Long Term Resource Monitoring Program

Technical Report

97-T002

Pool 25: Land Ownership Requirements

in Moving the Control Point to the Dam

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.

March 1997
 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

MANAGEMENT APPLICATIONS AND

INTEGRATION DIRECTOR

Kenneth Lubinski

INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY

SERVICES DIRECTOR

Norman W. Hildrum

REPORT EDITOR

Mark V. Wenger

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: Land Ownership Requirements

in Moving the Control Point to the Dam

by

 Joseph H. Wlosinski and James T. Rogala

March 1997

U.S. Geological Survey

Environmental Management Technical Center

575 Lester Avenue

Onalaska, Wisconsin 54650
Suggested citation:

Wlosinski, J. H., and J. T. Rogala. 1997. Pool 25: Land ownership requirements in moving the control

point to the dam. U.S. Geological Survey, Environmental Management Technical Center, Onalaska,

Wisconsin, March 1997. LTRMP 97-T002. 15 pp.

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).
iii

Contents

Page

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

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

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

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

Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Acknowledgments .................................................... 4

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Tables

Table 1. Definitions of terms used in this report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Table 2. Predicted water surface elevations (feet) by discharge and water surface

maintained at the dam site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Table 3. Estimated acres not owned or with easement rights that would be flooded under

various discharge and water-level options at Lock and Dam 25 . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Table 4. Minimum elevations of land not now under control of the Government, and the

maximum elevations of purchased or easement obtained lands in Pool 25 not

protected by levees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Figures

Figure 1. Before and after photographs of the same area showing the effects of a waterlevel experiment in Pool 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Figure 2. The discharge-elevation relationship developed for the tailwater of Lock and

Dam 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Figure 3. The river mile template for Pool 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Figure 4. Map for the northern portion of Pool 25 depicting levees, lands presently under

Government control, and lands needed to be purchased when water levels are

always managed at the dam with a maximum water elevation of 434.0 ft . . . 12

Figure 5. Map for the southern portion of Pool 25 depicting levees, lands presently under

Government control, and lands needed to be purchased when water levels are

always managed at the dam with a maximum water elevation of 434.0 ft . . . 13

Figure 6. The relationship between water elevations at Dam 25 and Mozier Landing for

various discharges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
iv

Figure 7. The band representing water-level flexibility for Pool 25 using the present plan

(A) and the alternative where water levels are always managed at the dam with a

maximum water elevation of 434.0 ft (A and B combined) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Figure 8. Water-level flexibility (feet) at various discharges using the present plan (A) and

the alternative where water levels are always managed at the dam with a

maximum water elevation of 434.0 ft (B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
v

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 estimate the amount of land directly affected by moving the control point for Pool 25

from its present midpool location to Lock and Dam 25.

This project was developed in part with funding provided by the Long Term Resource

Monitoring Program and in part under Military Interdepartmental Purchase Request number

EM61 from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District.
Pool 25: Land Ownership Requirements

in Moving the Control Point to the Dam

by

Joseph H. Wlosinski and James T. Rogala

Abstract

We estimated the amount of land that would have to be acquired if an alternative water-level management plan

was used for Pool 25 on the Upper Mississippi River. The work was performed as part of a study to evaluate

water regulation alternatives that could minimize negative impacts and increase ecological benefits of dam

operation. We used a one-dimensional model (HEC-2) to estimate the ordinary high-water profile and water

surfaces at various discharges and management options, by river mile. Maps of these data were then created

with a geographic information system, along with maps of land elevations, both above and below the surface

of the river, lands controlled by the managing agency, and levees. The ownership and easement, ordinary high

water, and levee coverages were combined to represent areas that would not have to come under Government

control at a discharge that creates the ordinary high-water profile. As a validation exercise, we estimated the

amount of lands that would have to come under Government control if the dam were to be constructed now and

no lands were under Government control. The estimated area was 11,276 acres, which can be compared with

11,039 acres owned or controlled by the Government with fee title and flowage easement lands. The difference,

237 acres or 2.1%, is considered to be satisfactory, given the lack of resolution of our elevation coverage,

possible sedimentation of backwater areas since the dam was built, and possible differences in the high-water

line between the present prediction and the ordinary high-water line estimated before the dam was constructed.

The model predicted that no lands would need to be purchased under any scenario for the first 13 miles upriver

of the dam. The maximum amount of land needed upriver of this point would be 738 acres. This acreage

estimate would be higher if the managing agency elects to purchase or obtain easements on entire parcels of

land rather than just the lands the model predicts may be covered by water. The acreage estimate may be lower

if some affected lands were already under the control of another Government agency.

Introduction

The Environmental Management Technical Center (EMTC) has been involved with the development of

water regulation alternatives at Lock and Dam 25 on the Upper Mississippi River since 1994. The objective

of this multiyear study is to evaluate water regulation alternatives that will minimize negative impacts and

increase ecological benefits of dam operation. Previous studies summarized historical discharges and

water-level management practices in Pool 25 (Wlosinski 1996) and the effects of water-level management

alternatives on habitats (Wlosinski and Rogala 1996). Constraints associated with changing water-level

management plans, such as the need to purchase additional lands or easements, were not included as part of

those studies. Here we estimate the amount of land that would have to be acquired if an alternative plan was

used that would increase water levels.

The St. Louis District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) began experimenting with water-level

alternatives during summer 1994 in Pools 24, 25, and 26. By managing water levels intensively within current

laws and constraints, the COE was able to maintain the Congressionally authorized 9-ft navigation channel

while providing for an experimental drawdown. The results of the experiment were considered outstanding by

the Pool 25 Natural Resources Committee, an interagency group working to better manage the Upper

Mississippi River. The dewatered area allowed for increased growth of vegetation (Figure 1) that provided

food for waterfowl and refuge for invertebrates and small fish when the area was later reflooded. An

experimental drawdown in 1995 again provided these same benefits.

One of the management options previously investigated by the EMTC (Wlosinski and Rogala 1996)

involved moving the control point for Pool 25, during relatively low to moderate discharges, from midpool to

the dam while maintaining the old project pool elevation of 434.0 ft (all elevations in this report use the 1929
2

National Geodetic Vertical Datum). This option would maintain the 9-ft channel while allowing for more

flexibility in managing water levels for ecosystem benefits. The COE is further investigating this option as part

of a Section 1135 study (St. Louis District 1995). Here we estimate, as part of a preliminary investigation,

the amount of additional lands that would have to come under COE control using various water-level

management plans. Discharges investigated for estimating lands that would have to be under COE control were

19,000, 56,000, 95,000, and 118,000 cfs. The first three discharges were the same as those used in a previous

report (Wlosinski and Rogala 1996); the reason for the fourth discharge will be explained in the Methods

section. Modeled water elevations at the dam were held at 434 ft, which is the current project pool elevation,

and 430, 431, 432, and 433 ft, which are above the maximum drawdown elevation.

Some terminology in this report may not be common but is used routinely for water-level management or

analysis by geographic information systems (GIS) specialists. These terms are defined in Table 1.

Methods

 We used a GIS to obtain flooded acreage estimates for various management scenarios. To obtain estimates,

we needed (1) land elevation estimates, both above and below the surface of the river; (2) Pool 25 ownership

maps; (3) levee information; (4) the ordinary high-water profile; and (5) GIS coverages of water surfaces at

various discharges and management options. 

We obtained data for a GIS coverage of floodplain elevations from four sources (Wlosinski and Rogala

1996): (1) upland areas from U. S. Geological Survey 1:24,000 quadrangle maps; (2) bathymetric data from

COE St. Louis District for main and secondary channels; (3) bathymetric data from the LTRMP Alton, Illinois,

Field Station surveys for backwater areas; and (4) shoreline elevations derived from land cover data and SPOT

satellite data. All elevation data were then combined into one coverage. Interpolation methods were then used

with these data to generate a continuous elevation surface. Please note that the original data for these

coverages included data that were as coarse as 5-ft intervals. These low resolution data could significantly

affect model predictions.

Ownership or easement areas of Pool 25 were provided by the St. Louis District on three maps. These maps

were then digitized to create a GIS coverage. We assumed that all lands between boundaries on the Illinois and

Missouri sides of the river were under Government control. The final digital map had to be edited because the

three individual maps did not join properly, causing an unknown amount of error in this coverage. In many

locations, ownership or easement was difficult to establish because of the proximity of other map symbols.

Where Government ownership appeared to stop at a levee, we used a levee coverage provided by the Scientific

Assessment and Strategy Team (Wlosinski and Rogala 1996) as the boundary. We assumed that levees would

not be overtopped for the discharges of interest, and therefore areas protected by levees are not included in any

estimates. This includes a levee system for the entire length of Pool 25 in Missouri, and areas in Illinois near

river miles 246 to 248 and 266 north to Lock and Dam 24. Flooding can occur behind the Illinois levee from

river miles 264 to 266 because the area is not entirely closed from the south. 

The Federal Government can also use riparian lands up to the ordinary high-water mark through the right

of navigational servitude (Wilcox and Willis 1993). According to the Master Water Control Manual for Lock

and Dam 25, the ordinary high-water mark was 438.0 ft at about river mile 264.4 (COE 1980). This was the

only information that we found concerning the ordinary high-water mark. An HEC-2 model (Hydrologic

Engineering Center 1990), that was previously developed (Wlosinski and Rogala 1996), was used to estimate

the rest of the ordinary high-water profile by river mile. An elevation-discharge relationship for the tailwater

of Lock and Dam 25 (Figure 2) was used to obtain the water surface at the location where the dam in now
3

located, assuming a swellhead of 0.5 ft (COE 1980). We ran the model until elevation and discharge values

were found that predicted an elevation of 438.0 ft at river mile 264.4. An elevation at the dam of 426.5 ft and

a discharge of 118,000 cfs predicted those conditions at river mile 264.4, and this discharge value was then

used to represent the ordinary high-water profile. This profile was used to estimate lands that can be flooded

through the right of navigational servitude. All lands with elevations below this profile, whether contiguous

with the main channel or not, were included. 

We used the same HEC model to predict water surface elevations at 1-mi intervals for each scenario. These

elevations were then applied to a river mile template (Figure 3) to create a GIS water surface coverage for each

scenario. This coverage was then overlaid in the GIS with the elevation and ownership and easement coverages

to predict acreages flooded but not owned by the Federal Government.

Results and Discussion

Predictions from the HEC-2 model are presented in Table 2. The predicted estimates of water-level

elevations at ordinary high water without the effects of Dam 25 are listed under a discharge of 118,000 cfs and

an elevation of 426.5 ft. However, it must be remembered that the model was developed with bathymetric data

measured in 1993 and 1994, and the discharge elevation relationship was developed with the next dam down

river, Dam 26, in place. Therefore, the resulting predictions of the ordinary high-water line may be different

than the line used before Locks and Dams 25 and 26 were constructed. 

The ownership and easement, ordinary high-water, and levee coverages were combined to represent areas

that would not have to come under Government control at 118,000 cfs and a water level at the dam of 434.0 ft.

This map is presented for the northern portion of the pool in Figure 4 and for the southern portion of the pool

in Figure 5. As a validation exercise, we estimated the amount of lands that would have to come under

Government control if the project were to be constructed now and no lands were under Government control.

The estimated area was 11,276 acres, which can be compared with 11,039 acres owned or controlled by the

Government with fee title and flowage easement lands (St. Louis District 1995). The difference, 237 acres or

2.1%, is considered to be satisfactory, given the lack of resolution of our elevation coverage, possible

sedimentation of backwater areas since the dam was built, and possible differences in the high-water line

between the present prediction and the ordinary high-water line estimated in the 1930s. 

Estimated acres that would have to come under Government control under various discharge and water-level

options at Lock and Dam 25 are provided in Table 3. The model predicted that no lands between river miles

242 to 255 would need to be purchased under any scenario. While maintaining the present project pool

elevation at a discharge of 95,000 cfs, 142 acres would have to come under Government control. The

maximum amount of land needed would be 738 acres (Figures 4 and 5), when water levels are maintained at

434.0 ft at the dam and discharge is 118,000 cfs. This acreage estimate would be higher if the COE elects to

purchase or obtain easements on entire parcels of land rather than just the lands the model predicts may be

covered by water. The acreage estimate may be lower if some affected lands were already under the control

of another Government agency. This may be the case near river mile 263 where part of the lands are within

the Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuge or near river mile 265 which is within Rip Rap Landing State

Fish and Waterfowl Management Area. 

An overlay of the ownership or easement and elevation coverages also predicted the minimum elevation of

land not now under control of the Government, and the maximum elevation of land purchased or for which

easements were obtained in areas not protected by levees. Estimates of these elevations, by river mile, are

provided in Table 4. Land was purchased for the 9-ft navigation channel project by the COE from river miles
4

242 to 263. Observations that are missing for minimum elevations signifies that the model found no land

between the levees, or between a levee and the bluff, that was not under control by the Government. 

Flexibility in managing water levels would substantially increase most of the time if lands are purchased

to allow water levels of 434.0 ft at 118,000 cfs. Under the present management plan, water levels must be

between elevations of 429.7 and 434 ft while at the same time holding elevations between 434 and 435.75 ft

at the control point near Mozier Landing (Figure 6). These criteria can only be met for discharges up to

110,000 cfs. Estimated flexibility near the dam under the present plan is depicted as Figure 7 (A) and as

Figure 7 (A and B) for the alternate plan. Water-level flexibility, in vertical ft, is provided for various

discharges at Dam 25, at Mozier Landing, and in the tailwater of Dam 24 (Figure 8). 

Acknowledgments

We thank Lynne Arndt and Nick Proulx for digitizing Pool 25 land ownership maps, Scott Marecek for

preparing figures and graphs, and Georginia Ardinger and Madelon Wise for editorial assistance.

References

Hydrologic Engineering Center. 1990. HEC-2 Water surface profiles user's manual. U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers, Davis, California. 308 pp.

St. Louis District. 1995. Draft Section 1135 preliminary restoration plan: Seasonal relocation of water

control point, navigation Pool 25, Upper Mississippi River. St. Louis District, St. Louis, Missouri.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). 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.

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., 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.

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 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. (NTIS #PB97-134738)
5

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.

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

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.
6

Table 2. Predicted water surface elevations (feet) by discharge and water surface maintained at the dam site. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Discharge(cfs) and elevation (ft) at dam 

River 118,000 118,000 118,000 118,000 118,000 118,000 95,000 95,000 95,000 95,000 95,000 56,000 56,000 56,000 mile 426.5 430.0 431.0 432.0 433.0 434.0 430.0 431.0 432.0 433.0 434.0 430.0 431.0 432.0 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 242 426.6 430.1 431.1 432.1 433.0 434.0 430.1 431.0 432.0 433.0 434.0 430.0 431.0 432.0  243 427.7 430.5 431.4 432.3 433.2 434.2 430.4 431.3 432.2 433.2 434.1 430.1 431.1 432.1  244 428.2 430.8 431.6 432.5 433.4 434.3 430.5 431.4 432.3 433.3 434.2 430.2 431.1 433.1  245 428.6 431.1 431.9 432.8 433.6 434.5 430.7 431.6 432.5 433.4 434.3 430.3 431.2 432.2  246 428.7 431.2 432.0 432.9 433.7 434.6 430.8 431.7 432.6 433.5 434.4 430.3 431.2 432.2  247 429.6 431.7 432.4 433.2 434.0 434.8 431.1 431.9 432.8 433.6 434.5 430.4 431.3 432.3  248 430.3 432.1 432.8 433.5 434.2 435.0 431.5 432.2 433.0 433.8 434.7 430.6 431.5 432.4  249 430.8 432.5 433.1 433.7 434.5 435.2 431.7 432.4 433.2 434.0 434.8 430.7 431.6 432.5  250 431.4 432.8 433.4 434.0 434.7 435.5 432.1 432.7 433.4 434.1 435.0 430.8 431.7 432.5  251 431.8 433.2 433.7 434.3 434.9 435.6 432.3 432.9 433.6 434.3 435.1 430.9 431.8 432.6  252 432.1 433.4 433.9 434.4 435.1 435.8 432.5 433.0 433.7 434.4 435.2 431.0 431.8 432.7  253 432.5 433.7 434.1 434.7 435.3 436.0 432.7 433.3 433.9 434.6 435.4 431.2 431.9 432.8  254 433.1 434.1 434.5 435.1 435.7 436.3 433.1 433.6 434.2 434.8 435.6 431.3 432.1 432.9  255 433.6 434.5 435.0 435.6 436.1 436.6 433.4 433.8 434.4 435.2 435.9 431.5 432.2 433.0  256 434.1 434.9 435.3 436.0 436.5 436.9 433.7 434.1 434.7 435.5 436.1 431.7 432.4 433.1  257 434.6 435.3 436.0 436.7 437.0 437.4 434.1 434.5 435.0 436.0 436.6 432.0 432.6 433.3  258 435.2 436.0 436.7 437.2 437.5 437.8 434.6 434.9 435.3 436.4 436.9 432.3 432.9 433.5  259 435.4 436.1 436.8 437.3 437.6 437.9 434.7 435.0 435.5 436.5 437.0 432.4 432.9 433.6  260 435.9 436.5 437.2 437.7 437.9 438.2 435.0 435.3 435.8 436.8 437.3 432.5 433.0 433.7  261 436.3 437.0 437.6 438.0 438.2 438.5 435.3 435.6 436.0 437.0 437.5 432.7 433.2 433.8  262 436.6 437.2 437.9 438.2 438.4 438.7 435.5 435.8 436.2 437.2 437.7 432.9 433.4 434.0  263 437.1 437.6 438.2 438.5 438.7 438.9 435.9 436.1 436.5 437.5 437.9 433.2 433.7 434.2  264 437.7 438.2 438.6 438.9 439.1 439.3 436.3 436.5 437.0 437.8 438.2 433.6 434.0 434.5  265 438.6 438.9 439.2 439.5 439.6 439.8 436.7 436.9 437.5 438.4 438.7 433.9 434.2 434.7  266 439.0 439.2 439.5 439.7 439.8 440.0 437.0 437.1 437.9 438.7 438.9 434.1 434.4 434.8  267 439.6 439.8 440.0 440.2 440.3 440.4 437.5 437.9 438.5 439.1 439.3 434.5 434.8 435.1  268 439.8 440.0 440.2 440.3 440.4 440.6 437.8 438.1 438.7 439.3 439.5 434.6 434.9 435.3  269 440.0 440.2 440.4 440.6 440.7 440.8 438.0 438.3 438.8 439.5 439.7 434.8 435.1 435.4  270 440.6 440.7 440.9 441.0 441.1 441.2 438.4 438.7 439.3 439.9 440.0 435.2 435.4 435.7  271 441.0 441.1 441.3 441.4 441.5 441.6 438.9 439.2 439.7 440.2 440.4 435.5 435.7 436.0  272 441.4 441.5 441.6 441.7 441.8 441.9 439.4 439.6 440.1 440.5 440.7 435.7 435.9 436.2  273 441.7 441.8 441.9 442.0 442.1 442.2 439.9 440.1 440.5 440.9 441.0 435.8 436.0 436.3 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7

Table 3. Estimated acres not owned or with easement rights that would be flooded under various discharge and water-level options at 

 River mile 

Discharge

Elevationat dam

242-255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 

 19,000 430.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  19,000 431.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  19,000 432.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  19,000 433.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  19,000 434.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  56,000 430.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  56,000 431.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  56,000 432.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  56,000 433.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  56,000 434.0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  95,000 430.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  95,000 431.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  95,000 432.0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  95,000 433.0 0 13 7 5 1 4 3 4 12 0 0 0 0 0  95,000 434.0 0 23 11 8 1 6 6 7 22 44 14 0 0 0 118,000 430.0 0 3 3 3 0 3 3 4 16 44 28 7 0 11 118,000 431.0 0 8 7 7 1 6 6 8 49 103 96 20 5 14 118,000 432.0 0 21 11 10 2 9 9 11 74 132 149 27 10 14 118,000 433.0 0 30 13 12 2 10 11 12 89 179 166 27 10 15 118,000 434.0 0 36 14 13 3 17 15 14 98 196 186 60 13 19 
8

Table 4. Minimum elevations of land not now under control of the Government, and the maximum elevations of purchased

or easement obtained lands in Pool 25 not protected by levees.

Elevations

River mile Minimum Maximum

242 433.7

243 436.9

244 436.9

245 436.3 438.3

246 441.9 436.9

247 436.9

248 435.5 442.0

249 436.6 440.7

250 434.6 440.0

251 434.6 437.0

252 434.3 441.9

253 433.8 441.9

254 435.6 441.9

255 435.0 442.3

256 434.2 441.9

257 434.7 441.9

258 435.3 441.9

259 435.4 441.9

260 435.9 442.0

261 436.3 441.9

262 436.7 442.0

263 437.2 437.1

264 437.8

265 438.7

266 439.1

267 439.7

268 439.8

269 440.1

270 440.7

271 441.1

272 441.4

273 441.8
9

Figure 1. Before and after photographs of the same area showing the effects of a water-level experiment in Pool 25. The top

picture was taken on July 8, 1994, and the bottom on August 5, 1994. (Photos by Ken Dalrymple)
10

Figure 2. The discharge-elevation relationship developed for the tailwater of Lock and Dam 25.
11

Figure 3. The river mile template for Pool 25.
12

Figure 4. Map for the northern portion of Pool 25 depicting levees, lands presently under Government control, and lands

needed to be purchased when water levels are always managed at the dam with a maximum water elevation of 434.0 ft.
13

Figure 5. Map for the southern portion of Pool 25 depicting levees, lands presently under Government control, and lands

needed to be purchased when water levels are always managed at the dam with a maximum water elevation of 434.0 ft.
14

Figure 6. The relationship between water elevations at Dam 25 and Mozier Landing for various discharges.
15

25 50 75 100 125 150 175

0

1

2

3

4

5

Flexibility (feet)

25 50 75 100 125 150 175

Discharge (cfs)

0

1

2

3

4

5

Flexibility (feet)

A

B

Figure 7. The band representing water-level flexibility for Pool 25 using the present plan (A) and the alternative where

water levels are always managed at the dam with a maximum water elevation of 434.0 ft (A and B combined).

Figure 8. Water-level flexibility (feet) at various discharges using the present plan (A) and the alternative where water

levels are always managed at the dam with a maximum water elevation of 434.0 ft (B). The darkest shade represents the

area at Dam 25, followed by Mozier Landing and the tailwater at Lock and Dam 24.
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

March 1997

3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Pool 25: Land ownership requirements in moving the control point to the dam

5. FUNDING NUMBERS

6. AUTHOR(S)

Joseph H. Wlosinski and James T. Rogala

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

U.S. Geological Survey 

Environmental Management Technical Center

575 Lester Avenue

Onalaska, Wisconsin 54650

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

 REPORT NUMBER

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

U.S. Geological Survey 

Environmental Management Technical Center

575 Lester Avenue

Onalaska, Wisconsin 54650

10. SPONSORING/MONITORING

 AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

97-T002

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)

We estimated the amount of land that would have to be acquired if an alternative water-level management plan was used for Pool 25 on the Upper Mississippi River. The work

was performed as part of a study to evaluate water regulation alternatives that could minimize negative impacts and increase ecological benefits of dam operation. We used a

one-dimensional model (HEC-2) to estimate the ordinary high-water profile and water surfaces at various discharges and management options, by river mile. Maps of these data

were then created with a geographic information system, along with maps of land elevations, both above and below the surface of the river, lands controlled by the managing

agency, and levees. The ownership and easement, ordinary high water, and levee coverages were combined to represent areas that would not have to come under Government

control at a discharge that creates the ordinary high-water profile. As a validation exercise, we estimated the amount of lands that would have to come under Government control

if the dam were to be constructed now and no lands were under Government control. The estimated area was 11,276 acres, which can be compared with 11,039 acres owned or

controlled by the Government with fee title and flowage easement lands. The difference, 237 acres or 2.1%, is considered to be satisfactory, given the lack of resolution of our

elevation coverage, possible sedimentation of backwater areas since the dam was built, and possible differences in the high-water line between the present prediction and the

ordinary high-water line estimated before the dam was constructed. The model predicted that no lands would need to be purchased under any scenario for the first 13 miles

upriver of the dam. The maximum amount of land needed upriver of this point would be 738 acres. This acreage estimate would be higher if the managing agency elects to

purchase or obtain easements on entire parcels of land rather than just the lands the model predicts may be covered by water. The acreage estimate may be lower if some affected

lands were already under the control of another Government agency.

14. SUBJECT TERMS

Geographic information system, HEC-2, one-dimensional model, Upper Mississippi River, water regulation

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

15 pp.

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.