecosystem and a nationally significant commercial navigation system. The mission of the

LTRMP is to provide decision makers with information for maintaining the UMRS as a

sustainable large river ecosystem given its multiple-use character. The long-term goals of

the Program are to understand the system, determine resource trends and effects, develop

management alternatives, manage information, and develop useful products.

This report was prepared under Strategy 1.2.3, Determine Effects of Water Levels and

Discharges on the Upper Mississippi River Ecosystem, and Goal 3, Develop Alternatives to

Better Manage the Upper Mississippi River System, as specified in the Operating Plan of the

LTRMP for the Upper Mississippi River System (USFWS 1993). The purpose of this report

is to provide requested information to the Pool 25 Natural Resources Management

Committee concerning the effects of water level management alternatives on floodplain

habitat. This report was developed with funding provided by the Long Term Resource

Monitoring Program.
Pool 25: Water Level Management

Alternatives and Their Effects on Habitat

By Joseph H. Wlosinski and James T. Rogala

Abstract

The effects of changing levee and water level management practices on present habitat types and amounts on the

Upper Mississippi River floodplain at Pool 25 were predicted. The intent of the study was to investigate a broad

range of plans that would provide coarse resolution information and the tools needed to study specific plans in

the future. Two conditions were investigated for levees: the present levee system and all levees removed. Five

water level management plans were studied: the present plan, two plans that would increase water levels, and

two plans that would decrease water levels. The levee and water level management variables resulted in a total

of ten unique management alternatives. Each was studied at four discharge regimes for a total of 40 scenarios.

A geographic information system (GIS) was used to investigate the amounts and types of habitat that would be

affected for each scenario. Tools developed for the study were a discharge elevation relation for the tailwater

of Pool 25; estimates of water levels throughout Pool 25 for each scenario; GIS coverages of water levels,

floodplain elevations, levees, and habitat types; and a technique to compare alternative scenarios. All GIS

analyses were performed in a raster environment.

Introduction

Conservation agencies in Illinois and Missouri

requested assistance from the Environmental

Management Technical Center (EMTC) in

developing water regulation alternatives at Lock

and Dam 25 on the Upper Mississippi River

(UMR). The objective of this multiyear study is

to evaluate water regulation alternatives that will

minimize negative effects and increase ecological

benefits of dam operation. The purpose of this

report is to provide requested information to the

Pool 25 Natural Resources Management

Committee concerning the effects of water level

management and levee alternatives on floodplain

habitat. The Pool 25 Natural Resources

Management Committee is composed primarily of

members of the Upper Mississippi River

Conservation Committee who are making

long-term plans to manage the River floodplain

using ecosystem principles. The Committee

selected the management scenario options

investigated in this study. Defining constraints

associated with changing water level management

plans, such as the need to purchase additional

lands or easements, was not part of this study.

A companion report (Wlosinski 1996) contains

information on historical discharges and water

level management practices in Pool 25. An

annotated bibliography of the effects of water

levels on ecosystem components is also available

(Wlosinski and Koljord in press). Engineering,

legal, and administrative constraints must be

resolved before alternative plans are implemented.

Information concerning constraints on water level

management can be found in reports by the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE 1991) and

Wilcox and Willis (1993).

The intent of the Natural Resources

Management Committee for Pool 25 was to

investigate a limited number of plans covering a

broad range of management alternatives and to

develop the tools needed to study more specific

plans in the future. A recommended future plan

may actually be a suite of plans that changes from

one year to the next, between seasons, or as a

function of certain predefined conditions.

Some terminology in this report may not be

common but is used routinely for water level

management or analysis using geographic

information systems (GIS). These terms are

defined in Table 1.
2

Management Scenarios

We investigated two management variables for

this study: levees and water level management

plans. Two conditions were investigated for

levees: the present levee system and all levees

removed. Five water level management plans

were studied: (1) the present plan (Fig. 1), where

water levels are held between 434 and 435.75 ft at

Mosier Landing when discharges are under 95,000

cfs and are held at 429.7 ft at Lock and Dam 25

when discharges are above 95,000 cfs until open

river conditions exist (about 135,000 cfs); (2) a

plan that maintains a water level of 434 ft at Lock

and Dam 25 at all discharges until open river

conditions exist (about 190,000 cfs); (3) a plan

that maintains a water level of 437 ft at Lock and

Dam 25 at all discharges until open river

conditions exist; (4) a plan that maintains a water

level of 429.7 ft at Lock and Dam 25 at all

discharges until open river conditions exist; and

(5) a plan that always leaves the gates of Lock and

Dam 25 in the raised position so that the only

control of water levels would be from Dam 26.

The two management variables, levee and water

level management plans, result in a total of ten

unique management alternatives (two levee

conditions times five water level management

plans).

Four different steady-state discharge regimes

were investigated for each of the ten management

alternatives: 19,000, 56,000, 95,000, and 135,000

cfs. We chose a regime of 19,000 cfs because it

represents conditions at nearly flat pool, and it

was the estimated discharge when aerial

photography was taken for this study. A regime

of 56,000 cfs represents a moderate discharge, and

it was the lowest discharge represented on the

graph (USACOE 1980) showing the relation of

discharge and water levels in the tailwater of Pool

25. The two higher discharges, 95,000 and

135,000 cfs, represent the maximum and

minimum discharge at maximum drawdown under

the present plan (Fig. 1).

We determined the effects of each of the ten

management alternatives at the four selected

discharge regimes on selected habitat classes,

resulting in 40 scenarios (ten management

alternatives times four discharge regimes). Levee

and water level management alternatives and the

discharge regimes used in this study are presented

in Table 2.

Methods

A GIS was used to quantify the aerial extent

and types of habitat that would be affected for

each of the 40 scenarios. Methods were needed to

develop a discharge elevation relation for the

tailwater of Pool 25; estimates of water levels

throughout Pool 25 for each scenario; GIS

coverages of water levels, floodplain elevations,

levees, and habitat types; and a technique to

compare alternative scenarios. All GIS analyses

were performed in a raster environment using the

ARC/INFO GIS software package.

Discharge–Elevation Relation

A mathematical relation between discharge and

water level elevation at the tailwater of Lock and

Dam 25 was developed by using a third-order

polynomial regression. Water level data were

obtained from the USACOE, St. Louis District.

Discharges were estimated from U.S. Geological

Survey (USGS) stations at Valley City and

Grafton, Illinois, and Keokuk, Iowa (Wlosinski

1996). The regression was based on data

collected from 1986 to 1993. The relation

between discharge and water levels is presented in

Figure 2.

Water Level Estimates

Water level estimates throughout the pool were

needed for each scenario. These estimates were

obtained by using HEC-2, a computer model

intended for calculating water surface profiles for

steady, gradually varied flow (Hydrologic

Engineering Center 1990). Data for elevation

transects for the model were obtained (1) from a
3

study performed on the main and secondary

channels in fall 1993 by the USACOE, St. Louis

District; (2) from data collected by the Alton Field

Station of the Illinois Natural History Survey on

backwaters in summer 1994; and (3) from USGS

quadrangle maps at a resolution of 1:24,000.

Elevation transects for the model occurred at

about 0.5-mi intervals.

The model was calibrated by adjusting the

Manning's N parameter for each transect.

Calibration runs were made at 19,000, 56,000,

95,000, and 135,000 cfs. Predictions were

compared to average elevation data collected by

the USACOE, St. Louis District, from 1952 to

1993 at five stations (Table 3). Manning's N was

adjusted until predicted values were within 0.3 ft

of the observed values for all four discharge

regimes.

An initial water level at Lock and Dam 25 was

also needed for HEC-2 to predict pool water

levels for each of the 20 scenarios. For the

calibration simulations (Plan 1), the mean water

level at the discharge of interest was calculated

from elevation data collected by the USACOE, St.

Louis District, from 1952 to 1993. The mean was

433.8 ft at discharges of 19,000 and 56,000 cfs,

431.7 ft at 95,000 cfs, and 429.9 ft at 135,000 cfs.

Thus, Plan 1 is based on historical water level

measurements. For the alternative management

scenarios at all four discharges, the starting water

level was 434.0 ft for Plan 2; 437.0 ft for Plan 3;

and 429.7 ft for Plan 4. Water levels for Plan 5

were obtained from the water level discharge

relation for the tailwater of Lock and Dam 25

(Fig. 3). The water surface used was 419.2,

422.0, 425.0, and 428.2 ft for discharges of

19,000, 56,000, 95,000, and 135,000 cfs,

respectively. The HEC-2 model used for the final

calibration simulation is in Appendix A.

The same water level predictions for the levee

and no-levee options were used. We assumed that

levees would not have a significant effect on

water levels because the discharges of interest

were less than flood flows. Thus, the model was

used to obtain 20 different water level datasets

(five water level management plans times four

discharge regimes). Model transects only

includeelevation information needed for this study

and do not continue landward of levees, so the

model is not suitable for predicting water levels

during floods.

Water Level Coverage

A GIS coverage of water levels was created for

each of the 20 scenarios from the HEC-2

predictions. A template of polygons for each river

mile was created to produce a surface representing

water levels. Most of the template cells were

perpendicular to the direction of flow, with no

lateral changes in water surface elevation.

However, if off-channel areas are only contiguous

with the main channel at a downstream location,

the polygon would have an irregular pattern. The

template also assumes that Lock and Dam 25 is

continuous from bluff to bluff. The template was

developed according to conditions determined

from 1989 aerial photography. The polygon

coverage was converted to a raster grid coverage

with a cell size of 50 m. The large cell size was

selected because of the low resolution of the river

mile template. The GIS program for developing

the water level coverage is in Appendix B.

Floodplain Elevation Coverage

Data for a GIS coverage of floodplain

elevations were obtained from five sources. The

only source of data for terrestrial areas was 5-ft

contour data obtained from USGS 1:24,000

quadrangle maps. The highest contour included in

this coverage was based on predictions from

HEC-2 of the highest elevation by river mile for

the 20 scenarios investigated. For this reason, the

total area of the coverage may be slightly smaller

than the actual area of the floodplain.

Bathymetric data were obtained from

USACOE, St. Louis District, surveys performed

on the main and secondary channels in fall 1993

and LTRMP Alton Field Station surveys

conducted on backwaters in summer 1994. For
4

the USACOE transect data, 5-ft contours were

interpolated by computer and plotted on maps. In

addition, 3-ft contours were drawn by hand from

the USACOE transect data to supplement the

computer-generated contours and 1- to 3-ft

contours were drawn from bathymetric data

collected in the backwaters. All bathymetric data

were gaged to a constant water surface elevation

(434.0 ft) throughout the pool, and bed elevations

were then calculated from water depths.

Additional elevations along shorelines were

derived from land cover data and SPOT satellite

data taken at three different discharge regimes.

Land cover data and SPOT imagery were

classified into land and water classes, and the

boundary was then treated as a shoreline.

Shoreline elevations were estimated by using the

HEC-2 model, elevation data at the Pool 25

headwater gage, and a discharge estimate obtained

from the Pool 25 tailwater gage.

We combined all elevation data into one

coverage. Interpolation methods were then used

with these data to generate a continuous elevation

surface. To assist the interpolation algorithm,

additional data were created in an intermediate

interpolation step. This interpolation was

performed along selected lines, referred to as

break lines, which were critical for retaining the

integrity of the surface. Otherwise, errors might

have been introduced into the coverage in areas of

elevational change, which would be interpreted as

distinct triangles of equal elevation. We used a

linear interpolation of a grid from a triangulated

irregular network (TIN).

Levee Coverage

The levee coverage was, for the most part,

provided by the Scientific Assessment and

Strategy Team (SAST), who digitized interpreted

aerial photography. Data used from SAST

included levee center lines and areas protected by

levees. Modifications to their coverage were

made by adding areas that were isolated from the

main river and were not designated as such. 

Polygons of the protected areas were then created.

The polygon data were converted into a raster

dataset at a 5-m cell size, and areas (polygons)

protected by levees were assigned a "nodata"

value. The levee coverage was then used to mask

floodplain areas for the scenarios representing the

present levees condition. Thus, the total habitat

acreage for the two levee conditions was different.

We assumed that levees would not be overtopped

under any combination of discharges and water

level management plans used for the study.

Habitat Coverages

Two classification schemes were used as

surrogates for habitat types: land cover/land use

and aquatic areas. For both schemes, we used

data obtained from aerial photography taken in

September 1989. LTRMP's 13-Class Generalized

Classification Scheme was used for reporting the

effects on land cover/land use (Table 4).

However, this classification system is a subset of

a classification system with finer resolution, and

either scheme can be used for future studies. One

class, the submergents rooted floating aquatics

emergents, did not occur anywhere and was

excluded from the analyses. Six classes were

designated as aquatic (ending with emergents,

Table 4) and the rest as terrestrial. Additional

information on the finer resolution scheme is

provided (Appendix C).

Wilcox (1993) presented an aquatic areas

classification scheme for the Upper Mississippi

River System (Fig. 4). We followed his scheme in

this study, except that the main and secondary

channels were not further subdivided. Nonaquatic

areas were considered terrestrial.

Comparison of Scenarios

A three-digit numbering scheme was created

for comparing different management scenarios

(Table 5). The first digit represents the levee
5

conditions, the second the water level

management plan, and the third the discharge.

Scenario "111" represents the present levee

system and present water level management plan

at 19,000 cfs. These were the conditions that

were in place when the photography was obtained

for land cover/land use and aquatic areas in 1989.

Changes in habitat types can occur as a

function of discharge and of water level

management plan. We dealt with both changes by

adding two general classes, "flooded terrestrial"

and "dewatered aquatics." Thus, we did not

predict the type of habitat that would occur if an

area that was designated as terrestrial was flooded

or an aquatic area was dewatered, only the type of

present habitat that was affected. We also did not

predict whether existing classes would change

because of changes in water depth or changes in

elevation above the water surface.

Changes that would occur as a result of each of

the management alternatives were determined by

overlay of GIS databases using the software

package ARC/INFO GRID. The initial overlay

was the water surface elevation grid and the

elevation database. The product of that overlay

was a land water grid, which was used to

determine inundation or exposure of habitat

present in the Plan 1 scenario for each of the four

discharges. Each of the other plans was then

compared to the present plan (Plan 1) for each

discharge. This led to 16 comparisons for each of

the two levee conditions. The change due to the

presence or absence of levees was generated by

using the levee mask (present levee condition) or

operating on the entire study area (no levee

condition). The program developed for

comparing water level management scenarios is

presented (Appendix D). A similar program was

developed for the aquatic areas classification.

The statistics we reported for the study were

the total acreage for each class for each scenario

and a summary of change for each scenario. In

the summary of change, we compared each of the

water level Plans 2, 3, 4, and 5 to the present plan

for each discharge regime and included the loss of

each class, the inundation of terrestrial habitat

types, and exposure of aquatic habitat types.

Results and Discussion

Discharge–Elevation Relation

The discharge elevation relation developed for

the tailwater of Lock and Dam 25 is presented in

Figure 3. Predicted elevations are about 0.2 to 0.8

ft lower than the relation given in the Water

Regulation Manual for Pool 25 (USACOE 1980).

This difference is not surprising, especially

considering possible errors associated with

estimating discharges. The USGS reports much

of their discharge data as being "fair," which they

define as "95% of the daily discharges are within

15% of the true value" (Reed et al. 1993). A 15%

error in estimating discharge, at 100,000 cfs at the

Lock and Dam 25 tailwater, is equivalent to an

elevation difference of about 1.1 ft.

Discharge exceedence curves for 1939 through

1993 were presented by Wlosinski (1996).

Discharges were below 19,000 at Pool 25 less

than 1% of the time. They were between 19,000

and 56,000 cfs 37% of the time and between

56,000 and 95,000 cfs 27% of the time.

Discharges were between 95,000 and 135,000 cfs

16% of the time and above 135,000 cfs 20% of the

time. 

Water Level Estimates

Water level predictions from HEC-2 are listed

by river mile for management Plans 1 through 5 in

Tables 6 through 10, respectively. The predicted

difference in water levels from one end of the

pool to the other for the various scenarios varies

from a low of 0.3 ft to a high of 14.4 ft (Table 11).

Water levels as a function of discharge are shown

for three locations in the pool for Plans 1 through

5 in Figures 5 through 9, respectively.
6

It should be noted that water levels can only be

controlled at Lock and Dam 25 but can be

managed at any other location in the pool.

"Management" is defined here as the maintenance

of a target water level at a specific location in the

pool (control point) over a range of discharges.

Also, if one specific plan is used to manage water

levels in a pool, water level fluctuations anywhere

else in the pool would be strictly a function of

discharge. To have flexibility to manage water

levels over a range of discharges, two different

plans must be feasible. Water level management

"flexibility" would then be the vertical distance of

water levels between various management plan

alternatives. Flexibility values change as a

function of discharge and as a function of distance

from Lock and Dam 25. The amount of water

level flexibility, in feet, among the various plans

is shown in Table 12 for locations at the

headwater of Pool 25, near Mosier Landing, and

at the tailwater of Pool 24. When water levels are

managed at the dam, water level management

flexibility is inversely related to distance from

Lock and Dam 25.

Water Level Coverage

Graphs depicting water level elevations by

river mile, for each water level management plan,

are presented for each of the four discharge

regimes (Figs. 10 through 13). As previously

stated, levee presence or absence is not a variable

in water level conditions. An example of the

water elevation template is provided in Figure 14.

The template is overlaid on the land water

boundary for illustrative purposes.

Floodplain Elevation Coverage

The elevation coverage for the northern portion

of the pool is presented in Figure 15 and the

southern portion in Figure 16. The elevation

coverage did not include the entire floodplain

because of the absence of high elevation data, as

described previously. The total area of the

floodplain, obtained from the original land

cover/land use map, is about 85,700 acres. The

study area for this report was about 84,100 acres.

The mean elevation of the entire study area is 438

ft above msl with a standard deviation of 8 ft.

Sixteen percent of the area is higher than 445 ft,

47% is higher than 440 ft, 71% is higher than 435

ft, and 86% is higher than 430 ft. As expected of

a floodplain, there is a longitudinal trend of

decreasing elevation moving downriver. The

study area that was not protected by levees had a

mean elevation of 434 ft with a standard deviation

of 10 ft. The study area protected by levees had a

mean elevation of 440 ft with a standard deviation

of 5 ft.

Levee Coverage

The area protected by levees was about 49,200

acres (59% of the floodplain). About 83% of the

land on the Missouri side, including islands, is

protected by Federal levees for a total of about

39,500 acres. About 43% on the Illinois side is

protected by levees. A Federal levee on the

northern portion of the Illinois side protects about

8,500 acres, and a non-Federal levee in the

southern portion of the Illinois side protects about

1,200 acres.

Habitat Coverages

Land cover/land use classes for the northern

portion of Pool 25 are presented in Figure 17 and

for the southern portion in Figure 18. Similarly,

the aquatic areas coverage is presented in Figures

19 and 20. A small percentage of the area along

the periphery of the habitat coverages was

excluded so that the area coincided more closely

to the area of the elevation coverage. Acreages of

land cover/land use, by class, for the two levee

options are presented in Table 13. The column on

the left only includes habitat acreages that were

present between the levees. The column on the

right includes habitat acreages for the entire

floodplain. The submergents rooted floating

aquatics emergents class did not occur anywhere
7

and was excluded from the analysis. Similarly,

acreage figures for aquatic areas are presented in

Table 14. A number of classes shown in Figure 4

were not found in Pool 25 and were therefore not

included in the analysis.

Acreages for each land cover class, for each of

the four discharges under the present water level

management plan, are provided in Table 15 for the

management option with levees in place and Table

16 for the option with levees removed. Tables 17

and 18 contain similar information for the aquatic

areas. Acreages for a specific class do not

necessarily increase or decrease as a function of

discharge, because water levels in Pool 25 are

presently managed by a midpool control method.

As discharges increase with this method, water

levels may be increasing in the upriver part of the

pool, while at the same time decreasing in the

downriver part of the pool.

Comparison of Scenarios

Predicted acreages for each land cover class at

each water level management plan, with levees in

place, are provided in Tables 19 (19,000 cfs), 20

(56,000 cfs), 21 (95,000 cfs), and 22 (135,000

cfs). Tables 23 through 26 contain similar

information for the option with levees removed.

An equivalent set of tables (27 through 34)

include acreages for aquatic area classes.

Because habitat classes change as a function of

discharge and of water level management plans,

viewing total acreage figures may be confusing.

We have attempted to show changes only as a

function of management alternatives by

comparing Plans 2 through 5 to the present plan

for each level of discharge. The effects of water

level management Plans 2 through 5 on land cover

classes, when compared with the present plan with

levees in place, are presented in Tables 35 (19,000

cfs), 36 (56,000 cfs), 37 (95,000 cfs), and 38

(135,000 cfs). Similar information is presented in

Tables 39 through 42 when levees are removed.

The effects on aquatic areas are presented in

Tables 43 through 46 when levees remain in place

and Tables 47 through 50 when levees are

removed. These tables show both the number of

acres changed when each plan is compared with

the present plan and the percent change. It should

be noted that the maximum loss is 100%, but that

increases can be greater than 100%.

Maps showing the comparisons for land cover,

between Plan 2 and Plan 1, are provided in

Figures 21 through 28. As can be seen in these

figures, the greatest area of change is in the

southern portion of the floodplain. Relatively

minor changes occur in the northern portion of the

pool as a result of any plan.

Changes for all classes in the model are strictly

a function of elevation. If an elevation anywhere

in the floodplain is lower than the predicted water

elevation for that river mile, that area would

remain aquatic or would become an inundated

terrestrial area, even if the area was surrounded by

land that was higher than the water surface

elevation. Similarly, any area can drain as waters

recede, even if the area is effectively cut off from

the river. This is especially important in the

southern portion of the floodplain on the Missouri

side of the river. Most of this area now drains

into Pool 26. Lock and Dam 25 would have to be

extended to the bluff and channels might have to

be constructed to manage water levels and

habitats as shown in Figures 21 through 28 and

Tables 19 through 50.

The vast amount of data generated because we

investigated 40 scenarios and more than 30 habitat

types makes it extremely difficult to succinctly

discuss results. However, as stated previously,

habitat classes change both as a function of

discharge and water level management plans.

Viewing Figures 10 through 13, which show

water levels as a function of discharge and water

level management plans, may help the reader to

better understand the results listed in Tables 35

through 50 and Figures 21 through 28. For

example, little difference in water levels occurs

anywhere in the pool when comparing Plans 1 and
8

2 at 19,000 cfs (Fig. 10), helping to explain why

most acreage values under management Plan 2 are

less than those of other management plans.

References

Hydrologic Engineering Center. 1990. HEC-2

Water surface profiles user's manual. U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers, Davis, California.

308 pp.

Reed, H. L., T. J. Perkins, and G. L. Gray, Jr.

1993. Water resources data, Missouri water

year 1992. U.S. Geological Survey Waterdata

Report MO-92-1, Rolla, Missouri. 236 pp.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE). 1980.

Mississippi River, Nine Foot Channel

Navigation Project. Pages 1-1 through 6-2 in

Appendix 25, Master Water Control Manual.

Lock and Dam No. 25. St. Louis District, St.

Louis, Missouri.

USACOE. 1991. Identification of constraints on

regulation of Upper Mississippi River System

Lock and Dam 18. Report by the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers, Rock Island,

Illinois, for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Environmental Management

Technical Center, Onalaska, Wisconsin,

September 1991. EMTC 91-07. 54 pp.

(NTIS #PB92-104728)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Operating

Plan for the Upper Mississippi River 

System Long Term Resource 

Monitoring Program. Environmental

Management Technical Center, Onalaska,

Wisconsin, Revised September 1993. EMTC

91-P002R. 179 pp. (NTIS #PB94-160199)

Wilcox, D. B. 1993. An aquatic habitat

classification system for the Upper

Mississippi River System. U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Environmental Management

Technical Center, Onalaska, Wisconsin, May

1993. EMTC 93-T003. 9 pp. + Appendix A.

(NTIS #PB93-208981)

Wilcox, D. B., and K. W. Willis. 1993.

Identification of constraints on river

regulation. Lock and Dam 9 near Lynxville,

Wisconsin, Upper Mississippi River 9-Foot

Channel Project. Report by the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District

Minnesota, for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Environmental Management

Technical Center, Onalaska, Wisconsin,

August 1993. EMTC 93-S012. 91 pp. (NTIS

#PB94-103603)

Wlosinski, J. H. 1996. Pool 25: Analysis of

water levels and discharge. National

Biological Service, Environmental

Management Technical Center, Onalaska,

Wisconsin, March 1996. LTRMP 96-T001.

88 pp.

Wlosinski, J. H., and E. R. Koljord. 1996. An

annotated bibliography on the effects of water

levels on ecosystem components. National

Biological Service, Environmental

Management Technical Center, Onalaska,

Wisconsin. (In press)
9

Table 1. Definitions of terms used in this report.

Term Definition

Control point A specific location in a pool where the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

maintains a target water level over a range of discharges.

Coverage A geographical dataset containing attributes for discrete point, line, or

polygon features in a vector dataset or cell values for raster datasets.

Geographic information system (GIS) An organized collection of computer hardware, software, geographic

data, and personnel adapted to efficiently capture, store, update,

analyze, and display all forms of geographic information.

Grid A geographic dataset used by ARC/INFO's raster GRID software.

Headwater That part of a pool located immediately upriver of the dam.

Mask Those cells within an analysis area that will not be considered when

performing an operation or function. The area can be designated by a

coverage with null data in masked areas.

Maximum drawdown The maximum drop in water levels at the headwater, below the project

pool elevation, that would still allow a 9-ft navigation channel.

Open river The condition when all of the movable gates at a dam are raised out of

the water and the headwater and tailwater elevations are nearly equal.

Overlay A GIS process that operates on two or more datasets based on their

geographic location. Types of operations include combining attributes

of different coverages and performing mathematical functions based

on attributes of multiple coverages.

Polygon Discrete areas within closed arcs that represent areas on maps. 

Within a polygon is an identification label used to link the geographical

location of the polygon to data tables containing information about the

area.

Pool The body of water created upriver of a dam.

Project pool elevation The water level elevation needed to maintain a 9-ft channel at zero

discharge, and for which each dam was designed.

Raster A type of database that stores information as regularly spaced square

cells.

Tailwater That part of a pool located immediately downriver of the dam.

Vector A GIS data structure that represents map features as a list of ordered

x,y coordinates.
10

Table 2. Management scenarios tested for Pool 25.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Plan number Alternative

____________________________________________________________________________________

Levees

1 Present levees

2 No levees

Water level management plans

1 Present plan

2 Control at the dam with present project pool elevation (434.0 ft)

3 Control at the dam with a 3-ft raise (437.0 ft)

4 Control at the dam with present drawdown elevation (429.7 ft)

5 Control at Dam 26 (gates at Lock and Dam 25 always in raised position)

Discharge regimes

1 19,000 cfs

2 56,000 cfs

3 95,000 cfs

4 135,000 cfs

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Table 3. Average water levels (in feet) at five stations in Pool 25 at various discharges. Values are based

on average data collected from 1952 to 1993.

____________________________________________________________________________________

River mile

 

_________________________________________________________________

Discharge 241.5 250.8 260.3 265.0 273.2

____________________________________________________________________________________

19,000 433.8 434.0 434.1 434.2 434.6

56,000 433.8 434.1 434.9 435.6 437.3

95,000 431.7 433.0 435.7 437.1 439.9

135,000 429.9 433.7 437.9 439.8 443.0

____________________________________________________________________________________________
11

Table 4. Long Term Resource Monitoring Program's 13-class generalized land cover/land use classification

system for the Upper Mississippi River System.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Open water: Areas classified as Open Water have <10% vegetation cover and are classified as either water

or duckweed. Note: Duckweed is treated as Open Water because of its mobile tendencies.

Submergents: Land cover types grouped into this class are areas classified as having either submergent

vegetation or submergent vegetation mixed with duckweed.

Submergents–rooted floating aquatics: Land cover types grouped into this class contain mixtures of

submergents combined with American lotus, watershields, and white water lily.

Submergents–rooted floating aquatics–emergents: Land cover types grouped into this class mixtures

of submergents combined with American lotus or white water lily or both, along with arrowhead, bulrush,

burreed, pickerelweed, or wild rice.

Rooted floating aquatics: Land cover types grouped into this class contain either pure stands or mixtures

of American lotus, watershields, water primrose, white water lily, or yellow water lily.

Rooted floating aquatics–emergents: Land cover types grouped into this class contain mixtures of

American lotus or white water lily or both mixed with arrowhead or bulrush or both.

Emergents: Land cover types grouped into this class contain either pure stands or mixtures of arrowhead,

bulrush, burheads, bur-reed, cattail, flat sedge, horsetail, pickerel weed, purple loosestrife, sedges, sedge

meadow, spike rush, sweetflag grass, water willow, or wild rice.

Emergents–grasses–forbs: Land cover types grouped into this class contain mixtures or arrowhead,

bulrush, cattail, or purple loosestrife mixed with common reed, cutgrass, reed canary grass, sedges, or

smartweed.

Grasses–forbs: Land cover types grouped into this class contain either pure stands or mixtures of cord

grass, common reed, cutgrass, lowland hay meadow, grass, live stem vines, mixed forbs or grasses,

nettles, pasture, ragweed, reed canary grass, roadsides–levees, sand–prairie, smartweed, or upland

meadows.

Woody terrestrial: Land cover types grouped into this class contain either pure stands or mixtures of ash,

bald cypress, birch, button bush, conifers, cottonwood, Eastern red cedar, elm, false indigo, hickory, maple,

mesic forests, oaks, plantations, shrubs, sour gum, upland forests, or willow.

Agriculture: Agriculture is used to define any area where the ground is turned with a plow or worked with

a disk.

Urban–developed: Land cover types grouped into this class area are areas that have been developed into

campgrounds, picnic areas, industrial developments, urban developments, or are covered with riprap.

Sand–mud: Land cover types classified as Sand–Mud have <10% vegetation cover and are classified as

either sand or mud.

____________________________________________________________________________________
12

Table 5. Alternative management scenarios for Pool 25. The first digit of the scenario number represents

levee options, the second digit represents management plans, and the last digit represents discharge regimes.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Scenario Discharge

number Levees Management plan (cfs)

____________________________________________________________________________________

111 yes present plan 19,000

112 yes present plan 56,000

113 yes present plan 95,000

114 yes present plan 135,000

121 yes dam control 434.0 ft 19,000

122 yes dam control 434.0 ft 56,000

123 yes dam control 434.0 ft 95,000

124 yes dam control 434.0 ft 135,000

131 yes dam control 437.0 ft 19,000

132 yes dam control 437.0 ft 56,000

133 yes dam control 437.0 ft 95,000

134 yes dam control 437.0 ft 135,000

141 yes dam control 429.7 ft 19,000

142 yes dam control 429.7 ft 56,000

143 yes dam control 429.7 ft 95,000

144 yes dam control 429.7 ft 135,000

151 yes no dam 25 control 19,000

152 yes no dam 25 control 56,000

153 yes no dam 25 control 95,000

154 yes no dam 25 control 135,000

211 no present plan 19,000

212 no present plan 56,000

213 no present plan 95,000

214 no present plan 135,000

221 no dam control 434.0 ft 19,000

222 no dam control 434.0 ft 56,000

223 no dam control 434.0 ft 95,000

224 no dam control 434.0 ft 135,000

231 no dam control 437.0 ft 19,000

232 no dam control 437.0 ft 56,000

233 no dam control 437.0 ft 95,000

234 no dam control 437.0 ft 135,000

241 no dam control 429.7 ft 19,000

242 no dam control 429.7 ft 56,000

243 no dam control 429.7 ft 95,000

244 no dam control 429.7 ft 135,000

251 no no dam 25 control 19,000

252 no no dam 25 control 56,000

253 no no dam 25 control 95,000

254 no no dam 25 control 135,000

____________________________________________________________________________________________
13

Table 6. Predicted water elevations for each river mile using water level management (Plan 1).

____________________________________________________________________________________

 Discharge regime (cfs)

 

_________________________________________________________________

River

mile 19,000 56,000 95,000 135,000

____________________________________________________________________________________

242 433.8 433.8 431.7 430.0

243 433.8 433.8 431.9 430.6

244 433.8 433.9 432.1 430.9

245 433.8 433.9 432.2 431.3

246 433.8 433.9 432.3 431.5

247 433.8 434.0 432.5 432.0

248 433.8 434.1 432.8 432.6

249 433.8 434.1 433.0 433.0

250 433.8 434.2 433.2 433.4

251 433.9 434.2 433.4 433.8

252 433.9 434.3 433.5 434.0

253 433.9 434.3 433.7 434.3

254 433.9 434.4 434.0 434.9

255 433.9 434.5 434.2 435.6

256 433.9 434.6 434.5 436.1

257 433.9 434.7 434.8 436.9

258 433.9 434.8 435.2 437.5

259 433.9 434.9 435.3 437.7

260 434.0 435.0 435.7 438.1

261 434.0 435.1 435.9 438.4

262 434.0 435.2 436.1 438.7

263 434.0 435.3 436.4 439.0

264 434.0 435.5 436.8 439.5

265 434.1 435.6 437.1 440.0

266 434.1 435.8 437.4 440.3

267 434.1 436.0 438.0 440.8

268 434.2 436.1 438.3 441.0

269 434.2 436.2 438.5 441.2

270 434.2 436.5 438.9 441.7

271 434.3 436.7 439.3 442.1

272 434.3 436.8 439.7 442.5

273 434.3 436.9 440.2 442.8

____________________________________________________________________________________________
14

Table 7. Predicted water elevations for each river mile using water level management (Plan 2).

____________________________________________________________________________________

 Discharge regime (cfs)

 

_________________________________________________________________

River

mile 19,000 56,000 95,000 135,000

____________________________________________________________________________________

242 434.0 434.0 434.0 434.0

243 434.0 434.0 434.1 434.2

244 434.0 434.1 434.2 434.4

245 434.0 434.1 434.3 434.7

246 434.0 434.1 434.4 434.8

247 434.0 434.2 434.5 435.0

248 434.0 434.3 434.7 435.3

249 434.0 434.3 434.8 435.6

250 434.0 434.4 435.0 435.8

251 434.1 434.4 435.1 436.0

252 434.1 434.5 435.2 436.2

253 434.1 434.5 435.4 436.4

254 434.1 434.6 435.6 436.8

255 434.1 434.7 435.9 437.2

256 434.1 434.8 436.1 437.5

257 434.1 434.9 436.6 438.0

258 434.1 435.0 436.9 438.4

259 434.1 435.1 437.0 438.6

260 434.1 435.2 437.3 438.9

261 434.2 435.3 437.5 439.2

262 434.2 435.3 437.7 439.4

263 434.2 435.5 437.9 439.7

264 434.2 435.7 438.2 440.1

265 434.3 435.8 438.7 440.5

266 434.3 435.9 438.9 440.7

267 434.3 436.1 439.3 441.2

268 434.3 436.3 439.5 441.3

269 434.4 436.4 439.7 441.5

270 434.4 436.6 440.0 442.0

271 434.5 436.8 440.4 442.4

272 434.5 436.9 440.7 442.7

273 434.5 437.1 441.0 443.0

____________________________________________________________________________________________
15

Table 8. Predicted water elevations for each river mile using water level management (Plan 3).

____________________________________________________________________________________

 Discharge regime (cfs)

_________________________________________________________________

River

mile 19,000 56,000 95,000 135,000

____________________________________________________________________________________

242 437.0 437.0 437.0 437.0

243 437.0 437.0 437.1 437.1

244 437.0 437.0 437.1 437.2

245 437.0 437.1 437.2 437.4

246 437.0 437.1 437.2 437.4

247 437.0 437.1 437.3 437.6

248 437.0 437.1 437.4 437.8

249 437.0 437.2 437.5 437.9

250 437.0 437.2 437.5 438.1

251 437.0 437.2 437.6 438.2

252 437.0 437.3 437.7 438.3

253 437.0 437.3 437.8 438.4

254 437.0 437.3 437.9 438.7

255 437.1 437.4 438.0 438.9

256 437.1 437.5 438.2 439.2

257 437.1 437.5 438.4 439.4

258 437.1 437.6 438.6 439.7

259 437.1 437.7 438.7 439.8

260 437.1 437.7 438.8 440.1

261 437.1 437.8 438.9 440.3

262 437.1 437.9 439.1 440.5

263 437.1 437.9 439.2 440.7

264 437.1 438.0 439.4 441.0

265 437.1 438.3 439.7 441.3

266 437.2 438.4 439.9 441.5

267 437.2 438.5 440.2 441.8

268 437.2 438.6 440.3 442.0

269 437.2 438.7 440.4 442.1

270 437.2 438.8 440.7 442.5

271 437.2 438.9 441.0 442.9

272 437.3 439.1 441.2 443.2

273 437.3 439.3 441.5 443.4

____________________________________________________________________________________________
16

Table 9. Predicted water elevations for each river mile using water level management (Plan 4).

____________________________________________________________________________________

 Discharge regime (cfs)

_________________________________________________________________

River

mile 19,000 56,000 95,000 135,000

____________________________________________________________________________________

242 429.7 429.7 429.8 429.8

243 429.7 429.8 430.1 430.4

244 429.7 429.9 430.3 430.8

245 429.7 430.0 430.5 431.2

246 429.7 430.0 430.6 431.4

247 429.7 430.2 430.9 431.9

248 429.8 430.3 431.3 432.5

249 429.8 430.4 431.5 432.9

250 429.8 430.6 431.9 433.3

251 429.8 430.7 432.1 433.7

252 429.8 430.8 432.3 433.9

253 429.9 430.9 432.6 434.3

254 429.9 431.1 432.9 434.9

255 429.9 431.3 433.3 435.5

256 430.0 431.5 433.6 436.1

257 430.0 431.8 434.0 436.9

258 430.1 432.1 434.5 437.5

259 430.1 432.2 434.6 437.6

260 430.1 432.4 434.9 438.1

261 430.2 432.6 435.2 438.4

262 430.3 432.8 435.5 438.7

263 430.3 433.1 435.8 439.0

264 430.4 433.5 436.3 439.5

265 430.5 433.8 436.6 440.0

266 430.6 434.0 436.9 440.3

267 430.8 434.4 437.4 440.8

268 430.9 434.6 437.7 441.0

269 430.9 434.7 437.9 441.2

270 431.1 435.1 438.4 441.7

271 431.3 435.5 438.9 442.1

272 431.3 435.6 439.4 442.5

273 431.4 435.8 439.9 442.8

____________________________________________________________________________________________
17

Table 10. Predicted water elevations for each river mile using water level management (Plan 5).

____________________________________________________________________________________

 Discharge regime (cfs)

_________________________________________________________________

River

mile 19,000 56,000 95,000 135,000

____________________________________________________________________________________

242 419.2 422.0 425.1 428.3

243 419.9 423.4 426.3 429.2

244 420.1 423.8 426.7 429.7

245 420.1 423.9 427.1 430.1

246 420.1 424.0 427.2 430.3

247 420.3 424.5 427.9 431.0

248 420.4 424.8 428.4 431.7

249 420.7 425.2 428.9 432.2

250 421.0 425.7 429.5 432.7

251 421.1 426.2 429.9 433.2

252 421.3 426.4 430.2 433.4

253 421.4 426.8 430.7 433.8

254 422.0 427.5 431.3 434.4

255 423.3 428.2 431.8 434.8

256 424.0 428.8 432.3 435.3

257 425.3 429.6 432.9 436.2

258 426.0 430.3 433.5 436.9

259 426.0 430.3 433.7 437.1

260 426.1 430.6 434.0 437.6

261 426.2 431.0 434.4 438.0

262 426.3 431.3 434.7 438.3

263 426.5 431.8 435.2 438.7

264 426.8 432.4 435.7 439.2

265 427.0 432.8 436.1 439.8

266 427.3 433.1 436.5 440.1

267 428.3 433.6 437.0 440.6

268 428.6 433.9 437.3 440.8

269 428.8 434.1 437.5 441.1

270 429.4 434.5 438.0 441.6

271 429.7 434.9 438.4 442.0

272 429.7 435.1 438.6 442.4

273 429.8 435.3 438.9 442.7

____________________________________________________________________________________________
18

Table 11. The predicted difference in water levels (in feet) from one end of Pool 25 to the other with various

water level management alternatives and discharge regimes.

____________________________________________________________________________________

 Discharge regime (cfs)

_________________________________________________________________

Management

plan 19,000 56,000 95,000 135,000

____________________________________________________________________________________

1 0.5 3.1 8.5 12.8

2 0.5 3.1 7.0 9.0

3 0.3 2.3 4.5 6.4

4 1.7 6.1 10.1 13.0

5 10.6 13.3 13.8 14.4

____________________________________________________________________________________________
19

Table 12. The amount of water level flexibility (in feet) among the various water level management plans

and discharge regimes is given for locations at the headwater of Pool 25, near Mosier Landing, and at the

tailwater of Pool 24.

____________________________________________________________________________________

 Discharge regime (cfs)

____________________________________________________

Plans River

compared mile 19,000 56,000 95,000 135,000

____________________________________________________________________________________

1–2 241.5 0.2 0.2 2.7 4.0

260.3 0.1 0.2 1.6 0.8

273.2 0.2 0.2 0.8 0.2

1–3 241.5 3.2 3.2 6.3 7.0

260.3 3.1 2.7 3.1 2.0

273.2 3.0 2.4 1.3 0.6

1–4 241.5 4.1 4.1 1.9 0.2

260.3 3.9 2.6 0.8 0.0

273.2 2.9 1.1 0.3 0.0

1–5 241.5 14.6 11.8 6.6 1.7

260.3 7.9 4.4 1.7 0.5

273.2 4.5 1.6 1.3 0.1

2–3 241.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

260.3 3.0 2.5 1.5 1.2

273.2 2.8 2.2 0.5 0.4

2–4 241.5 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.2

260.3 4.0 2.6 2.4 0.8

273.2 3.1 1.3 1.2 0.2

2–5 241.5 14.8 12.0 8.9 5.7

260.3 8.0 4.6 3.3 1.3

273.2 4.7 1.8 2.1 0.3

3–4 241.5 7.3 7.3 7.2 7.2

260.3 7.0 5.3 3.9 2.0

273.2 5.9 3.5 1.6 0.6

3–5 241.5 17.8 15.0 11.9 8.7

260.3 11.0 7.1 4.8 2.5

273.2 7.5 4.0 2.6 0.7

4–5 241.5 10.5 7.7 4.7 1.5

260.3 5.0 1.8 0.9 0.5

273.2 1.6 0.5 1.0 0.1

____________________________________________________________________________________________
20

Table 13. Acreages from the original land cover/land use classification for Pool 25 for the two levee options.

Levees

Class In place Removed

Open water 13,784 14,953

Submergents 762 868

Submergents–rooted floating aquatics 85 91

Rooted floating aquatics 45 65

Rooted floating aquatics–emergents 10 79

Emergents 337 556

Emergents–grasses–forbs 29 134

Grasses–forbs 792 4,448

Woody terrestrial 11,941 18,828

Agriculture 6,496 42,887

Urban–developed 415 970

Sand–mud 154 180

Dewatered aquatics 0 0

Inundated terrestrial 0 0

Total 34,851 84,060
21

Table 14. Acreages from the original aquatic areas classification for Pool 25 for the two levee options.

Levees

Classa In place Removed

Main channel 7,903 7,903

Secondary channel 3,974 3,974

Tertiary channel 78 78

Tributary channel 39 102

CFL-abandoned channel lake 1,092 1,352

CFL-borrow pit 3 3

CFL-floodplain depression lake 0 9

CF shallow aquatic area 811 811

Contiguous impounded area 412 412

CFL-humanmade lake 16 16

IFL-abandoned channel lake 590 1451

IFL-borrow pit 26 117

IF shallow aquatic area 28 99

IFL-humanmade lake 10 174

Nonaquatic/terrestrial area 19,861 67,547

Dewatered aquatics 0 0

Inundated terrestrial 0 0

Total 34,842 84,048

a

CF = contiguous floodplain

 CFL = contiguous floodplain lake

 IF = isolated floodplain

 IFL = isolated floodplain lake
22

Table 15. Land cover acreages for Pool 25 for various discharges using the present water level management

plan with levees in place.

Discharge (cfs)

Class 19,000 56,000 95,000 135,000

Open water 13,124 13,249 12,812 12,878

Submergents 652 664 292 133

Submergents–rooted floating aquatics 57 62 35 22

Rooted floating aquatics 41 41 39 33

Rooted floating aquatics–emergents 6712

Emergents 119 146 26 40

Emergents–grasses–forbs 28 27 26 23

Grasses–forbs 774 758 764 644

Woody terrestrial 11,551 11,075 11,271 9,973

Agriculture 6,495 6,482 6,463 6,236

Urban–developed 407 363 359 266

Sand–mud 112 84 92 52

Dewatered aquatics 1,024 853 1,818 1,915

Inundated terrestrial 461 1,038 853 2,633

Total 34,851 34,851 34,851 34,851
23

Table 16. Land cover acreages for the floodplain of Pool 25 for various discharges using the present water

level management plan with levees removed.

Discharge (cfs)

Class 19,000 56,000 95,000 135,000

Open water 13,872 14,067 13,268 13,388

Submergents 673 688 303 161

Submergents–rooted floating aquatics 57 62 35 25

Rooted floating aquatics 44 45 39 36

Rooted floating aquatics–emergents 13 17 3 5

Emergents 161 220 47 83

Emergents–grasses–forbs 90 81 115 107

Grasses–forbs 4,134 4,102 4,141 3,873

Woody terrestrial 16,825 16,013 17,139 15,208

Agriculture 40,750 40,323 41,156 38,579

Urban–developed 882 832 850 762

Sand–mud 121 92 104 59

Dewatered aquatics 1,793 1,513 2,918 2,916

Inundated terrestrial 4,645 6,003 3,942 8,858

Total 84,060 84,060 84,060 84,060
24

Table 17. Aquatic area acreages for the floodplain of Pool 25 for various discharges using the present water

level management plan with levees in place.

Discharge (cfs)

Classa 19,000 56,000 95,000 135,000

Main channel 7,876 7,891 7,832 7,775

Secondary channel 3,902 3,948 3,780 3,827

Tertiary channel 64 73 40 38

Tributary channel 20 22 23 34

CFL-abandoned channel lake 989 1,050 670 588

CFL-borrow pit 3 3 0 0

CFL-floodplain depression lake 0 0 0 0

CF shallow aquatic area 663 677 432 268

Contiguous impounded area 405 405 390 358

CFL-humanmade lake 14 16 15 10

IFL-abandoned channel lake 57 62 38 217

IFL-borrow pit 11 14 5 5

IF shallow aquatic area 0 0 0 0

IFL-humanmade lake 0 0 0 0

Nonaquatic/terrestrial area 19,355 18,789 18,944 17,174

Dewatered aquatics 979 820 1,756 1,861

Inundated terrestrial 506 1,072 917 2,687

 Total 34,842 34,842 34,842 34,842

a

CF = Contiguous floodplain

 CFL = Contiguous floodplain lake

 IF = Isolated floodplain

 IFL = Isolated floodplain lake
25

Table 18. Aquatic area acreages for the floodplain of Pool 25 for various discharges using the present water

level management plan with levees removed.

Discharge (cfs)

Classa 19,000 56,000 95,000 135,000

Main channel 7,876 7,891 7,832 7,775 

Secondary channel 3,902 3,949 3,780 3,827 

Tertiary channel 64 73 40 38 

Tributary channel 44 46 46 62 

CFL-abandoned channel lake 1,203 1,283 700 618 

CFL-borrow pit 3 3 0 0 

CFL-floodplain depression lake 8 8 8 8 

CF shallow aquatic area 663 677 432 268 

Contiguous impounded area 405 405 390 358 

CFL-humanmade lake 14 16 15 10 

IFL-abandoned channel lake 608 668 484 696 

IFL-borrow pit 44 50 37 42 

IF shallow aquatic area 0 0 0 0 

IFL-humanmade lake 6 7 12 52 

Nonaquatic/terrestrial area 62,770 61,455 63,410 58,525 

Dewatered aquatics 1,662 1,424 2,724 2,747 

Inundated terrestrial 4,777 6,092 4,136 9,022 

 Total 84,048 84,048 84,048 84,048 

a

CF = Contiguous floodplain

 CFL = Contiguous floodplain lake

 IF = Isolated floodplain

 IFL = Isolated floodplain lake
26

Table 19. Acreages for land cover classes in Pool 25, with levees in place, at 19,000 cfs.

Management plan

Class 1 2 3 4 5

Open water 13,124 13,199 13,360 9,726 6,409

Submergents 652 691 730 42 0

Submergents–rooted floating aquatics 57 69 85 8 0

Rooted floating aquatics 41 41 43 23 0

Rooted floating aquatics–emergents 6 6 8 0 0

Emergents 119 175 247 0 0

Emergents–grasses–forbs 28 27 26 29 29

Grasses–forbs 774 770 718 791 792

Woody terrestrial 11,551 11,282 8,801 11,928 11,940

Agriculture 6,495 6,492 6,178 6,496 6,496

Urban–developed 407 394 229 414 414

Sand–mud 112 104 61 154 154

Dewatered aquatics 1,024 841 550 5,224 8,614

Inundated terrestrial 461 758 3,814 15 2

 Total 34,851 34,851 34,851 34,851 34,851
27

Table 20. Acreages for land cover classes in Pool 25, with levees in place, at 56,000 cfs.

Management plan

Class 1 2 3 4 5

Open water 13,249 13,272 13,387 11,052 9,142

Submergents 664 698 734 44 2

Submergents–rooted floating aquatics 62 74 85 8 0

Rooted floating aquatics 41 41 43 23 0

Rooted floating aquatics–emergents 7 7 9 0 0

Emergents 146 188 254 0 0

Emergents–grasses–forbs 27 27 24 29 29

Grasses–forbs 758 756 705 783 786

Woody terrestrial 11,075 10,863 8,510 11,844 11,900

Agriculture 6,482 6,474 6,133 6,496 6,496

Urban–developed 363 355 219 412 413

Sand–mud 84 82 51 129 138

Dewatered aquatics 853 745 511 3,895 5,878

Inundated terrestrial 1,038 1,271 4,186 133 64

 Total 34,851 34,851 34,851 34,851 34,851
28

Table 21. Acreages for land cover classes in Pool 25, with levees in place, at 95,000 cfs.

Management plan

Class 1 2 3 4 5

Open water 12,812 13,405 13,532 11,929 10,579

Submergents 292 717 743 73 8

Submergents–rooted floating aquatics 35 84 85 20 0

Rooted floating aquatics 39 41 43 31 0

Rooted floating aquatics–emergents 1 8 9 0 0

Emergents 26 227 275 7 2

Emergents–grasses–forbs 26 22 22 27 28

Grasses–forbs 764 677 611 768 772

Woody terrestrial 11,271 9,632 7,547 11,440 11,557

Agriculture 6,463 6,364 5,927 6,475 6,487

Urban–developed 359 260 200 388 405

Sand–mud 92 53 32 103 108

Dewatered aquatics 1,818 542 336 2,963 4,434

Inundated terrestrial 853 2,819 5,489 626 471

 Total 34,851 34,851 34,851 34,851 34,851
29

Table 22. Acreages for land cover classes in Pool 25, with levees in place, at 135,000 cfs.

Management plan

Class 1 2 3 4 5

Open water 12,878 13,536 13,613 12,789 12,217

Submergents 133 732 752 104 39

Submergents–rooted floating aquatics 22 85 85 22 1

Rooted floating aquatics 33 43 43 32 11

Rooted floating aquatics–emergents 2 9 10 2 2

Emergents 40 252 309 39 24

Emergents–grasses–forbs 23 22 21 23 24

Grasses–forbs 644 600 533 645 663

Woody terrestrial 9,973 7,995 6,142 9,988 10,272

Agriculture 6,236 5,971 5,421 6,237 6,303

Urban–developed 266 203 164 266 304

Sand–mud 52 35 26 52 66

Dewatered aquatics 1,915 366 211 2,035 2,730

Inundated terrestrial 2,633 5,002 7,520 2,617 2,195

 Total 34,851 34,851 34,851 34,851 34,851
30

Table 23. Acreages for land cover classes in Pool 25, with levees removed, at 19,000 cfs.

Management plan

Class 1 2 3 4 5

Open water 13,872 14,011 14,309 9,928 6,409

Submergents 673 715 765 48 0

Submergents–rooted floating aquatics 57 69 85 8 0

Rooted floating aquatics 44 45 61 23 0

Rooted floating aquatics–emergents 13 16 24 0 0

Emergents 161 255 363 7 0

Emergents–grasses–forbs 90 83 71 122 134

Grasses–forbs 4,134 4,110 3,854 4,307 4,448

Woody terrestrial 16,825 16,227 11,702 18,516 18,827

Agriculture 40,750 40,427 32,885 42,820 42,885

Urban–developed 882 863 497 957 969

Sand–mud 121 112 68 168 180

Dewatered aquatics 1,793 1,501 1,006 6,600 10,204

Inundated terrestrial 4,645 5,624 18,371 557 4

 Total 84,060 84,060 84,060 84,060 84,060
31

Table 24. Acreages for land cover classes in Pool 25, with levees removed, at 56,000 cfs.

Management plan

Class 1 2 3 4 5

Open water 14,067 14,106 14,358 11,462 9,153

Submergents 688 723 773 51 2

Submergents–rooted floating aquatics 62 74 85 8 0

Rooted floating aquatics 45 46 61 23 0

Rooted floating aquatics–emergents 17 18 25 0 0

Emergents 220 278 378 8 0

Emergents–grasses–forbs 81 79 68 120 134

Grasses–forbs 4,102 4,084 3,786 4,267 4,435

Woody terrestrial 16,013 15,606 11,292 18,260 18,781

Agriculture 40,323 40,056 32,335 42,588 42,884

Urban–developed 832 820 484 944 967

Sand–mud 92 90 57 144 164

Dewatered aquatics 1,513 1,369 933 5,061 7,458

Inundated terrestrial 6,003 6,712 19,424 1,125 81

 Total 84,060 84,060 84,060 84,060 84,060
32

Table 25. Acreages for land cover classes in Pool 25, with levees removed, at 95,000 cfs.

Management plan

Class 1 2 3 4 5

Open water 13,268 14,352 14,541 12,355 10,643

Submergents 303 755 801 83 9

Submergents–rooted floating aquatics 35 84 90 20 0

Rooted floating aquatics 39 49 63 31 0

Rooted floating aquatics–emergents 3 22 26 0 0

Emergents 47 349 419 19 7

Emergents–grasses–forbs 115 67 59 116 131

Grasses–forbs 4,141 3,849 3,547 4,210 4,314

Woody terrestrial 17,139 13,501 9,795 17,669 18,244

Agriculture 41,156 37,557 30,681 42,013 42,616

Urban–developed 850 694 461 910 958

Sand–mud 104 59 34 117 132

Dewatered aquatics 2,918 1,003 674 4,105 5,955

Inundated terrestrial 3,942 11,719 22,868 2,412 1,051

 Total 84,060 84,060 84,060 84,060 84,060
33

Table 26. Acreages for land cover classes in Pool 25, with levees removed, at 135,000 cfs.

Management plan

Class 1 2 3 4 5

Open water 13,388 14,545 14,669 13,295 12,700

Submergents 161 794 836 132 64

Submergents–rooted floating aquatics 25 90 91 24 2

Rooted floating aquatics 36 55 63 34 13

Rooted floating aquatics–emergents 5 25 78 4 3

Emergents 83 397 499 82 60

Emergents–grasses–forbs 107 57 48 107 109

Grasses–forbs 3,873 3,528 2,495 3,879 3,960

Woody terrestrial 15,208 10,720 7,880 15,267 15,851

Agriculture 38,579 33,681 25,924 38,647 39,717

Urban–developed 762 590 417 764 825

Sand–mud 59 36 27 59 78

Dewatered aquatics 2,916 707 378 3,042 3,772

Inundated terrestrial 8,858 18,834 30,656 8,723 6,907

 Total 84,060 84,060 84,060 84,060 84,060
34

Table 27. Acreages for aquatic area classes in Pool 25, with levees in place, at 19,000 cfs.

Management plan

Classa 1 2 345

Main channel 7,876 7,887 7,901 7,118 5,469 

Secondary channel 3,902 3,928 3,967 2,113 843 

Tertiary channel 64 71 77 0 0 

Tributary channel 20 21 23 1 0 

CFL-abandoned channel lake 989 1,032 1,089 54 0 

CFL-borrow pit 3 3 3 0 0 

CFL-floodplain depression lake 0 0 0 0 0 

CF shallow aquatic area 663 736 810 165 2 

Contiguous impounded area 405 407 412 344 98 

CFL-humanmade lake 14 15 16 5 0 

IFL-abandoned channel lake 57 59 121 18 18 

IFL-borrow pit 11 13 20 4 4 

IF shallow aquatic area 0 0 0 0 0 

IFL-humanmade lake 0 0 0 0 0 

Nonaquatic/terrestrial area 19,355 19,072 16,039 19,780 19,793 

Dewatered aquatics 979 810 543 5,157 8,547 

Inundated terrestrial 506 789 3,822 81 68 

 Total 34,842 34,842 34,842 34,842 34,842 

a

CF = continuous floodplain

 CFL = continuous floodplain lake

 IF = isolated floodplain

 IFL = isolated floodplain lake
35

Table 28. Acreages for aquatic area classes in Pool 25, with levees in place, at 56,000 cfs.

Management plan

Classa 1 2 345

Main channel 7,891 7,895 7,902 7,460 6,742 

Secondary channel 3,948 3,955 3,969 2,997 2,211 

Tertiary channel 73 75 77 11 8 

Tributary channel 22 22 23 15 15 

CFL-abandoned channel lake 1,050 1,064 1,089 130 13 

CFL-borrow pit 3 3 3 0 0 

CFL-floodplain depression lake 0 0 0 0 0 

CF shallow aquatic area 677 747 810 165 4 

Contiguous impounded area 405 407 412 344 150 

CFL-humanmade lake 16 16 16 7 2 

IFL-abandoned channel lake 62 64 153 18 18 

IFL-borrow pit 14 14 20 4 4 

IF shallow aquatic area 0 0 0 0 0 

IFL-humanmade lake 0 0 0 0 0 

Nonaquatic/terrestrial area 18,789 18,565 15,668 19,661 19,730 

Dewatered aquatics 820 720 507 3,829 5,812 

Inundated terrestrial 1,072 1,296 4,193 199 131 

 Total 34,842 34,842 34,842 34,842 34,842 

a

CF = continuous floodplain

 CFL = continuous floodplain lake

 IF = isolated floodplain

 IFL = isolated floodplain lake
36

Table 29. Acreages for aquatic area classes in Pool 25, with levees in place, at 95,000 cfs.

Management plan

Classa 1 2 345

Main channel 7,832 7,899 7,902 7,664 7,289 

Secondary channel 3,780 3,966 3,970 3,443 2,991 

Tertiary channel 40 77 77 15 11 

Tributary channel 23 31 33 22 22 

CFL-abandoned channel lake 670 1,084 1,090 342 80 

CFL-borrow pit 0 3 3 0 0 

CFL-floodplain depression lake 0 0 0 0 0 

CF shallow aquatic area 432 789 810 213 6 

Contiguous impounded area 390 407 412 344 182 

CFL-humanmade lake 15 16 16 9 5 

IFL-abandoned channel lake 38 160 307 27 22 

IFL-borrow pit 5 18 20 5 4 

IF shallow aquatic area 0 0 0 0 0 

IFL-humanmade lake 0 0 0 0 0 

Nonaquatic/terrestrial area 18,944 17,034 14,378 19,170 19,325 

Dewatered aquatics 1,756 530 341 2,898 4,369 

Inundated terrestrial 917 2,827 5,483 691 536

 Total 34,842 34,842 34,842 34,842 34,842 

a

CF = continuous floodplain

 CFL = continuous floodplain lake

 IF = isolated floodplain

 IFL = isolated floodplain lake
37

Table 30. Acreages for aquatic area classes in Pool 25, with levees in place, at 135,000 cfs.

Management plan

Classa 1 2 345

Main channel 7,775 7,900 7,902 7,762 7,683 

Secondary channel 3,827 3,969 3,971 3,800 3,597 

Tertiary channel 38 77 78 29 24 

Tributary channel 34 34 36 34 33 

CFL-abandoned channel lake 588 1,088 1,090 572 409 

CFL-borrow pit 0 3 3 0 0 

CFL-floodplain depression lake 0 0 0 0 0 

CF shallow aquatic area 268 807 810 229 106 

Contiguous impounded area 358 409 412 344 278 

CFL-humanmade lake 10 16 16 10 9 

IFL-abandoned channel lake 217 296 416 214 164 

IFL-borrow pit 5 20 22 5 5 

IF shallow aquatic area 0 0 0 0 0 

IFL-humanmade lake 0 0 0 0 0 

Nonaquatic/terrestrial area 17,174 14,855 12,352 17,191 17,612 

Dewatered aquatics 1,861 362 225 1,982 2,675 

Inundated terrestrial 2,687 5,006 7,509 2,670 2,249 

 Total 34,842 34,842 34,842 34,842 34,842 

a

CF = continuous floodplain

 CFL = continuous floodplain lake

 IF = isolated floodplain

 IFL = isolated floodplain lake
38

Table 31. Acreages for aquatic area classes in Pool 25, with levees removed, at 19,000 cfs.

Management plan

Classa 1 2 345

Main channel 7,876 7,887 7,901 7,118 5,469 

Secondary channel 3,902 3,929 3,968 2,113 843 

Tertiary channel 64 71 77 0 0 

Tributary channel 44 45 47 17 0 

CFL-abandoned channel lake 1,203 1,265 1,322 84 27 

CFL-borrow pit 3 3 3 0 0 

CFL-floodplain depression lake 8 8 9 8 0 

CF shallow aquatic area 663 736 810 165 2 

Contiguous impounded area 405 407 412 344 98 

CFL-humanmade lake 14 15 16 5 0 

IFL-abandoned channel lake 608 658 872 216 47 

IFL-borrow pit 44 48 62 30 30 

IF shallow aquatic area 0 0 0 0 0 

IFL-humanmade lake 6 6 23 4 2 

Nonaquatic/terrestrial area 62,770 61,845 49,149 66,786 67,322 

Dewatered aquatics 1,662 1,424 979 6,397 9,984 

Inundated terrestrial 4,777 5,701 18,398 761 225

 Total 84,048 84,048 84,048 84,048 84,048 

a

CF = continuous floodplain

 CFL = continuous floodplain lake

 IF = isolated floodplain

 IFL = isolated floodplain lake
39

Table 32. Acreages for aquatic area classes in Pool 25, with levees removed, at 56,000 cfs.

Management plan

Classa 1 2 345

Main channel 7,891 7,895 7,902 7,460 6,742 

Secondary channel 3,949 3,956 3,970 2,997 2,211 

Tertiary channel 73 75 77 11 8 

Tributary channel 46 46 48 37 15 

CFL-abandoned channel lake 1,283 1,297 1,322 160 40 

CFL-borrow pit 3 3 3 0 0 

CFL-floodplain depression lake 8 8 9 8 0 

CF shallow aquatic area 677 747 810 165 4 

Contiguous impounded area 405 407 412 344 150 

CFL-humanmade lake 16 16 16 7 2 

IFL-abandoned channel lake 668 689 928 418 57 

IFL-borrow pit 50 52 62 31 30 

IF shallow aquatic area 0 0 0 0 0 

IFL-humanmade lake 7 7 32 4 2 

Nonaquatic/terrestrial area 61,455 60,770 48,099 66,221 67,245 

Dewatered aquatics 1,424 1,304 911 4,860 7,238 

Inundated terrestrial 6,092 6,777 19,448 1,325 301

 Total 84,048 84,048 84,048 84,048 84,048 

a

CF = continuous floodplain

 CFL = continuous floodplain lake

 IF = isolated floodplain

 IFL = isolated floodplain lake
40

Table 33. Acreages for aquatic area classes in Pool 25, with levees removed, at 95,000 cfs.

Management plan

Classa 1 2 345

Main channel 7,832 7,899 7,902 7,664 7,289 

Secondary channel 3,780 3,967 3,971 3,443 2,991 

Tertiary channel 40 77 78 15 11 

Tributary channel 46 55 58 45 41 

CFL-abandoned channel lake 700 1,317 1,323 372 107 

CFL-borrow pit 0 3 3 0 0 

CFL-floodplain depression lake 8 8 9 8 2 

CF shallow aquatic area 432 789 810 213 6 

Contiguous impounded area 390 407 412 344 182 

CFL-humanmade lake 15 16 16 9 5 

IFL-abandoned channel lake 484 898 1,117 445 95 

IFL-borrow pit 37 60 66 33 31 

IF shallow aquatic area 0 0 0 0 0 

IFL-humanmade lake 12 37 59 6 3 

Nonaquatic/terrestrial area 63,410 55,799 44,684 64,935 66,280 

Dewatered aquatics 2,724 967 678 3,906 5,739 

Inundated terrestrial 4,136 11,748 22,862 2,612 1,267

 Total 84,048 84,048 84,048 84,048 84,048 

a

CF = continuous floodplain

 CFL = continuous floodplain lake

 IF = isolated floodplain

 IFL = isolated floodplain lake
41

Table 34. Acreages for aquatic area classes in Pool 25, with levees removed, at 135,000 cfs.

Management plan

Classa 1 2 345

Main channel 7,775 7,900 7,903 7,762 7,683 

Secondary channel 3,827 3,970 3,972 3,800 3,597 

Tertiary channel 38 77 78 29 24 

Tributary channel 62 63 66 62 58 

CFL-abandoned channel lake 618 1,321 1,324 601 438 

CFL-borrow pit 0 3 3 0 0 

CFL-floodplain depression lake 8 8 9 8 5 

CF shallow aquatic area 268 807 810 229 106 

Contiguous impounded area 358 409 412 344 278 

CFL-humanmade lake 10 16 16 10 9 

IFL-abandoned channel lake 696 1,088 1,234 690 627 

IFL-borrow pit 42 67 87 42 38 

IF shallow aquatic area 0 0 0 0 0 

IFL-humanmade lake 52 67 90 52 44 

Nonaquatic/terrestrial area 58,525 48,711 36,949 58,659 60,469 

Dewatered aquatics 2,747 704 500 2,873 3,595 

Inundated terrestrial 9,022 18,836 30,597 8,887 7,078

 Total 84,048 84,048 84,048 84,048 84,048 

a

CF = continuous floodplain

 CFL = continuous floodplain lake

 IF = isolated floodplain

 IFL = isolated floodplain lake
42

Table 35. The effect of various management alternatives on land cover classes in Pool 25, with levees in

place, at 19,000 cfs. Values are reported as acres or percentages and are calculated as the difference

between an alternative plan and the present plan (Plan 1). Parentheses signify that the alternative plan

has fewer acres.

Management plan

 2 3 4 5 

Class Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres %

Open water 75 1 236 2 (3,398) (26) (6,715) (51)

Submergents 39 6 78 12 (610) (94) (652) (100)

Submergents–rooted floating aquatics 12 21 28 49 (49) (86) (57) (100)

Rooted floating aquatics 0 0 2 5 (18) (44) (41) (100)

Rooted floating aquatics–emergents 0 0 2 33 (6) (100) (6) (100)

Emergents 56 47 128 108 (119) (100) (119) (100)

Emergents–grasses–forbs (1) (4) (2) (7) 1 4 1 4 

Grasses–forbs (4) (1) (56) (7) 17 2 18 2 

Woody terrestrial (269) (2) (2,750) (24) 377 3 389 3 

Agriculture (3) 0 (317) (5) 1 0 1 0 

Urban–developed (13) (3) (178) (44) 7 2 7 2 

Sand–mud (8) (7) (51) (46) 42 38 42 38 

Dewatered aquatics (183) (18) (474) (46) 4,200 410 7,590 741 

Inundated terrestrial 297 64 3,353 727 (446) (97) (459) (100)
43

Table 36. The effect of various management alternatives on land cover classes in Pool 25, with levees in

place, at 56,000 cfs. Values are reported as acres or percentages and are calculated as the difference

between an alternative plan and the present plan (Plan 1). Parentheses signify that the alternative plan

has fewer acres.

Management plan

 2 3 4 5 

Class Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres %

Open water 23 0 138 1 (2,197) (17) (4,107) (31) 

Submergents 34 5 70 11 (620) (93) (662) (100)

Submergents–rooted floating aquatics 12 19 23 37 (54) (87) (62) (100)

Rooted floating aquatics 0 0 2 5 (18) (44) (41) (100)

Rooted floating aquatics–emergents 0 0 2 29 (7) (100) (7) (100)

Emergents 42 29 108 74 (146) (100) (146) (100)

Emergents–grasses–forbs 0 0 (3) (11) 2 7 2 7 

Grasses–forbs (2) 0 (53) (7) 25 3 28 4 

Woody terrestrial (212) (2) (2,565) (23) 769 7 825 7 

Agriculture (8) 0 (349) (5) 14 0 14 0 

Urban–developed (8) (2) (144) (40) 49 13 50 14 

Sand–mud (2) (2) (33) (39) 45 54 54 64 

Dewatered aquatics (108) (13) (342) (40) 3,042 357 5,025 589 

Inundated terrestrial 233 22 3,148 303 (905) (87) (974) (94) 
44

Table 37. The effect of various management alternatives on land cover classes in Pool 25, with levees in

place, at 95,000 cfs. Values are reported as acres or percentages and are calculated as the difference

between an alternative plan and the present plan (Plan 1). Parentheses signify that the alternative plan

has fewer acres.

Management plan

 2 3 4 5 

Class Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres %

Open water 593 5 720 6 (883) (7) (2,233) (17)

Submergents 425 146 451 154 (219) (75) (284) (97)

Submergents–rooted floating aquatics 49 140 50 143 (15) (43) (35) (100)

Rooted floating aquatics 2 5 4 10 (8) (21) (39) (100)

Rooted floating aquatics–emergents 7 700 8 800 (1) (100) (1) (100)

Emergents 201 773 249 958 (19) (73) (24) (92)

Emergents–grasses–forbs (4) (15) (4) (15) 1 4 2 8 

Grasses–forbs (87) (11) (153) (20) 4 1 8 1 

Woody terrestrial (1,639) (15) (3,724) (33) 169 1 286 3 

Agriculture (99) (2) (536) (8) 12 0 24 0 

Urban–developed (99) (28) (159) (44) 29 8 46 13 

Sand–mud (39) (42) (60) (65) 11 12 16 17 

Dewatered aquatics (1,276) (70) (1,482) (82) 1,145 63 2,616 144 

Inundated terrestrial 1,966 230 4,636 543 (227) (27) (382) (45)
45

Table 38. The effect of various management alternatives on land cover classes in Pool 25, with levees in

place, at 135,000 cfs. Values are reported as acres or percentages and are calculated as the difference

between an alternative plan and the present plan (Plan 1). Parentheses signify that the alternative plan

has fewer acres.

Management plan

 2 3 4 5 

Class Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres %

Open water 658 5 735 6 (89) (1) (661) (5)

Submergents 599 450 619 465 (29) (22) (94) (71)

Submergents–rooted floating aquatics 63 286 63 286 0 0 (21) (95)

Rooted floating aquatics 10 30 10 30 (1) (3) (22) (67)

Rooted floating aquatics–emergents 7 350 8 400 0 0 0 0 

Emergents 212 530 269 673 (1) (3) (16) (40)

Emergents–grasses–forbs (1) (4) (2) (9) 0 0 1 4 

Grasses–forbs (44) (7) (111) (17) 1 0 19 3 

Woody terrestrial (1,978) (20) (3,831) (38) 15 0 299 3 

Agriculture (265) (4) (815) (13) 1 0 67 1 

Urban–developed (63) (24) (102) (38) 0 0 38 14 

Sand–mud (17) (33) (26) (50) 0 0 14 27 

Dewatered aquatics (1,549) (81) (1,704) (89) 120 6 815 43 

Inundated terrestrial 2,369 90 4,887 186 (16) (1) (438) (17)
46

Table 39. The effect of various management alternatives on land cover classes in Pool 25, with levees

removed, at 19,000 cfs. Values are reported as acres or percentages and are calculated as the difference

between an alternative plan and the present plan (Plan 1). Parentheses signify that the alternative plan

has fewer acres.

Management plan

 2 3 4 5 

Class Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres %

Open water 139 1 437 3 (3,944) (28) (7,463) (54)

Submergents 42 6 92 14 (625) (93) (673) (100)

Submergents–rooted floating aquatics 12 21 28 49 (49) (86) (57) (100)

Rooted floating aquatics 1 2 17 39 (21) (48) (44) (100)

Rooted floating aquatics–emergents 3 23 11 85 (13) (100) (13) (100)

Emergents 94 58 202 125 (154) (96) (161) (100)

Emergents–grasses–forbs (7) (8) (19) (21) 32 36 44 49 

Grasses–forbs (24) (1) (280) (7) 173 4 314 8 

Woody terrestrial (598) (4) (5,123) (30) 1,691 10 2,002 12 

Agriculture (323) (1) (7,865) (19) 2,070 5 2,135 5 

Urban–developed (19) (2) (385) (44) 75 9 87 10 

Sand–mud (9) (7) (53) (44) 47 39 59 49 

Dewatered aquatics (292) (16) (787) (44) 4,807 268 8,411 469 

Inundated terrestrial 979 21 13,726 296 (4,088) (88) (4,641) (100)
47

Table 40. The effect of various management alternatives on land cover classes in Pool 25, with levees

removed, at 56,000 cfs. Values are reported as acres or percentages and are calculated as the difference

between an alternative plan and the present plan (Plan 1). Parentheses signify that the alternative plan

has fewer acres.

Management plan

 2 3 4 5 

Class Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres %

Open water 39 0 291 2 (2,605) (19) (4,914) (35)

Submergents 35 5 85 12 (637) (93) (686) (100)

Submergents–rooted floating aquatics 12 19 23 37 (54) (87) (62) (100)

Rooted floating aquatics 1 2 16 36 (22) (49) (45) (100)

Rooted floating aquatics–emergents 1 6 8 47 (17) (100) (17) (100)

Emergents 58 26 158 72 (212) (96) (220) (100)

Emergent–grasses–forbs (2) (2) (13) (16) 39 48 53 65 

Grasses–forbs (18) 0 (316) (8) 165 4 333 8 

Woody terrestrial (407) (3) (4,721) (29) 2,247 14 2,768 17 

Agriculture (267) (1) (7,988) (20) 2,265 6 2,561 6 

Urban–developed (12) (1) (348) (42) 112 13 135 16 

Sand–mud (2) (2) (35) (38) 52 57 72 78 

Dewatered aquatics (144) (10) (580) (38) 3,548 235 5,945 393 

Inundated terrestrial 709 12 13,421 224 (4,878) (81) (5,922) (99)
48

Table 41. The effect of various management alternatives on land cover classes in Pool 25, with levees

removed, at 95,000 cfs. Values are reported as acres or percentages and are calculated as the difference

between an alternative plan and the present plan (Plan 1). Parentheses signify that the alternative plan

has fewer acres.

Management plan

 2 3 4 5 

Class Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres %

Open water 1,084 8 1,273 10 (913) (7) (2,625) (20)

Submergents 452 149 498 164 (220) (73) (294) (97)

Submergents–rooted floating aquatics 49 140 55 157 (15) (43) (35) (100)

Rooted floating aquatics 10 26 24 62 (8) (21) (39) (100)

Rooted floating aquatics–emergents 19 633 23 767 (3) (100) (3) (100)

Emergents 302 643 372 791 (28) (60) (40) (85)

Emergents–grasses–forbs (48) (42) (56) (49) 1 1 16 14 

Grasses–forbs (292) (7) (594) (14) 69 2 173 4 

Woody terrestrial (3,638) (21) (7,344) (43) 530 3 1,105 6 

Agriculture (3,599) (9) (10,475) (25) 857 2 1,460 4 

Urban–developed (156) (18) (389) (46) 60 7 108 13 

Sand–mud (45) (43) (70) (67) 13 13 28 27 

Dewatered aquatics (1,915) (66) (2,244) (77) 1,187 41 3,037 104 

Inundated terrestrial 7,777 197 18,926 480 (1,530) (39) (2,891) (73)
49

Table 42. The effect of various management alternatives on land cover classes in Pool 25, with levees

removed, at 135,000 cfs. Values are reported as acres or percentages and are calculated as the difference

between an alternative plan and the present plan (Plan 1). Parentheses signify that the alternative plan

has fewer acres.

Management plan

 2 3 4 5 

Class Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres %

Open water 1,157 9 1,281 10 (93) (1) (688) (5)

Submergents 633 393 675 419 (29) (18) (97) (60)

Submergents–rooted floating aquatics 65 260 66 264 (1) (4) (23) (92)

Rooted floating aquatics 19 53 27 75 (2) (6) (23) (64)

Rooted floating aquatics–emergents 20 400 73 1,460 (1) (20) (2) (40)

Emergents 314 378 416 501 (1) (1) (23) (28)

Emergents–grasses–forbs (50) (47) (59) (55) 0 0 2 2 

Grasses–forbs (345) (9) (1,378) (36) 6 0 87 2 

Woody terrestrial (4,488) (30) (7,328) (48) 59 0 643 4 

Agriculture (4,898) (13) (12,655) (33) 68 0 1,138 3 

Urban–developed (172) (23) (345) (45) 2 0 63 8 

Sand–mud (23) (39) (32) (54) 0 0 19 32 

Dewatered aquatics (2,209) (76) (2,538) (87) 126 4 856 29 

Inundated terrestrial 9,976 113 21,798 246 (135) (2) (1,951) (22)
50

Table 43. The effect of various management alternatives on aquatic area classes in Pool 25, with levees

in place, at 19,000 cfs. Values are reported as acres or percentages and are calculated as the difference

between an alternative plan and the present plan (Plan 1). Parentheses signify that the alternative plan

has fewer acres. A blank field signifies that the acreage for Plan 1 was zero.

Management plan

 2 3 4 5 

Classa Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres %

Main channel 11 0 25 0 (758) (10) (2,407) (31)

Secondary channel 26 1 65 2 (1,789) (46) (3,059) (78)

Tertiary channel 7 11 13 20 (64) (100) (64) (100)

Tributary channel 1 5 3 15 (19) (95) (20) (100)

CFL-abandoned channel lake 43 4 100 10 (935) (95) (989) (100)

CFL-borrow pit 0 0 0 0 (3) (100) (3) (100)

CFL-floodplain depression lake 0 0 0 0 

CF shallow aquatic area 73 11 147 22 (498) (75) (661) (100)

Contiguous impounded area 2 0 7 2 (61) (15) (307) (76)

CFL-humanmade lake 1 7 2 14 (9) (64) (14) (100)

IFL-abandoned channel lake 2 4 64 112 (39) (68) (39) (68)

IFL-borrow pit 2 18 9 82 (7) (64) (7) (64)

IF shallow aquatic area 0 0 0 0 

IFL-humanmade lake 0 0 0 0 

Nonaquatic/terrestrial area (283) (1) (3,316) (17) 425 2 438 2 

Dewatered aquatics (169) (17) (436) (45) 4,178 427 7,568 773 

Inundated terrestrial 283 56 3,316 655 (425) (84) (438) (87)

a

CF = continuous floodplain

 CFL = continuous floodplain lake

 IF = isolated floodplain

 IFL = isolated floodplain lake
51

Table 44. The effect of various management alternatives on aquatic area classes in Pool 25, with levees

in place, at 56,000 cfs. Values are reported as acres or percentages and are calculated as the difference

between an alternative plan and the present plan (Plan 1). Parentheses signify that the alternative plan

has fewer acres. A blank field signifies that the acreage for Plan 1 was zero.

Management plan

 2 3 4 5 

Classa Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres %

Main channel 4 0 11 0 (431) (5) (1,149) (15)

Secondary channel 7 0 21 1 (951) (24) (1,737) (44)

Tertiary channel 2 3 4 5 (62) (85) (65) (89)

Tributary channel 0 0 1 5 (7) (32) (7) (32)

CFL-abandoned channel lake 14 1 39 4 (920) (88) (1,037) (99)

CFL-borrow pit 0 0 0 0 (3) (100) (3) (100)

CFL-floodplain depression lake 0 0 0 0 

CF shallow aquatic area 70 10 133 20 (512) (76) (673) (99)

Contiguous impounded area 2 0 7 2 (61) (15) (255) (63)

CFL-humanmade lake 0 0 0 0 (9) (56) (14) (88)

IFL-abandoned channel lake 2 3 91 147 (44) (71) (44) (71)

IFL-borrow pit 0 0 6 43 (10) (71) (10) (71)

IF shallow aquatic area 0 0 0 0 

IFL-humanmade lake 0 0 0 0 

Nonaquatic/terrestrial area (224) (1) (3,121) (17) 872 5 941 5 

Dewatered aquatics (100) (12) (313) (38) 3,009 367 4,992 609 

Inundated terrestrial 224 21 3,121 291 (873) (81) (941) (88)

a

CF = continuous floodplain

 CFL = continuous floodplain lake

 IF = isolated floodplain

 IFL = isolated floodplain lake
52

Table 45. The effect of various management alternatives on aquatic area classes in Pool 25, with levees

in place, at 95,000 cfs. Values are reported as acres or percentages and are calculated as the difference

between an alternative plan and the present plan (Plan 1). Parentheses signify that the alternative plan

has fewer acres. A blank field signifies that the acreage for Plan 1 was zero. 

Management plan

 2 3 4 5 

Classa Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres %

Main channel 67 1 70 1 (168) (2) (543) (7)

Secondary channel 186 5 190 5 (337) (9) (789) (21)

Tertiary channel 37 93 37 93 (25) (63) (29) (73)

Tributary channel 8 35 10 43 (1) (4) (1) (4)

CFL-abandoned channel lake 414 62 420 63 (328) (49) (590) (88)

CFL-borrow pit 3 3 0 0 

CFL-floodplain depression lake 0 0 0 0 

CF shallow aquatic area 357 83 378 88 (219) (51) (426) (99)

Contiguous impounded area 17 4 22 6 (46) (12) (208) (53)

CFL-humanmade lake 1 7 1 7 (6) (40) (10) (67)

IFL-abandoned channel lake 122 321 269 708 (11) (29) (16) (42)

IFL-borrow pit 13 260 15 300 0 0 (1) (20)

IF shallow aquatic area 0 0 0 0 

IFL-humanmade lake 0 0 0 0 

Nonaquatic/terrestrial area (1,910) (10) (4,566) (24) 226 1 381 2 

Dewatered aquatics (1,226) (70) (1,415) (81) 1,142 65 2,613 149 

Inundated terrestrial 1,910 208 4,566 498 (226) (25) (381) (42)

a

CF = continuous floodplain

 CFL = continuous floodplain lake

 IF = isolated floodplain

 IFL = isolated floodplain lake
53

Table 46. The effect of various management alternatives on aquatic area classes in Pool 25, with levees

in place, at 135,000 cfs. Values are reported as acres or percentages and are calculated as the difference

between an alternative plan and the present plan (Plan 1). Parentheses signify that the alternative plan

has fewer acres. A blank field signifies that the acreage for Plan 1 was zero.

Management plan

 2 3 4 5 

Classa Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres %

Main channel 125 2 127 2 (13) 0 (92) (1)

Secondary channel 142 4 144 4 (27) (1) (230) (6)

Tertiary channel 39 103 40 105 (9) (24) (14) (37)

Tributary channel 0 0 2 6 0 0 (1) (3)

CFL-abandoned channel lake 500 85 502 85 (16) (3) (179) (30)

CFL-borrow pit 3 3 0 0 

CFL-floodplain depression lake 0 0 0 0 

CF shallow aquatic area 539 201 542 202 (39) (15) (162) (60)

Contiguous impounded area 51 14 54 15 (14) (4) (80) (22)

CFL-humanmade lake 6 60 6 60 0 0 (1) (10)

IFL-abandoned channel lake 79 36 199 92 (3) (1) (53) (24)

IFL-borrow pit 15 300 17 340 0 0 0 0 

IF shallow aquatic area 0 0 0 0 

IFL-humanmade lake 0 0 0 0 

Nonaquatic/terrestrial area (2,319) (14) (4,822) (28) 17 0 438 3 

Dewatered aquatics (1,499) (81) (1,636) (88) 121 7 814 44 

Inundated terrestrial 2,319 86 4,822 179 (17) (1) (438) (16)

a

CF = continuous floodplain

 CFL = continuous floodplain lake

 IF = isolated floodplain

 IFL = isolated floodplain lake
54

Table 47. The effect of various management alternatives on aquatic area classes in Pool 25, with levees

removed, at 19,000 cfs. Values are reported as acres or percentages and are calculated as the difference

between an alternative plan and the present plan (Plan 1). Parentheses signify that the alternative plan

has fewer acres. A blank field signifies that the acreage for Plan 1 was zero.

Management plan

 2 3 4 5 

Classa Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres %

Main channel 11 0 25 0 (758) (10) (2,407) (31)

Secondary channel 27 1 66 2 (1,789) (46) (3,059) (78)

Tertiary channel 7 11 13 20 (64) (100) (64) (100)

Tributary channel 1 2 3 7 (27) (61) (44) (100)

CFL-abandoned channel lake 62 5 119 10 (1,119) (93) (1,176) (98)

CFL-borrow pit 0 0 0 0 (3) (100) (3) (100)

CFL-floodplain depression lake 0 0 1 13 0 0 (8) (100)

CF shallow aquatic area 73 11 147 22 (498) (75) (661) (100)

Contiguous impounded area 2 0 7 2 (61) (15) (307) (76)

CFL-humanmade lake 1 7 2 14 (9) (64) (14) (100)

IFL-abandoned channel lake 50 8 264 43 (392) (64) (561) (92)

IFL-borrow pit 4 9 18 41 (14) (32) (14) (32)

IF shallow aquatic area 0 0 0 0 

IFL-humanmade lake 0 0 17 283 (2) (33) (4) (67)

Nonaquatic/terrestrial area (925) (1) (13,621) (22) 4,016 6 4,552 7 

Dewatered aquatics (238) (14) (683) (41) 4,735 285 8,322 501 

Inundated terrestrial 924 19 13,621 285 (4,016) (84) (4,552) (95)

a

CF = continuous floodplain

 CFL = continuous floodplain lake

 IF = isolated floodplain

 IFL = isolated floodplain lake
55

Table 48. The effect of various management alternatives on aquatic area classes in Pool 25, with levees

removed, at 56,000 cfs. Values are reported as acres or percentages and are calculated as the difference

between an alternative plan and the present plan (Plan 1). Parentheses signify that the alternative plan

has fewer acres. A blank field signifies that the acreage for Plan 1 was zero.

Management plan

 2 3 4 5 

Classa Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres %

Main channel 4 0 11 0 (431) (5) (1,149) (15)

Secondary channel 7 0 21 1 (952) (24) (1,738) (44)

Tertiary channel 2 3 4 5 (62) (85) (65) (89)

Tributary channel 0 0 2 4 (9) (20) (31) (67)

CFL-abandoned channel lake 14 1 39 3 (1,123) (88) (1,243) (97)

CFL-borrow pit 0 0 0 0 (3) (100) (3) (100)

CFL-floodplain depression lake 0 0 1 13 0 0 (8) (100)

CF shallow aquatic area 70 10 133 20 (512) (76) (673) (99)

Contiguous impounded area 2 0 7 2 (61) (15) (255) (63)

CFL-humanmade lake 0 0 0 0 (9) (56) (14) (88)

IFL-abandoned channel lake 21 3 260 39 (250) (37) (611) (91)

IFL-borrow pit 2 4 12 24 (19) (38) (20) (40)

IF shallow aquatic area 0 0 0 0 

IFL-humanmade lake 0 0 25 357 (3) (43) (5) (71)

Nonaquatic/terrestrial area (685) (1) (13,356) (22) 4,766 8 5,790 9 

Dewatered aquatics (120) (8) (513) (36) 3,436 241 5,814 408 

Inundated terrestrial 685 11 13,356 219 (4,767) (78) (5,791) (95)

a

CF = continuous floodplain

 CFL = continuous floodplain lake

 IF = isolated floodplain

 IFL = isolated floodplain lake
56

Table 49. The effect of various management alternatives on aquatic area classes in Pool 25, with levees

removed, at 95,000 cfs. Values are reported as acres or percentages and are calculated as the difference

between an alternative plan and the present plan (Plan 1). Parentheses signify that the alternative plan

has fewer acres. A blank field signifies that the acreage for Plan 1 was zero.

Management plan

 2 3 4 5 

Classa Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres %

Main channel 67 1 70 1 (168) (2) (543) (7)

Secondary channel 187 5 191 5 (337) (9) (789) (21)

Tertiary channel 37 93 38 95 (25) (63) (29) (73)

Tributary channel 9 20 12 26 (1) (2) (5) (11)

CFL-abandoned channel lake 617 88 623 89 (328) (47) (593) (85)

CFL-borrow pit 3 3 0 0 

CFL-floodplain depression lake 0 0 1 13 0 0 (6) (75)

CF shallow aquatic area 357 83 378 88 (219) (51) (426) (99)

Contiguous impounded area 17 4 22 6 (46) (12) (208) (53)

CFL-humanmade lake 1 7 1 7 (6) (40) (10) (67)

IFL-abandoned channel lake 414 86 633 131 (39) (8) (389) (80)

IFL-borrow pit 23 62 29 78 (4) (11) (6) (16)

IF shallow aquatic area 0 0 0 0 

IFL-humanmade lake 25 208 47 392 (6) (50) (9) (75)

Nonaquatic/terrestrial area (7,611) (12) (18,726) (30) 1,525 2 2,870 5 

Dewatered aquatics (1,757) (65) (2,046) (75) 1,182 43 3,015 111 

Inundated terrestrial 7,612 184 18,726 453 (1,524) (37) (2,869) (69)

a

CF = continuous floodplain

 CFL = continuous floodplain lake

 IF = isolated floodplain

 IFL = isolated floodplain lake 
57

Table 50. The effect of various management alternatives on aquatic area classes in Pool 25, with levees

removed, at 135,000 cfs. Values are reported as acres or percentages and are calculated as the difference

between an alternative plan and the present plan (Plan 1). Parentheses signify that the alternative plan

has fewer acres. A blank field signifies that the acreage for Plan 1 was zero.

Management plan

 2 3 4 5 

Classa Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres %

Main channel 125 2 128 2 (13) 0 (92) (1)

Secondary channel 143 4 145 4 (27) (1) (230) (6)

Tertiary channel 39 103 40 105 (9) (24) (14) (37)

Tributary channel 1 2 4 6 0 0 (4) (6)

CFL-abandoned channel lake 703 114 706 114 (17) (3) (180) (29)

CFL-borrow pit 3 3 0 0 

CFL-floodplain depression lake 0 0 1 13 0 0 (3) (38)

CF shallow aquatic area 539 201 542 202 (39) (15) (162) (60)

Contiguous impounded area 51 14 54 15 (14) (4) (80) (22)

CFL-humanmade lake 6 60 6 60 0 0 (1) (10)

IFL-abandoned channel lake 392 56 538 77 (6) (1) (69) (10)

IFL-borrow pit 25 60 45 107 0 0 (4) (10)

IF shallow aquatic area 0 0 0 0 

IFL-humanmade lake 15 29 38 73 0 0 (8) (15)

Nonaquatic/terrestrial area (9,814) (17) (21,576) (37) 134 0 1,944 3 

Dewatered aquatics (2,043) (74) (2,247) (82) 126 5 848 31 

Inundated terrestrial 9,814 109 21,575 239 (135) (1) (1,944) (22)

a

CF = continuous floodplain

 CFL = continuous floodplain lake

 IF = isolated floodplain

 IFL = isolated floodplain lake
58

Figure 1. The present water level management plan for Pool 25. Water levels are allowed anywhere

within the hatched areas at Mosier Landing (River Mile 260.3) when discharges are under 95,000 cfs.
59

Figure 2. Water levels as a function of discharge for the tailwater at Lock and Dam 25, 1986 to 1993.
60

Figure 3. The discharge elevation relation developed for the tailwater of Lock and Dam 25.
61

Figure 4. The aquatic areas classification scheme developed for the Upper Mississippi River System

(from Wilcox 1993).
62

Figure 5. Predicted water level elevations (in feet) at three locations in Pool 25 using Plan 1. The Lock and Dam 25 headrepresented by a plus sign, Mosier Landing by a diamond, and the tailwater of Lock and Dam 24 by a black circle.
63

Figure 6. Predicted water level elevations (in feet) at three locations in Pool 25 using Plan 2. The Lock and Dam 25 headrepresented by a plus sign, Mosier Landing by a diamond, and the tailwater of Lock and Dam 24 by a black circle.
64

Figure 7. Predicted water level elevations (in feet) at three locations in Pool 25 using Plan 3. The Lock and Dam 25 headrepresented by a plus sign, Mosier Landing by a diamond, and the tailwater of Lock and Dam 24 by a black circle.
65

Figure 8. Predicted water level elevations (in feet) at three locations in Pool 25 using Plan 4. The Lock and Dam 25 headrepresented by a plus sign, Mosier Landing by a diamond, and the tailwater of Lock and Dam 24 by a black circle.
66

Figure 9. Predicted water level elevations (in feet) at three locations in Pool 25 using Plan 5. The Lock and Dam 25 headrepresented by a plus sign, Mosier Landing by a diamond, and the tailwater of Lock and Dam 24 by a black circle.
67

Figure 10. Predicted water level elevations (in feet) in Pool 25 at 19,000 cfs. Plan 1 is represented by a plus sign, Plan 2 

by a black circle, Plan 4 by a square, and Plan 5 by a triangle.
68

Figure 11. Predicted water level elevations (in feet) in Pool 25 at 56,000 cfs. Plan 1 is represented by a plus sign, Plan 2 

by a black circle, Plan 4 by a square, and Plan 5 by a triangle.
69

Figure 12. Predicted water level elevations (in feet) in Pool 25 at 95,000 cfs. Plan 1 is represented by a plus sign, Plan 2 

by a black circle, Plan 4 by a square, and Plan 5 by a triangle.
70

Figure 13. Predicted water level elevations (in feet) in Pool 25 at 135,000 cfs. Plan 1 is represented by a plus sign, Plan 2 

by a black circle, Plan 4 by a square, and Plan 5 by a triangle.
71

Figure 14. The water level template for Pool 25.
72

Figure 15. The elevation coverage for the northern portion of Pool 25.
73

Figure 16. The elevation coverage for the southern portion of Pool 25.
74

Figure 17. Land cover/land use classes in the northern portion of the floodplain of Pool 25.
75

Figure 18. Land cover/land use classes in the southern portion of the floodplain of Pool 25.
76

Figure 19. Aquatic areas in the northern portion of the floodplain of Pool 25.
77

Figure 20. Aquatic areas in the southern portion of the floodplain of Pool 25.
78

Figure 21. Comparison between water level management plan (Plan 2) and the present plan (Plan 1) at

19,000 cfs for land cover classes in the northern portion of Pool 25.
79

Figure 22. Comparison between water level management plan (Plan 2) and the present plan (Plan 1) at

19,000 cfs for land cover classes in the southern portion of Pool 25.
80

Figure 23. Comparison between water level management plan (Plan 2) and the present plan (Plan 1) at

56,000 cfs for land cover classes in the northern portion of Pool 25.
81

Figure 24. Comparison between water level management plan (Plan 2) and the present plan (Plan 1) at

56,000 cfs for land cover classes in the southern portion of Pool 25.
82

Figure 25. Comparison between water level management plan (Plan 2) and the present plan (Plan 1) at

95,000 cfs for land cover classes in the northern portion of Pool 25.
83

Figure 26. Comparison between water level management plan (Plan 2) and the present plan (Plan 1) at

95,000 cfs for land cover classes in the southern portion of Pool 25.
84

Figure 27. Comparison between water level management plan (Plan 2) and the present plan (Plan 1) at

135,000 cfs for land cover classes in the northern portion of Pool 25.
85

Figure 28. Comparison between water level management plan (Plan 2) and the present plan (Plan 1) at

135,000 cfs for land cover classes in the southern portion of Pool 25.
A-1

Appendix A. The HEC-2 Model

Representing 1993–1994 Conditions in Pool 25

T1 Pool 25

T2 Data entered by Paul Page 6/1994 - 8/1994

T3 POOL 25 P2594N7 - FINAL CALIBRATION RUN Joe Wlosinski

T4 Pool 25 Profiles from Nov. 1993 transects and 1994 bathymetry

T5 Transects not accurate for flows greater than 200000 cfs

J1 -10 2 433.8

J2 1

J3 38 17 1 43 26 8 7

J5 -10 -10

QT 4 19000 56000 95000 135000

NC .025 .025 .025 .1 .3

X1241.50 36 20000 25440 0 0 0

X3 10

GR 437.0 20000 434.1 20080 431.1 20160 430.5 20320 429.9 20480

GR 428.4 20640 428.0 20800 426.8 20960 428.7 21120 429.5 21280

GR 429.4 21440 427.5 21600 425.9 21760 428.0 21920 428.2 22080

GR 428.4 22240 413.0 22400 410.6 22560 419.4 22720 420.2 22880

GR 418.3 23040 414.7 23200 413.4 23360 415.7 23520 412.1 23680

GR 405.3 23840 405.6 24000 407.4 24160 400.7 24320 399.8 24480

GR 385.9 24640 386.5 24820 391.3 24960 391.3 25120 399.3 25280

GR 437.0 25440

NC .025 .025 .025 .1 .3

X1241.80 43 19520 25320 1300 1250 1200

X2 431.745

X3 10

GR 437.0 19520 437.0 19521 437.0 19522 437.0 19523 434.1 19600

GR 430.7 20000 430.4 20080 428.8 20160 428.6 20320 427.7 20480

GR 426.7 20640 429.1 20800 428.9 20960 429.2 21120 428.7 21280

GR 429.2 21440 429.8 21600 430.1 21760 420.8 21920 417.9 22080

GR 415.8 22240 414.6 22400 416.9 22560 418.4 22720 422.7 22880

GR 426.0 23040 427.0 23200 428.1 23360 427.9 2352 420.6 23680

GR 405.9 23840 404.3 24000 404.9 24160 407.3 24320 412.4 24480

GR 410.7 24640 407.7 24820 405.1 24960 401.8 25040 410.9 25120

GR 434.1 25200 434.1 25280 437.0 25320

NC .025 .025 .025 .1 .3

X1 242.0 40 20000 25840 1100 950 1000

X3 10

GR 437.0 20000 431.2 20080 431.1 20160 430.5 20320 429.1 20480

GR 428.3 20640 427.6 20800 428.1 20960 428.8 21120 429.2 21280

GR 429.2 21440 425.2 21600 428.0 21760 426.9 21920 416.4 22080

GR 416.1 22240 417.1 22400 419.1 22560 422.1 22720 423.4 22880

GR 424.3 23040 426.6 23200 426.7 23360 427.3 23520 429.3 23680

GR 429.4 23840 420.1 24000 416.8 24160 416.6 24320 409.2 24480

GR 409.4 24640 409.5 24820 413.0 24960 409.2 25120 410.8 25280
A-2

GR 410.5 25440 413.5 25600 427.3 25680 434.1 25760 437.0 25840

NC .025 .025 .025 .1 .3

X1242.60 31 20000 24320 3400 3200 3100

X3 10

GR 437.0 20000 431.6 20080 430.2 20160 413.5 20320 411.9 20480

GR 415.0 20640 419.5 20800 418.1 20960 417.8 21120 417.7 21280

GR 422.7 21440 422.2 21600 423.8 21760 421.7 21920 421.0 22080

GR 419.3 22240 418.2 22400 416.2 22560 413.8 22720 410.9 22880

GR 414.0 23040 423.1 23200 425.5 23360 426.2 23520 423.8 23680

GR 430.3 23840 421.1 24000 419.5 24080 421.2 24160 434.1 24240

GR 437.0 24320

NC .025 .025 .025 .1 .3

X1243.00 28 20000 23920 1800 1800 1900

X3 10

GR 437.0 20000 432.0 20080 431.0 20160 428.9 20320 425.5 20480

GR 408.3 20640 405.5 20800 408.4 20960 413.5 21120 416.7 21280

GR 415.5 21440 415.2 21600 413.3 21760 414.7 21920 418.3 22080

GR 418.7 22240 422.3 22400 421.8 22560 424.4 22720 423.3 22880

GR 425.4 23040 421.2 23200 422.2 23360 420.0 23520 421.7 23680

GR 425.1 23760 427.0 23840 437.0 23920

NC .025 .025 .025 .1 .3

X1243.40 24 20000 23280 1900 2000 2000

X3 10

GR 440.0 20000 420.2 20080 418.6 20160 412.5 20320 408.1 20480

GR 408.6 20640 407.1 20800 409.4 20960 408.8 21120 410.3 21280

GR 413.4 21440 415.2 21600 417.8 21760 417.1 21920 418.7 22080

GR 420.4 22240 418.6 22400 417.6 22560 419.6 22720 417.3 22880

GR 417.4 23040 424.2 23120 425.8 23200 440.0 23280

NC .025 .025 .025 .1 .3

X1244.00 22 19200 22240 3200 3100 3000

X3 10

GR 437.0 19200 431.7 19280 431.7 19360 431.7 19440 431.7 19520

GR 431.7 20000 429.9 20080 429.2 20160 420.7 20320 416.6 20480

GR 410.4 20640 399.2 20800 393.6 20960 403.6 21120 399.6 21280

GR 406.0 21440 406.9 21600 408.2 21760 413.9 21920 430.7 22080

GR 432.8 22160 437.0 22240

NC .025 .025 .025 .1 .3

X1244.40 26 20000 23600 2400 2000 1800

X3 10

GR 437.0 20000 428.0 20080 428.9 20160 429.2 20320 430.9 20480

GR 429.9 20640 430.5 20800 429.4 20960 428.1 21120 425.5 21280

GR 426.1 21440 424.6 21600 419.4 21760 420.0 21920 427.6 22080

GR 427.5 22240 422.2 22400 420.9 22560 407.8 22720 405.0 22880

GR 391.0 23040 386.8 23200 379.0 23360 412.4 23440 434.1 23520

GR 437.0 23600

NC .026 .026 .026 .1 .3

X1244.90 37 11200 23080 3200 3000 3000

X3 10

GR 439.0 11200 430.0 17320 430.0 17360 429.0 17400 430.0 17440
A-3

GR 429.0 17520 428.0 17600 426.0 17680 426.0 17760 424.0 17840

GR 425.0 17920 424.0 18000 423.0 18080 426.0 18160 425.0 18240

GR 426.0 18320 426.0 18360 426.0 18400 426.0 18400 426.0 18400

GR 434.1 20000 424.2 20080 423.7 20160 420.9 20320 420.8 20480

GR 419.1 20640 417.7 20800 417.6 20960 414.0 21120 411.7 21280

GR 406.9 21440 397.8 21600 393.5 21760 394.1 21840 401.2 22920

GR 434.1 23000 437.0 23080

NC .026 .026 .026 .1 .3

X1245.50 38 11200 23160 900 2700 3000

X3 10

GR 439.0 11200 428.0 17160 428.0 17200 427.0 17240 426.0 17320

GR 427.0 17400 425.0 17480 425.0 17560 425.0 17640 427.0 17720

GR 428.0 17800 425.0 17880 426.0 17960 424.0 18040 422.0 18120

GR 421.0 18160 420.0 18200 420.0 18200 420.0 18200 420.0 18200

GR 434.1 20000 418.4 20080 409.6 20160 410.7 20320 411.5 20480

GR 413.6 20640 413.1 20800 412.8 20960 413.1 21120 413.7 21280

GR 411.7 21440 407.3 21600 405.1 21760 405.1 21840 402.6 22920

GR 427.2 23000 434.1 23080 437.0 23160

NC .026 .026 .026 .1 .3

X1246.00 34 20000 25120 2200 2900 3000

X3 10

GR 437.0 20000 426.1 20080 426.2 20160 427.0 20320 428.4 20480

GR 428.2 20640 429.1 20800 429.4 20960 429.6 21120 429.0 21280

GR 427.5 21440 427.5 21600 426.2 21760 425.7 21920 424.8 22080

GR 422.5 22240 409.7 22400 407.7 22560 440.7 22720 401.0 22880

GR 401.5 23040 401.2 23120 419.8 23200 434.1 23280 434.1 24240

GR 415.0 24280 414.0 24320 416.0 24360 416.0 24440 416.0 24520

GR 416.0 24600 417.0 24680 417.0 24720 439.0 25120

NC .026 .026 .026 .1 .3

X1246.40 31 20000 24200 700 2000 2400

X3 10

GR 437.0 20000 422.1 20080 423.8 20160 422.9 20320 424.7 20480

GR 422.9 20640 421.1 20800 418.9 20960 417.4 21120 415.9 21280

GR 413.8 21440 411.8 21600 412.0 21760 412.0 21920 414.0 22080

GR 411.6 22240 414.4 22400 412.6 22480 434.1 22560 418.0 23160

GR 417.0 23200 414.0 23240 413.0 23320 413.0 23400 410.0 23480

GR 411.0 23560 413.0 23640 415.0 23720 418.0 23760 418.0 23800

GR 439.0 24200

NC .026 .026 .026 .1 .3

X1247.10 29 20000 24240 2400 2700 2800

X3 10

GR 437.0 20000 398.9 20080 396.9 20160 398.1 20320 396.1 20480

GR 400.3 20640 400.3 20800 404.4 20960 409.2 21120 424.5 21280

GR 424.8 21440 426.2 21600 428.0 21760 428.6 21920 430.0 22080

GR 429.5 22240 429.6 22400 428.9 22560 428.7 22720 429.2 22880

GR 422.4 23040 420.6 23200 420.1 23360 415.7 23440 426.6 23520

GR 431.8 23680 431.8 23760 434.2 23840 439.0 24240

NC .027 .027 .027 .1 .3

X1247.70 25 20000 24560 2900 3000 3100
A-4

X3 10

GR 437.0 20000 384.7 20080 385.1 20160 390.9 20320 398.2 20480

GR 411.9 20640 430.5 20800 429.4 20960 428.1 21120 425.5 21280

GR 416.1 21440 418.2 21600 414.2 21760 424.2 21920 430.1 22080

GR 427.9 22240 426.6 22400 425.4 22560 425.1 22720 428.5 22880

GR 428.8 23040 431.0 23200 431.0 23280 434.2 23360 439.0 24560

NC .027 .027 .027 .1 .3

X1248.10 31 20000 25280 4600 3000 2400

X3 10

GR 440.0 20000 419.2 20080 414.8 20160 431.1 20320 404.5 20480

GR 393.9 20640 416.3 20800 418.1 20960 420.7 21120 419.0 21280

GR 417.0 21440 419.3 21600 416.5 21760 414.7 21920 410.4 22080

GR 421.2 22240 423.0 22400 427.9 22480 434.2 22560 426.0 23760

GR 426.0 23800 422.0 23840 423.0 23920 423.0 24000 425.0 24080

GR 429.0 24240 430.0 24320 431.0 24400 431.0 24440 430.0 24480

GR 440.0 25280

NC .027 .027 .027 .1 .3

X1248.50 42 18840 24360 2200 1800 1000

X3 10

GR 440.0 18840 423.0 19040 422.0 19080 424.0 19120 426.0 19160

GR 428.0 19200 434.1 19300 434.1 19300 434.1 19300 434.1 19300

GR 434.3 20000 414.2 20080 413.9 20160 409.7 20320 411.3 20480

GR 414.7 20640 417.0 20800 413.8 20960 415.1 21120 414.6 21280

GR 414.9 21440 417.8 21600 419.9 21760 423.9 21920 423.3 22080

GR 427.0 22240 429.6 22400 430.3 22560 429.0 22720 428.4 22800

GR 431.2 22880 434.3 22960 434.3 23960 426.0 24000 422.0 24040

GR 415.0 24080 416.0 24120 414.0 24160 415.0 24200 410.0 24240

GR 419.0 24280 440.0 24360

NC .027 .027 .027 .1 .3

X1249.00 47 18400 24770 3200 2600 2000

X3 10

GR 440.0 18400 428.0 18480 428.0 18520 430.0 18560 430.0 18600

GR 428.0 18640 429.0 18720 429.0 18760 428.0 18800 434.3 19800

GR 434.3 20000 425.1 20080 420.8 20160 417.7 20320 415.9 20480

GR 415.0 20640 411.3 20800 412.8 20960 412.8 21120 412.5 21280

GR 415.1 21440 418.3 21600 419.2 21760 425.9 21920 427.0 22080

GR 427.9 22240 428.7 22400 428.5 22560 429.9 22720 430.4 22880

GR 430.4 23040 429.7 23200 428.6 23360 430.7 23440 431.2 23520

GR 434.3 23680 430.0 24080 431.0 24120 431.0 24160 431.0 24200

GR 431.0 24240 431.0 24540 421.0 24620 419.0 24660 418.0 24700

GR 418.0 24740 440.0 24770

NC .027 .027 .027 .1 .3

X1249.50 35 18680 23360 2600 2000 1600

X3 10

GR 440.0 18680 429.0 19080 429.0 19120 424.0 19160 426.0 19200

GR 427.0 19240 427.0 19280 434.3 19320 434.3 19321 434.3 19322

GR 434.3 20000 429.9 20080 409.0 20160 407.6 20320 405.2 20480

GR 412.7 20640 417.3 20800 418.0 20960 416.6 21120 418.1 21280

GR 418.2 21440 418.3 21600 420.4 21760 419.1 21920 420.0 22080
A-5

GR 417.3 22240 419.1 22400 419.8 22560 421.9 22720 423.0 22880

GR 424.0 23040 431.0 23120 431.0 23200 434.2 23280 440.0 23360

NC .027 .027 .027 .1 .3

X1250.10 33 19600 23120 2600 2800 3200

X3 10

GR 440.0 19600 423.0 19640 424.0 19680 424.0 19720 425.0 19760

GR 434.7 19800 434.7 19800 434.7 19800 434.7 19800 434.7 19800

GR 434.7 20000 419.1 20080 417.1 20160 422.7 20320 428.7 20480

GR 429.8 20640 431.0 20800 430.4 20960 428.9 21120 427.8 21280

GR 424.1 21440 421.2 21600 419.5 21760 417.8 21920 412.2 22080

GR 405.3 22240 403.0 22400 399.3 22560 399.1 22720 402.4 22880

GR 402.8 22960 434.7 23040 440.0 23120

NC .024 .024 .024 .1 .3

X1250.40 28 19840 23120 1300 1700 2200

X3 10

GR 440.0 19840 440.0 19840 440.0 19840 440.0 19840 440.0 19840

GR 434.7 20000 429.1 20080 426.4 20160 423.6 20320 423.6 20480

GR 427.7 20640 424.1 20800 427.8 20960 429.7 21120 426.3 21280

GR 423.3 21440 424.6 21600 424.8 21760 422.3 21920 419.8 22080

GR 415.1 22240 414.8 22400 406.7 22560 392.0 22720 392.5 22880

GR 394.1 22960 403.5 23040 440.0 23120

NC .024 .024 .024 .1 .3

X1251.00 34 19840 24080 3000 3000 3000

X3 10

GR 440.0 19840 440.0 19840 440.0 19840 440.0 19840 440.0 19840

GR 434.7 20000 432.2 20080 422.0 20160 421.8 20320 419.3 20480

GR 427.0 20640 424.5 20800 423.2 20960 418.3 21120 427.1 21280

GR 420.7 21440 421.8 21600 422.1 21760 420.1 21920 417.6 22080

GR 419.3 22240 418.0 22400 418.9 22560 423.6 22720 425.2 22880

GR 425.1 23040 425.2 23200 416.3 23360 412.0 23520 412.9 23680

GR 415.5 23840 424.5 23920 434.7 24000 440.0 24080

NC .024 .024 .024 .1 .3

X1251.50 32 20000 25280 3400 2800 3100

X3 10

GR 440.0 20000 433.0 20080 429.6 20160 422.6 20320 416.2 20480

GR 418.9 20640 419.7 20800 419.3 20960 414.4 21120 412.7 21280

GR 412.8 21440 406.8 21600 409.2 21760 409.7 21840 407.9 22920

GR 408.8 23000 434.7 23080 434.7 24080 431.0 24320 430.0 24360

GR 430.0 24400 429.0 24480 430.0 24560 428.0 24640 426.0 24720

GR 418.0 24800 417.0 24880 414.0 24960 414.0 25040 414.0 25120

GR 415.0 25200 440.0 25280

NC .024 .024 .024 .1 .3

X1252.10 40 20000 24860 3400 3200 3000

X3 10

GR 440.0 20000 430.4 20080 428.7 20160 428.3 20320 425.8 20480

GR 428.6 20640 423.3 20800 421.4 20960 418.2 21120 414.7 21280

GR 414.5 21440 410.0 21600 410.3 21760 413.8 21920 414.1 22080

GR 414.2 22240 422.0 22400 434.7 22480 427.0 23380 427.0 23420

GR 426.0 23460 425.0 23540 424.0 23620 423.0 23700 422.0 23780
A-6

GR 424.0 23860 423.0 23940 423.0 24020 425.0 24100 425.0 24180

GR 426.0 24260 427.0 24340 425.0 24420 425.0 24500 424.0 24580

GR 425.0 24660 427.0 24740 429.0 24780 431.0 24820 440.0 24860

NC .024 .024 .024 .1 .3

X1252.50 28 20000 22920 2000 2000 1900

X3 10

GR 440.0 20000 427.7 20080 421.0 20160 415.6 20320 407.1 20480

GR 403.8 20640 400.6 20800 397.8 20960 434.7 21040 434.7 21640

GR 424.0 21680 425.0 21720 425.0 21800 424.0 21880 423.0 21960

GR 424.0 22040 425.0 22120 425.0 22200 428.0 22280 428.0 22360

GR 430.0 22440 430.0 22520 431.0 22600 431.0 22680 431.0 22760

GR 430.0 22840 429.0 22880 440.0 22920

NC .024 .024 .024 .1 .3

X1252.90 19 20000 22560 2400 1800 1600

X3 10

GR 440.0 20000 418.7 20080 416.0 20160 415.2 20320 416.4 20480

GR 409.8 20640 401.6 20800 394.5 20960 413.4 21120 423.7 21280

GR 424.5 21440 423.5 21600 424.2 21760 428.7 21920 426.1 22080

GR 425.3 22240 426.4 22400 431.7 22480 440.0 22560

NC .024 .024 .024 .1 .3

X1253.50 33 20000 24100 2800 2400 2000

X3 10

GR 440.0 20000 426.6 20080 429.6 20160 428.3 20320 420.7 20480

GR 413.6 20640 408.8 20800 418.5 20960 418.1 21120 417.5 21280

GR 416.8 21440 420.7 21600 421.5 21680 434.7 21760 434.7 22760

GR 415.0 22800 413.0 22840 412.0 22880 416.0 22960 418.0 23040

GR 419.0 23120 419.0 23200 421.0 23280 425.0 23360 426.0 23440

GR 427.0 23520 428.0 23600 429.0 23680 430.0 23760 430.0 23840

GR 430.0 23920 430.0 24000 440.0 24100

NC .024 .024 .024 .1 .3

X1254.00 38 20000 25600 2800 3000 3200

X3 10

GR 440.0 20000 425.8 20080 414.3 20160 414.3 20320 414.0 20480

GR 417.9 20640 418.7 20800 420.0 20960 416.0 21120 416.8 21280

GR 419.1 21440 421.3 21520 434.6 21600 434.6 22600 425.0 22640

GR 424.0 22680 424.0 22720 423.0 22800 424.0 22880 425.0 22960

GR 426.0 23040 425.0 23080 434.6 23120 434.6 24220 429.0 24260

GR 427.0 24300 427.0 24340 422.0 24420 418.0 24500 416.0 24580

GR 417.0 24820 422.0 24940 425.0 25060 426.0 25460 425.0 25500

GR 426.0 25540 426.0 25580 440.0 25600

NC .024 .024 .024 .1 .3

X1254.40 34 20000 27100 1400 1900 2100

X3 10

GR 440.0 20000 434.6 20080 421.1 20160 419.2 20320 424.5 20480

GR 419.2 20640 416.0 20800 415.8 20960 422.4 21120 422.5 21280

GR 420.7 21440 418.3 21600 416.8 21760 434.6 21840 434.6 23040

GR 430.0 23080 428.0 23200 428.0 23360 426.0 23560 427.0 23800

GR 425.0 24000 434.6 24100 434.6 26100 422.0 26140 423.0 26180

GR 421.0 26260 423.0 26340 421.0 26420 420.0 26620 419.0 26660
A-7

GR 418.0 26780 416.0 26860 417.0 27060 442.0 27100

NC .024 .024 .024 .1 .3

X1255.00 35 20000 24680 2200 3000 3400

X3 10

GR 442.0 20000 435.0 20080 430.0 20160 427.6 20320 424.3 20480

GR 421.5 20640 419.9 20800 416.4 20960 418.1 21120 418.4 21280

GR 418.7 21440 421.2 21600 425.1 21760 425.1 21920 426.4 22080

GR 428.0 22240 430.0 22400 430.0 22560 426.2 22720 427.1 22880

GR 427.0 22960 435.1 23040 435.1 23920 420.0 24000 420.0 24040

GR 418.0 24080 421.0 24120 418.0 24160 417.0 24200 416.0 24240

GR 415.0 24380 415.0 24420 416.0 24520 419.0 24600 442.0 24680

NC .024 .024 .024 .1 .3

X1255.50 17 20000 22320 2200 2100 2000

X3 10

GR 442.0 20000 425.1 20080 423.8 20160 422.3 20320 420.9 20480

GR 418.7 20640 422.7 20800 424.2 20960 422.9 21120 421.3 21280

GR 417.6 21440 416.2 21600 413.7 21760 415.5 21920 412.5 22080

GR 407.8 22240 435.4 22320

NC .024 .024 .024 .1 .3

X1256.00 28 20000 26060 2000 2600 2800

X3 10

GR 442.0 20000 430.9 20080 427.8 20160 427.1 20320 429.3 20480

GR 428.2 20640 424.7 20800 424.3 20960 421.3 21120 418.5 21280

GR 418.4 21440 419.5 21600 419.0 21760 417.8 21920 418.0 22080

GR 417.0 22160 435.4 22240 435.4 25240 411.0 25300 410.0 25340

GR 417.0 25380 423.0 25420 424.0 25460 425.0 25500 423.0 25700

GR 423.0 25820 424.0 25900 442.0 26060

NC .022 .022 .022 .1 .3

X1256.40 34 17600 25360 2800 2100 2200

X3 10

GR 442.0 17600 442.0 17600 442.0 17600 442.0 17600 442.0 17600

GR 435.4 20000 431.9 20080 429.7 20160 422.4 20320 422.5 20480

GR 420.2 20640 419.7 20800 419.0 20960 419.8 21120 418.5 21280

GR 420.7 21440 421.5 21600 420.8 21760 421.7 21920 422.4 22000

GR 435.4 22080 435.4 24480 419.0 24560 420.0 24600 420.0 24640

GR 421.0 24680 423.0 24880 423.0 25000 425.0 25040 426.0 25120

GR 424.0 25240 423.0 25280 426.0 25320 442.0 25360

NC .022 .022 .022 .1 .3

X1256.90 34 18400 25320 3400 2800 2600

X3 10

GR 442.0 18400 442.0 18400 442.0 18400 442.0 18400 442.0 18400

GR 435.4 20000 432.0 20080 432.1 20160 426.3 20320 424.4 20480

GR 421.3 20640 426.1 20800 427.3 20960 426.8 21120 422.9 21280

GR 420.7 21440 420.1 21600 424.8 21760 425.3 21920 426.7 22080

GR 426.4 22160 435.4 22240 435.5 24640 411.0 24680 410.0 24720

GR 411.0 24760 417.0 24800 423.0 24880 424.0 24920 423.0 25040

GR 423.0 25160 424.0 25200 422.0 25240 442.0 25320

NC .022 .022 .022 .1 .3

X1257.50 38 20000 24960 2000 2800 3200
A-8

X3 10

GR 442.0 20000 435.5 20080 423.5 20160 421.3 20320 421.9 20480

GR 422.9 20640 423.5 20800 424.0 20960 421.2 21120 420.2 21280

GR 418.5 21440 415.0 21600 414.5 21760 415.9 21920 419.3 22000

GR 435.4 22080 435.4 24080 424.0 24120 424.0 24160 423.0 24200

GR 424.0 24240 421.0 24280 422.0 24320 424.0 24360 424.0 24440

GR 426.0 24480 427.0 24520 429.0 24560 425.0 24600 425.0 24640

GR 428.0 24680 425.0 24720 424.0 24760 423.0 24800 422.0 24840

GR 424.0 24880 425.0 24920 440.0 24960

NC .022 .022 .022 .1 .3

X1258.00 20 20000 22640 3800 3000 2800

X3 10

GR 442.0 20000 435.4 20080 431.4 20160 409.0 20320 404.1 20480

GR 404.2 20640 406.3 20800 408.0 20960 409.1 21120 413.9 21280

GR 416.2 21440 422.1 21600 425.9 21760 428.3 21920 429.0 22080

GR 427.4 22240 427.3 22400 426.7 22480 427.9 22560 442.0 22640

NC .022 .022 .022 .1 .3

X1258.50 16 20000 23000 2400 2800 3000

X3 10

GR 442.0 20000 435.4 20080 421.3 20160 420.5 20320 419.9 20480

GR 417.7 20640 408.8 20800 405.0 20960 402.3 21120 401.0 21280

GR 402.6 21440 412.0 21600 422.5 21760 428.8 21840 435.4 22920

GR 442.0 23000

NC .023 .023 .023 .1 .3

X1258.90 21 20000 22880 2300 2000 1800

X3 10

GR 442.0 20000 435.4 20080 427.9 20160 415.4 20320 414.5 20480

GR 413.7 20640 415.7 20800 415.3 20960 414.5 21120 414.5 21280

GR 408.0 21440 407.3 21600 426.3 21760 427.7 21920 429.1 22080

GR 427.4 22240 428.3 22400 427.9 22560 430.0 22720 435.4 22800

GR 442.0 22880

NC .023 .023 .023 .1 .3

X1259.50 27 20000 24360 3000 3200 3600

X3 10

GR 442.0 20000 435.4 20080 421.6 20160 414.1 20320 413.1 20480

GR 409.0 20640 412.9 20800 410.8 20960 413.7 21120 416.7 21280

GR 424.2 21440 425.6 21600 427.6 21680 435.4 21760 435.4 23360

GR 427.0 23400 426.0 23600 425.0 23640 423.0 23760 422.0 23960

GR 421.0 24000 423.0 24120 424.0 24200 425.0 24240 425.0 24280

GR 429.0 24320 444.0 24360

NC .023 .023 .023 .1 .3

X1260.10 30 20000 25940 3100 2900 2800

X3 10

GR 444.0 20000 436.8 20080 425.0 20160 408.2 20320 410.5 20480

GR 417.9 20640 418.1 20800 428.2 20960 430.1 21120 429.7 21280

GR 428.8 21440 426.9 21600 425.7 21760 436.8 21840 436.8 24840

GR 430.0 24880 431.0 24920 430.0 25080 431.0 25120 429.0 25160

GR 429.0 25320 427.0 25360 425.0 25440 422.0 25480 420.0 25560

GR 421.0 25640 422.0 25720 423.0 25760 424.0 25840 444.0 25940
A-9

NC .023 .023 .023 .1 .3

X1260.40 31 20000 27720 2400 1800 400

X3 10

GR 444.0 20000 436.8 20080 432.5 20160 416.5 20320 406.0 20480

GR 412.1 20640 415.2 20800 416.5 20960 420.5 21120 421.4 21280

GR 423.8 21440 425.4 21600 424.8 21760 430.0 21840 436.5 22920

GR 435.8 26320 432.0 26360 430.0 26440 428.0 26640 428.0 26880

GR 429.0 27080 427.0 27120 428.0 27160 430.0 27200 430.0 27400

GR 428.0 27440 426.0 27560 425.0 27600 423.0 27640 421.0 27680

GR 444.0 27720

NC .023 .023 .023 .1 .3

X1261.00 35 20000 24960 2700 2900 3200

X3 10

GR 444.0 20000 436.8 20080 428.0 20160 429.8 20320 428.2 20480

GR 419.6 20640 404.8 20800 387.3 20960 389.6 21120 436.8 21200

GR 436.0 22400 422.0 22440 425.0 22480 424.0 22520 428.0 22560

GR 430.0 22600 427.0 23200 423.0 23240 423.0 23280 422.0 23320

GR 423.0 23360 426.0 23400 430.0 23440 430.0 23480 427.0 23520

GR 428.0 23560 428.0 24360 426.0 24400 425.0 24560 426.0 24600

GR 427.0 24680 428.0 24720 426.0 24840 429.0 24880 444.0 24960

NC .023 .023 .023 .1 .3

X1261.40 22 20000 23960 2900 2800 3400

X3 10

GR 444.0 20000 436.8 20080 428.8 20160 424.5 20320 422.0 20480

GR 417.9 20640 419.5 20800 430.9 20960 429.2 21120 422.3 21280

GR 419.9 21440 415.3 21600 412.6 21760 408.8 21920 405.5 22080

GR 412.8 22240 429.8 22400 426.2 22560 427.5 22720 427.9 22800

GR 436.8 22880 444.0 23960

NC .023 .023 .023 .1 .3

X1262.20 19 20000 23280 3000 3000 3000

X3 10

GR 444.0 20000 436.9 20080 427.8 20160 427.5 20320 436.5 20480

GR 427.7 21440 425.6 21600 426.4 21760 426.7 21920 425.0 22080

GR 419.7 22240 418.1 22400 419.2 22560 412.5 22720 407.2 22880

GR 407.0 23040 415.9 23120 436.9 23200 444.0 23280

NC .023 .023 .023 .1 .3

X1262.90 33 17920 22400 3500 3600 3700

X3 10

GR 444.0 17920 431.0 17960 432.0 18000 431.0 18040 430.0 18080

GR 433.0 18680 432.0 18880 431.0 19080 430.0 19280 431.0 19680

GR 431.0 19720 432.0 19760 429.0 19800 429.0 19800 429.0 19800

GR 436.0 20000 413.9 20080 417.6 20160 418.1 20320 416.8 20480

GR 414.9 20640 411.2 20800 428.8 20960 433.6 21120 433.0 21280

GR 429.7 21440 426.9 21600 429.6 21760 430.8 21920 430.7 22080

GR 431.2 22240 436.9 22320 444.0 22400

NC .023 .023 .023 .1 .3

X1263.40 31 20000 25240 1400 2600 3800

X3 10

GR 444.0 20000 433.4 20080 432.8 20160 432.4 20320 432.0 20480
A-10

GR 426.2 20640 423.5 20800 421.7 20960 421.5 21120 420.1 21280

GR 422.3 21440 413.4 21600 411.8 21760 412.7 21840 436.9 22920

GR 436.9 23720 433.0 23760 429.0 23800 427.0 23840 427.0 23900

GR 428.0 24140 427.0 24180 429.0 24340 433.0 24380 425.0 24780

GR 429.0 24820 427.0 24900 425.0 24980 425.0 25160 426.0 25200

GR 444.0 25240

NC .023 .023 .023 .1 .3

X1263.90 22 20000 25720 3600 2800 3500

X3 10

GR 444.0 20000 436.9 20080 410.6 20160 404.5 20320 405.4 20480

GR 417.5 20640 421.6 20800 425.1 20960 421.5 21120 425.0 21280

GR 425.5 21440 429.3 21520 430.5 21600 436.9 21680 436.9 25280

GR 430.0 25320 428.0 25360 428.0 25400 429.0 25440 429.0 25640

GR 427.0 25680 447.0 25720

NC .023 .023 .023 .1 .3

X1264.50 20 20000 26400 3400 3000 1200

X3 10

GR 447.0 20000 437.3 20080 419.0 20160 419.2 20320 423.0 20480

GR 424.2 20640 421.3 20800 419.4 20960 418.5 21120 421.7 21280

GR 422.8 21440 424.2 21600 421.4 21680 437.3 21760 437.3 25760

GR 430.0 25800 429.0 25880 430.0 26240 431.0 26360 447.0 26400

NC .023 .023 .023 .1 .3

X1265.10 23 20000 26720 2800 2800 2800

X3 10

GR 447.0 20000 437.3 20080 411.5 20160 409.6 20320 410.2 20480

GR 411.8 20640 416.5 20800 418.2 20960 421.9 21120 427.5 21280

GR 430.2 21440 431.6 21600 433.8 21760 434.3 21920 432.9 22000

GR 433.7 22080 437.3 22160 437.3 26160 426.0 26200 428.0 26240

GR 428.0 26640 428.0 26680 447.0 26720

NC .024 .024 .024 .1 .3

X1265.60 27 20000 27840 3300 2600 1200

X3 10

GR 447.0 20000 437.3 20080 429.3 20160 430.5 20320 428.4 20480

GR 427.8 20640 428.6 20800 427.2 20960 421.4 21120 417.4 21280

GR 419.0 21440 420.4 21600 420.7 21760 425.2 21920 422.3 22080

GR 425.8 22240 425.0 22400 426.0 22480 437.3 22560 437.3 27360

GR 433.0 27400 431.0 27440 432.0 27480 431.0 27560 429.0 27640

GR 428.0 27800 447.0 27840

NC .024 .024 .024 .1 .3

X1266.00 27 18460 21440 2000 2000 2000

X3 10

GR 447.0 18460 429.0 18540 430.0 18620 428.0 18700 425.0 18780

GR 424.0 18860 421.0 18940 419.0 19020 419.0 19100 416.0 19140

GR 416.0 19220 420.0 19260 425.0 19300 425.0 19300 425.0 19300

GR 437.3 20000 435.4 20080 428.4 20160 417.9 20320 420.2 20480

GR 421.6 20640 419.5 20800 421.0 20960 421.3 21120 419.4 21280

GR 417.9 21360 437.3 21440

NC .024 .024 .024 .1 .3

X1266.40 32 17600 24680 2100 2100 2500
A-11

X3 10

GR 447.0 17600 434.0 17680 432.0 17760 428.0 18080 427.0 18160

GR 425.0 18560 425.0 18680 432.0 18960 437.3 19000 437.3 19000

GR 437.3 20000 430.7 20080 427.6 20160 426.6 20320 425.2 20480

GR 423.4 20640 420.2 20800 419.6 20960 419.2 21120 422.2 21280

GR 424.1 21360 425.4 21440 437.3 21520 437.3 24160 427.0 24200

GR 426.0 24240 425.0 24280 425.0 24440 427.0 24480 428.0 24560

GR 429.0 24600 447.0 24680

NC .024 .024 .024 .1 .3

X1267.10 31 16540 23000 4000 3700 3600

X3 10

GR 447.0 16540 431.0 16620 429.0 16700 430.0 16820 428.0 16940

GR 428.0 17060 427.0 17100 426.0 17180 425.0 17260 426.0 17660

GR 428.0 17740 432.0 17820 434.0 17860 437.3 17900 437.3 17900

GR 437.3 20000 427.7 20080 427.0 20160 423.1 20320 423.1 20480

GR 420.3 20640 422.8 20800 420.6 20960 425.0 21120 423.9 21280

GR 424.8 21440 420.8 21600 425.8 21760 430.6 21840 437.3 22920

GR 447.0 23000

NC .024 .024 .024 .1 .3

X1267.50 29 15800 21600 1800 1900 2000

X3 10

GR 448.0 15800 420.0 15840 420.0 15880 422.0 15920 426.0 16120

GR 427.0 16320 429.0 16480 427.0 16560 427.0 16640 425.0 17440

GR 434.0 17480 432.0 17520 434.0 17560 430.0 17600 430.0 17600

GR 437.4 20000 421.2 20080 420.2 20160 416.1 20320 416.7 20480

GR 418.1 20640 420.6 20800 420.1 20960 418.8 21120 419.2 21280

GR 419.8 21360 421.4 21440 437.4 21520 447.0 21600

NC .024 .024 .024 .1 .3

X1268.10 31 17000 23000 2500 3100 3200

X3 10

GR 448.0 17000 429.0 17040 424.0 17120 423.0 17160 423.0 17280

GR 426.0 17360 427.0 17440 426.0 17560 425.0 17700 423.0 17820

GR 437.4 17900 437.4 17900 437.4 17900 437.4 17900 437.4 17900

GR 437.4 20000 425.5 20080 423.9 20160 432.1 20320 426.7 20480

GR 421.9 20640 425.5 20800 425.5 20960 419.5 21120 419.3 21280

GR 418.7 21440 417.1 21600 419.0 21760 417.3 21840 437.4 22920

GR 447.0 23000

NC .024 .024 .024 .1 .3

X1268.60 34 17100 21760 3500 2900 2900

X3 10

GR 449.0 17100 425.0 17180 424.0 17260 425.0 17340 423.0 17420

GR 422.0 17500 423.0 17580 422.0 17660 421.0 17740 423.0 17820

GR 423.0 17900 422.0 17980 420.0 18060 418.0 18140 422.0 18220

GR 438.8 18300 438.8 18300 438.8 18300 438.8 18300 438.8 18300

GR 438.8 20000 428.3 20080 427.1 20160 422.9 20320 422.9 20480

GR 421.9 20640 425.0 20800 424.4 20960 424.4 21120 421.4 21280

GR 423.6 21440 424.4 21600 438.8 21680 447.0 21760

NC .024 .024 .024 .1 .3

X1269.00 27 18620 22160 1900 1900 2000
A-12

X3 10

GR 449.0 18620 424.0 18700 423.0 18740 423.0 18820 426.0 18900

GR 425.0 19060 424.0 19260 425.0 19340 432.0 19420 438.8 19440

GR 438.8 20000 433.7 20080 433.1 20160 431.2 20320 430.7 20480

GR 429.1 20640 426.7 20800 424.1 20960 424.4 21120 424.1 21280

GR 423.5 21440 422.3 21600 425.1 21760 426.9 21920 427.9 22000

GR 438.8 22080 447.0 22160

NC .024 .024 .024 .1 .3

X1269.40 31 17720 22000 2200 2000 2000

X3 10

GR 449.0 17720 421.0 17800 415.0 17840 416.0 17880 419.0 17920

GR 418.0 18060 422.0 18100 422.0 18300 421.0 18340 430.0 18360

GR 438.8 18400 438.8 18400 438.8 18400 438.8 18400 438.8 18400

GR 438.8 20000 435.2 20080 433.3 20160 431.2 20320 428.6 20480

GR 428.0 20640 426.7 20800 423.8 20960 424.4 21120 425.1 21280

GR 424.9 21440 426.5 21600 424.3 21760 427.2 21840 438.8 21920

GR 447.0 22000

NC .024 .024 .024 .1 .3

X1270.00 30 18340 22920 3000 2900 2900

X3 10

GR 449.0 18340 423.0 18940 421.0 18980 419.0 19020 420.0 19160

GR 427.0 19200 429.0 19240 430.0 19280 431.0 19360 433.0 19480

GR 432.0 19520 433.0 19600 433.0 19600 433.0 19600 433.0 19600

GR 438.7 20000 424.5 20080 424.2 20160 425.0 20320 424.5 20480

GR 422.4 20640 422.3 20800 422.7 20960 423.8 21120 422.2 21280

GR 423.1 21440 423.7 21600 424.7 21760 438.7 21840 447.0 22920

NC .024 .024 .024 .1 .3

X1270.50 29 18460 22560 3100 3000 2800

X3 10

GR 449.0 18460 434.0 19260 433.0 19420 436.0 19560 434.0 19580

GR 435.0 19620 436.0 19740 435.0 19860 438.1 19900 438.1 19920

GR 438.7 20000 434.1 20080 433.8 20160 432.2 20320 430.0 20480

GR 429.0 20640 428.4 20800 425.3 20960 429.2 21120 425.6 21280

GR 422.0 21440 422.6 21600 421.0 21760 421.2 21920 419.7 22080

GR 416.6 22240 417.4 22400 438.7 22480 449.0 22560

NC .024 .024 .024 .1 .3

X1271.10 27 17480 22160 3300 3200 3100

X3 10

GR 449.0 17480 436.0 17520 435.0 17560 434.0 17600 433.0 17640

GR 432.0 17720 430.0 17840 429.0 17880 429.0 17960 438.7 18000

GR 438.7 20000 414.6 20080 416.1 20160 413.2 20320 416.3 20480

GR 416.9 20640 418.9 20800 418.8 20960 419.8 21120 419.6 21280

GR 424.2 21440 426.8 21600 427.2 21760 423.8 21920 428.0 22000

GR 438.7 22080 449.0 22160

NC .024 .024 .024 .1 .3

X1271.50 26 17280 22000 2400 2600 2700

X3 10

GR 449.0 17280 436.0 17360 435.0 17440 435.0 17520 436.0 17600

GR 436.0 17680 433.0 17760 434.0 17840 432.0 17920 438.7 18000
A-13

GR 438.7 20000 434.8 20080 432.4 20160 428.2 20320 426.0 20480

GR 423.9 20640 417.8 20800 416.8 20960 413.2 21120 412.2 21280

GR 412.4 21440 414.3 21600 416.2 21760 415.0 21840 427.5 21920

GR 449.0 22000

NC .024 .024 .024 .1 .3

X1272.10 19 15920 21680 4200 3200 3000

X3 10

GR 449.0 15920 432.0 16000 429.0 16080 429.0 16160 428.0 16240

GR 430.0 16320 439.1 16400 439.1 16400 439.1 16400 439.1 16400

GR 439.1 20000 427.1 20080 425.8 20160 427.0 20320 423.6 20480

GR 402.0 21440 420.7 21520 439.1 21600 449.0 21680

NC .024 .024 .024 .1 .3

X1272.60 28 15200 22320 2300 2700 2800

X3 10

GR 449.0 15200 432.0 15280 425.0 15360 426.0 15440 433.0 15520

GR 439.2 15600 439.2 15600 439.2 15600 439.2 15600 439.2 15600

GR 439.2 20000 426.8 20080 428.3 20160 429.7 20320 427.1 20480

GR 424.9 20640 423.6 20800 421.5 20960 421.5 21120 420.5 21280

GR 419.0 21440 419.2 21600 419.1 21760 418.2 21920 417.8 22080

GR 422.2 22160 439.2 22240 449.0 22320

NC .024 .024 .024 .1 .3

X1273.00 26 17120 22080 800 1600 2200

X3 10

GR 449.0 17120 432.0 17200 434.0 17280 436.0 17360 436.0 17440

GR 438.0 17520 438.5 17600 438.5 17600 438.5 17600 438.5 17600

GR 438.5 20000 428.2 20080 401.2 20160 410.3 20320 422.7 20480

GR 416.1 20640 410.5 20800 418.9 20960 420.5 21120 419.7 21280

GR 418.3 21440 421.5 21600 422.1 21760 431.5 21920 434.7 22000

GR 449.0 22080

NC .024 .024 .024 .1 .3

X1273.40 15 20000 21840 4000 2000 1800

X3 10

GR 451.0 20000 436.0 20080 428.6 20160 399.6 20320 382.2 20480

GR 400.0 20640 404.9 20800 406.8 20960 406.6 21120 406.8 21280

GR 417.2 21440 427.8 21600 422.8 21680 420.8 21760 449.0 21840

EJ

T1 LOCK AND DAM 25

T2 RUN BY JOE WLOSINSKI

T3 56000 CFS

J1 0 3 433.8

J2 2

T1 LOCK AND DAM 25

T2 RUN BY JOE WLOSINSKI

T3 95000 CFS

J1 0 4 431.7

J2 3

T1 LOCK AND DAM 25
A-14

T2 RUN BY JOE WLOSINSKI

T3 135000 CFS

J1 0 5 429.9

J2 4

ER
B-1

Appendix B. The Arc Macro Language Program

for Creating Water Level Elevation Templates

/* Arc Macro Language program for assigning water elevations by river mile

/* use files generated from HEC model

/* template coverage of river miles must exist

/* set variables

&sv .pool = pool25

&work /usr4/arc_work/jtr0/bath/%.pool%

&sv .pl = p25

&sv .wlm = 1

&sv .dr = 1

/* add data to info tables

&do &until %.wlm% = 6

 tables

 define temp

 VALUE

 4

 10

 b

 WSE-%.wlm%-%.dr%

 4

 5

 f

 1

 ~

 add from /net/sun04/home/jtr0/wse/pool25/%.pl%-%.wlm%-%.dr%

 q stop

 joinitem wse%.pl%.vat temp wse%.pl%.vat value count ordered

 tables

 kill temp

 q stop

 &sv .dr = %.dr% + 1

 &if %.dr% = 5 &then

 &do

 &sv .wlm = %.wlm% + 1

 &sv .dr = 1

 &end

&end

&return
C-1

Appendix C. The Long Term Resource Monitoring

Program's Land Cover/Land Use Classification System

for the Upper Mississippi River System

Long Term Resource Monitoring Program

Land Cover/Land Use Classification List

Version 2.06

July 1, 1994

The Long Term Resource Monitoring Program (LTRMP) was authorized under the Water Resources

Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662) as an element of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'

Environmental Management Program. The LTRMP is being implemented by the Environmental

Management Technical Center (EMTC), an office of the National Biological Survey, in cooperation with

the five Upper Mississippi River System States of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin,

with guidance and Program responsibility provided by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

The mission of the LTRMP is to provide decision makers with information for maintaining the Upper

Mississippi River System (UMRS) as a viable large river ecosystem given its multiple-use character. 

The long-term goals of the Program are to understand the system, determine resource trends and impacts,

develop management alternatives, manage information, and develop useful products.

In 1989, the LTRMP began collecting aerial photography, photographing the entire UMRS floodplain

in both true color and color infrared (scale, 1:15,000). In the years since, color infrared photography has

been collected for selected regions of the river.

The LTRMP has field stations collecting data within six study reaches of the UMRS. The former

National Ecology Research Center (NERC; Fort Collins, Colorado) was contracted to interpret and

computerize 1989 photography of LTRMP study reaches and four other project areas. In 1991, LTRMP

personnel began interpreting aerial photography. Interpreters from NERC used a minimum mapping unit

of <1 acre and a minimum of 10% vegetation cover; LTRMP interpreters use a minimum mapping unit of

1 acre and a minimum of 10% vegetation cover. 

Photography is interpreted to delineate three feature types: land cover/land use, percent vegetation

cover, and tree height. Examples of how photographs are interpreted follow:

1. An area of forested islands with no aquatic vegetation. The interpreter first locates, then marks,

the land–water interface. Each island is studied to see if more than one land cover/land use type is

present. If multiple types are present, the interpreter analyzes the area to see if the trees are

growing in a mixture or if unique stands of trees are present. Each polygon is then labeled with the

appropriate vegetation code followed by a character describing the percentage of the island covered

by the trees (i.e., canopy closure). The average tree height is then calculated and recorded.

2. A sand bar–dredge spoil island sparsely vegetated with grass. Like the previous example, the

interpreter first marks the outer boundary of the sand bar. If all of the vegetation is localized

within one region of the sand bar and the area is large enough to be mapped, a boundary line is

drawn around the vegetation. If the vegetation is so sparse that it does not cover at least 10% of the
C-2

sand surface, the grasses are ignored and the area is mapped as sand. If the grasses cover more

than 10% of the sand surface, the area is mapped as grass and the percent vegetation cover is noted. 

Vegetation height is recorded only when trees are present.

3. A transition zone containing a mixture of various rooted and floating vegetation, emergents,

and submergents. The area containing the mixture is first separated from its surrounding features. 

The mixture is then analyzed to see if the region contains a uniform mixture of plants or several

distinct regions of different plant mixtures. Each polygon is labeled with the appropriate

vegetation code, then the percent vegetation cover is noted. LTRMP interpreters do not analyze

plant mixtures to determine plant dominance. Therefore, the sequence in which mixed vegetation

types are listed is arbitrary and does not represent plant dominance.

The average size and size ranges of the mixed plant beds vary within the UMRS, and are sitespecific. It should be noted that although LTRMP interpreters use a small, minimum mapping unit,

sometimes the mixed vegetation beds are large. For example, within UMRS Pools 7 and 8, the mean size

of a mixed vegetation polygon is 2–5 acres, but they range in size from 0.1 acre to 178 acres. Single

polygons >50 acres have been created for

Nelumbo/Nymphaea/Sagittaria

Nelumbo/Nymphaea/submerg/Lemn

Nymphaea/submergents/Lemnaceae

and polygons >150 acres have been created for

Nymphaea/Nelumbo/submergents

Nymphaea/submergents

Photointerpreters from the LTRMP use a genus-level classification scheme. A 13-class generalized

classification scheme was also developed for regrouping the data. A numeric classification scheme is

then used to relate the two classification schemes. An explanation of LTRMP vegetation codes follows:

Each LTRMP generalized vegetation group has been assigned a number that is a multiple of 100. 

For example, Open Water is 100, Submergents is 200.

Each vegetation type was then assigned a numeric value that related it to the 13 vegetation groups. 

For example, the submergent Myriophyllum (water milfoil) is 202. 

Vegetation types unique to historical coverages have been assigned values of 50 or above. 

Example: Sagittaria latifolia (broad arrowhead) is 751. The 700 portion of the number signifies that

Sagittaria latifolia is an Emergent, while the 51 signifies that this vegetation class is not in use by

LTRMP photointerpreters. 

***************************************************************************

100 Open Water - Any unvegetated body of water. Includes rivers, streams, lakes, and ponds. All 100-

numbered water types within the 13-class land cover/land use coverages are grouped into Open Water. Note: Industrial

ponds are classified under Urban/Developed (1200's).

 101 Lemnaceae - Duckweed (floating) - Duckweed has been assigned an Open Water classification because of its mobile

tendencies; Duckweed goes wherever the wind takes it.
C-3

***************************************************************************

200 Submergents- Used to classify any area with submergent vegetation whose species composition is

unknown. All 200-numbered submergents within the 13-class land cover/land use coverages are grouped into

Submergents. Note: Species classification of submergents within LTRMP coverages began in 1992, only for plant beds

that had been groundtruthed. The order in which plant combinations are listed does not reflect plant dominance. 

 201 Lemnaceae/submergents - Duckweed/submergent vegetation mixture

202 Myriophyllum - Water Milfoil

203 Zosterella - Water Star Grass

 204 Vallisneria/Zosterella - Wild Celery/Water Star Grass mixture

 205 Myriophyllum/Zosterella - Water Milfoil/Water Star Grass mixture

 206 Vallisneria/Potamogeton - Wild Celery/Pondweed mixture

 207 Myrioph/Potamoget/Vallis - Water Milfoil/Pondweed/Wild Celery mixture

208 Potamoget/Vallis/Zost/Cerat - Pondweed/Wild Celery/Water Star Grass/Coontail mixture

 209 Elodea - Waterweed

 250* Vallisneria/Potamoget/Heteran - Wild Celery/Pondweed/Water Stargrass mixture. Note: The name of this class

was established by the classification of the GREAT data. Since then, the genus Heterantha has been changed to Zosterella.

251* Ceratophyllum - Coontail 

252* Lemnaceae/Ceratophyllum - Duckweed/Coontail mixture 

253* Lemna/Ceratophyll/Potamogeton - Duckweed/Coontail/Pondweed mixture 

254* Potamogeton - Pondweed 

255* Vallisneria - Wild Celery 

* This class was assigned a historical classification number (50's) because at the time it was assigned its number, this class was

only utilized within the GREAT river study coverages (1970's).

 

***************************************************************************

300 Submerg–Rooted Floating Aqua - This class is used only to regroup 300-numbered

Submergent-Rooted Floating Aquatics for use in the 13-class generalized land cover/land use coverages. This class should

not appear on any interpreted photographs. Note: Species classification of submergents within LTRMP coverages first

began in 1992, only for plant beds that had been groundtruthed. The order in which plant combinations are listed does not

reflect plant dominance. 

 301 Brasenia/submergents - Watershield/submergent vegetation mixture

 302 Nelumbo/Nymphaea/submerg/Lemn - American Lotus/White Water Lily/submergent vegetation/Duckweed

mixture

 303 Nelumbo/submergents - American Lotus/submergent vegetation 
C-4

304 Nelumbo/submergents/Lemnaceae - American Lotus/submergent vegetation/Duckweed mixture

 305 Nymphaea/Nelumbo/submergents - White Water Lily/American Lotus/submergent vegetation mixture

 306 Nymphaea/submergents - White Water Lily/submergent vegetation mixture

307 Nymphaea/submergents/Lemnaceae - White Water Lily/submergent vegetation/Duckweed mixture

 308 Nymphaea/Myriophyllum - White Water Lily/Water Milfoil mixture

 309 Nelumbo/Myriophyllum - American Lotus/Water Milfoil mixture

 310 Nelumbo/Nymphaea/Myriophyllum - American Lotus/White Water Lily/Water Milfoil mixture

 311 Nymph/Ceratoph/Myriophyl/Lemna - White Water Lily/ Coontail/Water Milfoil/Duckweed mixture

 312 Nymphaea/Ceratophyllum/Lemna - White Water Lily/Coontail/Duckweed mixture

***************************************************************************

400 Submerg–Rooted Floating–Emerg - This class is used only to regroup all 400-

numbered Submergent-Rooted Floating Aquatic-Emergents for use in the 13-class generalized land cover/land use

coverages. This class should not appear on any interpreted photographs. Note: Species classification of submergents

within LTRMP coverages began in 1992, only for plant beds that had been groundtruthed. The order in which plant

combinations are listed does not reflect plant dominance. 

 401 Nelum/Nymph/Sag/Sparg/sub/Lemn - American Lotus/White Water Lily/Arrowhead/Burreed/submergents/Duckweed mixture

 402 Nelum/Nymph/Ponted/sub/Lemn - American Lotus/White Water Lily/Pickerelweed/submergents/Duckweed

mixture

 403 Scirpus/Nelumbo/submergents - Bulrush/American Lotus/submergents mixture

 404 Scirpus/Nymphaea/submergents - Bulrush/White Water Lily/submergents mixture

 405 Zizania/Nymphaea/Nelumbo/sub - Wild Rice/White Water Lily/American Lotus/submergents mixture

 406 Pontederia/Nymph/Nelumbo/sub - Pickerelweed/White Water Lily/American Lotus/submergents mixture

 407 Sagit/Ceratophyllum/Lemnaceae - Arrowhead/Coontail/Duckweed mixture

***************************************************************************

500 Rooted Floating Aquatics - This class is used only to regroup all 500-numbered

Rooted/Floating Aquatics for use in the 13-class generalized land cover/land use coverages. This class should not appear

on any interpreted photographs. Note: The order in which plant combinations are listed does not reflect plant dominance. 

 501 Brasenia - Watershields

 502 Jussiaea - Water Primrose
C-5

 503 Nelumbo - American Lotus

 504 Nelumbo/Lemnaceae - American Lotus/Duckweed mixture

 505 Nelumbo/Nymphaea - American Lotus/White Water Lily mixture

 506 Nuphar - Yellow Water Lily - Note: Nuphar and Nymphaea cannot be differentiated on aerial photography. Nuphar is

used in areas where it is known to occur; otherwise, Nymphaea is the default water lily genus.

 507 Nymphaea - White Water Lily

 508 Nelumbo/Nymphaea/Lemnaceae - American Lotus/White Water Lilly/Duckweed mixture

 509 Nymphaea/Lemnaceae - White Water Lily/Duckweed mixture

***************************************************************************

600 Rooted Floating Aqua–Emergents- This class is used only to regroup all 600-

numbered Rooted Floating Aquatic-Emergents for use in the 13-class generalized land cover/land use coverages. This class

should not appear on any interpreted photographs. Note: The order in which plant combinations are listed does not reflect

plant dominance. 

 601 Nelumbo/Nymphaea/Sagittaria - American Lotus/White Water Lily/Arrowhead mixture

602 Nymphaea/Sagittaria - White Water Lily/Arrowhead mixture

 603 Nymphaea/Scirpus - White Water Lily/Bulrush mixture

 604 Sagittaria/Nelumbo - Arrowhead/American Lotus mixture

***************************************************************************

700 Emergents - This class is used only to regroup all 700-numbered Emergents for use in the 13-class

generalized land cover/land use coverages. This class should not appear on any interpreted photographs. Note: The order

in which plant combinations are listed does not reflect plant dominance. 

 701 Acorus - Sweetflag Grass

 702 Carex - Sedges

 703 Cyperus - Flat Sedge

 704 Decodon - Water Willow

 705 Echinodorus - Burheads

 706 Eleocharis - Spike Rush

 707 Lythrum salicaria - Purple Loosestrife

 708 Pontederia - Pickerel Weed

 709 Sagittaria - Arrowhead

 710 Sagittaria/Lemnaceae - Arrowhead/Duckweed mixture
C-6

 712 Sagittaria/Scirpus/Sparganium - Arrowhead/Bulrush/Bur-reed mixture

 713 Sagittaria/Sparganium - Arrowhead/Bur-reed mixture

 714 Scirpus - Bulrush

 715 Scirpus/Sagittaria - Bulrush/Arrowhead mixture

 716 Scirpus/Sparganium - Bulrush/Bur-reed mixture

 717 Sedge meadow - A very wet meadow dominated by sedges. Other emergents may be mixed within. 

 718 Sparganium - Bur-reed

 719 Typha - Cattail

 720 Typha/Sagittaria - Cattail/Arrowhead mixture

 721 Typha/Scirpus - Cattail/Bulrush mixture

722 Typha/Scirpus/Sparganium - Cattail/Bullrush/Bur-reed mixture

 723 Typha/Sparganium - Cattail/Bur-reed mixture

 724 Zizania - Wild Rice

 725 Equisetum - Horsetail - To date, only a handful of polygons have been recognizable on aerial photos. All were located

within UMRS Pools 5a and 6.

 726 Dead Emergents - Added in 1993 to map emergent vegetation beds containing standing crop killed by the 1993 flood.

***************************************************************************

800 Emergents–Grasses–Forbs - This class is used only to regroup all 800-numbered EmergentsGrasses/Forbs for use in the 13-class generalized land cover/land use coverages. This class should not appear on any

interpreted photographs. Note: The order in which plant combinations are listed does not reflect plant dominance. 

 801 Leersia/Carex/Polygonum - Cutgrass/Sedges/Smartweed mixture

 802 Leersia/Carex/Sagit/Polygonum - Cutgrass/Sedges/Arrowhead/Smartweed mixture

803 Leer/Phalar/Scirp/Lythr/Phrag - Cutgrass/Reed Canary Grass/Bulrush/Purple Loosestrife/Common Reed mixture

 804 Leersia/Sagittaria - Cutgrass/Arrowhead mixture

 805 Sagittaria/Phalaris - Arrowhead/Reed Canary Grass mixture

 806 Sagittaria/Polygonum - Arrowhead/Smartweed mixture

 807 Sag/Sparg/Typ/Scirp/Leer/Phrag - Arrowhead/Bur-reed/Cattail/Bulrush/Cutgrass/Common Reed mixture
C-7

 808 Scirpus/Leersia - Bulrush/Cutgrass mixture

 809 Scirpus/Carex/Leersia/Polygon - Bulrush/Sedges/Cutgrass/Smartweed mixture

 810 Scirpus/Phalaris - Bulrush/Reed Canary Grass mixture

 811 Scirpus/Phragmites - Bulrush/Common Reed mixture

 812 Scirpus/Polygonum - Bulrush/Smartweed mixture

 813 Scirpus/Typha/Phalaris - Bulrush/Cattail/Reed Canary Grass mixture

 814 Sparganium/Leersia - Bur-reed/Cutgrass mixture

******************************************************************************

900 Grasses–Forbs - Non-woody plants. This class is used only to regroup all 900-numbered Grasses/Forbs

for use in the 13-class generalized land cover/land use coverages. This class should not appear on any interpreted

photographs. Note: The order in which plant combinations are listed does not reflect plant dominance. 

 901 Ambrosia - Ragweed

 902 Grass - Used to delineate areas of mixed grasses. Abandoned/set aside fields are also placed within this class. 

 903 Hay meadow - Lowland (temporarily wet) areas, regularly cut and baled for hay.

904 Pasture (heavily grazed areas) - "Hay fields" regularly pastured with cattle or similar livestock.

 905 Leersia - Cutgrass

 906 Leersia/Polygonum - Cutgrass/Smartweed mixture

 907 Meadow - Upland areas regularly cut and baled for hay.

 908 Mixed forbs and/or grasses - Class used to describe a mixture of many different Grasses and Forbs. Note:

Photointerpreters should not intermix the use of this class and class 900. Class 900 is to be used only for regrouping

purposes.

909 Nettles - any nettles

 910 Phalaris - Reed Canary Grass

911 Phalaris/Polygonum - Reed Canary Grass/Smartweed mixture

 912 Phragmites - Common Reed

 913 Phragmites/Phalaris - Common Reed/Reed Canary Grass mixture

 914 Polygonum - Smartweed

 915 Polygonum/Nelumbo - Smartweed/American Lotus mixture
C-8

 916 Rdside-levee/grass/forbs/shrub - Any roadside ditch or levee. Example of a roadside: Delineation of a

north/south roadway would begin on the far west side of the western ditch and go to the far eastern side of the eastern ditch. 

Both ditches and the road are included within the same polygon. 

 917 Sand–prairie - A very sandy area covered with very dry-soil grasses. 

 918 Spartina - Cord Grass

 919 Vines as dense overgrowth - Any live stem vine growing as a dense covering. 

 920 Polygonum/Eupatorium - Smartweed/Eupatorium mixture

 921 Dead Grass - Added in 1993 to map vegetation beds of standing crop killed by the 1993 flood. 

***************************************************************************

1000 Woody Terrestrial - All trees and shrubs. This class was intended to be used only for regrouping all

1000-numbered classes, but photointerpreters for Pools 4, 8, and 13 used this class on 1991 and 1992 aerial photos as a

time-saving measure. When Woody Terrestrial is used on a photograph, it signifies that any or all of the 1000-group plants

can be found in those areas. The use of Woody Terrestrial ended in 1993 with the introduction of Forest Mesic. Pool 26,

Open River, and La Grange have concentrated their efforts on classifying the floodplain forest to the genus level since their

study areas do not contain as much aquatic vegetation as the upper pools. Woody Terrestrial was not used in the 1989

coverages prepared by NERC and should no longer appear on any interpreted photographs. Note: The order in which plant

combinations are listed does not reflect plant dominance. 

1001 Acer - Maples

1002 Acer/Populus and/or Salix - Maples/Cottonwood or Willow mixture

1003 Amorpha - False Indigo

1004 Betula - Birches

1005 Brush - Any small shrubby species

1006 Carya/Nyssa - Hickory/Sour Gums

1007 Cephalanthus - Button Bush

1008 Forest-mesic (moist soil sp.) - Plant communities occurring at low elevations. Forest-mesic can contain any

combination of the following: Acer, Acer/Populus and/or Salix, Carya/Nyssa, Fraxinus, Betula, Brush, Cephalanthus,

Conifers, Populus, Salix, Salix and/or Populus, Salix and/or Populus - grass, Quercus, Taxodium, Taxodium/Nyssa, and

Ulmus.

1009 Forest-upland (dry soil sp.) - Plant communities occurring above the floodplain. Forest-upland can contain any

combination of the following: Acer, Betula, Brush, Conifers, Fraxinus, Juniperus, Plantation, Populus, and Quercus.

1010 Fraxinus - Ash

1011 Plantation - Any group of planted, cultivated trees. Examples include apple orchards, Christmas tree farms, and stands

of planted pines.

1012 Populus - Cottonwood

1013 Quercus - Oaks
C-9

1014 Salix - Willows

1015 Salix and/or Populus - Willows and/or Cottonwood

1016 Salix and/or Populus - grass - Willows and/or Cottonwood mixed with grasses

1017 Shrub/grass/forbs - Shrub/grass/forbs mixture

1018 Shrub/Scirpus - Shrub/Bulrush mixture

1019 Taxodium - Bald Cypress

1020 Taxodium/Nyssa - Bald Cypress/Sour Gum

1021 Ulmus - Elm

1022 Conifers - Naturally occurring cone-bearing trees (unplanted)

1023 Juniperus - Eastern Red Cedar

***************************************************************************

1100 Agriculture - Any cultivated field that is either turned with a plow or worked with a disk. Crops include

corn, soybeans, and oats.

***************************************************************************

1200 Urban–Developed - Any area "developed" by humans. This class is used only to regroup all 1200-

numbered Urban classes for use in the 13-class generalized land cover/land use coverages. This class should not appear on

any interpreted photographs. 

1201 Developed - Shopping malls, industrial parks, military depots, farmsteads, storage facilities, and isolated industrial sites

(built in the middle of a rural area) are considered developed.

1202 Developed parks - City and state parks are included in this category but only those areas actively used by humans. 

Examples are picnic areas, campgrounds, administrative buildings, and interpretive complexes.

1203 Industrial pond - Examples of industrial ponds are water coolant ponds and fish ponds actively managed for industrial

or research use (i.e., fish farms and hatcheries).

1204 Urban - Residential areas, including schools.

1205 Revetted Bank - Riprap used to control bank erosion.

***************************************************************************

1300 Sand–Mud - This class is used only to regroup all 1300-numbered Sand/Mud classes for use in the 13-class

generalized land cover/land use coverages. This class should not appear on any interpreted photographs. 

1301 Mud - Mud

1303 Sand - Sand

***************************************************************************
C-10

1400 No Coverage - Used to label areas within the floodplain study area (a) not covered by aerial photography or (b) with no

aerial photography available.

Modifiers:

The first group of modifiers is used to describe the average height of polygons containing Woody

Terrestrial vegetation. 

1 0–20 ft tall 

2 21–50 ft tall

3 >50 ft tall

The second group of modifiers is used to describe vegetation density within an interpreted polygon. 

No attempts have been made to utilize these modifiers to describe plant dominance within mixed species

polygons. 

A 10%–33% vegetation cover

B 34%–67% vegetation cover

C 68%–90% vegetation cover

D >90% vegetation cover
D-1

Appendix D. The Arc Macro Language Program for

Comparing Water Level Management Scenarios

/* Arc Macro Language code for change detection

/* set variables

&sv datapath = /usr4/arc_work/jtr0/projects/pool25/data/

&sv .lw = %datapath%lw-1-1

&sv .elv = %datapath%p25elv

&sv .lcu = %datapath%lcu89

&sv .wlm = 1

&sv .dr = 1 

/* create land-water and lcu grid

grid

 setmask off

 &do &until %.dr% = 5

 setcell minof

 temp = %datapath%wsep25.wse-%.wlm%-%.dr% * 10 - %.elv%

 if (temp lt 0)lw-%.wlm%-%.dr% = 1

 else lw-%.wlm%-%.dr% = 2

 endif

 kill temp

 /* land = 1 water = 2

 lcu-b-%.wlm%-%.dr% = setnull (%.lw% ne lw-%.wlm%-%.dr%, %.lcu%)

 setmask %datapath%p25lev

 lcu-a-%.wlm%-%.dr% = lcu-b-%.wlm%-%.dr%

 setmask off

 &if %.wlm% = 1 &then

 &do

 if (%.lw% ne lw-1-%.dr%) lcu-%.dr% = 16 - %.lw%

 else lcu-%.dr% = %.lcu%

 &end

 &else

 &do

 lcuc-b-%.wlm%-%.dr% = setnull (lw-1-%.dr% eq lw-%.wlm%-%.dr%, lcu-%.dr%)

 setmask %datapath%p25lev

 lcuc-a-%.wlm%-%.dr% = lcuc-b-%.wlm%-%.dr%

 setmask off

 &end

 &sv .wlm = %.wlm% + 1

 &if %.wlm% = 6 &then

 &do

 &sv .dr = %.dr% + 1

 &sv .wlm = 1

 &end

 &end
D-2

q

/* create tables of frequency

&sv .dr = 1

&sv .wlm = 1

&if %.dr% ne 6 &then

&do

 &sv .lev = a

 &do &until %.lev% eq c

 &do &until %.dr% = 5

 copyinfo lcu-%.lev%-%.wlm%-%.dr%.vat lcu-%.lev%-%.wlm%-%.dr%.dat

 kill lcu-%.lev%-%.wlm%-%.dr%

 tables

 sel lcu-%.lev%-%.wlm%-%.dr%.dat

 alter count

 %.lev%%.wlm%%.dr%

 ~

 ~

 ~

 q stop

 &if %.wlm% eq 1 and %.dr% eq 1 &then

 &else

 &do

 joinitem lcu-%.lev%-1-1.dat lcu-%.lev%-%.wlm%-%.dr%.dat lcu-%.lev%-1-1.dat value %.lev%11

 tables

 kill lcu-%.lev%-%.wlm%-%.dr%.dat

 q stop

 &end

 &sv .wlm = %.wlm% + 1

 &if %.wlm% = 6 &then

 &do

 &sv .dr = %.dr% + 1

 &sv .wlm = 1

 &end

 &end

 &if %.lev% = b &then

 &sv .lev = c

 &if %.lev% = a &then

 &do

 &sv .lev = b

 &sv .dr = 1

 &sv .wlm = 1

 &end

 &end

/* export to ascii file

&data ARC INFO

 ARC

 sel LCU-A-1-1.DAT
D-3

 export /usr4/arc_work/jtr0/projects/pool25/output/lcu-a.dat sdf

VALUE,A11,A21,A31,A41,A51,A12,A22,A32,A42,A52,A13,A23,A33,A43,A53,A14,A24,A34,A44,A5

4

 sel LCU-B-1-1.DAT

 export /usr4/arc_work/jtr0/projects/pool25/output/lcu-b.dat sdf

VALUE,B11,B21,B31,B41,B51,B12,B22,B32,B42,B52,B13,B23,B33,B43,B53,B14,B24,B34,B44,B54

 q stop

&end

&end
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,

searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments

regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington

Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to

the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, D.C. 20503

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE

October 1996

3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES

COVERED

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Pool 25: Water level management alternatives and their effects on habitat

5. FUNDING NUMBERS

6. AUTHOR(S)

Joseph H. Wlosinski and James T. Rogala

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

U.S. Geological Survey 

Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center

2630 Fanta Reed Road

La Crosse, Wisconsin 54603

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

 REPORT NUMBER

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

U.S. Geological Survey 

Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center

2630 Fanta Reed Road

La Crosse, Wisconsin 54603

10. SPONSORING/MONITORING

 AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

96-T004

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Release unlimited. Available from National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield,

VA 22161 (1-800-553-6847 or 703-487-4650

12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

The effects of changing levee and water level management practices on present habitat types and amounts on the Upper Mississippi River floodplain at Pool 25 were predicted. The

intent of the study was to investigate a broad range of plans that would provide course resolution information and the tools needed to study specific plans in the future. Two

conditions were investigated for levees: the present levee system and all levees removed. Five water level management plans were studied: the present plan, two plans that would

increase water levels, and two plans that would decrease water levels. The two management variables--levee and water level management plans--resulted in a total of ten unique

management alternatives. Each was studied at four discharge regimes for a total of 40 scenarios. A geographic information system (GIS) was used to investigate the amounts and

types of habitat that would be affected for each scenario. Tools developed for the study were a discharge elevation relation for the tailwater of Pool 25; estimates of water levels

throughout Pool 25 for each scenario; GIS coverages of water levels, floodplain elevations, levees, and habitat types; and a technique to compare alternative scenarios. All GIS

analyses were performed in a raster environment.

14. SUBJECT TERMS

Discharge, GIS, habitat, habitat changes, land cover, levee, Mississippi River, Upper Mississippi River, water level

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

85 pp. + Appendixes A–D

16. PRICE CODE

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

 OF REPORT

Unclassified

18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

 OF THIS PAGE

Unclassified

19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

 OF ABSTRACT

Unclassified

20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT
The Long Term Resource Monitoring Program (LTRMP) for the Upper

Mississippi River System was authorized under the Water Resources

Development Act of 1986 as an element of the Environmental Management

Program. The mission of the LTRMP is to provide river managers with

information for maintaining the Upper Mississippi River System as a sustainable

large river ecosystem given its multiple-use character. The LTRMP is a

cooperative effort by the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers, and the States of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin.