Upper Mississippi River – Illinois Waterway ENV Report XX

System Navigation Feasibility Study June 2003 

Upper Mississippi River – Illinois Waterway System 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops 

by Henry C. DeHaan, Nicole M. McVay, Charles H. Theiling 

 U.S. Army Engineer District, Rock Island 

 Rock Island, IL 61204-2004 

and Rebecca S. Soileau 

 U.S. Army Engineer District, St. Paul 

 St. Paul, MN 55101-1638 

Interim Report 

Approved for public release, distribution is unlimited 

Prepared for U.S. Army Engineer District, Rock Island 

 Rock Island, IL 61204-2004 

 U.S. Army Engineer District, St. Louis 

 St. Louis, MO 63103-2833 

 U.S. Army Engineer District, St. Paul 

St. Paul, MN 55101-1638
UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops 

Interim Report 

ii
UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops 

Interim Report 

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

Background ....................................................................................................................... 1

Navigation System.......................................................................................................... 1 

Ecosystem ....................................................................................................................... 2 

Establishing Goals for the System .................................................................................. 4 

Integrated Management .................................................................................................. 5 

Introduction to the Workshops........................................................................................ 9

Workshop Participants.................................................................................................... 9 

Background on the General Workshop Structure ......................................................... 10 

Workshop Agenda ........................................................................................................ 11 

Reports .......................................................................................................................... 12 

Workshop Results ........................................................................................................... 13

Environmental Objectives............................................................................................. 13 

Methodology............................................................................................................. 13 

La Crosse Workshop Objectives (Pool 1 to 11)........................................................ 17 

Moline Workshop Objectives (Pool 12 to 22) .......................................................... 20 

St. Louis Workshop Objectives (Pool 24 to Confluence of Ohio River).................. 21 

Peoria Workshop Objectives (Illinois Waterway) .................................................... 22 

Comparison of Workshop Environmental Objective Results................................... 23 

Management Actions .................................................................................................... 25 

Methodology............................................................................................................. 25 

Results....................................................................................................................... 26 

Species and Population Parameters .............................................................................. 27 

Methodology............................................................................................................. 27 

Results....................................................................................................................... 28 

Next Steps ........................................................................................................................ 31

After the Workshops..................................................................................................... 31 

Pathways to Implementation......................................................................................... 31 

Expert Panel.................................................................................................................. 33 

Ecosystem Conceptual Model....................................................................................... 34 

Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................... 37
UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops 

Interim Report 

iv

FIGURES 

Figure 1. UMR-IWW Locks and Dams. ................................................................................. 2 

Figure 2. Areas in red show the extent of selected UMR-IWW land cover or land use types. ..... 3 

Figure 3. Schematic representation of a river reach illustrating the general types of land uses .... 6 

Figure 4. Goals and Objectives for the UMR-IWW System. .................................................... 7 

Figure 5. Framework for setting objectives for condition of the UMR-IWW ecosystem........... 15 

Figure 6. UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study GIS Objective Tool and Database. 17 

Figure 7. Pool 10 environmental objectives. ......................................................................... 19 

Figure 8. Number of site-specific env. objectives identified for the UMR-IWW System. ......... 24 

Figure 9. Expert panel participants....................................................................................... 33 

Figure 10. General UMR-IWW ecosystem conceptual model ................................................ 34 

Figure 11. Specific example using the UMR-IWW conceptual model..................................... 35 

TABLES 

Table 1. Workshop attendance and representation. (Appendix J provides a list of acronyms.) .. 10 

Table 2. Number of site-specific env. objectives identified for Mississippi River Pools 1 - 11.. 18 

Table 3. Number of site-specific env. objectives identified for Mississippi River Pools 12 - 22.20 

Table 4. Number of site-specific env. objectives identified for Mississippi River from Pool 24 to 

the Ohio River............................................................................................................. 21 

Table 5. Number of site-specific env. objectives identified for the Illinois River. .................... 22 

Table 6. Number of site-specific env. objectives identified for the UMR-IWW System. .......... 23 

Table 7. Example Management Action Table........................................................................ 26 

Table 8. Additions, modifications, deletions, and comments made to Management Actions. .... 27 

APPENDICIES 

Appendix A. Workshop Invitation and Participant Lists.....................................A-1 

Appendix B. Site-Specific Environmental Objectives – Maps..............................B-1 

Appendix C. Site-Specific Environmental Objectives – Tables.............................C-1 

Appendix D. Pool and System-Wide Environmental Objectives............................D-1 

Appendix E. UMR-IWW Management Actions..............................................E-1 

Appendix F. La Crosse Environmental Workshop Report...................................F-1 

Appendix G. Moline Environmental Workshop Report.....................................G-1 

Appendix H. St. Louis Environmental Workshop Report...................................H-1 

Appendix I. Peoria Environmental Workshop Report........................................I-1 

Appendix J. Acronyms.............................................................................J-1 

Appendix K. Workshop Glossary...............................................................K-1 
UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops 

Interim Report 

1

Background 

The Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway (UMR-IWW) System Navigation 

Feasibility Study has been restructured to give equal consideration of fish and wildlife 

resources along with navigation improvement planning. The objectives of this 

restructured feasibility study are to relieve lock congestion, achieve a sustainable 

ecosystem, and holistically address ecosystem and floodplain management needs related 

to navigation. The restructured navigation study will seek to ensure that the rivers and 

waterway system continues to be an effective transportation system and a nationally 

treasured ecological resource. The restructured study will: (1) further identify the longterm economic and ecological needs, and potential measures to meet those needs, through 

collaboration with interested agencies, stakeholders and the public; (2) evaluate various 

alternative plans to address those needs; (3) present a plan consisting of a set of measures 

for implementation that will achieve the study objectives; and (4) identify and address 

issues related to the implementation of the recommended plan.

Navigation System 

The study area comprises the Upper Mississippi River and the entire Illinois Waterway 

and lies within portions of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin. It also 

includes the navigable reaches of four tributary rivers, the Minnesota, St. Croix, Black, 

and Kaskaskia. The Upper Mississippi River extends 854 miles from the confluence with 

the Ohio River to Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota. 

The Illinois Waterway extends 327 miles from its confluence with the Mississippi River 

to Lake Michigan via the Illinois River, Des Plaines River, and a series of canals. The 

total Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway navigation system contains 1,200 

miles of nine-foot deep channels, 37 lock and dam sites (43 locks; Figure 1) and 

thousands of channel training structures. 

Much of the UMR-IWW lock and dam system was in place by the 1940s, built and sized 

for the vessels of that time. Except as noted below, the locks are 600 feet long, although, 

most modern tow configurations on the UMR-IWW include 15 barges and approach 

1,200 feet long. As a result, tows must lock through using a time-consuming two-step 

process in which the first three rows of barges (9 barges) are locked through first and the 

last two rows of barges (6 barges) and the towboat are locked through second. The entire 

process may take 1.5 hours or longer depending on many variables. In contrast, Lock 19 

has a 1,200-foot lock and Melvin Price Lock and Dam (Lock 26 replacement) and Lock 

27 (Chain-of-Rocks Lock) have both a 1,200-foot and a 600-foot chamber at each site. 

The lockage process takes an average of 1.0 hours at Lock 19 and 0.6 hours at Locks 26 

and 27. 
UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops 

Interim Report 

2

Lock & Dam 5A

Lock & Dam 2

Lock & Dam 1

Lock & Dam 6

Lock & Dam 5

Lock & Dam 8

Lock & Dam 11

Lock & Dam 12

Lock & Dam 13

Lock & Dam 15 Lock & Dam 14

Lock & Dam 16

Lock & Dam 17

Lock & Dam 18

Lock & Dam 19

Lock & Dam 21

Lock & Dam 22

Lock & Dam 24

Lock & Dam 25 Mel Price Lock & Dam

La Grange Lock & Dam

T.J. O'Brien Lock & Control Works

Lock & Dam 10

Lockport Lock & Dam

Brandon Road Lock & Dam

Dresden Island Lock & Dam

Marseilles Lock & Dam

Starved Rock Lock & Dam

Peoria Lock & Dam

ILLINOIS WATERWAY

MISSISSIPPI RIVER

Lock & Dam 9

Lock & Dam 7

Lock & Dam 4

Lock & Dam 3

Upper St Anthony Falls Lock & Dam

Lower St Anthony Falls Lock & Dam

Lock 27

Lock & Dam 20

OHIO RIVER

La Cr osse

Min neapol is

Du buq ue

PEORIA

ST. L OUIS

CAPE GIRA RDEA U

Roc k Isl and

ÊÚ

ÊÚ

ÊÚ

ÊÚ

ÊÚ

ÊÚ

ÊÚ

Figure 1. UMR-IWW Locks and Dams. 

Ecosystem 

The UMR-IWW ecosystem includes the river reaches previously described, as well as the 

habitats within their floodplain systems. The total acreage of the river-floodplain system 

exceeds 2.6 million acres of aquatic, wetland, forest, grassland, agricultural, and urban 

land cover and land use. The Mississippi Flyway is used by more than 40% of the 

migratory waterfowl traversing the United States. These migratory birds and the 

threatened and endangered species (T&E Species) in the region are the focus of 

considerable Federal wildlife management activities along the Upper Mississippi and 
UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops 

Interim Report 

3

Illinois Rivers. For many species in Iowa, Illinois, and Missouri, the most important and 

abundant habitat is provided by the mainstem river. 

Land cover and land use types are disproportionately distributed throughout the river 

system, and their absolute abundance is dependent on the total area and geomorphology 

of the reach under consideration (Figure 2). The largest differences occur in the amount 

and distribution of agriculture and the proportion of open water in the floodplain. 

Agriculture protected by levees dominates the wide floodplain south of Rock Island, 

Illinois and in the lower Illinois Waterway. Open water on public lands occupies a 

greater proportion of the floodplain north of Rock Island. Wetland classes are generally 

more abundant above Rock Island, wet meadows are fairly evenly distributed, and 

grasslands are rare throughout the river system. Forest classes generally occupy between 

10 to 20 percent of the floodplain in a narrow strip along the river banks throughout the 

system. 

Figure 2. Areas in red show the extent of selected UMR-IWW land cover or land use types. 

Section 1103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 recognized the UMRIWW System as a unique, nationally significant ecosystem and a nationally significant 

commercial navigation system. The system provides: 

1. a means for shippers to transport commodities---130 million tons on the Mississippi 

River and 44 million tons on the Illinois Waterway in 2000; 

2. over 600 plant species providing food and habitat for at least 485 species of birds, 

mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and fish (including 10 Federally endangered or 

threatened species and 100 state listed species); 

3. more than 226,650 acres managed by 15 units of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

National Wildlife and Fish Refuge System; 

4. water supply for 22 communities, many farmers and industries; 
UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops 

Interim Report 

4

5. a multi-use recreational resource providing more than 11 million recreational visits 

each year; and 

6. cultural evidence of our Nation’s past. 

Establishing Goals for the System 

The original UMR-IWW Navigation Feasibility Study was narrowly focused on the 

problem of reducing commercial navigation traffic congestion on the system. 

Coordination was occurring between economic and environmental interests; however, the 

work was being accomplished independently. With the new focus of the restructured 

study including ecological sustainability, it became important for the stakeholders on the 

system to prepare a common vision for the future of the UMR-IWW. In November 2001, 

the Economic Coordinating Committee (ECC) and the Navigation Environmental 

Coordinating Committee (NECC) met jointly to prepare this vision:

“To seek long-term sustainability of the economic uses and ecological integrity of the 

Upper Mississippi River System” 

The following definition of sustainability was collaboratively developed and agreed to by 

the group as well: 

“The balance of economic, ecological, and social conditions so as to meet the 

current, projected, and future needs of the Upper Mississippi River System without 

compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.” 

This definition will serve as the primary goal for integrated and adaptive management of 

the Upper Mississippi River System.

Planning for future navigation system infrastructure needs; navigation system operation 

and maintenance; habitat protection, enhancement, and restoration; river recreation; 

floodplain management; and water quality management will be conducted in the context 

of a comprehensive set of clear goals and objectives for the desired condition of the 

UMR-IWW System. Setting these goals and objectives shall be done collaboratively, 

with participation of the full community of river stakeholders. Development of a set of 

measurable objectives for integrated and adaptive management of the UMR-IWW 

System will be challenging. It will require considerable collaboration, making use of 

conceptual models, predictive models, and visualization tools to comprehend the 

interconnections between system components to enable the community of stakeholders to 

actively participate in planning for a sustainable multiple use river-floodplain system. 

Integrated planning will be an on-going effort to optimize the National economic and 

environmental benefits achieved from efficient and effective adaptive river management. 
UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops 

Interim Report 

5

Integrated Management 

The restructured Feasibility Study will strive to integrate Federal river management 

activities to achieve sustainability of the System. The Federal activities to be coordinated 

under the sustainability umbrella include operation and maintenance of the 9-Foot 

Channel Project, the Environmental Management Program, Environmental Continuing 

Authorities Programs (CAP; i.e., Sections 204, 206, and 1135), the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-53 §459) Comprehensive Plan for the 

floodplain, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Refuge management, and the Illinois River 

Basin Restoration initiatives (Illinois River Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Study and 

Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Public Law 106-541 Section 519, Illinois 

River Basin Restoration). A conceptual illustration of the floodplain and the areas of 

responsibility for these various ongoing Federal actions is presented in Figure 3. The 

restructured Feasibility Study provides the mechanism to define the baseline ecosystem 

sustainability goals and objectives that may be used across Federal management activities 

within the spatial limits described in Figure 3. Each individual program can then 

operationalize within its area of responsibility. The Navigation Feasibility Study will 

formulate management for sustainability within the limits of the UMR-IWW navigation 

project. Likewise, the Comprehensive Study will define management for sustainability 

for projects related to flood damage reduction in the leveed and unleveed UMR-IWW 

floodplain. The Illinois River Basin Restoration initiatives will address management for 

sustainability on the Illinois River, floodplain, and throughout the basin. The 

Environmental Management Program and Environmental CAP (Sections 204, 206, and 

1135) can integrate the baseline sustainability goals and continue to operate throughout 

the river floodplain system. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Refuge Comprehensive 

Conservation Plans may incorporate the baseline sustainability goals and objectives 

relevant to UMR-IWW Refuge lands. A schematic of these planning relationships is 

shown in Figure 4. There are obvious overlaps and gray areas that will need to be further 

defined during the remainder of the restructured Feasibility Study. The Feasibility Study 

will evaluate opportunities for better integration of the various Federal programs 

including new or modified authorities. The Feasibility Study will also attempt to identify 

non-federal land management initiatives that could be integrated into this effort. 

Achieving sustainability of the river system will require close collaboration with Federal, 

State, and non-governmental organizations. The Feasibility Study Team will continue to 

work closely with stakeholders to further develop the baseline sustainability goals and 

objectives. The study will also develop plans to adaptively identify, implement, and 

evaluate management actions that are most likely to contribute to achieving the 

established goals and objectives. 
UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops 

Interim Report 

6

Figure 3. Schematic representation of a river reach illustrating the general types of land uses and 

ownership and the approximate extent of river management authorities including: the 

Environmental Management Program, Environmental CAP, States, Non-Governmental 

Organizations (NGOs), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Refuges, the floodplain Comprehensive 

Study, Illinois River Restoration (Illinois 2020), and the UMR-IWW Navigation Study. 

F

L

O

W

Levee &

Drainage

District

Refuge

Unleveed

Private 

Property

Urban/

Industrial

Sailing Line

General 

Plan Land

Navigation Study

Comp. Study Comp. Study

EMP; Env. CAP; Illinois 2020; states; NGO

Refuge CCP

B

L

U

F

F

B

L

U

F

F

Water/

Lakes Islands

Levees

Tributary

F

L

O

W

Levee &

Drainage

District

Refuge

Unleveed

Private 

Property

Urban/

Industrial

Sailing Line

General 

Plan Land

Navigation Study

Comp. Study Comp. Study

EMP; Env. CAP; Illinois 2020; states; NGO

Refuge CCP

B

L

U

F

F

B

L

U

F

F

Water/

Lakes Islands

Levees

Tributary
UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops 

Interim Report 

7

Figure 4. Goals and Objectives for the UMR-IWW System will be established in a 

comprehensive fashion under the authority of the Restructured Navigation Feasibility Study. 

Detailed planning and implementation will be assumed under various Federal authorities. 

Navigation 

Study

WRDA ’99

Comp. Study

Illinois 

Ecosystem

UMRS-EMP

9-Foot Channel 

O&M

USFWS-CCP

System Sustainability Goals and Objectives

Site Specific Planning / Implementation

Navigation 

Study

WRDA ’99

Comp. Study

Illinois 

Ecosystem

UMRS-EMP

9-Foot Channel 

O&M

USFWS-CCP

System Sustainability Goals and Objectives

Site Specific Planning / Implementation
UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops 

Interim Report 

8
UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops 

Interim Report 

9

Introduction to the Workshops 

Four two-day workshops were held during November 2002, to aid the process of 

establishing measurable environmental objectives for the Upper Mississippi River-Illinois 

Waterway (UMR-IWW) System. Workshops were conducted in Peoria, Illinois; St. 

Louis, Missouri; La Crosse, Wisconsin; and Moline, Illinois. 

The workshops were structured to achieve the following main objectives: 

1) Identification of UMR-IWW environmental objectives

Collaboratively review, refine, and add to a database of specific, quantitative, 

local to regional scale environmental objectives building on previous work from 

the EMP Habitat Needs Assessment, Mississippi River Environmental Pool Plans, 

USFWS Comprehensive Conservation Plans, and related study efforts. 

2) Identification of UMR-IWW management actions

Review and identify management actions that are most likely to contribute to 

achieving the established goals and objectives. 

3) Discuss and identify species and population parameters

Identify plant and animal species and appropriate units of measure that should be 

considered for future environmental objectives planning efforts. 

4) Present and discuss UMR-IWW ecosystem conceptual model

Present and discuss the utility of developing an UMR-IWW ecosystem conceptual 

model to gain a better understanding of the linkages between environmental 

objectives, management actions, and the state of the ecosystem. 

Workshop Participants 

Participants were invited from a variety of organizations including the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers (USACE), U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Transportation 

(USDOT) – Maritime Administration, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Illinois 

Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Illinois Department of Water Resources, 

Illinois Natural History Survey, Illinois State Water Survey, Iowa DNR, Minnesota DNR, 

Missouri Department of Conservation (MDOC), Missouri DNR, Wisconsin DNR, 

Audubon Society, Environmental Defense, Iowa Farm Bureau, Izaak Walton League, 

Midwest Area Rivers Coalition (MARC) 2000, Mississippi River Basin Alliance 

(MRBA), Mississippi River Revival, Missouri Coalition for the Environment, Sierra 

Club, Southern Illinois University, The Nature Conservancy, University of Miami, Upper 

Mississippi, Illinois and Missouri Rivers Association (UMIMRA), Upper Mississippi 

River Conservation Committee (UMRCC), and Quincy Park District. From the 250 

issued invitations, a total of 142 people participated in the interactive workshop process 

(Table 1). This report presents the contributions (i.e., technical expertise, working 

knowledge, and considerable energy) of the workshop participants. 

A subset of the workshop participants helped prepare and edit individual Workshop 

Reports. Participants checked that accurate representations were made of the work they 

had completed during the workshops. 
UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops 

Interim Report 

10

Table 1. Workshop attendance and representation. (Appendix J provides a list of acronyms.) 

Date Location/Reach Attendance and Representation 

Nov. 6-7, 2002 Peoria, Illinois 

(Illinois Waterway) 

(31) – USFWS (3); USACE (9); USDOT (1); ILDNR 

(10); INHS (1); ISWS (1); IDWR (1); MARC 2000 (1); 

MRBA (1); LTRMP (2); UMIMRA (1). 

Nov. 13-14, 02 St. Louis, Missouri 

(Pool 24 to Ohio River) 

(41) – USFWS (5); USACE (11); USDOT (1); US 

Forest Service (1); ILDNR (6); MODOC (5); MODNR 

(1); MARC 2000 (4); MRBA (1); UMIMRA (1); 

UMRCC (1); Sierra Club (1); Audubon (1); MO 

Coalition for the Env. (1); SIU (1). 

Nov. 18-19, 02 La Crosse, Wisconsin 

(Pool 1 to 11) 

(42) – USFWS (6); USACE (12); WIDNR (5); 

MNDNR (3); MODNR (1); IADNR (1); Env. Defense 

(1); Sierra Club (1); Audubon (1); TNC (1); IWL (1); 

MARC 2000 (4); LTRMP (1); UMESC (3); 

Mississippi River Revival (1). 

Nov. 20-21, 02 Moline, Illinois 

(Pool 12 to 22) 

(28) – USFWS (3); USACE (7); USEPA (1); ILDNR 

(5); IADNR (2); MODNR (1); MODOC (1); Sierra 

Club (1); MRBA (1); UMRCC (1); Univ. of Miami (1); 

Audubon (1); IA Farm Bureau (1); UMIMRA (1); 

Quincy Park District (1). 

Most of the participants were present the entire duration of each workshop providing for 

sustained interactions and the benefits of full attention to the goals and process of the 

workshop. A more detailed description and listing of participants and invitee information 

is listed in Appendix A. 

Background on the General Workshop Structure 

The workshop process was designed to maximize the time and resources available at each 

of the meetings. To meet the objectives of eliciting information, discussing key issues, 

and explaining how workshop results would be used, the workshops utilized three 

components of meeting structure. 

The first component was the standard meeting style wherein USACE facilitators provided 

information to the entire group allowing for questions and discussion. 

The second component was key for eliciting information and involved breaking the group 

into working groups based on a particular criteria such as geography, physical processes, 

biology, etc. Breaking a large meeting into working groups comprised of 10 or fewer 

individuals optimized the opportunity for participation and interaction of the greatest 

number of people and for timely discussion and progression on key issues. The number 

of working groups varied depending on the number of participants and geographic areas 

to be covered. 

The third component were plenary sessions, which allowed all participants to hear a 

summary of what was accomplished in the other working groups and to have input into 

the entire set of results. It also allowed the facilitators and participants to refine the 
UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops 

Interim Report 

11

UMR-IWW Environmental Objective Geographic Information System (GIS) Database as 

a coordinated team. 

Workshop Agenda 

The agenda for the workshop shown below was followed loosely, allowing extra time for 

questions and time in the workgroups as needed. A glossary with definitions of 

terminology frequently used in the workshops is provided in Appendix K. 

DAY 1 

9:00 Opening 

 Chuck Theiling and Hank DeHaan 

9:10 Introduction to the Workshop Process and Participant Introductions 

 Rebecca Soileau 

9:30 UMR-IWW Restructured Navigation Study Overview and Schedule 

 Ken Barr 

9:45 Vision, Goals, and Environmental Objectives 

 Chuck Theiling 

10:00 Working Definitions of Terminology for this Workshop 

 Nicole McVay 

10:10 Overview of GIS Database and Existing Objectives and Management Actions 

 Hank DeHaan 

10:30 Working Groups (I): Identify and refine environmental objectives for the 

 Illinois Waterway ecosystem. 

12:00 Lunch 

1:00 Working Groups (I): Continued work and Report Preparation 

3:30 Plenary: Presentation of objectives identified by each working group and input 

 into GIS 

5:30 Adjourn 
UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops 

Interim Report 

12

DAY 2 

8:00 Plenary: Presentation and discussion of synthesis of results from previous 

 days work 

 

9:00 Working Groups (II): Review and identify management actions that are most 

 likely to contribute towards achieving the established goals and objectives 

10:30 Plenary: Group presentations of new and revised management actions. 

12:00 Lunch 

1:00 Plenary: Overview of regional evaluation data and tools for assessing the 

 efficiency of management action and discussion of species and population 

 parameters. 

 Chuck Theiling 

2:30 Plenary: Review of Regional Ecosystem Conceptual Models 

 Hank DeHaan 

3:00 Workshop Closing 

Reports 

Five reports are being produced as a result of the four, two-day workshops. The first four 

documents are Workshop Proceedings (Appendices F-I), which were distributed to 

workshop participants for review. These reports include: 

1. a summary of the workshop and results, 

2. tables of identified UMR-IWW environmental objectives, 

3. a table of identified management actions, 

4. a narrative on UMR-IWW species and population parameters, 

5. working group reports, and 

6. the plenary session report. 

The fifth document is this integrated report which summarizes the results from the four 

workshops and is published as part of the Navigation Study’s Environmental Report 

Series. This final integrated report contains a full accounting of the site-specific 

environmental objectives in the form of an atlas as well as the tabulated system, reach, 

and pool-wide objectives and management actions. Specifically it includes: 

1. a summary of results from all four workshops, 

2. tables of all identified UMR-IWW pool-wide and site-specific objectives, 

3. atlas maps of UMR-IWW site-specific objectives, 

4. a table of all identified managements actions, 

5. a narrative on UMR-IWW species and population parameters, and 

6. additional detail as to how the workshop results will be used in the Navigation Study. 
UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops 

Interim Report 

13

Workshop Results 

Environmental Objectives 

Methodology

The primary purpose of the Environmental Planning Workshops was to have participants 

collaboratively review, refine, and add to a database of specific, quantitative, and local to 

regional scale UMR-IWW environmental objectives obtained from previous study 

efforts. 

Objectives are incremental quantifiable steps taken toward achieving a goal and thus may 

be goal specific. They provide a concise description of what we want to achieve, how 

much we want to achieve, when and where we want to achieve it. Objectives provide the 

basis for determining management actions, monitoring accomplishments, and evaluating 

the success of management actions. There may be multiple objectives for each goal. 

Participants were asked to review, revise if necessary, and supplement the environmental 

objectives taken from previous work (e.g., UMR-IWW Habitat Needs Assessment, Pool 

Plans, etc.) that they felt were necessary to achieve the UMR-IWW System Vision: 

“To seek long term sustainability of the economic uses and ecological integrity of the 

Upper Mississippi River System.” 

The working groups were specifically tasked to apply the “SMART” criteria to each 

objective making them: (1) Specific, (2) Measurable, (3) Achievable, 

(4) Results-oriented, and (5) Time-specific. These criteria are further explained below. 

1. Specific. Objectives should be clearly worded and unambiguous. A clearly worded objective 

is easy to understand and the meaning is difficult to misinterpret. Specificity results by 

including WHAT will be done, WHEN and WHERE it will be done, and WHY it will be 

done. Avoid general phrases like "maintain high-quality habitat," "for the benefit of 

migratory birds," or "improve the visitor experience," as these phrases are subject to much 

interpretation. 

2. Measurable. Objectives should contain a measurable element that can be readily monitored 

to determine success or failure. Otherwise, you cannot tell if the management actions 

employed are appropriate, when an objective has been met, or if it should be modified. In 

evaluating measurability, ask, “What would be monitored to assess progress toward achieving 

this objective?” For example, you could not determine progress toward “high-quality habitat” 

or a “high-quality” visitor experience unless you have measurable criteria for “high quality.” 

The nature of the measurable element may vary, as might the difficulty in measuring it. Still, 

you must have something to indicate progress. While evaluating a water depth objective may 

only require gauge readings, monitoring a component of vegetative structure may require 

systematic surveys of vegetation density or composition. 

3. Achievable. Objectives, no matter how measurable or clearly written, must be achievable. If 

you cannot resolve constraints on achieving an objective then it must be discarded or 

rewritten. Don’t ask more of the land or wildlife than it can deliver, and use sound 

professional judgment to develop reasonable expectations of time, staff and funds available to 

pursue the objective. However, some apparent constraints may be surmountable. Consider 

an objective to reduce contaminants originating in tributaries. Though outside Corps 

authority, this objective may be achievable through partnerships with other agencies or private 

stakeholders. 
UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops 

Interim Report 

14

4. Results-oriented. Objectives should specify an end result. For example, a habitat objective 

that is results-oriented will provide a detailed description of the desired habitat conditions 

expected. When reading a results-oriented objective, it should be possible to envision the 

result of achieving the objective. 

5. Time-fixed. Objectives should indicate the time period during which they will be achieved, so as not 

to be open-ended. Implementation schedules for objectives and/or strategies, perhaps in 5-year 

increments, can satisfy this attribute. 

For the purposes of the workshops, participants were also asked to utilize the following 

two sets of goals as a framework for setting objectives. These goals were sanctioned in 

the Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Interim Report. 

During planning for the 1994 Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee 

(UMRCC) Ecosystem Management Initiative, resource managers agreed to adopt 

Grumbine’s (1994) ecosystem management goals [Grumbine, R. Edward. 1994. What is 

ecosystem management? Conservation Biology 8(1): 27-38.]: 

Goal 1: Maintain viable populations of native species in situ. 

Goal 2: Represent all native ecosystem types across their natural range of variation. 

Goal 3: Restore and maintain evolutionary and ecological processes (i.e., disturbance 

 regimes, hydrological processes, nutrient cycles, etc.). 

Goal 4: Integrate human use and occupancy within these constraints. 

The UMRCC expanded the above list of goals in the A River That Works and a Working 

River (2000) document. These goals are: 

1. Improve water quality for all uses; 

2. Reduce erosion and sediment impacts; 

3. Restore natural floodplain; 

4. Restore natural hydrology; 

5. Increase backwater connectivity with main channel; 

6. Increase side channel, island, shoal, and sand bar habitat; 

7. Minimize or eliminate dredging impacts; 

8. Sever pathways for exotic species introductions/dispersal; and 

9. Improve native fish passage at dams. 

The process began with participants dividing into work groups based in part on their 

expertise within reaches of the UMR-IWW (e.g., pools 12-15). The groups were tasked 

with first setting reach and pool-wide environmental objectives and then reviewing and 

setting site-specific objectives within the bluff-to-bluff portion of their river section. A 

combination of worksheets, atlas maps, and group reports were used to capture this 

information. If groups finished their section and had time remaining, they could extend 

into adjacent areas. 

When setting site-specific objectives, participants were asked to use the data structure 

outlined in the Framework for Setting Objectives (Figure 5). This hierarchical structure 

categorizes environmental objectives into four primary ecosystem elements and then 

breaks these down into more specific parameters, extents, and target ranges. In addition 
UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops 

Interim Report 

15

to this information, participants were also asked to consider and note (if possible) the 

seasonality, frequency of occurrence, target date, and any other comments associated 

with the objectives they identified. This data framework provided a means to capture and 

merge objectives from previous study efforts, and those identified by workshop 

participants, into one standardized database. Additional objectives not found in the 

framework were also identified and added to the database using the established data 

structure. For example, it was noted that the Parameter ‘Invertebrates’ needed to be 

added under the ‘Plants and Animals’ Ecosystem Element. 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent TR Target Range 

Water Quality Water Clarity Main Channel 1 Secchi disk transparency 0.3 m 

 Backwater Areas 2 Secchi disk transparency 0.7 m 

 3 Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m 

 4 Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m 

 5 Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m 

 

Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 1 100% of area <1 m 

 2 50% of area 1 - 2 m 

 3 50% of area 2 - 3 m 

 4 50% of area >3 m 

 

 Water Level Main Channel 1 0.3 m below project pool at dam 

 Backwater Areas 2 0.6 m below project pool at dam 

 3 1.0 m below project pool at dam 

 4 >1 m below project pool at dam 

 

 Connectivity Floodplain 1 0% floodplain area inundated during 10 year flood 

 2 20% floodplain area inundated during 10 year flood 

 3 40% floodplain area inundated during 10 year flood 

 4 80% floodplain area inundated during 10 year flood 

 5 100% floodplain area inundated during 10 year flood

 

 Secondary Channel 1 <20% of year 

 2 20-40% of year 

 3 40-60% of year 

 4 60-80% of year 

 5 >80% of year 

 

 Longitudinal 1 0% chance of fish passage 

 2 20% chance of fish passage 

 3 40% chance of fish passage 

 4 80% chance of fish passage 

 5 100% chance of fish passage 

Figure 5. Framework for setting objectives for condition of the UMR-IWW ecosystem. 
UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops 

Interim Report 

16

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent TR Target Range 

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 1 <10% of area 

 Secondary Channel 2 10-20% of area 

 Tertiary Channel 3 20-40% of area 

 Impounded Area 4 40-60% of area 

 Contiguous Backwater 5 >60% of area 

 Isolated Backwater 

 

 Terrestrial Areas Contiguous Floodplain 1 <10% of area 

 Isolated Floodplain 2 10-20% of area 

 Island 3 20-40% of area 

 4 40-60% of area 

 5 >60% of area 

 

 Land Cover/Use Open Water 1 <10% of area 

 Submersed Aquatics 2 10-20% of area 

 Emergent Aquatics 3 20-40% of area 

 Grassland 4 40-60% of area 

 Shrub 5 >60% of area 

 Forest 

 Agriculture 

 Developed 

 

Plants and Animals Plants Emergent Aquatics 1 <10 plants/m2 

 Submersed Aquatics 2 10 - 20 plants/m2 

 3 20 - 50 plants/m2 

 4 50 - 100 plants/m2 

 5 >100 plants/m2 

 

 Fish Protected Fish Species CPUE, Length distribution, or kg/ha 

 Sport Fish Species 

 Commercial Fish Species 

 Forage Fish Species 

 Exotic Fish Species 

 

 Birds Dabbling Ducks 1 0 - 1,000 use days/yr 

 Diving Ducks 2 1,000 - 10,000 use days/yr 

 3 10,000 - 100,000 use days/yr 

 

 

 4 >100,000 use days/yr 

Figure 5 (continued). Framework for setting objectives for condition of the UMR-IWW 

ecosystem. 

The UMR-IWW environmental objective database is stored as a GIS point coverage. It 

maintains objective locations and descriptive information (e.g., extent, target range, etc.). 
UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops 

Interim Report 

17

After the work groups completed reviewing and assigning environmental objectives, 

they came back together into a plenary session to discuss their findings. This allowed 

workshop participants to hear a summary of what was accomplished in other groups and 

have input into the entire set of results. Each group provided a brief presentation 

summarizing the objectives identified in their respective reach and further discussion 

ensued. Following the presentations, the facilitators used GIS tools to move through the 

workshop region and have participants refine and add to the UMR-IWW Objective 

Database (Figure 6). The GIS tool used to capture and refine environmental objective 

information was developed as an ArcView 3.2a GIS extension. It allowed workshop 

facilitators and participants to select or create points in the GIS objective database file (by 

clicking on a location over a base map or photo) and enter descriptive information about 

the objective (e.g., ecosystem element, extent, target range, etc.). After parameters were 

entered, the information was saved to the database and the objective point location was 

displayed with an appropriate icon. 

Figure 6. UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study GIS Objective Tool and Database. 

La Crosse Workshop Objectives (Pool 1 to 11)

The environmental objective database developed prior to the La Crosse Workshop 

included 1,451 site-specific objectives obtained from the UMR-IWW Habitat Needs 

Assessment and Mississippi River Environmental Pool Plans. Objectives noted by 

Habitat Rehabilitation and Enhancement Project (HREP) documents were identified 

during the La Crosse Workshop and later added to the objective database. HREP 
UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops 

Interim Report 

18

objectives were added only for projects described as ‘under general design’ or ‘future 

opportunities’. 

Based on comments from the workshop participants and removal of redundant objectives 

(e.g., two identical depth objectives in the same backwater area), the database was refined 

to 1,168 objectives (Table 2). Over 240 of these identified objectives were enhanced 

with additional detailed information (i.e., target ranges, seasonality, and descriptive 

comments) provided by the participants. 

Table 2. Number of site-specific env. objectives identified for Mississippi River Pools 1 - 11.

Land cover/use, terrestrial area, and backwater depth were the most common type of 

objectives identified for this portion of the river. Emergent and submersed aquatic 

vegetation made up the largest number of identified land cover objectives and terrestrial 

area objectives most often referred to island restoration. The 21 environmental objectives 

identified as ‘Other’ included objectives related to improving dissolved oxygen levels, 

controlling invasive species, and restoration of river rapids habitat. Pool 7 had the largest 

density of identified objectives with an average of more than six per river mile. 

Appendix B and C provide additional detail on the objectives listed in Table 2. They 

include atlas maps displaying objective locations and associated tables with descriptive 

information. An example of the objective database map products is presented in Figure 

7. 

Quantitative target ranges for objectives were usually not identified at specific locations. 

Rather, they were noted with the pool-wide objectives. Some examples of the pool-wide 

environmental objectives identified by workshop participants include: 

• water clarity in secondary channels should have a secchi disk transparency of 

1.5m during all seasons by 2010, 

• decrease sediment-loading from tributaries, 

• actively manage floodplain forests, 

• create a more natural hydrograph, 

• support Environmental Pool Plans, 

• preserve native species/communities, 

• complete storm/sanitary drain separation, 

• protect mussels – recovering communities, 

• reduce erosion, and 

• sustain quality habitat through natural processes. 

Objective Pool 1 Pool 2 Pool 3 Pool 4 Pool 5 Pool 5a Pool 6 Pool 7 Pool 8 Pool 9 Pool 10 Pool 11 Total

Water Clarity 0 8 6 11 10 7 7 10 25 26 30 20 160

Backwater Depth 0 8 8 12 11 8 10 10 21 25 40 20 173

Water Level 1 3 1 2 1 1 4 2 1 2 1 2 21

Connectivity 1 6 9 8 6 3 7 6 5 4 9 3 67

Aquatic Areas 13 1 1 7 4 3 1 5 1 3 15 18 72

Terrestrial Areas 1 19 7 38 21 6 12 21 37 36 51 40 289

Land Cover/Use 2 55 41 36 36 16 10 25 42 46 26 30 365

Other 1 2 3 1 0 3 2 0 4 0 3 2 21

Total 19 102 76 115 89 47 53 79 136 142 175 135 1168

Mississippi River Reach
UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops 

Interim Report 

19

A more complete list of Mississippi River pool-wide objectives gathered at the La Crosse 

Workshop is located in Appendix D. 

Figure 7. Pool 10 environmental objectives. 
UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops 

Interim Report 

20

Moline Workshop Objectives (Pool 12 to 22)

The environmental objective database developed prior to the Moline Workshop included 

374 site-specific objectives obtained from the Upper Mississippi River System Habitat 

Needs Assessment and Mississippi River Environmental Pool Plans. Objectives noted by 

the Fish and Wildlife Interagency Committee Restoration Priorities and HREP documents 

were identified during the Moline Workshop and later added to the objective database. 

HREP objectives were added only for projects described as ‘under general design’ or 

‘future opportunities’. 

An additional 247 site-specific objectives were identified through the workshop process 

bringing the total to 621 environmental objectives for the Pool 12-22 reach of the 

Mississippi River (Table 3). Over 400 of the identified objectives were also enhanced 

with additional detailed information (i.e., target ranges, seasonality, and descriptive 

comments) provided by the participants. 

Table 3. Number of site-specific env. objectives identified for Mississippi River Pools 12 - 22.

Land cover/use, aquatic area, water clarity, and backwater depth were the most common 

type of objectives identified for this portion of the river. Emergent aquatic and forest 

vegetation made up the largest number of identified land cover objectives and aquatic 

area objectives most often referred to secondary channel habitat. The 62 environmental 

objectives identified as ‘Other’ included objectives related to restoring historic migratory 

bird habitat, meeting USEPA Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) requirements for 

tributaries, reducing urban stormwater runoff, and targeting land for acquisition. Pool 22 

had the largest density of identified objectives with an average of more than four per river 

mile. Appendix B and C provide additional detail on the objectives listed in Table 3. 

They include atlas maps displaying objective locations and associated tables with 

descriptive information. 

Quantitative target ranges for objectives were usually not identified at specific locations. 

Rather, they were noted with the pool-wide objectives. Some examples of the pool-wide 

environmental objectives identified by workshop participants include: 

• address concerns of 303D (impaired water's list), 

• increase connectivity of seasonal river flow so that 20% of the floodplain is 

inundated during 10-year flood events 

• restore or create islands that provide protection from windfetch, 

• provide one 1000-acre core habitat block (wetland, grassland and forest) per pool, 

Objective Pool 12 Pool 13 Pool 14 Pool 15 Pool 16 Pool 17 Pool 18 Pool 19 Pool 20 Pool 21 Pool 22 Total

Water Clarity 14 14 10 0 8 6 8 8 9 9 11 97

Backwater Depth 16 14 12 0 7 7 8 9 6 6 11 96

Water Level 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 12

Connectivity 2 2 2 2 2 4 6 2 1 9 10 42

Aquatic Areas 4 9 5 2 11 7 9 6 21 3 19 96

Terrestrial Areas 12 16 6 1 2 1 7 10 3 9 9 76

Land Cover/Use 15 15 11 0 9 12 10 12 18 10 23 135

Fish 11110010000 5

Other 0 0 3 3 1 2 0 3 20 14 16 62

Total 65 72 51 10 41 40 50 51 80 61 100 621

Mississippi River Reach
UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops 

Interim Report 

21

• restore 10% of the backwater areas to seasonally maintain a three meter depth 

with dissolved oxygen concentrations at 5ppm or greater, 

• increase emergent plants to 10% of the area for every backwater, 

• work to achieve habitat restoration through agricultural programs on the 

floodplain (e.g., Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), Emergency Wetland 

Reserve Program (EWRP), Wetland Reserve Program (WRP), etc.), 

• eliminate reed canary grass wherever possible, 

• allow passage for the 27 migratory fish species during key life cycles and 

migratory periods, and 

• restore the presence of Lake Sturgeon (i.e., a species of concern). 

A more complete list of Mississippi River pool-wide objectives gathered at the Moline 

Workshop is located in Appendix D. 

St. Louis Workshop Objectives (Pool 24 to Confluence of Ohio River) 

The environmental objective database developed prior to the St. Louis Workshop 

included 185 site-specific objectives obtained from the Upper Mississippi River System 

Habitat Needs Assessment and Middle Mississippi River Side Channel Rehabilitation and 

Conservation Initiative. Objectives noted by the Middle Mississippi River Stone Dike 

Alteration Study and HREP documents were identified during the St. Louis Workshop 

and later added to the objective database. HREP objectives were added only for projects 

described as ‘under general design’ or ‘future opportunities’. 

An additional 251 site-specific objectives were identified through the workshop process 

bringing the total to 436 environmental objectives for the Pool 24 to Ohio River reach of 

the Mississippi River (Table 4). Aquatic area and land cover/use were the most common 

type of objectives identified for this portion of the river. Aquatic and forest vegetation 

made up the largest number of identified land cover objectives and aquatic area 

objectives most often referred to secondary channel habitat. 

Table 4. Number of site-specific env. objectives identified for Mississippi River from Pool 24 to 

the Ohio River.

Pool 25 had the largest density of identified objectives with an average of more than three 

per river mile. The 19 environmental objectives identified as ‘Other’ included objectives 

related to maintaining gravel substrate, improving air quality, and reducing sediment 

input from tributaries. Appendix B and C provide additional detail on the objectives 

Objective Pool 24 Pool 25 Pool 26 Lock 26 to 

Kaskaskia R.

Kaskaskia R. to 

Grand Tower

Grand Tower to 

Ohio R. Total

Water Clarity 10 19 16 1 1 3 50

Backwater Depth 14 21 18 1 1 3 58

Water Level 1 0 0 0 0 01

Connectivity 9 13411612 55

Aquatic Areas 8 17 7 34 15 43 124

Terrestrial Areas 7 3 210 3 530

Land Cover/Use 13 26 18 18 9 14 98

Fish 0 0 0 0 1 01

Other 4 6 4 4 0 119

Total 66 105 69 79 36 81 436

Mississippi River Reach
UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops 

Interim Report 

22

listed in Table 4. They include atlas maps displaying objective locations and associated 

tables with descriptive information. 

Quantitative target ranges for objectives were usually not identified at specific locations. 

Rather, they were noted with the pool-wide objectives. Some examples of the pool-wide 

environmental objectives identified by workshop participants include: 

• restore and maintain 200 foot wide riparian corridors, 

• maintain water clarity sufficient to support vegetation to a depth of 1.5m, 

• increase floodplain connectivity to mainstem flows by 40%, 

• increase quantity of woody debris in side channels, 

• reduce the nutrient load by 15%, 

• restore historic meanders, 

• allow some disturbance regimes to occur on the river, 

• allow some non-constrained stretches of the river (e.g., areas with no revetment), 

• provide bird nesting areas every 20 miles, and 

• provide thermal refuge (e.g., summer and overwintering habitat) for fish every 5-7 

miles. 

A more complete list of Mississippi River pool-wide objectives gathered at the St. Louis 

Workshop is located in Appendix D. 

Peoria Workshop Objectives (Illinois Waterway)

The environmental objective database developed prior to the Peoria Workshop included 

115 site-specific objectives obtained from the Upper Mississippi River System Habitat 

Needs Assessment and Illinois River Ecosystem Restoration – Alton Pool Draft Fact 

Sheet. Objectives noted by the Fish and Wildlife Interagency Committee Restoration 

Priorities and HREP documents were identified during the Peoria Workshop and later 

added to the objective database. HREP objectives were added only for projects described 

as ‘under general design’ or ‘future opportunities’. 

An additional 227 site-specific objectives were identified through the workshop process 

bringing the total to 342 environmental objectives for the Illinois River (Table 5). Over 

80 percent of the objectives were located in the lower three pools of system with land 

cover/use (i.e., aquatic vegetation) and backwater depth being the most common types 

identified. 

Table 5. Number of site-specific env. objectives identified for the Illinois River.

Objective Lockport Brandon Dresden Marseilles Starved Rock Peoria La Grange Alton Total

Water Clarity 0 0 1 4 314 22 751

Backwater Depth 0 0 1 4 315 25 856

Connectivity 0 0 1 2 1 313 727

Aquatic Areas 0 1 2 2 3 912 14 43

Terrestrial Areas 0 0 0 3 223323 54

Land Cover/Use 0 0 1 5 417 29 22 78

Plants 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 01

Fish 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 02

Birds 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 01

Other 0 1 3 1 411 2 729

Total 2 2 9 21 20 94 106 88 342

Illinois River Pool
UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops 

Interim Report 

23

The 29 Illinois River objectives identified as ‘Other’ included objectives related to 

mussel beds, restoring natural tributary meanders, and reduction of contaminated 

sediment. Appendix B and C provide additional detail on the objectives listed in Table 5. 

They include atlas maps displaying objective locations and associated tables with 

descriptive information. 

Quantitative target ranges for objectives were usually not identified at specific locations. 

Rather, they were noted with the pool-wide objectives. Some examples of the pool-wide 

environmental objectives identified by workshop participants include: 

• maintain 50% of currently isolated backwaters for exclusion of exotics and 

protection of high quality habitat; 

• increase connectivity to 25% of currently isolated backwaters; 

• protect, maintain, and enhance threatened and endangered species habitat and 

other natural areas; 

• recreate the natural hydrograph; 

• reduce incidence of summer water level “bumps” to less than 1 year in 3; 

• restore aquatic vegetation in backwater areas; 

• reduce sedimentation throughout each pool; 

• control all exotic species; and 

• increase bottomland hardwood forest acreage by 10% and improve diversity. 

A more complete list of Illinois River pool-wide objectives gathered at the Peoria 

Workshop is located in the Environmental Objectives Appendix D. 

Comparison of Workshop Environmental Objective Results

A total of 2,567 UMR-IWW environmental objectives were reviewed and developed 

through the Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops held in November 2002. 

Land cover/use, terrestrial areas, and backwater depth were the most common type of 

objectives identified by workshop participants (Table 6 and Figure 8). 

Table 6. Number of site-specific env. objectives identified for the UMR-IWW System. 

Objective

La Crosse 

(Pool 1-11)

Moline 

(Pool 12-22)

St. Louis (P. 

24-Ohio R.)

Peoria 

(Illinois R.) Total

Water Clarity 160 97 50 51 358

Backwater Depth 173 96 58 56 383

Water Level 21 12 1 0 34

Connectivity 67 42 55 27 191

Aquatic Areas 72 96 124 43 335

Terrestrial Areas 289 76 30 54 449

Land Cover/Use 365 135 98 78 676

Plants 0 0 0 11

Fish 0 5 1 28

Birds 0 0 0 11

Other 21 62 19 29 131

Total 1,168 621 436 342 2,567

Mississippi River Reach
UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops 

Interim Report 

24

Emergent and submersed aquatic vegetation made up the largest number of identified 

land cover objectives and terrestrial area objectives most often referred to island 

restoration. The target range most often identified for backwater depths was 1-2 meters. 

Figure 8. Number of site-specific env. objectives identified for the UMR-IWW System. 

A summary of all workshops showed the largest proportion of environmental objectives, 

46 percent, were established for the Pools 1 to 11 reach at the La Crosse workshop (Table 

6 and Figure 8). In decreasing density of objectives, 24 percent occurred in Pools 12 to 

22, 17 percent between Pool 24 and the Ohio River, and 13 percent along the Illinois 

Waterway. Examining the types of objectives, there were almost twice as many 

terrestrial area objectives in the La Crosse area, mainly island construction objectives, 

than in the rest of the system. Similarly, there were more land cover objectives for the La 

Crosse reach than the rest of the system combined. There were about 50 percent more 

water clarity and backwater depth objectives in the La Crosse reach than in the Moline 

reach which was the second highest. The La Crosse reach also had more connectivity 

objectives than the other reaches that have substantially more levees, but many of the La 

Crosse objectives were actually for reduced connectivity of impounded area aquatic 

habitats. The St. Louis and Moline areas had the highest density of aquatic area 

objectives, most often referring to secondary channel habitats. The largest number of 

“Other” objectives was noted in the Moline reach and primarily referred to land 

acquisition and improved water quality. The Peoria reach had the second highest density 

of “Other” objectives, mainly related to protecting mussel beds and restoring natural 

tributary meanders in the floodplain. 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Water Clarity

Backwater Depth

Water Level

Connectivity

Aquatic Areas

Terrestrial Areas

Land Cover/Use

Plants

Fish

Birds

Other

Objective Class

Number of Objectives

LaCrosse Moline St. Louis Peoria
UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops 

Interim Report 

25

The differences in the number of workshop identified and reviewed objectives do not 

necessarily reflect the landscape-level ecological needs of the system. Species objectives 

(i.e., plants, birds, and fish) are considered extremely important for the system, but were 

limited in the database because habitat objectives were often set in their place (e.g., 

restore aquatic areas to improve fish populations). These objectives were also limited 

due to the difficulty in setting quantitative targets for species. In general, the number of 

objectives may not directly relate to the spatial extent of their need. For example, 

although there were fewer water level objectives identified, they may impact a larger area 

in the UMR-IWW than the terrestrial area objectives. Regional differences in the number 

of identified objectives may also be related more to existing habitat diversity than 

ecological need. For example, the number of identified backwater depth objectives may 

be more proportional to the number of backwater areas in a region, rather than the overall 

need. Regional geomorphology and response to navigation infrastructure has resulted in 

more, smaller backwaters in northern river reaches versus fewer larger backwater lakes in 

southern and Illinois River reaches. 

Management Actions 

Methodology

The purpose of the Management Actions working groups and plenary session was to 

review and identify management actions that were most likely to contribute to achieving 

the established goals and objectives. This was accomplished by reviewing current tables 

of management actions (Interim Report for the Restructured Upper Mississippi RiverIllinois Waterway System Navigation Feasibility Study – Appendix 5), tailoring them to 

the ecosystem elements under consideration, and revising them where necessary. 

Management Actions are defined as specific actions, tools, techniques or combinations of 

actions, tools and techniques used to meet defined objectives. Management actions are 

implemented as specific projects whose detailed planning and design provide the 

information required to assess the benefits, cost effectiveness, and incremental 

justification of the project. Issues of funding, staffing, engineering, and partnerships 

needed to implement the plan will also be assessed during this phase. Table 7 provides 

an example of the Management Action tables where actions have been reviewed and 

added. All UMR-IWW management actions compiled and revised during the workshops 

can be found in Appendix E. 

For the purposes of these workshops, Management Actions were: regulatory, operational 

or structural tools or activities that can be implemented to positively address 

environmental objectives (e.g. hydraulically dredge a backwater area). Participants 

reviewed a list of management actions that had been compiled from previous planning 

efforts to assess their ability to meet the environmental objectives discussed in the 

workshop. Time was given to ensure all the groups were able to review all of the actions. 

The reports from each group were presented in a plenary session to provide other 

participants the opportunity to ask for and receive clarification. 
UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops 

Interim Report 

26

Table 7. Example Management Action Table. 

Ecosystem 

Element/ 

Parameter Extent ID Management Action 

Water Quality 

Water Clarity 

Main 

Channel 1 Apply watershed BMPs (best management practices) 

 2 Stabilize river banks 

 3 Pool scale drawdown to consolidate soft sediments 

 Pool scale drawdowns to promote emergent vegetation 

 4 Minimize dredge disturbance/frequency 

 5 Minimize dredge slurry return water 

 6 Minimize bankside dredged material placement 

 7 Stabilize dredged material 

 8 Tributary reservoirs 

 9 Speed and wake restrictions - rec. boats 

Comments/ 

Additions Establish and enforce safety zone for tow boats 

 Establish a permit system for tows over 9 foot draft 

 Adjust sailing line 

 Improve aids to navigation 

 Additional mooring buoys 

 Restore natural tributary meander areas through delta areas 

 Minimize open water dredged material placement 

 Tributary sediment traps 

 Increase depth in main channel (reduce sediment resuspension) 

 Require upper Illinois Waterway to meet EPA general use standards

The results were organized into three sections for each draft workshop report 

(Appendices F-I): management action tables, plenary report, and working group reports. 

Results from working group “master” management action tables were compiled into 

workshop reports, and the workshop reports were further combined to create a final list 

from all the workshops (Appendix E). Redundancies were removed within individual 

ecosystem elements or extents, but considerable redundancy among ecosystem elements 

and extents remains. This attests to the fact that the same management action may 

achieve multiple objectives. 

Results

Each working group prepared a master worksheet to record the group’s changes, 

additions, and deletions to the list of management actions. The changes from all the 

groups were compiled in worksheets in Draft Workshop Reports (Appendices F-I). In La 

Crosse, there were 130 new management actions, and 54 comments added (Table 8). 
UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops 

Interim Report 

27

Table 8. Additions, modifications, deletions, and comments made to Management Action 

worksheets during UMR-IWW Restructured Navigation Study Environmental Objectives 

Workshops (Nov. 2002).

River Reach 

Ecosystem 

Element or 

Parameter 

Added 

Management 

Action 

Added 

Management 

Action 

Modified 

Management 

Action 

Deleted Comments 

La Crosse 1 130 44 10 54 

Moline 3 67 22 10 20 

St. Louis 3 36 4 7* 54 

Peoria 0 41 8 0 23 

* The work groups responsible for the Middle Mississippi River (i.e., open river) 

deleted 20 management actions. 

The La Crosse group modified 44 existing management actions and deleted 10 of the 

actions listed. In Moline, there were three ecosystem elements, 67 new management 

actions, and 20 comments added. The Moline group modified 22 existing management 

actions and deleted 10 of the actions listed. In St. Louis, there were three ecosystem 

elements or parameters, 36 new management actions, and 54 comments added. The St. 

Louis group modified four existing management actions and deleted seven of the actions 

listed. The groups covering the Open River, or Middle Mississippi River reach deleted 

20 actions or determined they were not applicable in that river reach. In Peoria, there 

were 41 management actions added, 8 actions were modified, and 23 additional 

comments were added. The results from all workshops were merged (Appendix E), and 

will be combined with the entire management actions database (Interim Report for the 

Restructured Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway System Navigation Feasibility 

Study – Appendix 5) and updated as a relational database. 

There was considerable mixing of management actions, management tools, and 

objectives in the worksheets completed during the workshops. It was decided not to 

refine these worksheets any further, but to keep them as references for use in the future. 

Further refinements will be made in a relational database under development with the 

advice of an Expert Panel and stakeholders. The Interim Report Appendix of 

Management Actions, which was expanded from 400 to 500 items after including the 

results of the workshops, will provide the basis of the database. 

Species and Population Parameters 

Methodology 

Recent environmental planning efforts for the Environmental Management Program and 

other Upper Mississippi River System restoration and maintenance programs have 

focused on habitats and the impacts of Corps activities on habitats. It has been 

recognized that planning efforts need to be expanded to include additional functional and 

structural ecosystem elements. 
UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops 

Interim Report 

28

During the planning stages of the UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives Workshops, 

organizers were considering objectives for plant and animal species and quickly 

encountered difficulty in selecting species, guilds, or units of measure for plants and 

animals. Emergent and submersed aquatic plants, diving ducks, and dabbling ducks were 

eventually selected for quantitative objectives based on the perception that 

knowledgeable resource managers could interpret the units of measure selected (Figure 

5). Stem density was selected as a relatively standard unit of measure for aquatic plants 

and use-days during migration periods were selected as relatively standard measures of 

waterfowl abundance. 

Specific objectives for fish were desired, but the selection of guilds, or species, or units of 

measure quickly complicated the issue. It was decided therefore to seek less specific 

objectives for fish and only indicate that there is an objective for several general 

categories of fish determined during earlier phases of the Navigation Study: protected, 

sport, commercial, forage, and exotic fishes in channel and backwater habitats. With the 

river community’s desire to establish quantitative objectives, developing units of measure 

is particularly important because of the historical inability or lack of commitment to 

conduct fish community stock assessments. Discussion of the units of measure and 

requirements to achieve them is especially important because of the need for measurable 

objectives and the selection of evaluation tools. 

These issues were discussed during plenary sessions at each workshop, with the results to 

be forwarded to an Expert Panel. A focus group of workshop participants will continue 

work with the Expert Panel to refine fisheries objectives. The larger list of species such 

as reptiles, amphibians, other birds, and mammals will be considered during future 

phases of the adaptive management and assessment process recommended in the 2002 

Navigation Study Interim Report. 

Results 

Workshop participants expressed apprehension about setting species targets. The source 

of apprehension was that environmental management actions to achieve species targets 

may be undertaken without knowing or evaluating the impacts on the rest of the 

ecosystem. Overwhelmingly, the participants expressed a desire for habitat objectives, 

with the understanding that habitat management will likely result in increased abundance 

of both targeted and non-targeted species. 

Understanding baseline and existing conditions was mentioned several times with the 

thought that the deviation of existing conditions from the baseline can frame the scope of 

restoration needs. Most workshop participants recognized the lack of quantitative 

baseline data for most species, but they encouraged the incorporation of any information 

available. Being able to relate species presence and abundance with specific habitats (or 

land cover) might help back-calculate potential species abundance based on available 

historic land cover. Resource managers repeatedly called for ecological quality metrics, 

such as the Index for Biotic Integrity for stream fishes that can be used in large rivers and 

for other faunal groups. 
UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops 

Interim Report 

29

The topic of biological response monitoring to restoration was rather wide-ranging 

considering the discussions at all of the workshops. There was concern that focusing on a 

small set of species may not detect community level response, either beneficial or 

adverse. In St. Louis, habitat evaluation procedures including the Wildlife Habitat 

Appraisal Guide (WHAG: Missouri Department of Conservation. 1991. Wildlife Habitat 

Appraisal Guide. Jefferson City, MO.) and Aquatic Habitat Appraisal Guide (AHAG: 

Mathias, Dean. 1996. Aquatic Habitat Appraisal Guide. USACE Waterways Experiment 

Station Instruction Report. 68 pp.) were proposed as habitat level models designed for 

such purposes. They were thought to be more robust than species specific Habitat 

Evaluation Procedures (HEP: USFWS Division of Ecological Services. 1992. Habitat 

Evaluation Procedures. USFWS Ecological Service Manual 102. 150 pp.) that may 

emphasize some habitat variables over others and frequently don’t incorporate all habitat 

variables. Some participants recommended that the fisheries management community 

work to complete an Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI: Karr, J.R. 1981. Assessment of biotic 

integrity using fish communities. Fisheries 6(6):21-27.) for large rivers. Another 

proposed indicator of ecological improvements in the Illinois River is the vigor of fishing 

tournaments and public use. It was also suggested that fish condition could be another 

characteristic that might be measured to view the state of the river fishery. 

Facilitators posed the question of whether total population assessments were desired. 

Workshop participants responded no because: 1.) the cost would be prohibitively high 

considering other priorities, 2.) the precision of the estimate would likely not be very 

good, 3.) some populations may be affected by factors outside of the UMR-IWW System 

or may be habitat independent (e.g., overexploitation), and 4.) many species life histories 

are such that strong or weak year classes can greatly affect population sizes over short 

time periods. It was recognized that in some instances total population estimates might 

be required, but these should be done for very specific purposes, not routine surveys. 

There was one suggestion to consider conservative species (habitat specialists) needs as 

an umbrella approach to be able to assess the more general species. Other participants 

thought that relative abundance of species or guilds obtained from traditional survey 

techniques would be sufficient to assess community structure and response to restoration. 

One concern was that expending considerable effort to understand many different species 

could consume considerable amounts of money and not leave any for actual restoration 

efforts. In actuality, many measurement techniques will be needed to assess progress 

toward restoration targets. 

In La Crosse, there was a suggestion that physical responses (e.g., current velocity, 

dissolved oxygen, depth, etc.) to project implementation may be reliable measures of 

project performance. Their thoughts were that projects should be designed to 

accommodate the physical needs of target organisms or communities, thus the 

effectiveness of the project could be evaluated by its ability to achieve desired physical 

targets. That line of reasoning circumvents the problems of waiting for biological 

communities to respond, or expending huge amounts of effort to estimate biological 

responses to projects separate from other influences on the population. Some long-lived 

species or wide-ranging species responses may be very difficult or impossible to 
UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops 

Interim Report 

30

evaluate. The lag time between project implementation, post-project performance 

evaluations (biological and physical), and reporting results was seen as an important issue 

to understand. 

Aquatic plants, invertebrates, and less mobile species were proposed as the best 

bioindicators of restoration response because they would be most likely to respond to 

changes in local habitat conditions. Considering all the issues, participants seemed to 

agree that species of concern and exotic species should be tracked as indicators of 

ecosystem condition and that community level assessments should be targeted at specific 

habitats and project areas. 

Several participants espoused the adaptive management philosophy put forth in the 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Interim Report. The adaptive 

management process allows for testable hypotheses (i.e., restoration measures) to be 

implemented despite uncertainties, and evaluation to refine measures if actions fall short 

of anticipated results. 

Some participants were puzzled why the Corps would venture into species level issues. 

The Corps has authority for habitat management and other state and Federal agencies 

have responsibility for species. 

The question of why we need precise population estimates was also raised. Facilitators 

responded that the Planning Guidance for water resources require quantitative estimates 

of the benefits of restoration projects. The thought was that firm quantitative estimates of 

population changes related to habitat modification may help provide justification for 

restoration measures. Such information is also beneficial for developing sound scientific 

information that can serve as a solid baseline in an adaptive management strategy. 
UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops 

Interim Report 

31

Next Steps 

After the Workshops 

The workshops were an early step in a planning process to establish environmental 

alternatives that strive to secure the ecological sustainability of the UMR-IWW. Once 

environmental objectives are well defined and management actions are identified to 

achieve them, the next step will be estimating the potential costs and outcomes (i.e., 

benefits) for the suggested actions. This information will be used to develop alternative 

plans (made up of multiple combinations of management actions) that seek to address the 

local, river reach, and system-wide needs of the UMR-IWW ecosystem. These 

environmental alternative plans will then be integrated with alternative plans for the 

UMR-IWW Navigation System. Tradeoff analysis will be conducted to identify and 

compare the environmental, economic, and social benefits of the integrated plans. The 

results of the alternative analysis, and further collaborative review and input from 

stakeholders, will be used to develop a recommended plan portrayed in the Final 

Feasibility Report scheduled for completion in late 2004. 

The process of refining environmental objectives, management actions, and resulting 

Navigation Study alternatives will require further stakeholder involvement. This will 

include stakeholder input in the development of an objective/management action 

relational database, management action cost/outcome assessment, alternative 

development/refinement/sequencing, adaptive management, and the overall plan 

formulation process. Input from the river community on these topics will occur through 

upcoming stakeholder meetings (e.g., NECC, ECC, and GLC), public meetings, an 

alternative formulation briefing, and draft product distribution to stakeholders for review 

and comment. 

Pathways to Implementation 

Work completed to date has indicated a potential for inclusion of a wide variety of 

measures formulated to meet the goals of economic and ecological sustainability. As 

discussed in the previous section this will be accomplished by evaluating combinations of 

navigation improvements and environmental restoration measures. Implementation of 

these measures will require a review and understanding of the Corps of Engineers 

authorizations and may require additional authorization. The authorization discussion 

will be refined throughout the formulation process and be fully documented in the 

Feasibility Study. 

 

The Corps of Engineers will include ecosystem restoration as an equal project purpose in 

the UMR-IWW Navigation Feasibility Study. This could provide for dual project 

purposes of navigation and ecosystem restoration and include justified navigation 

improvements, operation and maintenance for both navigation and the environment, and 

authorities to provide for ecosystem restoration projects to meet ecosystem restoration 

goals and objectives. A dual-purpose project will provide better focus and flexibility to 
UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops 

Interim Report 

32

adaptively manage the system. The Feasibility Study will provide a full evaluation to 

compare the implementation effectiveness of existing authorities against a new specific 

dual-purpose authority. 

Maintaining the ecological integrity and sustainability of the UMR-IWW System extends 

beyond sound environmental stewardship in operation of the navigation project and 

modification of navigation structures. It includes interdependent basin-wide issues of 

water quality, sedimentation, habitat protection and restoration, wildlife and fishery 

management and land management that are within the purview of other Federal agencies, 

the States, and private organizations. The Federal agencies and the States that manage 

resources and have regulatory responsibilities on the UMR-IWW will have important 

roles to play in this new integrated plan. The non-governmental organizations will also 

have an important role in the advocacy of this new integrated plan. The Feasibility Study 

will explore opportunities where programs and potential projects can be coordinated and 

integrated into a comprehensive synergistic plan. Authorities and funding priorities and 

limits of the USDA, FWS, USGS, DOT and EPA shall be identified and the potential for 

using cross-cut budgeting among Federal agencies will be considered. The Feasibility 

Study will not seek new authorities or funding mechanisms for these agencies, however 

the recognition of the need for these agencies to participate will be highlighted. The 

Federal agencies and States will be encouraged to review their existing authorities and 

funding streams to determine if changes are needed to better support the sustainability 

goals established in this restructured effort. 

Managing the UMR-IWW as a multi-purpose resource will require a review of existing 

institutional arrangements. The existing institutional arrangements consist of varied 

coordination committees composed of Federal, State, and non-governmental 

involvement, and their many layers create a challenge to developing a common vision for 

integrated management of the UMR-IWW System. While acknowledging that 

considerable progress has been made in the regions management framework over the past 

decades, there is room for improvement, especially with respect to addressing 

sustainability level problems and opportunities. Some of the areas commonly identified 

in need of improvement, include: 

• commitment of staff and fiscal resources to collaborative planning and decisionmaking; 

• inter- and intra-agency communication; 

• jurisdictional border issues; 

• overcoming the legacy of conflict and controversy; 

• balance or equity in competing interests; 

• development of common vision with consensual buy-in and support; 

• acceptance of risk and uncertainty; 

• evaluation process; 

• public understanding, involvement, and support; 

• coordinated partner funding requests and cross-cut budget support; 

• integration, alignment, or leveraging of authorities and resources; and 

• clear delineation of partners’ and stakeholders’ responsibilities. 
UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops 

Interim Report 

33

The Feasibility Study will include a review of existing institutional arrangements and 

identify problems and opportunities for improvement. Using a subgroup of NECC 

members, this review and evaluation of the UMR-IWW management framework will be 

accomplished collaboratively with stakeholders. Recommendations for existing and new 

institutional arrangements developed by this subgroup will be included in the Final 

Feasibility Report as a means to implement the recommended plan. 

Expert Panel 

Previous sections of this report presented UMR-IWW environmental goals, objectives, 

and associated management actions identified and reviewed in a series of stakeholder 

workshops in November 2002. Future efforts will focus on how to move forward with 

the established objectives and refinement of management actions most likely to 

contribute to achieving them. Given the breadth and technical depth of these tasks, it is 

desirable to invite ‘peer review’ from technical experts in various disciplines relative to 

UMR-IWW System ecology. As such, a Technical Expert Review Panel, made up of an 

interdisciplinary team (Figure 9), will provide support to the process of establishing 

UMR-IWW environmental sustainability alternatives. This panel will assist in 

developing a process for defining, evaluating, and refining environmental objectives, 

management actions, and alternative plans for the river system. 

EXPERT PANEL PARTICIPANTS:

COORDINATORS

• John Barko, ERDC-EL, Co-Chair

• Ken Lubinski, USGS-UMESC, Co-Chair

• Kenneth Barr, USACE-MVR, USACE Lead HYDROLOGY AND SEDIMENT

• Tatsuaki Nakato, University of Iowa

• Ken Landwehr, USACE-MVR

WATER QUALITY

• Dave Soballe, USGS-UMESC

AQUATIC ECOLOGY • Clint Beckert, USACE-MVR

• Mark Bain, Cornell University

• Gordon Farabee, Contractor

• Chuck Theiling, USACE-MVR

• Dan Wilcox, USACE-MVP

TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY

• Carl Korschgen, USGS-CERC

• Bob Clevenstine, USFWS

GEOMORPHOLOGY

• Robb Jacobson, USGS, Columbia

• Robert Davinroy, USACE-MVS

• Jon Hendrickson, USACE-MVP

ECOLOGICAL MODELLING

• John Nestler, ERDC-EL

• L. Jean O’Neil, ERDC-EL

• Steve Bartell, CADMUS

Figure 9. Expert panel participants. 

The Expert Panel will review the UMR-IWW objectives and management actions and 

assist the study team in the formulation of alternative plans to achieve environmental 

sustainability. The expert panel will convene monthly between January and April 2003. 

The following is a list of the primary topics of discussion for these monthly meetings. 

January - Review of environmental goals and objectives.

February - Link goals/objectives with management strategies using conceptual models. 

March - Develop management strategies and alternatives. 

April - Synthesize for input to the Navigation Study Feasibility Report.
UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops 

Interim Report 

34

Ecosystem Conceptual Model 

At the end of the workshop, participants were provided with a brief presentation on the 

ecosystem conceptual model (Figure 10 and 11) being developed for the UMR-IWW 

Navigation Study. The model defines the pathways (lines and arrows) of causal influence 

between specific stressors (ovals) and general (large diamonds) and specific (hexagons) 

ecological effects. The purpose of the UMR-IWW conceptual model is to identify the 

linkages and sequencing of identified environmental objectives and associated 

management actions and facilitate a comprehensive assessment of the potential risks and 

outcomes resulting from modifications to the system. The conceptual model can 

contribute to this overall purpose through the following: 

• Visually characterize a complex system to better understand and manage it 

• Identify the major drivers, stressors, and endpoints of the system 

• Define the functional relationships (i.e., linkages) between stressors and endpoints 

• Assist in decisions on impact assessment, restoration and management actions, 

and evaluation tools 

• Provide a framework for implementing adaptive management and restoration 

• Facilitate dialog and develop a structure for additional input from stakeholders 

Figure 10. General conceptual model that defines ecological and environmental stressors 

relevant to the UMR-IWW Navigation Study. The model emphasizes stressors (ovals) specific to 

the operation and maintenance of the nine-foot navigation channel, but also includes other 

stressors (both natural and human-induced) that will be considered in the development restoration 

goals and objectives and implementation of adaptive management. The diamonds designate 

broader categories of ecological and environmental impacts of the stressors. The hexagons 

identify more specific effects (endpoints, performance measures). 

Geomorphology Habitat Biota

Water Quality

and Sediment

Composition

Wildlife Unionid

Mussels

Submerged

Aquatic

Vegetation

Keystone

Species

Threatened

Endangered

Species

Fish Wetlands

& FP

Sed & Water

Quality

Backwater

Sediment 

Accum

Fish

Spawning 

Habitat

Land & Water Use

Altered 

Hydrology

Climate

Change Sediments Nutrients Contaminants Fragmentation

Invasive 

Species Harvesting Rec. Use Natural Disturb

Altern

Transport

Geomorphology Habitat Biota

Water Quality

and Sediment

Composition

Wildlife Unionid

Mussels

Submerged

Aquatic

Vegetation

Keystone

Species

Threatened

Endangered

Species

Fish Wetlands

& FP

Sed & Water

Quality

Backwater

Sediment 

Accum

Fish

Spawning 

Habitat

Land & Water Use

Altered 

Hydrology

Climate

Change Sediments Nutrients Contaminants Fragmentation

Invasive 

Species Harvesting Rec. Use Natural Disturb

Altern

Transport
UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops 

Interim Report 

35

Figure 11. Specific example (derived from the conceptual model outlined in Figure 10) using the 

conceptual model to assess a management action’s potential to address an identified objective of 

increased emergent vegetation. The specific stressor (oval) is alteration in hydrology and 

hydraulics associated with commercial navigation and nine-foot channel operations and 

maintenance. The smaller diamond identifies a management action (i.e., 0.5 m drawdown) that 

modifies the stressor and leads to a general ecological effect (larger diamond) of habitat change 

(e.g., increased aquatic vegetation). The specific assessment endpoint or performance measure 

(hexagon) is the percent increase in emergent vegetation due to the lowered water. 

Land and Water Use 

Emergent 

Vegetation

X% increase

0.5 m 

Drawdown

Habitat

Altered 

Hydrology

Larger scale stressor

Specific stressor

Management Action

General ecological effect

Specific effect
UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops 

Interim Report 

36
UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops 

Interim Report 

37

Onnie Byers – Conservation Breeding Specialist Group 

Navigation Environmental Coordination Committee 

Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee 

Acknowledgements 

A significant amount of effort was put forth by many individuals and organizations to 

plan, prepare, participate in and publish results from these workshops. The authors wish 

to extend their thanks to the following individuals and organizations for their 

contributions to this effort. 

Planning and Coordination 

Marsha Dolan – USACE-MVR 

Steve Bartell – Cadmus Group 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – RIFO 

Report Production 

Ken Barr – USACE-MVR 

Denny Lundberg – USACE-MVR 

Scott Whitney – USACE-MVR 

Dan Wilcox – USACE-MVP 

GIS 

Colin Belby – USACE-MVR 

Venues 

Tri-County Regional Planning Commission 

Linda Apts – Tri-County Regional Planning Commission 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service La Crosse District Office 

Workshop Participation and Product Review 

Audubon Association 

Environmental Defense Fund

Illinois Department of Natural Resources 

Illinois Department of Water Resources 

Illinois Natural History Survey 

Illinois State Water Survey 

Iowa Department of Natural Resources 

Iowa Farm Bureau 

Izaak Walton League of America 

Long Term Resource Monitoring Program 

Midwest Area River Coalition 2000 

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 

Mississippi River Basin Alliance 

Mississippi River Revival 

Missouri Coalition for the Environment 

Missouri Department of Conservation 

Missouri Department of Natural Resources 

Quincy Park District 

Sierra Club 

Southern Illinois University 

The Nature Conservancy 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

U.S. Forest Service 

U.S. Geological Survey 

University of Miami 

Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center 

Upper Mississippi, Illinois and Missouri Rivers 

 Association 

Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 
Appendix A. Workshop Invitation and Participant Lists 

Note: The names of invitees that participated in the workshops are highlighted in the following lists. 

La Crosse Workshop 

Name Affiliation Address Phone E-mail Mark Andersen WI DNR 

3550 Mormon Coulee Rd La Crosse, WI 54601 608.785.9994 Mark.Andersen@dn

Gretchen Benjamin WI DNR 

3550 Mormon Coulee Rd. La Crosse, WI 54601 608.785.9982 Gretchen.Benjamin

Ron Benjamin WI DNR 

3550 Mormon Coulee Rd. La Crosse, WI 54601 608.785.9012 benjar@dnr.state.w

Mark Beorkrem Sierra Club/MRBA 

P.O. Box 370 Morrisonville, IL 62546 314.882.8425 beorkrem@ctitech.c

Paul Bertels MARC 2000 

632 Cepi Crive Chesterfield, MO 63005 636.733.9004 bertels@ncga.com

Kevin Bluhm CEMVP-PM-E 

190 Fifth Street East St. Paul, MN 55101-1638 651.290.5247 Kevin.W.Bluhm@m

Pete Boma UMESC 

575 Lester Ave Onalaska, WI 54650 608.783.7550x14 pete_boma@usgs.g

Brian Brecka WI DNR 

Buffalo County Court House Alma, WI 54610-0088 608.685.6221 Breckb@dnr.state.w

Kurt Brownell ECMVP-CO-NR 

190 Fifth Street East St. Paul, MN 55101-1638 507.895.6341 Kurt.A.Brownell@mvp

Ed Britton USFWS (Savanna) 

USFWS UMRNWR 7071 Riverview Rd, Thompson, IL 61285 815.2733.2732

Mike Cox CEMVR-OD-T 

PO Box 2004 Clock Tower Building Rock Island, IL 61201 309-794.5558 Michael.D.Cox@mv

Betsy Croker MARC 2000 

122 C Street, NW, Ste. 510, Washington DC 20001 202.628.7001 croker@dc.ncga.co

Mike Davis MN DNR 

1801 South Oak Street Lake City, MN 55041 651.345.3331 mike.davis@dnr.sta

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops DRAFT REPORT
La Crosse Workshop (cont.) 

Name Affiliation Address Phone E-mailJeffrey DeZellar CEMVP-PM-A 

190 Fifth Street East St. Paul, MN 55101-1638 651.290.5433 Jeffrey.T.DeZellar@mv

Robert Dolan IA DNR 

NE Iowa Professional Building, PO Box 700 Fayett, IA 52142 563.927.3276 Robert.Dolan@dnr.state

Bob Drieslein USFWS (Winona) 

51 E. 4th St. Room 101, 

Winona, WI 55987 507.494.6229 Bob drieslein@fws.gov

Terry Dukerschein LTRMP - Pools 4,8 

575 Lester Ave Onalaska, WI 54650 608.783.7550x706 terry_dukerschein@usg

Scott Faber 

Environmental Defense 

1875 Connecticut Ave. N.W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20009 

202.387.3500 x3315 sfaber@environmentald

Barbra Frank Sierra Club 

N1965 Vakket Rd La Crosse, WI 54601 608.788.3914 bdfrank@centurytel.net

Jeff Gulan CEMVP-CO-LD 

431 North Shore Dr, PO Box 397, Fountain City, WI 54629 608.687.9140 jeffrey.j.gulan@mvp02.u

Scott Gritters IA DNR 

PO Box 250 Guttenberg, IA 563.252.1156 Scott.Gritters@dnr.state

Dave Heath WI DNR 

3550 Mormon Coulee Rd La Crosse, WI 54601 608.785.9993 heathd@dnr.state.wi.us

Patricia Heglund UMESC 

575 Lester Ave Onalaska, WI 54650 608.783.7550 x62 pheglund@usgs.gov

Jon Hendrickson CEMVP-ED-H 

190 Fifth Street East St. Paul, MN 55101-1638 651.290.5634 jon.s.hendrickson@mvp

Don Hultman USFWS (Winona) 

51 E. 4th Street Room 101, Winona, WI 55987 507.494.6218 Don_Hultman@fsw.gov

Jeff Janvrin WI DNR 

3550 Mormon Coulee Rd La Crosse, WI 54601 608.785.9005 janvrj@dnr.state.wi.us

Barry Johnson UMESC 

575 Lester Ave Onalaska, WI 54650 608.783.7550 x47 barry_johnson@usgs.g

Scot Johnson MN DNR 

1801 South Oak Street Lake City, MN 55041 651.345.5601 scot.johnson@dnrmn.st

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops DRAFT REPORT
La Crosse Workshop (cont.) 

Name Affiliation Address Phone E-mail Kevin Kenow UMESC 

2630 Fanta Reed Road La Crosse, WI 54603 608.781.6278 kevin_kenow@usgs.g

Eileen Kirsch UMESC 

2630 Fanta Reed Road La Crosse, WI 54603 608.781.6226 eileen_kirsch@usgs.g

Brent Knights UMESC 

575 Lester Ave Onalaska, WI 54650 608.783.7550x22 brent_knights@usgs.g

Melinda Knutson UMESC 

575 Lester Ave Onalaska, WI 54650 608.783.7550x68 melinda_knutson@us

Fred Kollman NRCS 

575 Lester Ave Onalaska, WI 54650 

608.783.7550 x711 fkollmann@umesc.er.

Dan Krumholz CEMVP-CO-CH 

190 Fifth Street East St. Paul, MN 55101-1638 608.687.3112 Daniel.J.Krumholz@m

Ron Kucera MO DNR 

PO Box 176 Jefferson City MO 65102 573.751.3195 nrkucer@mail.dnr.stat

Robert Kurtt IA DNR 

944 South Mill Street, Decorah, IA 52101 563.382.4895 Robert.Kurtt@dnr.stat

Dan Larson MARC 2000 

5077 144th St. West St. Paul MN 55124 952.423.7218 Dan27@frontiernet.ne

John Lindell USFWS (McGregor) 

PO Box 460 McGregor, IA 52157 563.873.3427 john_lindell@fws.gov

Catherine McCalvin 

The Nature Conservancy 

PO Box 305 Trempealeau, WI 54661-0305 608.534.6514 CMcCalvin@tnc.org

Dan McGuiness - Director 

Audubon, Upper Mississippi River Campaign 

26 East Exchange Street, Suite 110 St. Paul, MN 55101 651.290.1695 dmcguiness@audubo

Dave Moeller IA DNR 

22693 205th Ave Manchester, IA 52057 563.927.3276 dave.moeller@dnr.sta

Rick Moore Isaac Walton League 

820 Brickl Rd, West Salem, WI 54669 651.649.1446 rxmoore@iwla.org

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops DRAFT REPORT
La Crosse Workshop (cont.) 

Name Affiliation Address Phone E-mail Eric Nelson USFWS (Winona) 

51 E. 4th Street Room 101, Winona, WI 55987 507.494.6214 Eric_Nelson@fws.gov

Lee Nelson MARC 2000 

40 State Street St. Paul, MN 55107 651.292.9293 lee@URSI.net

Jim Nissen USFWS 

555 Lester Ave, Onalaska, WI 54650 608.783.8401 James_Nissen@fws.g

Dick Otto CEMVP-CO-NR 

190 Fifth Street East St. Paul, MN 55101-1638 507.895.6341 Richard.J.Otto@mvp0

Dean Peterson CEMVP-CO-LD 

190 Fifth Street East St. Paul, MN 55101-1638 608.687.9104 Dean.J.Peterson@mv

Fred Pinkard CEERDC-HC-R 

3909 Halls Ferry Road Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199 601.634.3086 Fred.Pinkard@erdc.us

John Pitlo IA DNR 

Bellevue Reasearch Station, RR 3, Box 63, Bellevue, IA 52031 563.872.4976 John.Pitlo@dnr.state.i

Don Powell CEMVP-PM-A 

190 Fifth Street East St. Paul, MN 55101-1638 651.290.5402 Donald.L.Powell@usa

Jim Rogala UMESC 

575 Lester Ave Onalaska, WI 54650 608.783.7550x60 jim_rogala@usgs.gov

Paul Rohde MARC 2000 

906 Olive Street, Suite 1010 St. Louis, MO 63101 314.436.7303 paulcr2k@aol.com

Jennie Sauer UMESC 

575 Lester Ave Onalaska, WI 54650 608.783.7550x64 jennie_sauer@usgs.g

Tim Schlagenhaft MN DNR 

2300 Silver Creek Road NE Rochester, MN 55906 507.280.5058 tim.schlagenhaft@dnr

Patrick Short WI DNR 

1502 East Lessard Prairie du Chien, WI 53821 608.326.8818 shortp@dnr.state.wi.u

Sol Simon 

Mississippi River Revival 

51 E. 4th St., Winona, MN 55987 507.457.0393 ssimon@hbci.com

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops DRAFT REPORT
La Crosse Workshop (cont.)

Name Affiliation Address Phone E-mail Elliott Stefanik CEMVP 

190 Fifth Street East St. Paul, MN 55101-1638 651.290.5260 elliott.l.stefanik@mvp0

Jon Stravers 

Research and Fieldtrip Coordinator for Audobon UMR Campaign 

PO Box 309 McGregor IA 52157 563.586.2621 hawk@alpinecom.net

Gary Swenson CEMVR-OD-MN 

PO Box 2004 Clock Tower Building Rock Island, IL 61201 309.794.4489 Gary.V.Swenson@mv

Steve Tapp CEMVP-CO-CH 

431 North Shore Dr, PO Box 397, Fountain City, WI 54629 608.687.3112 Steven.D.Tapp@usac

Randy Urich CEMVP-CO-NR 

190 Fifth Street East St. Paul, MN 55101-1638 507.895.6341 Randall.R.Urich@mvp

Jon Vallazza UMESC 

575 Lester Ave Onalaska, WI 54650 608.783.7550x734 jon_vallazza@usgs.go

Gary Wege USFWS-TCFO 

4101 East 80th St. 

Bloomington, MN 55425-1665 612.725.3548 Gary_Wege@fws.gov

Shawn Weick UMESC 

575 Lester Ave Onalaska, WI 54650 608.783.7550x63 shawn_weick@usgs.g

Dan Wilcox CEMVP-PE-M 

190 Fifth Street East St. Paul, MN 55101-1638 612.290.5276 Daniel.B.Wilcox@mvp

Steven Zigler UMESC 

2630 Fanta Reed Road La Crosse, WI 54603 608.781.6395 steven_zigler@usgs.g

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops DRAFT REPORT
Moline Workshop 

Name Affiliation Address Phone E-mail Ed Anderson IL DNR 

Division of Natural Heritage Dearborn Hall 205 E Seminary Street Mt. Carroll, IL 61053 eanderson@dnrmail.

Rick Anderson WIU Mark Beorkrem Sierra Club/MRBA 

P.O. Box 370 Morrisonville, IL 62546 314.882.8425 beorkrem@ctitech.co

Bill Bertrand IL DNR - Fisheries 

2106 SE Third Street PO Box 149 Aledo, IL 61231 bbertrand@dnrmail.s

Kim Bogenschutz IA DNR 

1436 255th Street Boone, IA 50036 515.432.2823 Kim.Bogenschutz@d

Tom Boland IA DNR 

Bellevue Research Station 24143 Highway 52, Bellevue, IA 52031 563.872.4976 Tom.Boland@dnr.sta

Ken Brenner CEMVR-OD-T 

PO Box 2004 Clock Tower Building Rock Island, IL 61201 309-794-5842

Chris Brescia MARC 2000 

906 Olive Street, Ste. 1010 St. Louis, MO 63101 314.436.7303 Bresh@aol.com

Ken Brummett 

MO Dept of Conservation 

653 Clinic Rd. Hannibal MO 63401 573.248.2530 brummk@mcd.state.m

Dru Buntin MO DNR 

PO Box 176 Jefferson City MO 65102 573.751.3195 nrbuntd@mail.dnr.sta

Charlene Carmack CEMVR-PM-A 

PO Box 2004 Clock Tower Building Rock Island, IL 61201 309.794.5570 charlene.carmack@m

Wade Conn MO DOC - Forestry 

653 Clinic Road Hannibal, MO 63401 ConnJ@mdc.state.m

Bob Clevenstine FWS 

4469 48th Ave. Ct. Rock Island, IL 61201 

309.493.5800 x521 Robert_Clevenstine@

Kenneth.J.Brenner@

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops DRAFT REPORT
Moline Workshop (cont.) 

Name Affiliation Address Phone E-mailMark Cornish CEMVR-PM-A 

PO Box 2004 Clock Tower Building Rock Island, IL 61201 309.794.5385 Mark.A.Cornish@mvr02

Mike Cox CEMVR-OD-T 

PO Box 2004 Clock Tower Building Rock Island, IL 61201 309-794-5558 Michael.D.Cox@mvr02

Tom Cox 

USFWS (Port Louisa) 319.523.6982 Tom_Cox@fws.gov

Cynthia Drew 

Univ of Miami Law School 

PO Box 258087 Coral Gables, FL 33124 305.284.6387 cdrew@law.miami.edu

Jon Duyvejonck USFWS/UMRCC 

4469 48th Ave. Ct. Rock Island, IL 61201 309.793.5800 Jon_Duyvejonck@fws.g

Ralph Eads IL DNR - Forestry 

205 E Seminary Street PO Box 6 Mt. Carroll, IL 61053 815.244.3655 reads@dnrmail.state.il.

Gordon Farabee 

7509 County Road 332 Palmyra, MO 63461 573.769.2620 sfarabee@nemonet.com

Steve Felt IL DNR - Forestry 

116 North East Street PO Box 126 Cambridge, IL 61238 309.937.2122 Sfelt@dnrmail.state.il.u

Al Fenedick USEPA 

Mail Code: B-19J 77 West Jackson Boulevard Chicago, IL 60604 312.886.6872 Fenedick.Al@epa.gov

Kathryn Gray CEMVR-PM-A 

PO Box 2004 Clock Tower Building Rock Island, IL 61201 309.794.5815 Kathry.J.Gray@mvr02.

Mike Griffin IA DNR 

206 Rose Street Bellevue, IA 52031 319.872.5700 michael.griffin@dnr.sta

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops DRAFT REPORT
Moline Workshop (cont.) 

Name Affiliation Address Phone E-mail Greg Gremaud 

MO DOC - Natural History 

2500 S. Halliburton Kirksville, MO 63501 GremaG@mdc.state.m

Allen Haas MRBA 

3024 N. Lincoln, Davenport, IA 52804 563.391.2086 

James Haring IWLA 

1449 25th Ave South Clinton, IA 52732 563.243.3155 fishfndr@cis.net

Mark Heinicke Quincy Park District 

1310 Wash. St., Quincy IL 62301 217.223.7703

Judd Hulting MARC 2000 

1605 Commerce Parkway Bloomington, IL 61704 309-663-7692 hultingj@ilsoy.org

Keith Jackson MO DOC - Wildlife 

653 Clinic Road Hannibal, MO 63401 jacksk@mdc.state.mo

 Kevin Landwehr CEMVR-ED-HH 

PO Box 2004 Clock Tower Building Rock Island, IL 61204 309.794.5578 Kevin.J.Landwehr@m

Mindy Larsen Poldberg Iowa Farm Bureau 

5400 University, West Des Moines, IA 50266 515.225.5432 mpoldberg@ifbf.org

Joe Lundh CEMVR-OD-MN 

PO Box 2004 Clock Tower Building Rock Island, IL 61204 309-794-4528 Joseph.S.Lundh@mv

Anne Mankowski IL DNR 

Division of Natural Heritage 116 North East Street PO Box 23 Cambridge, IL 61238 309.937.3384 amankowski@dnrmai

Catherine McCalvin 

The Nature Conservancy 

PO Box 305 Trempealeau, WI 54661-0305 608.534.6514 CMcCalvin@tnc.org

Dan McGuiness 

Audubon, Upper Mississippi River Campaign 

26 East Exchange Street, Suite 110 St. Paul, MN 55101 651.290.1695 dmcguiness@audubo

Dave Moeller IA DNR 

22693 205th Ave Manchester, IA 52057 563.927.3276 dave.moeller@dnr.sta

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops DRAFT REPORT
Moline Workshop (cont.) 

Name Affiliation Address Phone E-mail Rick Moore Isaac Walton League 

1619 Dayton Ave., Suite 202 St Paul, MN 55104-6206 651.649.1446 rxmoore@iwla.org

Chris Neeld UMIMRA 

1665 30th St, New Boston, IL 309.937.2122

Rick Nelson USFWS/UMRCC 

4469 48th Ave. Ct. Rock Island, IL 61201 309.793.5800 Richard_Nelson@fws

Don Pfeiffer IA DNR 

110 Lake Darling Rd Brighton, IA 52540 319.694.2430 don.pfeiffer@dnr.state

John Pitlo IA DNR 

Bellevue Research Station, RR 3, Box 63, Bellevue, IA 52031 563.872.4976 John.Pitlo@dnr.state.i

Mike Ramono WIU 

240 Waggoner Hall 1 University Circle Macomb, IL 61455-1390 309.298.1374 M-Romano@wiu.edu

Rick Robinson Iowa Farm Bureau 515.225.5432 rrobinson@ifbf.orgDan Salee IL DNR 

2317 E Lincolnway Suite A Sterling, IL 61081 815.625.2968 dsallee@dnrmail.state

Scott Schaeffer IL DNR 

District 2 DWHB 205 E Seminary Street Mt. Carroll, IL 61053 sschaeffer@dnrmail.st

Bernard Schonoff IA DNR 

3390 Hwy. 22 Muscatine, IA 52761 563.263.5062 bernard.Schonhoff@d

Mike Schwar CEMVR-ED-HH 

PO Box 2004 Clock Tower Building Rock Island, IL 61204 309.794.5410 Michael.T.Schwar@m

Dick Steinbach USFWS 

1704 North 24th St Quincy, IL 62301 217.224.8580 Dick_Steinback@fws.

Mike Steuck LTRM Pool 14 

206 Rose Street Bellevue, IA 52031 563.872.5495 mike_steuck@usgs.go

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops DRAFT REPORT
Moline Workshop (cont.) 

Name Affiliation Address Phone E-mail Jon Stravers 

Research and Fieldtrip Coordinator for Audubon UMR Campaign 

PO Box 309 McGregor IA 52157 563.586.2621 hawk@alpinecom.net

Scott Stuewe IL DNR 

One Natural Resources Way Springfield IL 62702-1271 Sstuewe@dnrmail.sta

Gary Swenson CEMVR-OD-MN 

PO Box 2004 Clock Tower Building Rock Island, IL 61201 309.794.4489 Gary.V.Swenson@mv

Steve Waters IA DNR 

110 Lake Darling Rd Brighton, IA 52540 319.694.2430 steve.waters@dnr.stat

Karen Westphall USFWS Refuge 

1704 North 24th St Quincy, IL 62301 Karen_Westphall@fws

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops DRAFT REPORT
St. Louis Workshop 

Name Affiliation Address Phone E-mail Reid Adams 

Souther IL Univ - Zoology 

Department of Zoology Southern Illinois University Carbondale, IL 62901 618.453.4113 adamsr@siu.edu

Barry Allen MO DOC 

7001 County Rd. 675 Dexter, MO 63841 AllenB@mdc.state.

Mike Anderson MO DOC 

2206 W. St. Joseph Perryville, MO 63775 AnderM@mdc.state

Mike Arduser MO DOC 

2360 HWY D St. Charles, MO 63304 ArdusM@mdc.state

Dwight Asselmeier UMIMRA 

Gateway FS, Inc. POBox 100, Red Bud, IL 62278 618.282.4000 

Butch Atwood ILDNR - Fisheries 

1000 Killarney Dr Greenville, IL 62246 eatwood@dnrmail.s

Valerie Barko MO DOC 

3815 E. Jackson Blvd. Jackson, MO 63755 BarkoV@mdc.state

Jamie Barton MO DOC 

2500 E. HYW VV East Prairie, MO 63845 BartoJ@mdc.state.

Mark Beorkrem Sierra Club/MRBA 

P.O. Box 370 Morrisonville, IL 62546 314.882.8425 beorkrem@ctitech.c

Mark Boone MO DOC 

2302 County Park Dr. Cape Girardeay, MO 63701 BooneM@mdc.stat

Neil Booth ILDNR - Wildlife 

Mississippi River Area Office Grafton, IL 62037 618.376.3303 nbooth@dnrmail.sta

David Berndt MARC 2000 

Holcim, Inc., 2942 US Hwy 61, Bloomsdale, MO 63627 636.933.8177 dave.berndt@holcim

Philip Bradshaw MARC 2000 

RR! Box 133 Griggsville, IL 62304 217.833.2446 llbpeb@pikenet.net

Chris Brescia MARC 2000 

906 Olive Street, Ste. 1010 St. Louis, MO 63101 314.436.7303 Bresh@aol.com

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops DRAFT REPORT
St. Louis Workshop (cont.)

Name Affiliation Address Phone E-mailDanny Brown MO DOC 

2360 HWY D St. Charles, MO 63304 

636.441.4554 x241 BrownD2@mdc.state.m

Ed Brown MO DOC 

812 Progress Dr Farmmingon, MO 63640 BrownE@mdc.state.mo

Ken Brummett MO DOC 

653 Clinic Road Hannibal, MO 63401 573.248.2530 BrummK@mdc.state.mo

Scott Bunselmeyer UMIMRA 

Bunselmeyer Brothers, 1004 Little Levee Road, Rockwood, IL 62280 618.763.4726 

Dave Busse CEMVS-ED-HPW 

1222 Spruce Street St. Louis, MO 63103-2833 314.331.8349 David.R.Busse@mvs02

John Cannon CEMVS-CO-NM 

1222 Spruce Street St. Louis, MO 63103-2833 314.899.2600 John.Cannon@mvs02.u

Steve Chard Il Dept Agriculture Springfield IL 217.785.4233 Schard@arg.state.il.usGary Christoff MO DOC 

PO Box180 Jefferson City, MO 

573.751.4115 X-3357 chrisg@mdc.state.mo.u

Sean Cleary MO DOC - Wildlife 

PO Box 201 Elsberry, MO 63343 ClearS@mdc.state.mo.u

Joyce Collins USFWS Marion, IL 700.331.9340 Joyce_Collins@fws.govDean Corgiat ILDNR 

Route 106 West PO Box 477 Pittsfield, IL 62363 dcorgiat@dnrmail.state.

Mike Cox CEMVR-OD-T 

PO Box 2004 Clock Tower Building Rock Island, IL 61201 309-794.5558 Michael.D.Cox@mvr02.

Ken Dalrymple CEMVS-PM-EE 

1222 Spruce Street St. Louis, MO 63103-2833 314-331-8592 

Rob Davinroy CEMVS-ED-HP 

1222 Spruce Street St. Louis, MO 63103-2833 314-263-4714 Robert.D.Davinroy@mv

Robert DiStefano 

American Fisheries Society - MO 

PO Box 10267 Columbia, MO 65205 dister@mdc.state.mo.us

Kenneth.L.Dalrymple@m

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops DRAFT REPORT
St. Louis Workshop (cont.) 

Name Affiliation Address Phone E-mail Charlie Duetsch CEMVS-CO-NM 

1222 Spruce Street St. Louis, MO 63103-2833 314.899.2600 Charlie.Deutsch@mvs

Jon Duyvejonck USFWS/UMRCC 

4469 48th Ave. Ct. Rock Island, IL 61201 309.793.5800 Jon_Duyvejonck@fws.g

Stan Ebersohl CEMVS-CO-N 

1222 Spruce Street St. Louis, MO 63103-2833 636.899.2600 

Dan Erickson CEMVS-CO-NR 

1222 Spruce Street St. Louis, MO 63103-2833 636-899-2600 Dan.Erickson@mvs02

Gordon Farabee 

7509 County Road 332 Palmyra, MO 63461 573.769.2620 sfarabee@nemonet.c

Christine Favilla Sierra Club 

223 Marked St Alton, IL 62002 618.462.6802 cfavilla@ezl.com

Jenny Frazier 

American Land Conservancy Cape Girardeau, MO jenny@alcnet.org

Lia Frey MO DOC 

2360 HWY D St. Charles, MO 63304 FreyL@mdc.state.mo

Dave Gates CEMVS-PM-F 

1222 Spruce Street St. Louis, MO 63103-2833 314.331.8478 david.r.gates@mvs02

Robert Goodwin 

US DOT Maritime Administration 

1222 Spruce St. Suite 2.202F St. Louis, MO 63103 314.539.6783 Robert.Goodwin@ma

Kristin Goodrich MO DOC 

653 Clinic Road Hannibal, MO 63401 GoodrK@mdc.state.m

Bill Graham CEMVR-OD-T 

PO Box 2004 Clock Tower Building Rock Island, IL 61201 309.794.5362 Willis.J.Graham@mvr

John Guthrie 

FWS Swan Lake Refuge 

Route 1 Box 29 A Sumner, MO 64681 660-856-3323 john_guthrie@fws.gov

Mark Haas MO DOC 

2302 County Park Dr. Cape Girardeay, MO 63701 HaasM@mdc.state.m

Heather HamptonKnodle UMIMRA 201 W. Fairground Ave, Hillsboro, IL 62049 217.532.5458 ink@cillnet.com

Stanley.F.Ebersohl@m

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops DRAFT REPORT
St. Louis Workshop (cont.) 

Name Affiliation Address Phone E-mail Jon Handel ILDNR - Wildlife 

Pere Marquette State Park PO Box 158 Grafton, IL 62037 jhandel@dnrmail.sta

Ty Harris 

MO Coalition for the Environment 

6267 Delmar Blvd. Suite 2-E St. Louis, MO 63130 tharris@moenviron.

Ed Heisel 

MO Coalition for the Environment 

6267 Delmar Blvd. Suite 2-E St. Louis, MO 63130 314.727.0600 eheisel@moenviron

Dave Herzog MO DOC 

3815 E. Jackson Blvd. Jackson, MO 63755 HerzoD@mdc.state

Jeanne Heuser 

USGS Columbia Research Center 

4200 New Haven Rd, Columbia, MO 65201 573.876.1876 jeanne_heuser@us

Bob Hrabik 

MO DOC - Open River Field Station 

3815 E. Jackson Blvd. Jackson, MO 63755 573.243.2659x21 HrabiR@mdc.state.

Don Huffman MARC 2000 

MEMCO 16090 Swingley Ridge Road, Ste. 600, Chesterfield, MO 63017 636.530.2111 donh@memcobarge.c

Bob Hughey CEMVS-ED-D 

1222 Spruce Street St. Louis, MO 63103-2833 314.331.8300 

Brian Johnson CEMVS-PM-EA 

1222 Spruce Street St. Louis, MO 63103-2833 314-331-8146 Brian.L.Johnson@m

Tim Krumwiede ILDNR - Wildlife 

PO Box 477 Pittsfield, IL 62363 tkrumwiede@dnrma

Janeen Laatsch MO DOC 

2302 County Park Dr. Cape Girardeay, MO 63701 LaatsJ@mdc.state.m

Eric Laux CEMVS-PM-EA 

1222 Spruce Street St. Louis, MO 63103-2833 314.331.8148 eric.a.laux@mvs02.us

Tom Leifeld MO DOC 

2360 HWY D St. Charles, MO 63304 LeifiT@mdc.state.m

John Magera USFWS-MMNWR 

Middle Miss River NWR 8588 Route 148, Marion, IL 62959 618.997.3344.342

Bobby.R.Hughey@m

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops DRAFT REPORT
St. Louis Workshop (cont.) 

Name Affiliation Address Phone E-mail Rob Maher IL DNR - Fisheries 

8450 Montclair Godfrey, IL 62035 618.466.3451 rmaher@dnrmail.sta

Deck Major ILDNR 

Region IV Office 4521 Alton Commerce Parkway Alton, IL 62002 dmajor@dnrmail.stat

Matt Matheney MO DOC 

2500 S. Halliburton Kirksville, MO 63501 MatheM@mdc.state

Catherine McCalvin 

The Nature Conservancy 

PO Box 305 Trempealeau, WI 54661-0305 608.534.6514 CMcCalvin@tnc.org

Dan McGuiness - Director 

Audubon, Upper Mississippi River Campaign 

26 East Exchange Street,Suite 110 St. Paul, MN 55101 dmcguiness@audub

Kevin Meneau MO DOC 

2360 HWY D St. Charles, MO 63304 MeneaK@mdc.state

T. Miller CEMVS-PM-EA 

1222 Spruce Street St. Louis, MO 63103-2833 314.331.8458 t.miller@mvs02.usac

Travis Moore MO DOC 

653 Clinic Road Hannibal, MO 63401 MooreT@mdc.state.

Lynn Muench MARC 2000 

American Waterway Operators, 319 N 4th St, Ste.650, St. Louis, MO 63102 314.436.7303 awo-midcontinent@m

Dave Ostendorf MO DOC 

3815 E. Jackson Blvd. Jackson, MO 63755 ostend@mdc.state.m

John Perrin UMIMRA 

BASF Corportation, POBox 817 Hannibal, MO 63401 573.769.8661 

Joel Porath MO DOC 

2360 HWY D St. Charles, MO 63304 PoratJ@mdc.state.m

Mike Reed UMIMRA 

Sny Island LDD, PO Box 169, New Canton, IL 62356 217.426.2521 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops DRAFT REPORT
St. Louis Workshop (cont.) 

Name Affiliation Address Phone E-mail Lynn Schrader MO DOC 

2360 HWY D St. Charles, MO 63304 SchraL@mdc.state.m

Jeff Stamper CEMVS-ED-DA 

1222 Spruce Street St. Louis, MO 63103-2833 314.331.8226 

Dick Steinbach USFWS 217.224.8580 Dick_Steinbach@fwsJerry Stroud CEMVS-CO-NN-5 

10 Sandy Slough Road, Winfield, MO 63389 636.566.8120 Jerry.Stroud@mvs02.u

Scott Stuewe IL DNR 

One Natural Resources Way Springfield IL 62702-1271 Sstuewe@dnrmail.st

Art Suchland MO DOC 

2500 S. Halliburton Kirksville, MO 63501 SuchlA@mdc.state.m

Chuck Surprenant USFWS 

Carterville Fishery Resources office, 9053 Route 148, Suite A Marion, IL 62959 618.997.6869 chuck_surprenant@f

Darlene Swearingen MO DOC 

RR 1 Box 98 Baring, MO 63531 SwearD@mdc.state.

Gary Swenson CEMVR-OD-MN 

PO Box 2004 Clock Tower Building Rock Island, IL 61201 309.794.4489 Gary.V.Swenson@m

Andy Tappmeyer MO DOC 

2360 HWY D St. Charles, MO 63304 TappmA@mdc.state

John Tucker LTRMP - Pool 26 

8450 Montclair Brighton, IL 62012 618.466.9690 jktucker@inhs.uiuc.ed

Brian Todd MO DOC 

2500 S. Halliburton Kirksville, MO 63501 ToddB@mdc.state.m

John Vogel MO DOC 

2360 HWY D St. Charles, MO 63304 VogelJ@mdc.state.m

Karen Watwood CEMVS-CO-NR 

1222 Spruce Street St. Louis, MO 63103-2833 

636.899.2600 Ext 233 Karen.Watwood@mv

Jeffrey.L.Stamper@m

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops DRAFT REPORT
St. Louis Workshop (cont.) 

Name Affiliation Address Phone E-mail Harriet Weger MO DOC 

2302 County Park Dr. Cape Girardeay, MO 63701 WegerH@mdc.state

Mike Wells MO DNR 

PO Box 176 Jefferson City, MO 65102.0176 373.751.2867 

Karen Westphall USFWS Refuge 

1704 North 24th St Quincy, IL 62301 Karen_Westphall@fw

Steve Widowski 

Shawnee National Forest 

Tom Wilson ILDNR - Forestry 

202 North 5th Street PO Box 170 Carrollton, IL 32016 217.942.3816 twil@dnrmail.state.il.

Dave Wissehr MO DOC 

RR 1 Box 186 Puxico, Mo 63960 WisseD@mdc.state.

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops DRAFT REPORT
Peoria Workshop 

Name Affiliation Address Phone E-mail Ross Adams 

USFWS IL River Nat. Wildlife and Fish Refuges 

19031 East County Road 2110N Havana, IL 62644 309.535.2290 Ross_adams@fws.go

David Ahrens Marc 2000 

11826 N Riverview Rd. Chillicothe, IL 61523 309.579.2990 doahrens@bitwisesys

Butch Atwood ILDNR - Fisheries 

1000 Killarney Dr Greenville, IL 62246 batwood@dnrmail.sta

Tom Beisell ILDNR-Wildlife 

2612 Locust St Sterling, IL 61081 815.625.2968 Tbeissel@dnrmail.sta

Mark Beorkrem Sierra Club/MRBA 

P.O. Box 370 Morrisonville, IL 62546 314.882.8425 beorkrem@ctitech.co

Todd Bitner Heritage Doug Blodgett 

The Nature Conservancy 

220 W. Main St Havana, IL 62644 309.543.6502 dblodgett@tnc.org

Nani Bhowmik IL State Water Survey 

2204 Griffith Dr. Champaign, IL 61820-7495 

217.244.5459 

nbhowmik@uiuc.edu

Neil Booth ILDNR - Wildlife 

Mississippi River Area Office Grafton, IL 62037 618.376.3303 nbooth@dnrmail.state

Chris Brescia MARC 2000 

906 Olive Street, Ste. 1010 St. Louis, MO 63101 314.436.7303 Bresh@aol.com

Charlene Carmack CEMVR-PM-A 

PO Box 2004 Clock Tower Building Rock Island, IL 61201 309.794.5570 charlene.carmack@m

John Chick LTRM - Pool 26 

8450 Montclair Brighton, IL 61012 618.466.9690 chick@inhs.uiuc.edu

Bob Clevenstine USFWS 

4469 48th Ave. Ct. Rock Island, IL 61201 309.793.5800 Robert_Clevenstine@

Mike Cochran ILDNR - Fisheries 

Division of Fisheries 700 South 10th Street Havana,, IL 62644 mcochran@dnrmail.s

Dean Corgiat Pike Co. Heritage 

Rt 106 West PO BOX 477 Pittsfield, IL 62363 217.285.2221 Dcorgiat@dnrmail.sta

Mike Cox CEMVR-OD-T 

PO Box 2004 Clock Tower Building Rock Island, IL 61201 309.794.5558 Michael.D.Cox@mvr0

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops DRAFT REPORT
Peoria Workshop (cont.) 

Name Affiliation Address Phone E-mailJulianna Cruz 

U.S. DOT Maritime Admin. 

2860 S. River Rd. Suite 185 Des Plaines, IL 60018 947.298.4535 Julianna.Cruz@mara

Rob Davinroy CEMVS-ED-HP 

1222 Spruce Street St. Louis, MO 63103-2833 314-263-4714 Robert.D.Davinroy@m

Mike Demissie IL State Water Survey 

2204 Griffith Dr. Champaign, IL 61820-7495 217.333.4753 demissie@uiuc.edu

Stan Ebersohl CEMVS-CO-N 

1222 Spruce Street St. Louis, MO 63103-2833 636.899.2600 Stanley.F.Ebersohl@

Willis Grahm CEMVR-OD-T 

PO Box 2004 Clock Tower Building Rock Island, IL 61201 309.794.5362 Willis.J.Graham@mv

Greg Guenther MARC 2000 

2435 Falcon Land Belleville, IL, 62221 

Steve Havera ILNHS - Forbes Lab 

PO BOX 590 Havana, IL 62644 309.543.3950 Shavera@mail.inhs.u

Wayne Herndon ILDNR - Fisheries 

215 North 5th Street, Suite D PO Box 633 Pekin, IL 61554 wherndon@dnrmail.s

John Kaufeld USFWS Tim Kelley 

ILDNR - Dist. Heritage Biol. 309.543.3262 Tkelley@dnrmail.stat

Michael Klingner UMIMRA 

Klingner and Associates 616 N. 24th St Quincy, IL 62301 217.223.3670 

Tim Krumwiede ILDNR - Wildlife 

PO Box 477 Pittsfield, IL 62363 217.285.2221 tkrumwiede@dnrmail

Eric Laux CEMVS-PM-EA 

1222 Spruce Street St. Louis, MO 63103-2833 314.331.8148 eric.a.laux@mvs02.u

Rob Maher IL DNR - Fisheries 

8450 Montclair Godfrey, IL 62035 618.466.3451 rmaher@dnrmail.stat

Deck Major ILDNR 

Region IV Office 4521 Alton Commerce Parkway Alton, IL 62002 618.462.1181 dmajor@dnrmail.state

John Marlin ILDNR Dan McGuiness - Director 

Audubon, UMR Campaign 

26 East Exchange Street,Suite 110 St. Paul, MN 55101 651.290.1695 dmcguiness@audubo

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops DRAFT REPORT
Peoria Workshop (cont.) 

Name Affiliation Address Phone E-mail Jim Mentesti UMIMRA 

Great River Economic Dev.Foundation 300 Civic Center Plaza Quincy, IL 62301 217.223.4313

Jim Mick ILDNR 

700 South 10th Street Havana, IL 62644 309.543.3316 jmick@dnrmail.state.

T. Miller CEMVS-PM-EA 

1222 Spruce Street St. Louis, MO 63103-2833 314-331-8458 t.miller@mvs02.usace

Rick Moore Isaac Walton League 

1619 Dayton Ave., Suite 202 St Paul, MN 55104-6206 651.649.1446 rxmoore@iwla.org

Matt Ohera LTRM – Havana 

704 N Schrader Ave., Havana, IL 62644 309.543.6000 tohara@staff.uiuc.edu

Bryon Paulsen ILNDR - Wildlife 

215 North 5th Street, Suite D PO Box 633 Pekin, IL 61554 309.347.5119 bpaulsen@dnrmail.st

Mark Pegg LTRM - Havana 

704 N Schrader Ave Havana, IL 62644 309.543.6000 markpegg@staff.uiuc

Tom Pincher 

Dept of Water Resources

Don Roseboom USGS 

8709 W Johnson Farm Rd Peoria, IL 61607 309.697.5736 roseboom@mtco.com 

Kevin Rund UMIMRA 

IL Farm Bureau 1701 N. Towanda Ave. Bloomington, IL 62702 309.557.3274

Dan Sallee Fisheries Mike Schwar CEMVR-ED-HH 

PO Box 2004 Clock Tower Building Rock Island, IL 61201 309.794.5410 Michael.T.Schwar@m

Bob Shanzell IL DNR 

Illinois D. Natural Resources One Natural Resource Way Springfield, IL 62702 217.785.5500 BSCHANZLE@dnrma

Michelle Simone ILDNR - Heritage 

215 North 5th Street, Suite D PO Box 633 Pekin, IL 61554 msimone@dnrmail.st

Jim Slowikowski IL State Water Survey 

2204 Griffith Dr Champaign, IL 61820-7495 217.244.3820 slow@uiuc.edu

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops DRAFT REPORT
Peoria Workshop (cont.) 

Name Affiliation Address Phone E-mail Ted Staker UMIMRA 

2700 Queenwood Rd., Morton, IL 61550 309.263.7383 tsta@dtnspeed.net

Jeff Stamper CEMVS-ED-DA 

1222 Spruce Street St. Louis, MO 63103-2833 314.331.8226 Jeffrey.L.Stamper@m

Jim Stoeckel Univ of Illinois (LTRM) stoeckel@staff.uiuc.eScott Stuewe IL DNR 

One Natural Resources Way Springfield IL 62702-1271 217.785.8263 Sstuewe@dnrmail.sta

Brad Thompson CEMVR-PM-M 

PO Box 2004 Clock Tower Building Rock Island, IL 61201 309.794.5256 

Randy Timmons ILDNR - Foresty 

AVCC E. Campus Bldy 11 815 N Orlando Smith Avenue Oglesby, IL 61348 rtimmons@dnrmail.st

John Tucker LTRMP - Pool 26 

8450 Montclair Brighton, IL 62012 618.466.9690 jktucker@inhs.uiuc.ed

Dave Varner CEMVR-OD-IV 

Illinois WaterWay Project Office, Foot of Grant Street, Peoria, IL 309.676.4601 David.M.Varner@mv

Mike Wefer ILDNR - Wildlife 

215 North 5th Street, Suite D PO Box 633 Pekin, IL 61554 309.347.5119 mwefer@dnrmail.stat

Clair Wilson UMIMRA 

Wilson Farms 132 Hillview Rd. Winchester, IL 62694 217.742.3918 

Mike Zerbonia CEMVR-OD-IM 

Illinois WaterWay Project Office, Foot of Grant Street, Peoria, IL 309.676.4601 Michael.P.Zerbonia@

Bradley.A.Thompson

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops DRAFT REPORT
Appendix B. Site-Specific Environmental Objectives - Maps 

The following maps display site-specific UMR-IWW environmental objectives identified 

and reviewed by workshop participants. The maps are organized by UMR-IWW 

pool/river reach and display icons representing the objectives. Icon numbers are also 

provided that link the mapped objectives to the tables in Appendix C. These tables 

contain descriptive information about the objectives. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops 

DRAFT REPORT

B-1








































 

 

	 






	



















	






	 	  


	



 






 

!"#$%&

'



 

()*
(

+
(

',-.

/

0
&

!
,

&

/1*2(!*,





































	
 	



	

		







	



	 

























 






	




	


	

	

 












	















	
















 





 


















	




	 








	

	





	











	



































	
 


	



 







 !"#$%

&




'()'

*
'

&+,-

.


/%

 +

%

.
0)1' )+


























	















		





 







	








	

	












	

	





	





	









	

 	











	








	


















	

	



	











	























 !"#$

%





&'(&

)&

%*
+,

-

.$

*

$

-/(0&(*

	

		
 





    1






































	

	



	





 	

 










	

 




















		 	 



 	 	

  


















	

 




	





	
















	

	





 









	






	 











	





	

		

	















	

	
 







	











	

	






 




























 !"#$

%





&'(&

)&

%*
+,

-

.$

*

$

-/(0&(*

	

		
 





    1




















	







	








 



















	

 



	



 




















	

	








	







	















	










	

	

	












	







	

	















	




























 !"#$

%





&'(&

)&

%*
+,

-

.$

*

$

-/(0&(*

	

		
 





	  	  1
























 





















	



 

































	


















	





	



	






















	












 !"#$

%





&'(&

)&

%*
+,

-

.$

*

$

-/(0&(*

	

		
 





    1




























	









	




















	

	


















	






 
































 













 !"#$

%





&'(&

)&

%*
+,

-

.$

*

$

-/(0&(*

	

		
 





   	 1






















	



















	



































	

	







	





	










































































	


















   


	



 







 !"#$%

&




'()'

*
'

&+,-

.


/%

 +

%

.
0)1' )+
























	








	






















 










	

	

	










	

	

	


	








 







 	













		







	



	













	




	

 













	



















		 	

	

	


	












	







	





	



	














 



	

























	



	

































 !"#$

%





&'(&

)&

%*
+,

-

.$

*

$

-/(0&(*

	

		
 





		 1










































		










 

























	












	

		
































































	

	














	

	



	

	

















 


	

	





	

	





	




	


	




 





	























	























 



	





	

	

	























 !"#$

%





&'(&

)&

%*
+,

-

.$

*

$

-/(0&(*

	

		
 





 	   1




































	




	

	









	

	

	









	




	



 
























	


















	





	 





	



 










 



		 	











 


	
















	




		












 





	













	




	

	




	







	







	










































	








	




	













	

	














































 









	

	

	

	
























	

	

	



















 !"#$

%





&'(&

)&

%*
+,

-

.$

*

$

-/(0&(*

	

		
 





 
   1






















	

	







	



	












	





		



















	





 









	

	



 	



 

 	 

	

 














	

	







	



	













  








	

	










 	

	

	







	

	




 



	


			


































	







	











	



	







	 











 





















 !"#$

%





&'(&

)&

%*
+,

-

.$

*

$

-/(0&(*

	

		
 





  
 1


























	



 

















	 










 












	


 



 







	










 

 

 

 





 




	





 





	


 







  



















 !"#$

%





&'(&

)&

%*
+,

-

.$

*

$

-/(0&(*



 1

	



 




























	 


 







	



  






 

  


	









 





 	 


 









	










 













 	 	


	  		 	

	

	 	

	 


















		





















 !"#$

%





&'(&

)&

%*
+,

-

.$

*

$

-/(0&(*




 1

	



 






























	




 



 	



 






 





  



	







 

	

	 	

	

		

	

	


	

	

	

 





	

 



















 !"#$

%





&'(&

)&

%*
+,

-

.$

*

$

-/(0&(*



1

	



 


 

 























 

	



  



 

 







	














 !"#

$





%&'
%

(
%

$)*+

,

-
#


)

#

,.'/%')




0  0  1


	



 










 









	



 




  



 



	






 





 


 

	 





 










  

 	











	

		
 





   	 








 !"#$%

&




'()'

*
'

&+,-

.


/%

 +

%

.
0)1' )+










  













 

	



















 







	
























	





















 !"#$

%





&'(&

)&

%*
+,

-

.$

*

$

-/(0&(*



     1

	



 






























	





 






 







  


	







	







  






 





	 




 































 !"#$

%





&'(&

)&

%*
+,

-

.$

*

$

-/(0&(*



 	    1

	



 


























 

  










	








	











 

 





 



   






 

	





 	




















	

 



















	 





 !"#$

%





&'(&

)&

%*
+,

-

.$

*

$

-/(0&(*



   	 1

	



 














  

  









	









	

	

	

	 




	







	

	




 		 	

	







	



 

	

















	

 




 







 	




 





 





	






 

	 


 





















 !"#$

%





&'(&

)&

%*
+,

-

.$

*

$



     /

	



 












  









	




















	

 














	

 

 






 

 





	

	

	

	

	

	

	

	

	


 	

		





 







	





















 !"#$

%





&'(&

)&

%*
+,

-

.$

*

$



    /

	



 








  









	



	

	


	

	

	 	

		
 	

	

		

	 

	

		

	 

	 

	 	

		 	

	


	

	

	

	

		

	


	 	

	 	 

	 		

	

	 	

	


		

	 

	

	

	 	

	

 	 	

		

		 	

	

	

	 	

		

	

	

		

	


	

	

	

	

		

	 	

		

		

		

	


		

					

		

		


	
 

		

		

	
 	


	


	
  	
	

	


	


	















 !"#$

%





&'(&

)&

%*
+,

-

.$

*

$



     /

	



 












  



 

 	 
















 









	



 



 



  



 
	









 























	






 









 






	




























	
























 
	


















    








 !"#$%

&




'()'

*
'

&+,-

.


/%

 +

%

	



 




























	

  






 

 	












 

 



	









 



 	




  





 



	 	
 	

	

	 	

	

 

	

		
















		

	





 


 




 
 







	















 





	





 	  



 






	

 

















	

		
 









 !"#$

%





&'(&

)&

%*
+,

-

.$

*

$



 	   /






 











 



 











	






	





 























 
	












 



 

	














	

	 	 












 	




 

	

		

		

	



	

	

    







 








 



 





 	 
















	

		
 









 !"#$

%





&'(&

)&

%*
+,

-

.$

*

$  
   /


 





































 



 







	













 

 	



























 



	

 

 

	







	 	

		

	

	

	 	

	


		

 



 




 

 






	



 



	





 

 































	

	









	


 
 	 










 !"#$%

&




'()'

*
'

&+,-

.


/%

 +

%

	



 

















 

 











	















	  

 




 

 

 










 	



 



 

  

 



















    








 !"#$%

&




'()'

*
'

&+,-

.


/%

 +

%

	



 






































 

 

 

	








 







 



	 

 


  

 



 

	

 






 



 






	  

 

 

 

 	

	
 	 	

 



	



 




 	





 

 



	 		

	

	

	

 

 	



	





 











































 	 
  










 !"#$%

&




'()'

*
'

&+,-

.


/%

 +

%

	



 


































 	


	

	 
	



		



			 	




	
 		

	


!	"#
	 $



%


!
 &
	

	



 





























	

		
 	
	




	

	 	
 





	 


 	

 
 !




"

#$%& # #$%& #$& '

























































	

















	










 	

		
 	



	

	 





 








 !
" #

"
"

$
%&"
 '"

(" $"

)
     *
"
























 	 

 













 	  




 













	




	

	 


 


 !!

"#$" %
"

!& '( )
!

* &

+

	



 



  

  





  



  

 





 

   

 	

   



 	 	







 

  





	 
 








 
  


	

	 
 




 !! "#$"

%
" !& '(

)
! *

&

+

	



 

































  

 







  

 



 	

 	






	

	

	

	


 	 	

	 













 




	

	 	

 		 

  








  	




 

 





 

	 



 









 
   


 



	 



   



 





 






 

































 	

	






	

	 





  !!

"#$" %
"

!& '( )
!

*

& +

	



 







































 

 



  

  

	






 

  

  
 	








 





  



 




 
	

	 	 

	

	 	

	

		

	


	



 
  	 

	 

  










 	 

 



  

 

    
  	

  

 





 

  
 	 

 

 

 	


  	  







 

     

































	

		
 	



    




	

	 


 


 !! "#$"

%
"

!& '( )
!

* &

+




 



















































  

 

 

	








 	 

 






 



	

 






 

   	

	 	

	 	

	


		 	

	





 




 







  	






 

 	 

 










 



	 





  









 





 	

		































	




  
  


	

	 


 


 !!

"#$" %
"

!& '( )
!

*

& +

	



 

Appendix C. Site-Specific Environmental Objectives - Tables 

The following tables provide descriptive information for the site-specific UMR-IWW environmental objectives ireviewed by workshop participants. The tables are organized by UMR-IWW pool/river reach. The icon numberlink the descriptive information to the mapped objectives in Appendix B. UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops DRAFT REPORT
Table C1. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 1).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

1 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 

Island develo858-854

2 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other 10 2015 Rapids/Riffle

3 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other 10 2015 Rapids/Riffle

4 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Open Water 5 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland 6 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other 10 2015 Rapids/Riffle

7 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other 10 2015 Rapids/Riffle

8 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other 10 2015 Rapids/Riffle

9 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other 10 2015 Rapids/Riffle

10 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other 10 2015 Rapids/Riffle

11 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other 10 2015 Rapids/Riffle

12 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other 10 2015 Rapids/Riffle

15 Geomorphology Other 10 2015 Restore Rap

18 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other 10 2015 Rapids/Riffle

20 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other 10 2015 Rapids/Riffle

23 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other 10 2015 Rapids/Riffle

30 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other 10 2015 Rapids/Riffle

33 Geomorphology Water Level Main Channel Other

Variable drawvegetation

36 Geomorphology Connectivity Longitudinal 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C2. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 2).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

13 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Contiguous Floodplain 14 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Re

16 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Open Water17 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 19 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 21 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Incsub

22 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Re

24 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Contiguous Floodplain 25 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Contiguous Floodplain 26 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Re

27 Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel 28 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 29 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain31 Water Quality Other

Rephodis

32 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 34 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 35 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 37 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Incsub

38 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island39 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 40 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other 10 2015 Ra

41 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Re

42 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 43 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Contiguous Floodplain 44 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Submersed Aquatics 45 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland46 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 47 Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C2. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 2, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

48 Water Quality Other

Realg

49 Geomorphology Water Level Other

Mothe 

50 Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel 51 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 52 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 53 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Submersed Aquatics 54 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Submersed Aquatics 55 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Submersed Aquatics 56 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Submersed Aquatics 57 Geomorphology Water Level Backwater Areas Se58 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Se59 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 60 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Se61 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 62 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 63 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland 64 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 65 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland 66 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Submersed Aquatics 67 Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel 68 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 69 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Incsub

70 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 71 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland 72 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland 73 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Submersed Aquatics 74 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 75 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Incsub

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C2. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 2, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

76 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland77 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Incsub

78 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Re79 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland80 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Incsub

81 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Re82 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Re83 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Submersed Aquatics 84 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Contiguous Floodplain 85 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 86 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 87 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 88 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 89 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 90 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Incsub

91 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Incsub

92 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 93 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 94 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland 95 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland 96 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Incsub

97 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Incsub

98 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Incsub

99 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 

100 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C2. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 2, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

101 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Contiguous Floodplain 102 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island103 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Re104 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island105 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island106 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Incsub

107 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 108 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Incsub

109 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Re110 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 111 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Re112 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 113 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 114 Geomorphology Water Level Main Channel Other

Vares

115 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 116 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 117 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 118 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Incsub

119 Geomorphology Connectivity Longitudinal 120 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 123 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C3. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 3).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

121 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest122 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increaaquat

124 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 125 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other Sand/

126 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Resto127 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 128 Plants and Animals Other 

Limit nspecie

129 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain 130 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain 131 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland 132 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 133 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland 134 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest 135 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland 136 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 137 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest 138 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain 

Fish pthroug

139 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland 140 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain 141 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest 142 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland 143 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland 144 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Delta, delta f

145 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain 146 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increaaquat

147 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C3. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 3, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

148 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increaaquat

149 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland 150 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 151 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland 152 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 153 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Isolated Backwater Wetla154 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Resto155 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 156 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other Sand/157 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 158 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increaaquat

159 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Resto160 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 161 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island162 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other Sand/163 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 164 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland 165 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland 166 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 167 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other Sand/168 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other

Delta, delta f

169 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 170 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland 171 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island172 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increaaquat

173 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 174 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 175 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other Sand/

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C3. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 3, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

176 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island177 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Resto178 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland 179 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increaaquat

180 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 181 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland 182 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain 183 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 184 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland 185 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland 186 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland 187 Water Quality Other Reduc188 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain 

For MGattin

189 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland 190 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increaaquat

191 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 192 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 193 Plants and Animals Other Invasi194 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland 195 Geomorphology Water Level Main Channel Other

Variabrestor

196 Geomorphology Connectivity Longitudinal 197 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C4. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 4).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

198 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas

199 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain200 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas201 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other

Dd

202 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m In 

203 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics204 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest205 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain U

206 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel207 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Is208 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas209 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Insu

210 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m In 

211 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Insu

212 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain U

213 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Is214 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics215 Geomorphology Water Level Backwater Areas216 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island217 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas218 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland R219 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island220 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics221 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m In 

222 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland R223 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain U

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C4. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 4, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

224 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island225 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island226 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Is227 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island228 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m In 

229 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Is230 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Is231 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other

Dd

232 Water Quality Other 

RMp

233 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Is234 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island235 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Impounded Area236 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Insu

237 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m In 

238 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other

Dd

239 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas240 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Is241 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other

Dd

242 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel243 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Is244 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics245 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland R246 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel247 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C4. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 4, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

248 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other S249 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m In 

250 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas251 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other

Dd

252 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Is253 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other S

254 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics255 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island256 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Is257 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island258 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other S259 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel260 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest261 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Is262 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other S263 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas264 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics265 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m In 

266 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest267 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland R268 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics269 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Is270 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel271 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest272 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Is273 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas274 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island275 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest276 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C4. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 4, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

277 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest278 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Is279 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland280 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island281 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Is282 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics283 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas284 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest285 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m In 

286 Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel287 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m In 

288 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas289 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics290 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other

Dd

291 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas292 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland293 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island294 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Insu

295 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m In 

296 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest297 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Is298 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Is299 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Is300 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Insu

301 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas302 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C4. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 4, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

303 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics304 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain305 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain306 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Impounded Area307 Geomorphology Water Level Main Channel Other

Vre

308 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m In 

309 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Is310 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest311 Geomorphology Connectivity Longitudinal312 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C5. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 5).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

313 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 314 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland315 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m 

316 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas317 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain318 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland319 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain320 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas321 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland322 Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel323 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland324 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest325 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas326 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland327 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m 

328 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas329 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 330 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m 

331 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest332 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain333 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest334 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas335 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland336 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland337 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m 

338 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest339 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk

transparency 1.5 m 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C5. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 5, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

340 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics341 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas342 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

343 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas344 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island345 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland 346 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel347 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 348 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics349 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest350 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island351 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland 352 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain353 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland354 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m 

355 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island356 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island357 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas358 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m 

359 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics360 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest361 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics362 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 363 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 364 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas365 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 366 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C5. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 5, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

367 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest368 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland369 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m 

370 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics371 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Impounded Area372 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island373 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island374 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island375 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest376 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics377 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas378 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 379 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island380 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m

381 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland 382 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island383 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics384 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics385 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other387 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Impounded Area388 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island389 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C5. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 5, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

390 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other

391 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Isolated Backwater 392 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics393 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island394 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other396 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics398 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island401 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Submersed Aquatics402 Water Quality Water Clarity Main Channel

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m 

403 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics404 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island406 Geomorphology Water Level Main Channel Other407 Geomorphology Connectivity Longitudinal

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C6. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 5a).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

386 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland395 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest397 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland399 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas400 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain405 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest408 Other Other L409 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m I

410 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island I411 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas412 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas413 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest414 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel415 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest416 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m I

417 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas418 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas419 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m I

420 Other Other L421 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest422 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island I423 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas424 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m I

425 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas426 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m I

427 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics428 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C6. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 5a, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

429 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest430 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island I431 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland R432 Other Other L433 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Is

434 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Secchi disk I435 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island436 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest437 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Impounded Area438 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain439 Geomorphology Water Level Main Channel Other

Vt

440 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Is

441 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics442 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland R443 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Is

444 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island445 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Isolated Backwater W446 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m I

447 Geomorphology Connectivity Longitudinal448 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C7. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 6).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

449 Other Other L450 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas451 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m In 

452 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas453 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland454 Geomorphology Water Level Backwater Areas455 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics456 Geomorphology Water Level Backwater Areas457 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics458 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain U

459 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m In 

460 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain U

461 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas462 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain463 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain464 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Is465 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics466 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island467 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m In 

468 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas469 Geomorphology Water Level Backwater Areas470 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland R471 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics472 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island473 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain U

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C7. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 6, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

474 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas475 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island476 Other Other L477 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Is478 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas479 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas480 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m In 

481 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas482 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Is483 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain484 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel485 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics486 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island487 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas488 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m In 

489 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m In 

490 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas491 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics492 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island493 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other

Da

494 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Is495 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island496 Geomorphology Water Level Main Channel Other

Vr

497 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Ins

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C7. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 6, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

498 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m In 

499 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island500 Geomorphology Connectivity Longitudinal501 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C8. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 7).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Dat

502 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 503 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest504 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 201

505 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain506 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 507 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas508 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 509 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas510 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland511 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest512 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest513 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 514 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 201

515 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics516 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas517 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest518 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain519 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain520 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest521 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 522 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel523 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest524 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other525 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland526 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C8. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 7, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Dat

527 Water Quality Water Clarity Main Channel

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m All Year 10 201

528 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas529 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest530 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland531 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest532 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain533 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland534 Geomorphology Water Level Backwater Areas535 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 536 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 537 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m All Year 10 201

538 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain539 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 201

540 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas541 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics542 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 543 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island544 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 201

545 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland 546 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas547 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 548 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C8. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 7, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Dat

549 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other550 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 201

551 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Submersed Aquatics552 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest553 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

554 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 555 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas556 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Impounded Area557 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 558 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel559 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas560 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 561 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 562 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics563 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 201

564 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island565 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics566 Water Quality Water Clarity Main Channel

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m All Year 10 201

567 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island568 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas569 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Other570 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest571 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Submersed Aquatics572 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C8. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 7, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Dat

573 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 574 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics575 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 578 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 201

580 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 581 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Impounded Area582 Geomorphology Water Level Main Channel Other

583 Geomorphology Connectivity Longitudinal

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C9. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 8).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Dat

576 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas577 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 201

579 Other Other 

584 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 585 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas586 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 201

587 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 588 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas589 Other Other 

590 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 591 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas592 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas593 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 201

594 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 201

595 Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel596 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas597 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 201

598 Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel599 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 600 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas601 Other Other

602 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 201

603 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C9. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 8, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Dat

604 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 605 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas606 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain607 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland608 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 201

609 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 201

610 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland

611 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 612 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 613 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island614 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas615 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland616 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest617 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other

618 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland

619 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 620 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 201

621 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas622 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas623 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island624 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 201

625 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C9. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 8, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Dat

626 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m All Year 10 201

627 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest628 Water Quality Water Clarity Main Channel

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m All Year 10 201

629 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain630 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 201

631 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 632 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 201

633 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas634 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas635 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 636 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest637 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest638 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 201

639 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 640 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland

641 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 642 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 201

643 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest644 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 645 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas646 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest647 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C9. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 8, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Dat

648 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland

649 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics650 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island651 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics652 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 653 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 201

654 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest655 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island656 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island657 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics658 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 201

659 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas660 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland

661 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

662 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest663 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest664 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other

665 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 201

666 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas667 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

668 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland

669 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island670 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C9. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 8, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Dat

671 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

672 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas673 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 201

674 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland

675 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island676 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas677 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics678 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other 

679 Other Other

680 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island681 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 201

682 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest683 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island684 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 685 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 201

686 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

687 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island688 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other

689 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland

690 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other 

691 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island692 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C9. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 8, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Dat

693 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas694 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

695 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island696 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics697 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island698 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

699 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island700 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other 

701 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas702 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 201

703 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

704 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 201

705 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Impounded Area706 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island707 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island708 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Submersed Aquatics709 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

710 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 201

711 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island712 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

713 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Submersed Aquatics714 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Submersed Aquatics

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C9. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 8, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Dat

716 Geomorphology Water Level Main Channel Other

717 Geomorphology Connectivity Longitudinal

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C10. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 9).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Dat

715 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest718 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest719 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain720 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 721 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 722 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Submersed Aquatics723 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas724 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 201

725 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest726 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 727 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other 

728 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 729 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 201

730 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 201

731 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas732 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas733 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest734 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 201

735 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas736 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland737 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 

738 Geomorphology Water Level Backwater Areas 739 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 740 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics741 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 201

742 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas743 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Submersed Aquatics

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C10. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 9, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Dat

744 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 745 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain746 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas747 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 201

748 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest749 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas750 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island751 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest752 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas753 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 754 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 201

755 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 756 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

757 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics758 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 201

759 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 760 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 201

761 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas762 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 

763 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland764 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 765 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 766 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 767 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C10. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 9, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Dat

768 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 201

769 Water Quality Water Clarity Main Channel

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m All Year 10 201

770 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 201

771 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas772 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 201

773 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas774 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m All Year 10 201

775 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics776 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics777 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas778 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 201

779 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas780 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 201

781 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics782 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island783 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other784 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 201

785 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas786 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C10. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 9, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Dat

787 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics788 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland 789 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland 790 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas791 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics792 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 793 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 794 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics795 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 201

796 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Isolated Backwater 797 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas798 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island799 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland 800 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island801 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics802 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 

803 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 804 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics805 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other806 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C10. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 9, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Dat

807 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 201

808 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland809 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other810 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 201

811 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 

812 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics813 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island814 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 201

815 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island816 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas817 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland 818 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics819 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Submersed Aquatics820 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island821 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland822 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics823 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 824 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C10. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 9, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Dat

825 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 201

826 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 201

827 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island828 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics829 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas830 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other831 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 832 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 833 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island834 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 835 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 201

836 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 837 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 838 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland839 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics840 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island841 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other842 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 843 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 844 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C10. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 9, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Dat

845 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 846 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 847 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 848 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics849 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland850 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 201

851 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 852 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Submersed Aquatics 853 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 854 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 201

855 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics858 Geomorphology Water Level Main Channel Other860 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island861 Geomorphology Connectivity Longitudinal

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C11. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 10).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Da

856 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas857 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m 

859 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas862 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas863 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest864 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel865 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 866 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas867 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 868 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m

869 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas870 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m

871 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest872 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island873 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 874 Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel875 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest876 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m

877 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas878 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas879 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest880 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 881 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas882 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m

883 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas884 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other 885 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C11. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 10, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Da

886 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel887 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 888 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m

889 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas890 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas891 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m

892 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Isolated Backwater 893 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Submersed Aquatics894 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island895 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island896 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m

897 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland898 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas899 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 900 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island901 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island902 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland903 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island904 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland905 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest906 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m

907 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas908 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m

909 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C11. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 10, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Da

910 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas911 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m

912 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 913 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland914 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m

915 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island916 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas917 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas918 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 919 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel920 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island921 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas922 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain923 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 924 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel925 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas926 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m

927 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 928 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 929 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island930 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m

931 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other 932 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas933 Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel934 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 935 Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C11. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 10, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Da

936 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m

937 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel938 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics939 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 940 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas941 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel942 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland943 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island944 Water Quality Other All Year 10 

945 Other Other946 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas947 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Tertiary Channel948 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m

949 Water Quality Water Clarity Main Channel

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Summer

950 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland951 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island952 Other Other953 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas954 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C11. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 10, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Da

955 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest956 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain957 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m

958 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas959 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island960 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland961 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 962 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other 963 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island964 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas965 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas966 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest967 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m

968 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics969 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 970 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas971 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island972 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland973 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel974 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 975 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m

976 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas977 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas978 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Submersed Aquatics979 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m

980 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C11. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 10, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Da

981 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland982 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 983 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m

984 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas985 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas986 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m

987 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 988 Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel989 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 990 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel991 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island992 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas993 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other994 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m

995 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island996 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 997 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland998 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 999 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island

1000 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m

1001 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m

1002 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas1003 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas1004 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C11. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 10, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Da

1005 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island1006 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island1007 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas1008 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m

1009 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 1010 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island1011 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 1012 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland1013 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas1014 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m

1015 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland1016 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 1017 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island1018 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m

1019 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain1020 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas1021 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island1022 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m

1023 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas1024 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 1025 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island1026 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland1027 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island1028 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island1029 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Isolated Backwater 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C11. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 10, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Da

1030 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 1031 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland1032 Geomorphology Water Level Main Channel Other

Sum. & Win. 5 20

1034 Geomorphology Connectivity Longitudinal

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C12. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 11).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

1033 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain

1035 Geomorphology Water Level Backwater Areas1036 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics1037 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m Summer 10 2010

1038 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 1039 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel1040 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas1041 Other Other

1042 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m Summer 10 2010

1043 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas1044 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel1045 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 1046 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas1047 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel1048 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m Summer 10 2010

1049 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas1050 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel1051 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel1052 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m Summer 10 2010

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C12. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 11, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

1053 Water Quality Water Clarity Main Channel

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Summer 10 2010

1054 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 1055 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 1056 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 1057 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m Summer 10 2010

1058 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel1059 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest1060 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas1061 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas1062 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Impounded Area1063 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 1064 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland1065 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland1066 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics1067 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel1068 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island1069 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 1070 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics1071 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain1072 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland 1073 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas1074 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas1075 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island1076 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m Summer 10 2025

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C12. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 11, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

1077 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas1078 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m Summer 10 2025

1079 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m Summer 10 2025

1080 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 1081 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas1082 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m Summer 10 2025

1083 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other 1084 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas1085 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 1086 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island1087 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 1088 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island1089 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland 

1090 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas1091 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics1092 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics1093 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other

1094 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island1095 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island1096 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 1097 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m Summer 10 2025

1098 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C12. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 11, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

1099 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 1100 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m Summer 10 2025

1101 Water Quality Other All Year 10 0

1102 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas1103 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas1104 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland 1105 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m Summer 10 2025

1106 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 1107 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics1108 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island1109 Water Quality Water Clarity Main Channel

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Summer

1110 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest1111 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island1112 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

1113 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other

1114 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 1115 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 1116 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island1117 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C12. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 11, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

1118 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island1119 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island1120 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m Summer 10 2025

1121 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island1122 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

1123 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island1124 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland 1125 Water Quality Water Clarity Main Channel

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Summer 10 2025

1126 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island1127 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel1128 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics1129 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island1130 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other 1131 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Impounded Area1132 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island1133 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics1134 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other 1135 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas1136 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

1137 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m Summer 10 2025

1138 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other 1139 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C12. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 11, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

1140 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics1141 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other 1142 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland 1143 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics1144 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island1145 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas1146 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m Summer 10 2025

1147 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Impounded Area1148 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics1149 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island1150 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas1151 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics1152 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other

1153 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics1154 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics1155 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island1156 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas1157 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

1158 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m Summer 10 2025

1159 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Impounded Area1160 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island1161 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland 1162 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 1163 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C12. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 11, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

1164 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m Summer 10 2025

1165 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Impounded Area1166 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

1167 Geomorphology Water Level Main Channel Other

Sum. & Win. 5 2005

1168 Geomorphology Connectivity Longitudinal

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C13. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 12).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

1169 Geomorphology Connectivity Longitudinal

40% chance of fish passage

Spr. + Fall 7 2010 

1170 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring 5

1171 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

1172 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 2010

1173 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel

1174 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

1175 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring 5

1176 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 2010

1177 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other

1178 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

1179 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 2 - 3 m Winter 10 2010

1180 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring 5

1181 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 2010

1182 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

1183 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring 5

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C13. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 12, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

1184 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island

1185 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 2010

1186 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

1187 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

1188 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 2007

1189 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring 5

1190 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring 5

1191 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island

1192 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 2010

1193 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

1194 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 2010

1195 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring 5

1196 Plants and Animals Fish

Protected Fish Species

1197 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 2010

1198 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas

Contiguous Floodplain 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C13. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 12, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

1199 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain

100% inundation during 10 year flood 1 2007

1200 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest

1201 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Contiguous Floodplai

1202 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 2007

1203 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

1204 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring 5

1205 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Contiguous Floodplai

1206 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

1207 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 2007

1208 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring 5

1209 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other 2007

1210 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Contiguous Floodplai 2007

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C13. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 12, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

1211 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 2 - 3 m Winter 10 2007

1212 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

1213 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring 5

1214 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Tertiary Channel 2009

1215 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring 5

1216 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 2006

1217 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 2 - 3 m Winter 9 20141218 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

1219 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

1220 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 2014

1221 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 2010 1222 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring 5

1223 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 2 - 3 m Winter 9 2014

1224 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring 5

1225 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

1226 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Impounded Area 2010

1227 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 2010 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C13. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 12, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

1228 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 2010

1229 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 2010 1230 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 2010

1231 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring 5

1232 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

1233 Geomorphology Water Level Main Channel

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C14. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 13).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

1234 Geomorphology Connectivity Longitudinal

40% chance of fish passage

Spr. + Fall 7 2010 S

1235 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 2011

5w

1236 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 2014 Is

1237 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring 5

D

J

1238 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 20101239 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Ins

1240 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 2014 Is

1241 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 2014 Is

1242 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 2015

5s

1243 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 2015 R

1244 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring 5

D

J

1245 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 20101246 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Ins

1247 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 20101248 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring 5

DJ

1249 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

InsP

1250 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 2015

5w

1251 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 2015 R

1252 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other 2015 R

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C14. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 13, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

1253 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas

Contiguous Floodplain 2015

InRe

1254 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 2015 5

1255 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas

Contiguous Floodplain 2015

InR

1256 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Ins

1257 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 2010 H

1258 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring 5

D

J

1259 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring 5

DJ

1260 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Ins

1261 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Tertiary Channel 2015 5

1262 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 20101263 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 2010

Mr

1264 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring 5

D

J

1265 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Ins

1266 Plants and Animals Fish

Protected Fish Species 

R1

1267 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 20101268 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Ins

1269 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk

transparency 1.0 m Spring 5

DJ

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C14. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 13, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

1270 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 2010

1271 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 2015 R

1272 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics M

1273 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring 5

D

J

1274 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Ins

1275 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 20101276 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 20101277 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 2015 R

1278 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring 5

D

J

1279 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Ins

1280 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Ins

1281 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 20101282 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring 5

DJ

1283 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 2015 Is

1284 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain

100% floodplain area inundated during 10 year flood M

1285 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 2015 R

1286 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring 5

D

J

1287 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 20101288 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Ins

1289 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 2015

Isfo2 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C14. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 13, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

1290 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Da

1291 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring 5

D

J

1292 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 2015

Isfo2 

1293 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 2 - 3 m Winter 10 20101294 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Ins

1295 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other

Da

1296 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island C1297 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Ins

1298 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring 5

D

J

1299 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring 5

DJ

1300 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 2010

MH

1301 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island C1302 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Ins

1303 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Impounded Area 2014 5

1304 Geomorphology Water Level Main Channel 

Vto 

1305 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Impounded Area 2014 5

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C15. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 14).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

1306 Geomorphology Connectivity Longitudinal

80% chance of fish passage

Spr. + Fall 7 2010

1307 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring 5

J

1308 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 2010

1309 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 20101310 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring 5

J

1311 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

1312 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 1313 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 2020

w

1314 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 2020

w

1315 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 2010

1316 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring 5

J

1317 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

1318 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring 5

J

1319 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

1320 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 20101321 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 20101322 Water Quality Other

t

1323 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring 5

J

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C15. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 14, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

1324 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

1325 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 2020

1326 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 20101327 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring 5

J

1328 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 20201329 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

1330 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 2020

1331 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 2020

1332 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 2010

1333 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

w

1334 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring 5

J

1335 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 2020

1336 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 1337 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 2020

w

1338 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island

1339 Plants and Animals Fish

Protected Fish Species

1340 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 2020

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C15. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 14, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

1341 Water Quality Other

f

1342 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain 

1343 Water Quality Other

1344 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 1345 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas

Contiguous Floodplain 2020

1346 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring 5

J

1347 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 2020

1348 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring 5

J

1349 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 2020

1350 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 1351 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 2010

1352 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring 5

J

1353 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 2020

1354 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 1355 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Impounded Area 2005

w

1356 Geomorphology Water Level Main Channel 

Vt

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C16. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 15).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

1357 Geomorphology Connectivity Longitudinal

80% chance of fish passage Spring 10 2005

1358 Water Quality Other

1359 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 2005 

1360 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 20051361 Plants and Animals Fish Protected Fish Species 

1362 Water Quality Other

1363 Geomorphology Water Level Main Channel

1365 Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel 60-80% of year Winter 10 20051366 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 20051367 Water Quality Other

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C17. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 16).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

1364 Geomorphology Connectivity Longitudinal

80% chance of fish passage Winter 10 2005

1368 Other Other

Examon sid

1369 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other

Deltadelta 

1370 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Other 2025

40% osecon

1371 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Other 2010

Increaaquatidentif

1372 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Other Winter 10 2020

10% oare de

1373 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 1374 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Deltadelta 

1375 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain 2020 Conn

1376 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Other 2010

Increaaquatidentif

1377 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 1378 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Other Winter 10 2020

10% oare de

1379 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Other 2010

Increaaquatidentif

1380 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other Riffle/1381 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Other Winter 10 2020

10% oare de

1382 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C17. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 16, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

1383 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Other 2010

Increaaquatidentif

1384 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other Riffle/

1385 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Other 2025

40% osecon

1386 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 

Fleetihabita

1387 Water Quality Water Clarity Main Channel 

Resusfleetinrequir

1388 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Tertiary Channel 1389 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 1390 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Other 2010

Increaaquatidentif

1391 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Other 2010

Increaaquatidentif

1392 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas

50% of area 1 - 2 m All Year 8 2020 Patte

1393 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Other Winter 10 2020

10% oare de

1394 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 1395 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest

Loss erosio

1396 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Tertiary Channel 1397 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Other 2025

40% osecon

1398 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 1399 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other Riffle/

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C17. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 16, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

1400 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Other 2010

Increaaquatidentif

1401 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Other Winter 10 2020

10% oare de

1402 Geomorphology Water Level Main Channel 

Variabrestor

1403 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other Riffle/1405 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Impounded Area 1406 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Other 2010

Increaaquatidentif

1407 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 1408 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Other Winter 10 2020

10% o

are de

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C18. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 17).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

1404 Geomorphology Connectivity Longitudinal 1409 Water Quality Other

Waterunof

1410 Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel 

Restoimpro

1411 Water Quality Other 

Watefrom 

1412 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other Riffle1413 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other Riffle1414 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other Resto

1415 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland

Proteprairi

1416 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Other 2025

28% seco

1417 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 1418 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Other Winter 10 2020

10% are d

1419 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Other 2010

Increaquaident

1420 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Other 2025

28% seco

1421 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Agriculture 1422 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Other 2025

28% seco

1423 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 1424 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Other Winter 10 2020

10% 

are d

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C18. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 17, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

1425 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Other 2010

Increaquaident

1426 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Other Winter 10 2020

10% are d

1427 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 1428 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Other 2010

Increaquaident

1429 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Other Winter 10 2020

10% are d

1430 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Other 2010

Increaquaident

1431 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other Main1432 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Other 2010

Increaquaident

1433 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 1434 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Other 2010

Increaquaident

1435 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Other Winter 10 2020

10% are d

1436 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C18. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 17, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

1437 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain 2020

Restolake, qualit

1439 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Agriculture 1440 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 1441 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Other Winter 10 2020

10% are d

1442 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Other 2010

Increaquaident

1444 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest1445 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 1446 Geomorphology Water Level Main Channel 

Variaresto

1448 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Other Winter 10 2020

10% are d

1449 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain 2020

Restowetla

1450 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Other 2010

Increaquaident

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C19. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 18).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

1438 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain 2020 See 

1443 Plants and Animals Fish Other

CreSee 

1447 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island See 1451 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas1452 Geomorphology Connectivity Longitudinal1453 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Other Winter 10 2020

10% are See 

1454 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Other 2010

Incraquiden

1455 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Other 2025

26% sec

1456 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas1457 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas

50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 2020

1458 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Other 2010

Incraquiden

1459 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain All Year 10 2005

Resdep

1460 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Other 2025

26% sec

1461 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other

Reshab

1462 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other

Deldelt

1463 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Other 2025

26% sec

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C19. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 18, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

1464 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other

Deldelt

1465 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas1466 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Other Winter 10 2020

10% are 

1467 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Other 2010

Incraquiden

1468 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain 2020 Isol

1469 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Incr

1470 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other Riff1471 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Other 2025

26% sec

1472 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other Riff1473 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas

50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 2020

1474 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island

IncrSee 

1475 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas1476 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Other 2010

Incraquiden

1477 Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel All Year 10 2005

Resma

1478 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland 10-20% of area

ResYelRM 

1479 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Other 2025

26% sec

1480 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest See 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C19. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 18, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

1481 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island

IncrSee 

1482 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas1483 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel1484 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Other Winter 10 2020

10% are See 

1485 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Other 2010

Incraquiden

1486 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas1487 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Other Winter 10 2020

10% are 

1488 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Other 2010

Incraquiden

1489 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Other 2010

Incraquiden

1490 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas1491 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Other Winter 10 2020

10% are 

1492 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas

50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 2020

1493 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas1494 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Other 2010

Incraquiden

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C19. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 18, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

1495 Geomorphology Connectivity Other All Year 10 2005

Resare

1496 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island1497 Geomorphology Water Level Main Channel

Varrest

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C20. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 19).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

1498 Geomorphology Connectivity Longitudinal1499 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Other 2010

Increaquaident

1500 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Other Winter 10 2020

10% are d

1501 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas1502 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Other 2010

Increaquaident

1503 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Other Winter 10 2020

10% are d

1504 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas1505 Other Other Targ

1506 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas RM 31507 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Other 2015

Increaquapool 16-1

1508 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas

50% of area 2 - 3 m All Year 10 2015 RM 3

1509 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Other 2010

Increaquaident

1510 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest 2015

Agric

RM 3

1511 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Other 2010

Increaquaident

1512 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Other Winter 10 2020

10% 

are d

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C20. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 19, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

1513 Other Other

TargBlacman

1514 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas1515 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Other 2010

Increaquaident

1516 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Other Winter 10 2020

10% are d

1517 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas1518 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other Rest

1519 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain 2020 Leve

1520 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Other 2025

13% seco

1521 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other

Deltadelta 

1522 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Other 2025

13% seco

1523 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas1524 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Other Winter 10 2020

10% are d

1525 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Other 2010

Increaquaident

1526 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other Riffle1527 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Other Winter 10 2020

10% are d

1528 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island1529 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas1530 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Other 2010

Incre

aquaident

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C20. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 19, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

1531 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Other Winter 10 2020

10% are d

1532 Water Quality Other Wate1533 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel1534 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas1535 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Other Winter 10 2020

10% are d

1536 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Other 2010

Increaquaident

1537 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Impounded Area1538 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Other 2010

Increaquaident

1539 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other

Deltadelta 

1540 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 2015

50 aflats

1541 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island1542 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Impounded Area1543 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other

Deltadelta 

1544 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other

Deltadelta 

1545 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other

Deltadelta 

1546 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other

Deltadelta 

1547 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other

Deltadelta 

1548 Geomorphology Water Level Main Channel

Variaresto

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C21. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 20).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

1549 Geomorphology Connectivity Longitudinal 1550 Water Quality Other Stor1551 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 1552 Water Quality Water Clarity Other 

ResDes reduMiss

1553 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Islan1554 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 1555 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 1556 Other Other Targ1557 Other Other 

Targhab

1558 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Other 2050

10-2of fo

1559 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 1560 Other Other Rem1561 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 1562 Other Other Pub1563 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Other 2050

10-2of fo

1564 Other Other Targ1565 Other Other Imp1566 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Other 2010

10-2of g

1567 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 1568 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Incraqu

1569 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 1570 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 1571 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Islan

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C21. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 20, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

1572 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Other 2050

10-2of fo

1573 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Other

Resseco

1574 Other Other Targ

1575 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 1576 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 1577 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Incraqu

1578 Other Other Pub

1579 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

Mainseco

1580 Other Other Targ

1581 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other Res

1582 Other Other Targ

1583 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Other Rec1584 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 1585 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Incraqu

1586 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 1587 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 1588 Other Other Targ1589 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 1590 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Other 2050

10-2of fo

1591 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 1592 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 1593 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Other 2050

10-2of fo

1594 Other Other Targ1595 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C21. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 20, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

1596 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Incraqu

1597 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 1598 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 1599 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Other 2050

10-2of fo

1600 Other Other Targ

1601 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 1602 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 1603 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 1604 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Submersed Aquatics 1605 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Incraqu

1606 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 1607 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 1608 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 1609 Other Other Targ

1610 Geomorphology Water Level Backwater Areas 1611 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 1612 Other Other Targ

1613 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 1614 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Other 2050

10-2of fo

1615 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other

ResRun

1616 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 1617 Other Other Targ

1618 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 1619 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Incraqu

1620 Other Other Targ

1621 Plants and Animals Other Hist

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C21. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 20, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

1622 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 1623 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 1624 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 1625 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Submersed Aquatics 

Resvege

1626 Other Other Floo1627 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Impounded Area 1628 Geomorphology Water Level Main Channel 

Varirest

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C22. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 21).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

1629 Geomorphology Connectivity Longitudinal 1630 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other

Deltdelt

1631 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other

Deltdelt

1632 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 1633 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain 1634 Other Other Tar1635 Other Other Tar1636 Water Quality Water Clarity Other 

RedCre

1637 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

HarHR

1638 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Incraqu

1639 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain 

Lancorr

1640 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 1641 Plants and Animals Other 

ResHab

1642 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 1643 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pro1644 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel See 1645 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Incraqu

1646 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 1647 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas See 1648 Water Quality Water Clarity Other 

RedWya

1649 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Other 2050

10-2of foGar

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C22. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 21, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

1650 Other Other Imp1651 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel See 1652 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain 1653 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Deltdelt

1654 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Incraqu

1655 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Other 2050

10-2of foGar

1656 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas See 1657 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 1658 Pattern of Habitats Other 

Inverest

1659 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Wet1660 Plants and Animals Other 

ResHab

1661 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain 1662 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain 1663 Other Other Tar1664 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 1665 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Incraqu

1666 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 1667 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain 1668 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain 1669 Water Quality Other Red1670 Other Other Lan1671 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 1672 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Incraqu

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C22. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 21, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

1673 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 1674 Plants and Animals Other 

ResHab

1675 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 1676 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 1677 Geomorphology Connectivity Other Clo1678 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Incraqu

1679 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Cre1680 Plants and Animals Other 

ResHab

1681 Plants and Animals Other 

ResHab

1682 Water Quality Other Red1683 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Isla1684 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Isla1685 Plants and Animals Other 

ResHab

1686 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 1687 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 1688 Geomorphology Water Level Main Channel 

Varrest

1689 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Incraqu

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C23. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 22).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Dat

1690 Geomorphology Connectivity Other 

1691 Geomorphology Connectivity Longitudinal 1692 Water Quality Other 1693 Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel 1694 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 1695 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Other 20501696 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain 1697 Other Other 1698 Other Other 1699 Water Quality Other 1700 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 1701 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 1702 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 1703 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 1704 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 1705 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Other 20501706 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 1707 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Other 20501708 Water Quality Other 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C23. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 22, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Dat

1709 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Other 2050

1710 Other Other 1711 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 1712 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 1713 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 1714 Other Other 1715 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 1716 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain 

1717 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 1718 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 2 - 3 m1719 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 1720 Water Quality Other 1721 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 1722 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 1723 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Other 20501724 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 1725 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 1726 Other Other 1727 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 1728 Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel 1729 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 1730 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Other 2050

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C23. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 22, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Dat

1731 Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel 1732 Other Other 1733 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 1734 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Isolated Backwater 1735 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 1736 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 1737 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 1738 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 1739 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Other 20501740 Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel 1741 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Other 20501742 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 1743 Other Other 1744 Other Other 1745 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 1746 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Other 20501747 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 1748 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 1749 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Contiguous Backwater 1750 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain 1751 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other 1752 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C23. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 22, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Dat

1753 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 1754 Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel 1755 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 1756 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 1757 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 1758 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 1759 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 1760 Other Other 1761 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 1762 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 1763 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 1764 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 1765 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Contiguous Backwater 1766 Water Quality Other 1767 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 1768 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 1769 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 1770 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Other 20501771 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 1772 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 1773 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 1774 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C23. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 22, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Dat

1775 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Contiguous Backwater 1776 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Other 20101777 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 1778 Other Other 1779 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 1780 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 1781 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 1782 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 1783 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 1784 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 1785 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 1786 Geomorphology Water Level Main Channel 1787 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 1788 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 1789 Water Quality Other 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C24. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 24).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

1790 Geomorphology Connectivity Longitudinal

100% chance of fish passage

1791 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas1792 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 2 - 3 m All Year 10 S

1793 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Is

1794 Geomorphology Connectivity Other 10

BI

1795 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel >60% of area N

1796 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other D1797 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other M

1798 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other D1799 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel1800 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel >60% of area1801 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 2 - 3 m1802 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas1803 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas1804 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Is

1805 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel I1806 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas1807 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas1808 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas1809 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Is

1810 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 2 - 3 m1811 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island1812 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain

Ib

1813 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel

Nb

1814 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel M

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C24. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 24, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

1815 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas1816 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas I1817 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Is

1818 Pattern of Habitats Other

IA

1819 Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel

SH

1820 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics1821 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest1822 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain1823 Pattern of Habitats Other

RwR

1824 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel

SH

1825 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas

SH

1826 Geomorphology Connectivity Other

Cc

1827 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other D1828 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island1829 Pattern of Habitats Other

It

1830 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain L1831 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas1832 Geomorphology Connectivity Other C

1833 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 2 - 3 m

Dc

1834 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Is

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C24. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 24, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

1835 Plants and Animals Other

Mp

1836 Geomorphology Connectivity Other C

1837 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Is

1838 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 2 - 3 m

Dc

1839 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas1840 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas1841 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas1842 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Is

1843 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas1844 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas D1846 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Is

1847 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island1848 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas1849 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel N1850 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 2 - 3 m

Is

1851 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest

Ih

1852 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Is

1853 Geomorphology Water Level Main Channel

Pm

1854 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas1855 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Is

1856 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas

Ci

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C25. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 25).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

1845 Geomorphology Other 

1857 Geomorphology Connectivity Longitudinal

100% chance of fish passage Spring

1858 Other Other

1859 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 2 - 3 m

1860 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas1861 Geomorphology Connectivity Other 1862 Geomorphology Other 

1863 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest

1864 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

1865 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas1866 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas1867 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel

1868 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain

1869 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel

1870 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

1871 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel

1872 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas1873 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C25. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 25, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

1874 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas1875 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas1876 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

1877 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas1878 Pattern of Habitats Other 

1879 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel

1880 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel

1881 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest 1882 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel1883 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel

1884 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain

1885 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 2 - 3 m 1886 Pattern of Habitats Other 

1887 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas1888 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

1889 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other

1890 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C25. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 25, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

1891 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Other

1892 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 2 - 3 m

1893 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas1894 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel

1895 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

1896 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest

1897 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 2 - 3 m 1898 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas1899 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

1900 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain1901 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Other

1902 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 1903 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest

1904 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas1905 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 2 - 3 m 1906 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Tertiary Channel 20-40% of area

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C25. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 25, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

1907 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

1908 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas1909 Geomorphology Connectivity Other

1910 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 2 - 3 m 1911 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

1912 Geomorphology Connectivity Other

1913 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel

1914 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain 1915 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain

1916 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas1917 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 1918 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 1919 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

1920 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas1921 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 2 - 3 m 1922 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain1923 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel1924 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

1925 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C25. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 25, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

1926 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 2011927 Water Quality Water Clarity Main Channel1928 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas1929 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas1930 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 1931 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas1932 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

1933 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

1934 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

1935 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas1936 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 1937 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas1938 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

1939 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 2 - 3 m 1940 Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel1941 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 1942 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

1943 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas1944 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas1945 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

1946 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas1947 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C25. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 25, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

1948 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 1949 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 2 - 3 m 1950 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

1951 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas1952 Geomorphology Connectivity Other

1953 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 1954 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

1955 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Contiguous Backwater 1956 Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel

1957 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas

1958 Geomorphology Other 

1959 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

1960 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C26. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 26).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

1961 Geomorphology Connectivity Other Re1962 Geomorphology Connectivity Longitudinal

100% chance of fish passage

1963 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas1964 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas1965 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Incsu

1966 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Re1967 Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel1968 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Incsu

1969 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas1970 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island1971 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Incsu

1972 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas1973 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas1974 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas1975 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel1976 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas1977 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas1978 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Incsu

1979 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas1980 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel1981 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas1982 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other Cr

1983 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Incsu

1984 Geomorphology Other

ReCr

1985 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C26. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 26, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

1986 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Incsu

1987 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas1988 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas1989 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas1990 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas1991 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Incsu

1992 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas1993 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel1994 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas1995 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas1996 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas1997 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Incsu

1998 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Incsu

1999 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain2000 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest

Reme

2001 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas2002 Geomorphology Other

Rech

2003 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas2004 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Incsu

2005 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Incsu

2006 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel2007 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas2008 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas2009 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C26. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Pool 26, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

2010 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas2011 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Incsu

2012 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Incsu

2013 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest

Reme

2014 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas2016 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas2017 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas2018 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas2019 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Incsu

2020 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel2024 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas2025 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas2026 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas2027 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Incsu

2030 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas2031 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Incsu

2032 Geomorphology Other

Reha

2033 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel2034 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Other2038 Geomorphology Other

Cofro

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C27. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Dam26 to Kaskaskia River).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

2015 Geomorphology Connectivity Longitudinal

100% chance of fish passage

2021 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas2022 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas2023 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Is

2028 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest R2029 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel2035 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel H2036 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain2037 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics2039 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain L2040 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel H2041 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel2042 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island I2043 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain L2044 Pattern of Habitats Other

Pd

2045 Pattern of Habitats Other P

2046 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island I2047 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel2048 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest R2049 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Contiguous Floodplain R2050 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest2051 Other Other 

Ma

2052 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island2053 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel2054 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel2055 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C27. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Dam26 to Kaskaskia River, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

2056 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel

Rs1A

2057 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel H2058 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Contiguous Floodplain R2059 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest2060 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel

Da(S

2061 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain R2062 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel

Rs1AR

2063 Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel2064 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel

Da(S

2065 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel2066 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

IR

2067 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain2068 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel2069 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel

Rs1AR

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C27. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Dam26 to Kaskaskia River, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

2070 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel

Da(S

2071 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel2072 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel H2073 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Contiguous Floodplain R2074 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel2075 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest2076 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel

Rs1S

2077 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other S2078 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel

Rs1AC

2079 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel H2080 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics2081 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Contiguous Floodplain R2082 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel

Da(S

2083 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other S2084 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel2085 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest

Rfp

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C27. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Dam26 to Kaskaskia River, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

2086 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel2087 Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel2088 Other Other 

Rp

2089 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel

Rs1AR

2090 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel H2091 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel

Da(S

2092 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Contiguous Floodplain R2093 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics2094 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other S2095 Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel2096 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel

Rs1AR

2097 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics2098 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel

Rs1AR

2099 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest2100 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel H2101 Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C27. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Dam26 to Kaskaskia River, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

2102 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other

Ra

2103 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel

Da(S

2104 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Contiguous Floodplain R2105 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other S2106 Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel2107 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

W1

2108 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel

Rs1AR

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C28. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Kaskaskia River to Grand Tower).

Icon Ecosystem Elemen t Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

2109 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

2110 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest2111 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Contiguous Floodplain R2112 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

Rch(sKa

2113 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 2114 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics R2115 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain Le

2116 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest

Rfo

2117 Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel 2118 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain Le

2119 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

RchSt10

2120 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel H2121 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain Le

2122 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics R2123 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel H2124 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

RchSt10

2125 Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel R2126 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other Sa

2127 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

RchSt10

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C28. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Kaskaskia River to Grand Tower, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

2128 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 2129 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics R2130 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain Le

2131 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

RchSt10

2132 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel H2133 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest

Rfo

2134 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other

Saha

2135 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 2136 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 2137 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Insu

2138 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 

DaqStR

2139 Plants and Animals Fish Other

Enfo

2140 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 2141 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 

DaqStR

2142 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

Cch

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C28. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Kaskaskia River to Grand Tower, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

2143 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island

Rha

2144 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 

RchStR

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C29. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Grand Tower to Ohio River).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

2145 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest 

RIs

2146 Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel M2147 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

RchStM

2148 Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel 

Rlo

2149 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain 

RR

2150 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 

DaqStM

2151 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 2152 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

RchStM

2153 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 2154 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

RchStof 

2155 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 

DaqStof 

2156 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 2157 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C29. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Grand Tower to Ohio River, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

2158 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Insu

2159 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 2160 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

RchStSc

2161 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 

DaqStSc

2162 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 

Rw

2163 Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel 2164 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 

Daq(sSc

2165 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

RchStSc

2166 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 

DaqStC

2167 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

Rof 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C29. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Grand Tower to Ohio River, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

2168 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

RchStC

2169 Pattern of Habitats Other M

2170 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 

DaqStTh

2171 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 2172 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island

Is

42

2173 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 2174 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Insu

2175 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

RchStTh

2176 Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel 2177 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

RchStTh

2178 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 

DaqStTh

2179 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C29. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Grand Tower to Ohio River, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

2180 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 

Rlo

2181 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Insu

2182 Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel 2183 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 2184 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 2185 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Rriv

2186 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

RchStPr

2187 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel H2188 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 2189 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

RchStTh

2190 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 

DaqStTh

2191 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other Sa2192 Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel 

RSi

2193 Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel 

Ode

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C29. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Grand Tower to Ohio River, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

2194 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 

DaqStPr

2195 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 2196 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other

Sabi

2197 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

RchStTh

2198 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

RchStC

2199 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel In

2200 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel H2201 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

RchStPr

2202 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 2203 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other St2204 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 2205 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other Sa2206 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other Sa2207 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 

DaqStC

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C29. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Grand Tower to Ohio River, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

2208 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 

DaqStD

2209 Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel 

Rflo

2210 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 

DaqStD

2211 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 2212 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel H2213 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other Sa2214 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel H2215 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

RchStD

2216 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Contiguous Floodplain R2217 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

RchStD

2218 Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel 

OC

2219 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest2220 Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel 

RIs

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C29. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Grand Tower to Ohio River, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

2221 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

RchStC

2222 Geomorphology Connectivity Other

R2-

2223 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel H2224 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other

Rba

2225 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 

DaqStC

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C30. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Lockport).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

1 Plants and Animals Fish Exotic Fish Species Electronic 

2 Plants and Animals Fish Other

Fish barriehydroplant

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C31. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Brandon Road).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

3 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

RM 290-terrestria

4 Pattern of Habitats Other Maintain 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C32. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Dresden).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

5 Other Other Rem

6 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Impr

7 Other Other

Remand habit

8 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increaqua

9 Water Quality Other 

Imprlevel 

10 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 11 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See 12 Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel >80% of year All Year Reco13 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

Imprdiver

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C33. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Marseilles).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

14 Geomorphology Connectivity Longitudinal

100% chance of fish passage

Exotic (Kanka

15 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel

Maintachann

16 Plants and Animals Other Mainta

17 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other

Maintaterrest

18 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other

Delta, delta f

19 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Increaaquati

20 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas21 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See po22 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See po23 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel

Protecterrest

24 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Increaaquati

25 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Increaaquati

26 Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel Recon27 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas31 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See po38 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas41 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Resto46 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas47 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See po50 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Increaaquati

52 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island

ProtecIsland

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C34. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Starved Rock).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

28 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other

Deltadelta 

29 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Increaqua

30 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel32 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See 33 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas34 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Increaqua

35 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel

Protseco

36 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Other 25% 37 Water Quality Other Riffle 

39 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See 40 Geomorphology Connectivity Longitudinal

100% chance of fish passage All Fish 

42 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Increaqua

43 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas45 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Restbetw

49 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See 55 Other Other 

Prot232.

58 Plants and Animals Other 

Remloos

59 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other

Deltadelta 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C34. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Starved Rock, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

62 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Impounded Area

RedRM recreside 

63 Other Other

Remfrom 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C35. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Peoria).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

44 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other

Proisla

48 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pro51 Plants and Animals Birds Other

ProPlum 

53 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Incr54 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other

Deltdelt

56 Geomorphology Connectivity Longitudinal

100% chance of fish passage

57 Other Other Aba

60 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas61 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Isolated Backwater

Proterreclea

64 Plants and Animals Plants Other Pro

65 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Incrsubwide 

66 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See 67 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other

Deltdelt

68 Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel

Scoeverequ

69 Other Other

WRfeas

70 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Incrsubwide 

71 Other Other Con

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C35. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Peoria, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

72 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Incrsubwide 

73 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Incrsubwide 

74 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas75 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas76 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See 77 Other Other

HTRsed

78 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas See 79 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See 80 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See 81 Plants and Animals Other

Probird

82 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas See 83 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See 84 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Incrsubwide 

85 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Incrsubwide 

86 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See 87 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas88 Other Other

Inveopp

89 Other Other Pro

90 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C35. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Peoria, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

91 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Incrsubwide 

92 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See 93 Other Other Pro

94 Geomorphology Other

Mailevecon

95 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other

Deltdelt

96 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other

Deltdelt

97 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See 98 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas99 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Incrsubwide 

100 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other

Deltdelt

101 Geomorphology Connectivity Other Disc102 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas103 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See 104 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Incrsubwide 

105 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other

Deltdelt

106 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas107 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See 108 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Incrsubwide 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C35. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Peoria, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

109 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other

Deltdelt

110 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Incrsubwide 

111 Geomorphology Other Man112 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas113 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See 114 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other

Manhab

115 Pattern of Habitats Other

Incr

195

116 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other

Deltdelt

117 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Incrsubwide 

118 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas119 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See 120 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Isla121 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other

Deltdelt

122 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other

Incrdive

123 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other

Deltdelt

124 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas125 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See 126 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See 127 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest128 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas129 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Submersed Aquatics

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C35. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Peoria, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

130 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Incrsubwide 

131 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Isla132 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Dee133 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics134 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other

Deltdelt

135 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel136 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other

Deltdelt

137 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Impounded Area138 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Creunit

139 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other

Deltdelt

140 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other

Deltdelt

141 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Impounded Area142 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other

Deltdelt

143 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island

Peoobje

144 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Impounded Area145 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other

Deltdelt

146 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other

Deltdelt

147 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Impounded Area148 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other

Deltdelt

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C36. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (La Grange).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

149 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Insuwi

150 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 2 - 3 m All Year 10 2020

151 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Se152 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Insuwi

153 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Se154 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 2 - 3 m All Year 10 2020 Se155 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel156 Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel >80% of year All Year 10 2020 M

157 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain

0% floodplain area inundated during 10 year flood All Year 10 2020

Haap

158 Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel >80% of year All Year 10 2020

Mch

159 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel160 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel161 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel162 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Submersed Aquatics >60% of area 2020

ReemSpfous

163 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Se164 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas165 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Insuwi

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C36. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (La Grange, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

166 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other

Desefo

167 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Insuwi

168 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area >3 m 2020

RiDe

169 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Insuwi

170 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel171 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Re172 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Se173 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 2 - 3 m All Year 10

Mba

174 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Se175 Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel >80% of year All Year 10 2020 RM 

176 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain

100% floodplain area inundated during 10 year flood All Year 10 2020 Co

177 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel178 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Submersed Aquatics >60% of area 2020

Reem

179 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain

100% floodplain area inundated during 10 year flood 2020 Cl

180 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Se181 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas182 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Se183 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C36. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (La Grange, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

184 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Insuwi

185 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

RM m

186 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas187 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Submersed Aquatics >60% of area 2020

Reem

188 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Se189 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area >3 m

Re12

190 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel191 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Se192 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas

ReCode

193 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Insuwi

194 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Reha

195 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas

Rem

196 Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel >80% of year All Year 10 2020 Re

197 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas

Rem

198 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other

Dede

199 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas200 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Se

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C36. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (La Grange, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

201 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Insuwi

202 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain Winter

Mov

203 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas204 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel205 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Se206 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Insuwi

207 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Insuwi

208 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas

Sem

209 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Se210 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other

Dede

211 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Insuwi

212 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas213 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Se214 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Insuwi

215 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Se216 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas

PoM

217 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain Co

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C36. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (La Grange, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

218 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Insuwi

219 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas220 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Se221 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Insuwi

222 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Se223 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas

PoSt

224 Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel Re225 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain

Mto 

226 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Insuwi

227 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas228 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Se229 Geomorphology Other Re230 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Re231 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Insuwi

232 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Re233 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Se234 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas235 Geomorphology Other Re236 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other

Rede

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C36. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (La Grange, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

237 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Insuwi

238 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Se239 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Se240 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain M241 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Insuwi

242 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas243 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain

Reco

244 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Se245 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel

Dech

246 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Se247 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas248 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Re249 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Insuwi

250 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel251 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other Pr252 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Insuwi

253 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Se254 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C37. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Alton).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

255 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 256 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Incraqu

257 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 258 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See 259 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 260 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Isla

261 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Incraqu

262 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 263 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See 264 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 265 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other

Deldelt

266 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Isla

267 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 268 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 269 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Incraqu

270 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See 271 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 272 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island273 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other

Deldelt

274 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See 275 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 276 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Incraqu

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C37. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Alton, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

277 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain All Year 20 Gra

278 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other Res

279 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 280 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See 281 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 282 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Incraqu

283 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain All Year 20 Gra

284 Plants and Animals Other Mus

285 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other Res286 Plants and Animals Other Mus

287 Plants and Animals Other Mus

288 Plants and Animals Other Mus

289 Plants and Animals Other Mus290 Plants and Animals Other Mus291 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain All Year 20 Gra

292 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

293 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other Res294 Plants and Animals Other Mus295 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 296 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 297 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Isla298 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest 299 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Isla300 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Larmigacre

301 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain All Year 20 Gra302 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other Res303 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest 304 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Isla

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C37. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Alton, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

305 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 306 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Isla

307 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 308 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Isla

309 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 310 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Isla

311 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest312 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain All Year 20 Gra

313 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other Res314 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Isla

315 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest316 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain All Year 20 Gra

317 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Isla

318 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 319 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other Res

320 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Isla

321 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Isla

322 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Larmigacre

323 Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain All Year 20 Gra

324 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other Res

325 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Isla

326 Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 327 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Isla

328 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 

Macha

329 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Isla

330 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest331 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other

Deldelt

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Table C37. Site-specific UMR-IWW Environmental Objectives (Alton, cont.).

Icon Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date 

332 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Incraqu

333 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 334 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Deldelt

335 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See 336 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Deldelt

337 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Deldelt

338 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Res

wid

339 Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 340 Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See 341 Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Incraqu

342 Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other

Deldelt

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Objectives Planning WorkshopsDRAFT REPORT
Appendix D. Pool and System-Wide Environmental Objectives 

The following lists display pool and system-wide environmental objectives gathered from 

the four Environmental Workshops held in November 2002. The objectives are 

organized by workshop region (i.e., La Crosse, Moline, St. Louis, and Peoria) and are 

combined and summarized in a UMR-IWW System-wide list. The lists have also been 

further broken down into objective categories of water quality, geomorphology, pattern 

of habitats, plants and animals, and other. Please use the key provided below to assist in 

interpreting the target ranges, frequency of occurrence, and other supporting information 

that is listed with the environmental objectives. 

Key 

TR = Target Range 

S = Season 

FO = Frequency of Occurrence in a 10-year period. 

TD = Target Date 

P = Pool 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops 

DRAFT REPORT

D-1
La Crosse Workshop (Pools 1-11) Pool-Wide Environmental Objectives 

Water Quality 

 Decrease sediment loading from tributaries 

 Net sedimentation rate of zero 

 Secchi disk reading of 1.5m or greater in backwater areas during non-flood 

conditions (P=4-6) 

 Secchi readings in the main channel (TR=1.0m, S=All, FO=10, TD=2010, P=7-9) 

 Secchi readings in the secondary channel (TR=1.5m, S=All, FO=10, TD=2010, 

P=7-9) 

 Secchi readings in the impounded areas (TR=>2.0m, S=All, FO=10, TD=2010, 

P=7-9) 

 Secchi readings in the backwater (TR=>2.0m, S=All, FO=10, TD=2010, P=7-9) 

 Water clarity in the main channel and secondary channels (TR=1.5m Secchi, 

S=Summer average, FO=10, TD=2025, P=10-11) 

 Water clarity in the contiguous backwaters (TR=1.5m Secchi, S=Summer 

average, FO=10, TD=2025, P=10-11) 

 Sufficient dissolved oxygen to support aquatic life 

 Dissolved Oxygen in the main channel and secondary channels (TR>=5ppm, 

S=All, FO=10, TD=2010) 

 Dissolved Oxygen in backwater areas (TR= 75% >5ppm, 100% .3ppm, 

S=Summer Average, FO=10, TD=2010) 

 Velocity in backwater areas (TR=<0/3m/sec, up to bankfull, FO=10, TD=2040) 

 Temperature in backwater areas (TR>1°C, S=Winter, FO=10, TD=2030) 

 Complete storm/sanitary drain separation (TD=2010,P=1) 

 Implement spill detection and warning system (TD=2010, P=1) 

 Treat urban storm water (TD=2020) 

Geomorphology

 Diversity of depths to address loss of aquatic habitat 

 Greater and sufficient depth diversity 

 A gradient of depth from 0-3 meters, with backwaters that contain areas at least 2-

3 Meters deep in major overwintering areas spaced every two miles (P=7-9) 

 Backwater depth (TR=100% water depth >1meter,S=Winter, FO=10, TD=2025, 

P=10-11) 

 100% of floodplain area inundated during 10-yr flood (FO=1, TD=2000) 

 Enhance connectivity or restrict it as appropriate - see "C"s on pool plans (TR=5) 

 Enhance connectivity between main channel and backwaters. Key on areas 

designated with a "C" in the Pool plans, particularly in the upper ends of Pools 5, 

5A, and 6 (TR=5, FO=5, P=4-6) 

 For longitudinal connectivity, support Pool Plan design as shown as optimal 

 Fish passage at all Locks and Dams 

 Create a more natural hydrograph 

 Seasonal Drawdown (FO=10, TD=2015, P=1-3) 

 Conduct drawdowns river-wide during drought conditions (P=4-6) 

 Water level variable at the dam (S=Summer, FO=3-7, P=10-11) 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops 

DRAFT REPORT

D-2
La Crosse Workshop (Pools 1-11) Pool-Wide Environmental Objectives 

(continued) 

Geomorphology (cont.)

 Strive for more stable pool tail water levels 

 COE shift management to reduce hinge point (to Lock and Dam control) 

 Winter months: maintain water levels as high and as level as practical 

 Reduce bank erosion 

Pattern of Habitats 

 Actively manage floodplain forest to support less water-tolerant native floodplain 

plants - mast tress, prairie, etc.

 100% of quality natural habitat sustainable through natural processes 

 See Pool Plans 

 For Aquatic areas refer to pool plans 

 Forests are middle age to old 

 Submersed vegetation to 2m. As minimum, do pool plan 

 Grasslands - Land-use planning 

 Actively manage floodplain forest to support less water-tolerant native floodplain 

plants - mast tress, prairie, etc. 

Plants and Animals 

 Protect mussels - recovering community

 Plants -Eliminate nuisance exotics. Preserve native species/communities 

 Emergent Aquatics (TR=20-50 stems/m2) 

 Submersed Aquatics (TR=50 to >100 plants/m2) 

 Floating Aquatics (TR=10-20 plants/m2) 

 Plants - Overlap is needed between categories (mosaic of plants, i.e. diversity) 

 Preserve native fish species 

 Enhance bird habitat in traditional areas as well as elsewhere. Give the birds 

alternative areas to go to 

Other 

 Need for more public lands 

 Environmental Pool Plans were agreed upon to be acceptable and representative 

of the group's views (P=4-6) 

 Clean up trash along riverbanks 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops 

DRAFT REPORT

D-3
Moline Workshop (Pools 12-22) Pool-Wide Environmental Objectives 

Water Quality 

 Address concerns of 303D (Impaired water's list)

 Secchi disk transparency of 1.0m to occur during the high-water event in spring 

(FO=5) 

 Maintain in compliance with applicable standards 

Geomorphology 

 Deepen and connect sloughs on islands 

 Maintain existing depths of secondary channels 

 Maintain aquatic Backwater areas that are already connected to Main Channel. 

Restore former connections form MC to BW that have been lost since 

impoundment 

 50% of backwater areas should have a depth >3m (FO=7, TD=2030, P=12-15)

 10% of Backwater areas should have a depth greater than 3m, with proximity to 

flow, and a target DO of >=5ppm (S=Winter, FO=10, TD=2020, P=16-19)

 All backwater areas should have a minimum depth of 1-2 meters (TD=2030)

 Water level management to maximize habitat: sediment consolidation, increased 

water clarity, increase aquatic vegetation. Optimize variety of land cover types. 

(S=June-Sept, FO=1) 

 Water level 0.3m above project Pool (S=All, FO=10, TD=2005) 

 Floodplain connectivity for levee districts (TR=20% floodplain area inundated 

during 10-yr flood, S=All, FO=10, TD=2020, P=16-19) 

 20% of floodplain not isolated by levee inundated during a 10-yr flood event 

(P=20-22) 

 Increase unleveed floodplain at tributary confluences (TR=20% during 10-yr 

flood, FO=2, TD=2010, P=12-22) 

 Allow passage for the 27 migratory species during key life cycles and migratory 

periods 

 Reduce erosion/habitat loss due to barge fleeting 

 Upstream islands in particular need to be protected and restored to pre-9-ft project 

dimensions (location of 6 ft. channel structure would be locations to start) 

 Restore islands that provide protection from wind fetch. Many of these islands 

have been lost due to erosion since impoundment 

Pattern of Habitats 

 Identify priority secondary channels by 2010 

 Maintain all secondary and tertiary channel patters (depths, area, etc) that now 

exist in all pools 

 Secondary Channels (TR=40%, S=Summer, FO=8, TD=2020, P=16) 

 Secondary Channels (TR=28%, S=Summer, FO=8, TD=2020, P=17) 

 Secondary Channels (TR=26%, S=Summer, FO=8, TD=2020, P=18) 

 Secondary Channels (TR=13%, S=Summer, FO=8, TD=2020, P=19) 

 Contiguous Backwaters (TR=6%, S=Summer, FO=8, TD=2020, P=16) 

 Contiguous Backwaters (TR=7%, S=Summer, FO=8, TD=2020, P=17) 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops 

DRAFT REPORT

D-4
Moline Workshop (Pools 12-22) Pool-Wide Environmental Objectives 

(continued) 

Pattern of Habitats (cont.) 

 Contiguous Backwaters (TR=4%, S=Summer, FO=8, TD=2020, P=18) 

 Contiguous Backwaters (TR=10%, S=Summer, FO=8, TD=2020, P=19) 

 Isolated Backwaters (TR=1%, S=Summer, FO=8, TD=2020, P=16,19) 

 Isolated Backwaters (TR=2%, S=Summer, FO=8, TD=2020, P=17,18) 

 5% of all terrestrial floodplain habitats should consist of potholes, lakes, oxbows 

and similar habitat types 

 Maintain continuity patterns of contiguous backwaters as they existed in 1989 

 Islands (TR=6000acres, S=Summer, FO=8, TD=2020, P=16) 

 Islands (TR=20%, S=Summer, FO=10, TD=2020, P=19) 

 Maintain all islands shown on 1989 photography 

 All islands in public ownership (P=20) 

 Acquire public land (TD=2050, P=19) 

 3000 acres of 1000-acre core block habitat - minimum 1 per pool (30-40 miles) - 

for area sensitive bird management. (Integrated complex of forest, grassland, and 

wetland) (TD = 2020) 

 Restore and maintain diversity of vegetation cover types that now exist 

 100% increase in Emergent Aquatics from the 1989 aerial photography (S=All, 

FO=8, TD=2010) 

 Increase emergent plants to 10% presence in every backwater 

 Backwaters should have 80% coverage of submergent plants in all under 3m 

depth (see pool plans) 

 100% increase in Submergent Aquatics from the 1989 aerial photography (S=All, 

FO=8, TD=2010) 

 Consolidate cover classes in corridors or contiguous tracts (TR=50-80%) 

 Restore and protect aquatic and terrestrial floodplain vegetation (TR=50%) 

 10% of isolated floodplain areas converted to grasslands (TD=2010) 

 10% Shrub coverage in floodplain 

 Increase elevation by 2m on 10% of all terrestrial habitats (islands and 

floodplains) (TD=2030) 

 Even-aged forests need to have an age gradation restored through timber 

management 

 Restore and enhance large tracts of bottomland hardwoods for neotropicals 

 Restore 200' width riparian corridor on permanent diversion ditches 

 Forest - 1000-acre minimum, 25-30 miles apart (TR=10-20% of area, TD=2050) 

 Maintain aerial % of Agricultural Use 

 Work to achieve habitat restoration through agricultural programs on floodplain 

(CRP, WRP) 

Plants and Animals 

 Eliminate reed canary grass wherever possible 

 Restore presence of lake sturgeon in all pools. Collected at least 2 times per year 

 Restore crystal darter and sand darter populations 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops 

DRAFT REPORT

D-5
Moline Workshop (Pools 12-22) Pool-Wide Environmental Objectives 

(continued) 

Plants and Animals (cont.) 

 Asian Carp should have a 0catch/hr effort in all pools

 Neotropical Migrant Birds – See integrated complex in Patterns of Habitat 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops 

DRAFT REPORT

D-6
St. Louis Workshop (Pool 24 to Ohio River) Pool-Wide Objectives 

Note: The St. Louis environmental objectives are organized by impounded (Pools 24-26) 

and unimpounded (Dam 26 to Ohio River) reaches. 

Pools 24-26 (Impounded)

Water Quality 

 Sufficient water clarity to support vegetation to a depth of 1.5m 

 Main Channel Water Clarity (TR=Secchi disk of 1.5m) 

 Backwaters Water Clarity (TR=Secchi disk of 1.5m) 

 DO, Methyl Mercury, nutrient and fecal coliform reduction from tributaries 

Geomorphology 

 Create more deep-water habitat

 Greater drawdowns 

 Return hydrograph to as natural as possible 

 Seasonal drawdowns every 5 or 10 years 

 Water level, Main Channel (TR=.6m below project pool at dam, FO= as often as 

possible) 

 Water level, Backwater (TR=.6m below project pool at dam, FO= as often as 

possible) 

 On an opportunistic basis, acquire land from willing sellers to restore floodplain 

connectivity 

 Floodplain connectivity pool-wide 0-10% 

 Maintain and increase floodplain connectivity by 40% (before modifications) 

 Passage of native fish through navigation dams (TR=100%) 

 Hinge point drawdown. This is an opportunity to move from hinge point control 

Pattern of Habitats 

 Increase quantity of woody debris in side channel of pools 

 All islands into public ownership to increase forest diversity 

 Increase amount of floodplain wetland habitats in levee districts 

 Increase wet marshes 10-20% of existing marshes 

 More hard mast producing trees (TR=20%-40%, TD=2050) 

 Restore-maintain riparian corridor to provide a broad range of benefits

 Increase nesting areas for terrestrial birds 

 Increase forest by 10-20% of existing forest 

 Forests (TR=20%-40%, currently=18%, pre-settlement=35%) 

Other 

 Need to restore streams in floodplain 

 Concerns about air quality @ fleeting harbor areas 

 Increase air quality - towboat exhaust 

 Acquire land necessary to facilitate Environmental Pool Management 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops 

DRAFT REPORT

D-7
St. Louis Workshop (Pool 24 to Ohio River) Pool-Wide Objectives 

(continued) 

Dam 26 – Ohio River (Unimpounded)

Water Quality 

 Reduce air and water pollutions

 Minimize clarity impacts due to increased traffic in main channel and fleeting 

areas 

 15% reduction of nutrient load 

 Maintain DO levels on Middle Mississippi 

Geomorphology

 Implement stone dike objectives 

 Implement dike alteration plan - alter dikes for a mile stretch every ten miles 

 Implement side channel plan 

 Reconnect river with floodplain in selected locations 

 Maintain and increase floodplain connectivity 

 Remove all of the levees, restore 100% connectivity, take river to pre-European 

settlement conditions 

 Partial floodplain restoration - 20-30% reconnectivity 

 Reconnect tributaries with floodplains to trap some of the nutrients 

 Habitat connectivity to main channel 

 Address local tributary effects; include deltaic sedimentation, channelization and 

head cutting. Restore oxbows and other important geomorphic features of the 

tributaries 

 Restore historic meanders. Allow some disturbance regimes to occur on the river. 

Allow some non-constrained stretches of the river 

Pattern of Habitats 

 Allow every 5-7 miles of over wintering for fish 

 Utilize old or existing quarries for backwater habitat 

 Implement side channel plan (Secondary Channels 12-18 feet deep) 

 Create new side channels 

 Create or engineer new islands and side channels within the Middle Mississippi 

River 

 Maintain and create substrate type diversity; i.e. diversity of sands, gravels, 

cobbles, etc. 

 Preserve and enhance sand bar habitat for aquatics and waterfowl 

 Restore small rivulets, oxbows and other tertiary channels adjacent to the main 

channel 

 Utilize existing meander scars and river features located in the floodplain for the 

creation of new aquatic and waterfowl habitats 

 Every 20 miles bird resting areas 

 Restore riparian corridor with floodplain, including re-establishing forests and 

prairies 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops 

DRAFT REPORT

D-8
St. Louis Workshop (Pool 24 to Ohio River) Pool-Wide Objectives 

(continued)

Dam 26 – Ohio River (Unimpounded) (cont.)

Pattern of Habitats (cont.)

 Increase acreage of bottomland hardwood forests in floodplain as social and 

economic factors allow 

 Restore and maintain riparian corridors (200 ft. wide) 

 Preserve and create wetland complexes in adjacent floodplain 

 Increase wetland habitat behind levees 

Plants and Animals 

 Restore river aquatic fisheries environment prior to 1950 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops 

DRAFT REPORT

D-9
Peoria Workshop (Illinois River) Pool-Wide Environmental Objectives 

Water Quality 

 Improve Secchi Level 

 25% reduction in nutrient loading 

 Elimination of secondary use standards for this reach; adhere to general use 

standards 

 Systematic removal of contaminated sediments 

Geomorphology

 Reduce sedimentation throughout pool 

 Prevent Peoria Pool from sedimenting in 

 Need to reduce sediment accumulation in tributary deltas due to erosion off 

agricultural ground 

 Maintain depths of existing backwaters and increase area available for over 

wintering fish (TR= 5% 3m+, 10% 2-3 M, 25% 1-2 m, 60% < 1 m, S=Winter, 

TD=2020) 

 Improve water depth 

 Restore depths and connectivity of tributaries 

 Restore backwater depths, throughout backwaters on pool 

 Recreate hydrograph 

 Reduce incidence of summer water level "bumps" to < 1 year in 3 (FO=7) 

 Limit water level fluctuation. Notes -Water levels affected substantially by 

MWRDGC actions up to 10ft per incidence 

 Maintain habitat-protecting levees (e.g. Hennepin /Hopper) until river conditions 

adequate to allow reconnection 

 Maintain 50% of currently isolated backwaters for exclusion of exotics and 

protection of high quality habitat 

 Reconnect 25% of currently isolated backwater areas and historical backwater 

lakes (fish areas every 10 miles) 

 Restore off channel connectivity to all pool. Meredosia to Eldrid are key drainage 

districts to target for connectivity. No consensus on amounts of floodplain 

needing to be restored to habitat, but at least 2-3 districts, Nutwood mentioned 

several times 

 Investigate opportunities to improve leveed areas 

Pattern of Habitats 

 Protection, management, and enhancement of natural areas 

 Protect and enhance habitat for threatened and endangered species 

 Agree on a reference condition to work towards, probably the best condition was 

in the 1910's-1920's before the wastewater in the 30's degraded the system 

 Avoid conflicts between habitat enhancements and potential or existing fleeting 

areas 

 Restore additional 10% of the floodplain, terrestrial habitats - with a goal of 

significant contiguous areas (min. 10 ac for wetlands, 100 ac forests, etc.) 

 Investigate opportunities to improve leveed areas habitat 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops 

DRAFT REPORT

D-10
Peoria Workshop (Illinois River) Pool-Wide Environmental Objectives 

(continued)

Pattern of Habitats (cont.)

 Enhance habitat in backwaters 

 Maintain/protect existing aquatic plant bed acreage pool-wide 

 Promote moist soil development in backwater areas 

 Re-establish missing marsh habitat by maintaining the levees 

 Improve emergent plant communities and stabilize sediments 

 Determine forest habitat needs for migratory songbirds 

Plants and Animals 

 T&E species and natural areas protection, management, and enhancement 

 Control or elimination of exotic and invasive species 

 Re-establish aquatic vegetation in areas shown on historic maps in known low 

spots 

 Restore submersed vegetation and off channel connectivity to all pools 

 Restore aquatic vegetation in backwaters on pool 

 10% increase in bottomland hardwood forest acreage, improve diversity 

 Provide area for mast tree planting (appropriate elevations and soil composition) 

 Protect and manage habitat for Boltonia decurrens

 Fish screen for water intakes (power plant) and fleeting operations 

 Threatened and endangered river redhorse 

 Manage fisheries to reduce populations of exotic (destructive) fish species) 

 Establish aquatic barriers for exotic fish species 

 Red shouldered hawk, brown creeper - protect and enhance 

 Increase mussel diversity 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops 

DRAFT REPORT

D-11
Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway System 

System-Wide Environmental Objectives 

Water Quality 

 Achieve USEPA full use standards 

 Increase water clarity to support submersed aquatic plant growth at water depths 

of 4 feet or more by 2010 

 Reduce nutrient loads from tributaries by 25 percent 

 Reduce mainstem nutrient load by 15 percent 

 Reduce mercury and fecal coliform loading from tributaries 

 Remove contaminated sediments (IWW, Twin Cities, Quad Cities) 

 Reduce stormwater and sewage contamination by 2010 

 Maintain dissolved oxygen concentrations >5ppm by 2010 

 Maintain water temperature >1 degree C in fish overwintering areas by 2030 

 Minimize current in fish overwintering areas (<0.3m/sec) by 2040 

Geomorphology 

 Restore aquatic habitat diversity every 10 miles in MMR (dike alteration) 

 Restore MMR secondary channels 

 Create new secondary channels 

 Restore physical habitat disturbance (i.e., channel migration) in MMR 

 Reduce channel armoring and other constraints 

 Maintain existing depth of secondary channels 

 Maintain connectivity between contiguous backwater and channel areas 

 Restore connections between backwater and channel areas where they have been 

disconnected by sediment or structures 

 Restore or maintain depths >1 m in 50 percent of backwater area 

 Restore or maintain depths >3 m in 10 percent of backwater area 

 All backwaters should have a minimum depth of 1 – 2 m, with 50 percent greater 

than 2 m deep and ~5 percent greater than 3 m deep by 2030 

 Maintain or restore depth diversity in aquatic habitats 

 Provide deepwater fish overwintering areas (e.g., depth range 0 – 3 m every two 

miles) 

 Connect quarries to provide backwater habitat 

 Consolidate flocculent backwater sediment 

 Restore or maintain substrate diversity 

 Reconnect 20 percent of isolated floodplain area by 2020 

 Reconnect 40 percent of isolated floodplain area 

 Reconnect 20 percent of isolated floodplain area at tributary confluences by 2010 

 Reduce sedimentation in tributary deltas 

 Restore depth in tributary channels 

 Provide for longitudinal fish passage in the mainstem and tributary rivers 

 Reduce erosion and habitat loss associated with barge fleeting areas 

 Protect islands from erosion 

 Reduce bank erosion 

 Restore islands eroded since impoundment 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops 

DRAFT REPORT

D-12
Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway System 

System-Wide Environmental Objectives 

(continued)

Geomorphology (cont.) 

 Restore or increase sand bar habitat in the MMR 

 Maintain “habitat protecting” levees in restored agricultural areas (i.e., time 

capsules) until river conditions (e.g., sediment transport, exotic sp., etc) are 

improved 

 Maintain 50 percent of acquired/restored Illinois River backwaters isolated from 

exotic sp. 

 Reconnect 50 percent of acquired/restored Illinois River backwaters to the 

mainstem 

 Provide contiguous backwater habitats every 10 miles on the Illinois River 

 Restore natural seasonal river stage variation 

 Reduce incidence of unseasonal “bumps” in river stage to less than 1 in three 

years 

 Restore low summertime river stages every 5 – 10 years (i.e., drawdowns) by 

2015 

 Limit dam mediated water level fluctuations in tailwater and impounded areas 

(e.g., hinge point regulation, stormflow management @ Lockport, etc.) 

 Make dam point control possible at all dams 

 Maintain maximum controlled pool stage (or greater if possible) during winter 

Pattern of Habitats 

 Increase abundance of isolated aquatic areas (5 percent of total floodplain area) 

 Restore or maintain large contiguous habitats (forest, grassland, and wetland) 

every 30 – 40 miles by 2020 

 Restore or maintain 1,000 acre or greater contiguous forest patches every 30 miles 

by 2050 

 Achieve 20 – 40 percent forested floodplain area 

 Restore habitat corridors (e.g., riparian forests, contiguous prairie, etc.) 

 Achieve 200 foot non-agricultural riparian corridor along diversion ditches 

 Increase abundance of emergent aquatic plants 100 percent over 1989 abundance 

by 2010 (20 – 50 stems/m2

) 

 Increase abundance of submersed aquatic plants 100 percent over 1989 abundance 

by 2010 (50 - 100 stems/m2

) 

 Achieve 10 percent coverage of submersed aquatic plants in every backwater 

 Achieve 80 percent coverage of submersed aquatic plants in shallow backwater 

areas (<1 m deep) 

 Achieve 10 percent coverage of grasslands in the floodplain by 2010 

 Achieve 10 percent coverage of scrub shrub in the floodplain by 2010 

 Increase marsh habitat management opportunities in leveed areas 

 Restore age and species diversity in floodplain forests 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops 

DRAFT REPORT

D-13
Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway System 

System-Wide Environmental Objectives 

(continued)

Pattern of Habitats (cont.) 

 Restore flood intolerant tree species 

 Restore or maintain a diverse mosaic of plant communities 

 Maintain current areal abundance of crop land 

 Protect high quality native habitats 

 Increase woody debris in secondary channels 

 Restore tributaries and floodplain streams 

Plants and Animals 

 Restore lake sturgeon river wide documented as their occurrence (sampling, 

commercial, angling) at least 2 times each year 

 Restore crystal darter populations 

 Restore sand darter populations 

 Restore river redhorse populations 

 Restore red-shouldered hawk populations 

 Restore brown creeper populations 

 Protect existing decurrent false aster populations 

 Increase decurrent false aster populations 

 Increase mast tree abundance 20 – 40 percent by 2050 

 Increase freshwater mussel species diversity 

 Increase nesting areas for terrestrial birds 

 Protect and enhance habitat for T&E species 

 Eliminate Asian carp 

 Control or eliminate exotic and invasive species 

 Protect and preserve native fishes 

Other 

 Remove trash from river-floodplain (e.g., sunken or abandoned barges, litter) 

 Reduce air pollution in harbors and fleeting areas 

 Agree on a reference condition 

 Acquire land 

 Acquire all islands in public ownership or easements 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops 

DRAFT REPORT

D-14
Appendix E. UMR-IWW Management Actions 

The following table provides a summary of management actions that are most likely to contribute to achieving the establish

and objectives. It was developed by reviewing current tables of management actions (Interim Report for the Restructured 

River-Illinois Waterway System Navigation Feasibility Study – Appendix 5), tailoring them to the ecosystem elements underevising them where necessary. Management actions without ID numbers were added by Environmental Workshop partici

Table E1. UMR-IWW Management Actions Ecosystem Element/ Parameter Extent ID Management ActionWater Quality Water Clarity Main Channel 1Apply watershed BMPs (best management pract (Note: Also include nutrient loading, 2Stabilize river banks  dissolved oxygen, contaminant 3Pool scale drawdown to consolidate soft sedimen

loading, and carbon input parameters.) Pool scale drawdowns to promote emergent veg

 (Note: Also include more/all WQ 4 Minimize dredge disturbance/frequency  parameters, see USACE guidance 5 Minimize dredge slurry return water  110-2-8154.) 6 Minimize bankside dredged material placement 

7Stabilize dredged material 8Tributary reservoirs 9Speed and wake restrictions - rec. boats 

Establish and enforce safety zone for tow boats Establish a permit system for tows over 9 foot draAdjust sailing line Improve aids to navigation Additional mooring buoys Restore natural tributary areas through delta areMinimize open water dredged material placemenSediment traps Increase depth in main channel (reduce resuspeRequire upper Illinois Waterway to meet EPA geMinimize open water placement of dredged mateUse retention areas for dredged material 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops DRAFT REPORT
Table E1. UMR-IWW Management Actions, cont. 

Ecosystem Element/ Parameter Extent ID Management ActionWater Quality (cont.) 

Main Channel (cont.) Promote emergent plant growth 

Protect aquatic vegetation (regulatory) - do no harm Encourage regulation for BMPs Strict runoff and erosion control regulations for new Temporary mooring facility Tow boat speed control to minimize stops Modify propulsion system Hull redesign Wingdams 

Recreation management on the main channel (camspeed, noise) 

Create wetlands to promote biological waste manaRemove levees throughout floodplains (mostly tribs 

Industry self help & small scale improvements, nonelements 

Modify tow size/configuration Agricultural BMPs Restore hydrologic regime of tributaries Tributary stream channel stabilization Larger, more effective dredged material placement Off-shore revetments to reduce sediment resuspenImprove channel marking (USCG buoys) Install mooring buoys to keep tow away from sensiConstruct islands to reduce wind waves and sedimMinimize impacts of barge fleeting & mooring Side channel closing structures - dredging Monitor and minimize nutrient loading Control nitrates/chemicals Phosphate limits @ sewage treatment plants NTE 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops DRAFT REPORT
Table E1. UMR-IWW Management Actions, cont. 

Ecosystem Element/ Parameter Extent ID Management ActionWater Quality (cont.) 

Main Channel (cont.) Eliminate phosphorus in lawn fertilizer 

Increase connection, duration, flow to reduce D.O. Control dissolved oxygen Urban storm water treatment Urban storm water BMPs Reforestation, BMPs 

Backwaters 10 Pool scale drawdown to consolidate soft sediments 

11 Drawdown management units 12 Drawdown isolated backwaters 13 Isolate and drawdown contiguous backwaters 14 Temporarily isolate and drawdown contiguous bac15 Construct wind breaks 16 Construct Wave breaks 17 Remove bottom feeding fishes (carp) 18 Increase plant density 19 Increase plant distribution 20 Reduce algae production 

Construct isolated ephemeral wetlands 

Impounded Berm and construct moist soil area with water leveSecondary channel Access, speed, and wake restriction on rec. boats 

Increase depth of backwaters Plantings to stabilize banks Sediment traps Create forested riparian corridor Land acquisition Reduce wind fetch Reduce sediment resuspension Isolate head of channel 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops DRAFT REPORT
Table E1. UMR-IWW Management Actions, cont. 

Ecosystem Element/ Parameter Extent ID Management ActionWater Quality (cont.) 

Secondary channel (cont.) Modify flow in channel 

No net loss of backwaters Pollution control of all phases (i.e., solids, liquids, gControl dissolved oxygen Control nitrates/chemicals Stabilize existing islands Urban BMPs Promote emergent plant growth Phosphate limits @ sewage treatment plants NTE Off-shore revetments to reduce sediment resuspenWinter water level fluctuations - bring in DO water Operate pools on "high side" Aerators to improve DO Divert tribs into backwaters to deliver DO Apply BMPs Plant vegetation to increase diversity and distributioOpen springs in isolated backwaters 

Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 21 Hydraulic dredging 

22 Mechanical dredging 23 Consolidate sediment 24 Divert flow to increase backwater scour 

Increase water levels and hold constant in winter 

Side Channels Pool-scale drawdown - allow tribs to scour 

Temporarily remove closing structures, build high winto side channels Experiment with management actions during schedclosure 

Use structures to maintain BW depth 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops DRAFT REPORT
Table E1. UMR-IWW Management Actions, cont. 

Ecosystem Element/ Parameter Extent ID Management ActionGeomorphology (cont.) Backwater Depth (cont.) Side Channels (cont.) Bank protection to reduce sed input 

Add mooring buoy to reduce sed resuspension Mechanical movement of sediment during drawdowDivert flow of sediment laden water away from bacModify drainage district operations Construct rock barbs Increase meander scour through placement of hard flow depth diversity (modify geometry) Explosives Control sediment by BMPs Structures additions or modifications Make new side channels 

Water Level Main Channel 25 Pool scale drawdown 

Secondary channel System-scale or multiple pool drawdowns 

Operate dams to maintain winter water levels at the operating range 

Hold winter water levels high Automate dam operations Make frequent gate adjustments to minimize fluctuUse dam point control more - limit hinge point operHydrographic smoothing (system wide) by dam opeMaintain minimum water gradient Pool scale increase Study water table changes Manage tributary and dam flows to mimic natural pRun of the river tributaries Wetland restoration to increase infiltration Evaluate and modify mechanisms to deal with wateeliminate spiking hydrographic cycle (system wide) 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops DRAFT REPORT
Table E1. UMR-IWW Management Actions, cont. 

Ecosystem Element/ Parameter Extent ID Management ActionGeomorphology (cont.) Water Level (cont.) Backwater Areas 26 Pool scale drawdown 

27 Drawdown management units 28 Drawdown isolated backwaters 29 Isolate and drawdown contiguous backwaters 30 Temporarily isolate and drawdown contiguous bac

Pool raise within limits of system (winter) Rock ramps at spillways and other overflow sectionFlow diversion to reduce flow, create a head differeInstall pumps to flood or drawdown isolated backwModify drainage district operations Smooth hydrograph by regulatory Wetland restoration to increase infiltration Moderate hydrologic regime of tributaries - establishydrology De-channelize tributaries 

Connectivity Floodplain 31 Acquire real estate rights, restore water to leveed f

32 Reconfigure, restore flow to secondary channels 33 Restore flow to isolated backwater areas 34 Create habitat corridors for floodplain terrestrial wil35 Restore natural tributary channels through delta ar36 Notch levees 37 Set back levees 38 Increase water levels 39 Increase terrestrial area 

Remove levees Controlled floodways Gated levees - controlled flow into hydrograph Rock ramps at spillways and other overflow sectionRemove bank stabilization structures 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops DRAFT REPORT
Table E1. UMR-IWW Management Actions, cont. 

Ecosystem Element/ Parameter Extent ID Management ActionGeomorphology (cont.) Connectivity (cont.) Floodplain (cont.) Maintain current and historic backwater mouths 

Create moist soil management areas that mimic naConstruct islands to increase connectivity Connect isolated backwater areas (e.g., sloughs) a

Install flow structures (pipes) through earthen dams backwaters 

Create and maintain fishless aquatic areas 

Protect, maintain and create isolated backwaters foconservation 

Restore lost physical structure No government bailouts for repetitive flood damage More floodplain zoning 

Secondary Channels 40 Notch closures 

41 Divert flow 42 Increase water levels 43 Dredge secondary channels 44 Remove levees 

Construct islands to restore and create secondary Set back levee Controlled floodway Restrict flow to contiguous backwaters Construct islands to increase flow Restrict flow to secondary channels Restore flow (all parameters except clarity) at selec

Longitudinal 45 Build fishways 

46 Modify gate operations 47 Modify lock operations 48 Remove tributary dams 

Modify gate structure 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops DRAFT REPORT
Table E1. UMR-IWW Management Actions, cont. 

Ecosystem Element/ Parameter Extent ID Management ActionGeomorphology (cont.) Connectivity (cont.) Longitudinal (cont.) Lower embankments and spillways 

Modify control structures (such as spot dikes) Remove dams (mainstem and tribs) More research on fish passage Build barriers to restrict exotic species movements 

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic areas 49 Introduce flow to isolated backwater areas 

50 Restore flow to secondary channels 51 Restore flow to floodplain areas isolated by levees 52 Restore natural tributary channels through delta ar53 Divert more tributary delta flow into open impounde54 Create rock and gravel substrate areas 55 Create shallow rock and gravel riffle areas 56 Incorporate woody debris into bank protection 57 Incorporate woody debris into secondary and smal58 Restore flow and geometry of secondary channels 59 Modify flow distribution from dam gates - tailwater h60 Grading, vegetation planting 61 Rock groins, hard points 62 Anchored woody debris 63 Off-shore rock revetments 64 Submerged rock vanes 65 Notch wing dams to create hydraulic, depth diversi66 Notch closing dams to increase side channel flow 67 Construct temporary structures to divert flow 68 Use larger rock, make bank revetments irregular 69 Incorporate woody debris into channel structures 70 Construct hard points, groins for shoreline stabiliza71 Construct off-shore revetments 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops DRAFT REPORT
Table E1. UMR-IWW Management Actions, cont. 

Ecosystem Element/ Parameter Extent ID Management ActionPattern of Habitats (cont.) Aquatic areas (cont.) 72 Construct seed islands 

73 Construct bendway weirs 74 Construct chevrons 75 Modify flow splits between main and off-channel ar76 Dredge backwater areas, increase depth 77 Dredging to restore and create secondary channels 78 Shore pipe, boosters to reach target sites 79 Use small dredges to expand placement options 80 Bend width reductions where possible 

Raise island topography Insure over wintering centrarchid areas every 5 milManage barge fleeting areas Control invasive/exotic species Create islands to restore secondary channels 

Protect. Maintain and increase isolated backwater conservation 

Remove beach plan from MVP Upland dredged material placement for beneficial uBehind levee dredged material placement Protect and restore mussel beds and increase diveRestore native submersed and emergent communiBuy land/interest Restore meanders to tribs Reduce flow to isolated backwater areas Restrict flow to secondary channels Increase shoreline dynamics/complexity Pool-wide drawdowns Submerged sills into backwaters Remove/knock down wingdams to create fish habit

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops DRAFT REPORT
Table E1. UMR-IWW Management Actions, cont. 

Ecosystem Element/ Parameter Extent ID Management ActionPattern of Habitats (cont.) Aquatic areas (cont.) Break low spots in dam embankments - riffle type a

Use mgmt actions to reduce/eliminate flow (include 

closures) 

Construct islands Water level management Increase channel border width Notch levees Pool-wide to system-wide drawdowns 

Terrestrial Areas Floodplain 81 Place dredged material to create wetland areas 

82 Placement on existing, construct new beaches 83 Semi-confined channel placement (chevrons) 84 Unconfined placement in floodplain (for mast trees85 Unconfined placement in floodplain 86 Beaches 87 Island construction 88 On floodplain to raise areas for mast-producing tr89 Confined placement in floodplain 90 Construct hard point in floodplain 91 Construct islands in impounded areas and backwa92 Seed islands 93 Chevron islands 94 Rock islands 95 Islands with varied top elevation, fine material 96 Low islands - mud flats and sand bars 

Islands

Protect, restore, and increase grassland, forest, wesensitive sp - large habitat blocks for acquisition/eaManage barge fleeting areas Control exotic/invasive species. Behind levee dredged material placement for crop 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops DRAFT REPORT
Table E1. UMR-IWW Management Actions, cont. 

Ecosystem Element/ Parameter Extent ID Management ActionPattern of Habitats (cont.) Terrestrial Areas (cont.) Islands (cont.) Behind levee dredged material placement for bene

Stabilize eroding ravines UMR-wide BMP practices that apply Control selected native and exotic species Promote diverse moist soil vegetation Buy interest Create/maintain sand nesting sites for turtles, shorfor loafing, resting, or basking areas Encourage natural land formation - deltas Stabilize and protect landforms to protect what exis

Open barrier islands - create channel, induce delta BW areas 

Excavate floodplain potholes 

Raise elevation of islands above water level to allointolerant trees, forbs, and grasses 

Protect Islands, especially in main channel 

Land Cover/Use 97 Modify and manage habitats on refuges (see habita

98 Manage vegetation cover 99 Manage water levels 

100 Modify habitat structure in floodplain and backw101 Plant vegetation on dredged material deposits 102 Plant floodplain trees 103 Harvest floodplain trees 104 Plant floodplain prairie 105 Burn floodplain prairie 106 Control invasive exotic species 107 Place dredged material to create wetland areas 108 Unconfined dredged material placement in floodpla109 Growing season drawdowns 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops DRAFT REPORT
Table E1. UMR-IWW Management Actions, cont. 

Ecosystem Element/ Parameter Extent ID Management ActionPattern of Habitats (cont.) Land Cover/Use (cont.) Acquire real estate interest 

Focus on securing management interest enlarge hsensitive species. Create habitat corridors for floodplain terrestrial wilPromote alternative agriculture in floodplain Regulate future floodplain development Remove levees Restrict use in the river floodplain (regulate) Soil amendment (beneficial use of dredged materia

Reevaluate existing authorities and policies for benmaterial. 

Reconfigure, restore flow to secondary channels Notch closures Divert flow Restore flow to isolated backwater areas Dredge secondary channels Restore natural tributary channels through delta arNotch levees Set back levees Increase water levels Increase terrestrial area Increase water levels Reestablish disease resistant elms in floodplain Excavate wetland scrapes Make moist soil areas every 50 miles Maintain selected agricultural levee districts 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops DRAFT REPORT
Table E1. UMR-IWW Management Actions, cont. 

Ecosystem Element/ Parameter Extent ID Management ActionPlants and Animals Fish 110 Adjust angling, commercial fishing regulations as n

111 Modify angler attitudes about exploitation 112 Enforce fishing regulations 113 Stock fish 

Conduct biomanipulation of fish and wildlife commu

Reintroduce/maintain native fish species stocks 

Modify dredging activities for invertebrate habitat Reconnect fish species to habitat to restore life cycPromote commercial utilization of appropriate specClose sturgeon fishing season Improve angler access Improve habitat for fish, provide a diversity of habit(MAs 1 - 109) Control invasive exotic species 

More population studies of biological research such herps, invertebrates, and plants 

Use predator control where appropriate 

Wildlife 114 Conduct biomanipulation of fish and wildlife commu

115 Adjust hunting and trapping regulations as needed 116 Modify hunter attitudes about exploitation 117 Enforce hunting regulations 118 Reintroduce native species 

Intensive management of moist soil areas Focus Federal aid on Miss. R Increase designated refuge 

Protect increase, and restore habitat for species of including neotropical migrants and others 

Increase monitoring and research of nesting neotro

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops DRAFT REPORT
Table E1. UMR-IWW Management Actions, cont. 

Ecosystem Element/ Parameter Extent ID Management ActionPlants and Animals (cont.) Wildlife (cont.) 

Better management of game sp. (deer) so populaimpact other biodiversity 

Monitor and test for diseases as needed Promote habitat for migratory bird species 

Control invasive exotic species 

Predator management where appropriate or neeVoluntary closed areas Implement MAs 1 - 109 

Exotics 119 Control invasive exotic species 

120 Construct, operate, maintain barrier on Illinois R121 Require antibiotic treatment of Great Lakes fre122 Regulate use of exotic species for fishing bait 123 Regulate biota transfer by fishing boats 124 Apply species-specific toxicants 125 Kill zebra mussels on vessels in lock chambers 126 Restrict and enforce use of exotic species in aq

Sever Great Lakes IWW connection 

Promote education 

Promote utilization of exotic biomass 

Develop interagency task force for coordination o

Barge cleaning stations (hulls for zebra mussels) Public awareness for catch and DO NOT release Increase water temperature using power plant opduring warm summers to kill zebra mussels Implement MAs 1 - 109 

Control exotic introductions through other ports (

T&E 127 Protect, increase populations of threatened, enda

Stabilize nesting islands and maintain vegetation colonies in Pool 13) 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops DRAFT REPORT
Table E1. UMR-IWW Management Actions, cont. 

Ecosystem Element/ Parameter Extent ID Management ActionPlants and Animals (cont.) T&E (cont.) Promote education 

Evaluate species of concern Reintroduce/expand species of concern to avoid Manage for T&E consideration as a priority wher

Conservation easements to protect bluff lands & and beyond (local, state, NGO, Feds) 

Monitor and test for disease Increase, restore, and maintain suitable habitat foReintroductions based on historic records 

Protect, increase habitat of threatened, endange

Emphasize mgmt of communities, not population

Continue to implement UMR Biological Opinion 

Implement recovery plans 

Reintroduction of extirpated species to the area 

Restore populations of T&E species. Restore and improve T&E species habitats 

Mussels and other invertebrates Need mussel management plan 

Need mussel component in restoration projects 

Biodiversity Manage for maximum diversity of native species Watershed Management 128 BMPs 

129 Conservation tillage 130 Contour farming, terraces 131 Grassed waterways 132 Establish perennial cover, crops 133 Stabilize eroding ravines 134 Conservation Reserve Program land set-aside 135 Erosion control structures along intermittent str136 Construct, maintain small impoundments 137 Restore drained lakes, wetland areas 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops DRAFT REPORT
Table E1. UMR-IWW Management Actions, cont. 

Ecosystem Element/ Parameter Extent ID Management ActionPlants and Animals (cont.) Watershed Management (cont.) 138 Riparian buffer strips 

139 Restore stream channels, floodplain areas 140 Urban storm water management practices 141 Construction site erosion prevention practices 142 Increase pervious surface in developed areas 

Employ USDA and IDA set-aside programs such 

Land acquisitions or easements Watershed groups Livestock management Encourage land trusts and individuals to conservopen space in perpetuity along the watershed (eland conservation) Stable hydrologic objectives for tributaries 

Provide sanitary facilities for campers on islands Adjust dredging frequency and volume to enable limit frequency of disturbance, WQ problems, gaAcquire tributary floodplain areas - areas hydroloSystem impoundment 

Look at Galloway Report recommendations USDA, EPA, FEMA need to be involved in river m

Consider system-wide cumulative impacts during project 

Wetland Reserve Program 

Environmental Education & Outreach Environmental education and outreach 

Educational outreach - neotropicals, ecology of r

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops DRAFT REPORT
Appendix F. La Crosse Environmental Workshop Report 

The following report summarizes the results of the La Crosse Environmental Workshop 

that was held November 18-19, 2002. The report includes: 

1. a summary of the workshop and results, 

2. tables of identified UMR-IWW environmental objectives, 

3. a table of identified management actions, 

4. a narrative on UMR-IWW species and population parameters, 

5. working group reports, and 

6. the plenary session report. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops 

DRAFT REPORT

F-1
Upper Mississippi River – Illinois 

Waterway System Navigation 

Feasibility Study 

La Crosse Environmental Workshop 

November 18-19, 2002 

La Crosse, WI 

DRAFT REPORT 

January 2003 

 

United States Army Corps of Engineers 

 
UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002,DRAFT REPORT 

ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

 Page

Executive Summary ................................................................................1

Introduction and Workshop Process ......................................................1 

Environmental Objectives....................................................................8 

Management Actions.......................................................................10 

Species and Population Parameters......................................................11 

Conceptual Model..........................................................................12 

 

Figures 

Figure 1. UMR-IWW Lock and Dams............................................................2 

Figure 2. Areas in red show the extent of selected landcover or landuse types on the 

UMR-IWW..............................................................................3 

Figure 3. UMR-IWW GIS Objective Tool and Database.....................................8 

Tables

Table 1. UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objective 

Workshops reports contents............................................................7 

Table 2. Number of site-specific environmental objectives identified for the Mississippi 

River.......................................................................................9 

Table 3. Example Management Action Table..................................................10 

Appendices

A. Workshop Invitation List, Participants, Participant Information...........A-1

 

B. Agenda....................................................................................B-1

C. Plenary Session Notes...................................................................C-1 

 

D. Answers to Introductory Questions.................................................D-1

 

E. Environmental Objectives.............................................................E-1

F. Management Actions...................................................................F-1 

G. Species and Population Parameters.................................................G-1 

H. Conceptual Models.....................................................................H-1

I. Power Point Presentations.............................................................I-1

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002,DRAFT REPORT 

iii
 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002,DRAFT REPORT 

iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Introduction and Workshop Process 

The restructured Upper Mississippi River –Illinois Waterway (UMR-IWW) System 

Navigation Feasibility Study is focused on the authorized Federal navigation projects on 

the Upper Mississippi River System (UMRS; including the Illinois Waterway; Figure 1) 

and the ecological and floodplain resources that are affected by these navigation projects. 

The objectives of this restructured feasibility study are to relieve lock congestion, achieve 

an environmentally sustainable navigation system, and address ecosystem and floodplain 

management needs related to navigation in a holistic manner. The restructured 

navigation study will seek to ensure that the rivers and waterway system will continue to 

be an effective transportation system and a nationally treasured ecological resource. The 

restructured study will: (1) further identify the long-term economic and ecological needs, 

and potential measures to meet those needs, through collaboration with interested 

agencies, stakeholders and the public; (2) evaluate various alternative plans to address 

those needs; (3) present a plan consisting of a set of measures for implementation that 

will achieve the study objectives; and (4) identify and address issues related to the 

implementation of the recommended plan.

The study area comprises the entire Illinois Waterway and the Upper Mississippi River. 

The Illinois Waterway extends 327 miles from its confluence with the Mississippi River 

to Lake Michigan via the Illinois River, Des Plaines River, and a series of canals. The 

Upper Mississippi River extends 854 miles from the confluence with the Ohio River to 

Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota. The study area lies 

within portions of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin. The total Illinois 

Waterway and Mississippi River navigation system contains 1,200 miles of nine-foot 

deep channels, 37 lock and dam sites (43 locks) and thousands of channel training 

structures (Figure 1). 

Much of the UMRS lock and dam system was in place by the 1940s. Except as noted 

below, the locks are 600 feet long, although, modern tow configurations include 15 

barges and approach 1,200 feet long. As a result, most tows must lock through using a 

time-consuming two-step process in which the first three rows of barges (9 barges) are 

locked through first and the last two rows of barges (6 barges) and the towboat are locked 

through second. The entire process may take 1.5 hours or longer depending on many 

variables. In contrast, Lock 19 has a 1,200-foot lock and Melvin Price Lock and Dam 

(Lock 26 replacement) and 27 have both a 1,200-foot and a 600-foot chamber at each 

site. The lockage process takes an average of 1.0 hours at Lock 19 and 0.6 hours at 

Locks 26 and 27. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

1
Lock & Dam 5A

Lock & Dam 2

Lock & Dam 1

Lock & Dam 6

Lock & Dam 5

Lock & Dam 8

Lock & Dam 11

Lock & Dam 12

Lock & Dam 13

Lock & Dam 15 Lock & Dam 14

Lock & Dam 16

Lock & Dam 17

Lock & Dam 18

Lock & Dam 19

Lock & Dam 21

Lock & Dam 22

Lock & Dam 24

Lock & Dam 25 Mel Price Lock & Dam

La Grange Lock & Dam

T.J. O'Brien Lock & Control Works

Lock & Dam 10

Lockport Lock & Dam

Brandon Road Lock & Dam

Dresden Island Lock & Dam

Marseilles Lock & Dam

Starved Rock Lock & Dam

Peoria Lock & Dam

ILLINOIS WATERWAY

MISSISSIPPI RIVER

Lock & Dam 9

Lock & Dam 7

Lock & Dam 4

Lock & Dam 3

Upper St Anthony Falls Lock & Dam

Lower St Anthony Falls Lock & Dam

Lock 27

Lock & Dam 20

OHIO RIVER

La Cr osse

Min neapol is

Du buq ue

PEORIA

ST. L OUIS

CAPE GIRA RDEA U

Roc k Isl and

ÊÚ

ÊÚ

ÊÚ

ÊÚ

ÊÚ

ÊÚ

ÊÚ

Figure1. UMR-IWW Locks and Dams. 

Eight locks on the Upper Mississippi River and 3 Illinois Waterway locks were among 20 

locks with the highest average delays in 1987 at the beginning of this study. This 

remains the case with UMR-IWW facilities highly ranked in the peak monthly delays at 

locks around the country in 1998. The UMRS had over half (19 of 36) of the most 

delayed lock sites in the country. Under current conditions, delays to tows are common 

at a number of locks on the UMRS. In general, delays are greatest at the most 

downstream 600-foot locks. For the 10-year period 1990-1999, delays per tow average 

3.4 hours at Locks 20-25; 2.2 hours at Locks 14-18; 0.9 hour at Locks 8-13; and 0.4 hour 

for Upper St. Anthony Lock to Lock 7. On the IWW over the same period, delays per 

tow average 1.8 hours at Peoria and La Grange and 1.1 hours for the other locks. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

2
Ecosystem 

The Upper Mississippi River ecosystem includes the river reaches described above, as 

well as the floodplain habitats that are critically important to large river floodplain 

systems. The total acreage of the river-floodplain system exceeds 2.6 million acres of 

aquatic, wetland, forest, grassland, and agricultural habitats. The Mississippi Flyway is 

used by more than 40% of the migratory waterfowl traversing the United States. These 

Trust Species and the threatened and endangered species in the region are the focus of 

considerable Federal wildlife management activities. In the middle and southern portions 

of the basin the habitat provided by the mainstem rivers represents the most important 

and abundant habitat in the region for many species.

Habitat types are disproportionately distributed throughout the river system, and their 

absolute abundance is dependent on the total area of the reach under consideration 

(Figure 2). The largest differences occur in the amount and distribution of agriculture 

and the proportion of open water in the floodplain. Agriculture dominates the wide 

floodplain south of Rock Island, Illinois and open water occupies a greater proportion of 

the floodplain north of Clinton, Iowa. Wetland classes are generally more abundant in 

northern river reaches, wet meadows are fairly evenly distributed, and grasslands are rare 

throughout the river system. Forest classes generally occupy between 10 to 20 percent of 

the floodplain in a narrow strip along the river banks throughout the system. 

Marsh Agriculture

Peoria

Cape Girardeau

Forest

Minneapolis

Dubuque

Rock Island

St. Louis

La Crosse

Minneapolis

Dubuque

Rock Island

Peoria

St. Louis

Cape Girardeau

La Crosse

Minneapolis

Dubuque

Rock Island

Peoria

St. Louis

Cape Girardeau

La Crosse

Levees

Minneapolis

Dubuque

Rock Island

Peoria

St. Louis

Cape Girardeau

La Crosse

Peoria

Cape Girardeau

Public Land

Minneapolis

Dubuque

Rock Island

St. Louis

La Crosse

Marsh Agriculture

Peoria

Cape Girardeau

Forest

Minneapolis

Dubuque

Rock Island

St. Louis

La Crosse

Minneapolis

Dubuque

Rock Island

Peoria

St. Louis

Cape Girardeau

La Crosse

Minneapolis

Dubuque

Rock Island

Peoria

St. Louis

Cape Girardeau

La Crosse

Levees

Minneapolis

Dubuque

Rock Island

Peoria

St. Louis

Cape Girardeau

La Crosse

Peoria

Cape Girardeau

Public Land

Minneapolis

Dubuque

Rock Island

St. Louis

La Crosse

Figure 2. Areas in red show the extent of selected landcover or landuse types on the 

UMR-IWW. 

Section 1103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (WRDA 86) recognized 

the Upper Mississippi River system as a unique, nationally significant ecosystem and a 

nationally significant commercial navigation system. The system provides: 

1. A means for shippers to transport million of tons of commodities within the study 

area---130 million tons on the Mississippi River and 44 million tons on the Illinois 

Waterway in 2000, 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

3
2. Food and habitat for at least 485 species of birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and 

fish (including 10 Federally endangered or threatened species and 100 state listed 

species), 

3. More than 226,650 acres of national wildlife and fish refuge, 

4. Water supply for 22 communities and many farmers, and industries, 

5. A multi-use recreational resource providing more than 11 million recreational visits 

each year, 

6. Cultural evidence of our Nation’s past. 

Establishing Goals for the System 

The original UMR-IWW Navigation Feasibility Study was narrowly focused on the 

problem of reducing commercial navigation traffic congestion on the system. 

Coordination was occurring between economic and environmental interests;, however, 

the work was being accomplished independently. With the new focus of the restructured 

study on sustainability, it became important for the stakeholders of the system to prepare 

a common vision for the future of the UMRS. In November 2001, the Economic 

Coordinating Committee (ECC) and the Navigation Environmental Coordinating 

Committee (NECC) met jointly to prepare this vision:

“To seek long-term sustainability of the economic uses and ecological integrity of the 

Upper Mississippi River System” 

The following definition of sustainability was collaboratively developed and agreed to by 

the group as well: 

“The balance of economic, ecological, and social conditions so as to meet the 

current, projected, and future needs of the Upper Mississippi River System without 

compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.” 

This definition will serve as the primary goal for integrated and adaptive management of 

the Upper Mississippi River System.

Planning for future navigation system infrastructure needs; navigation system operation 

and maintenance; habitat protection, enhancement, and restoration; river recreation; 

floodplain management; and water quality management should be conducted in the 

context of a set of clear goals and objectives for condition of the UMRS. Setting these 

goals and objectives should be done collaboratively, with participation of the full 

community of river stakeholders. Development of a set of measurable objectives for 

integrated and adaptive management of the UMRS will be challenging. It will require 

considerable collaborative effort, making use of conceptual models, predictive models, 

and visualization tools to comprehend the interconnections between system components 

and to enable the community of stakeholders to actively participate in planning for a 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

4
sustainable multiple use river-floodplain system. Integrated planning will be an on-going 

effort to optimize the National benefits achieved from efficient and effective adaptive 

river management. 

Introduction to the Workshop 

Four two-day workshops were held during November 2002, to aid the process of 

establishing measurable environmental objectives for the Upper Mississippi River-Illinois 

Waterway System (UMR-IWW). Workshops were conducted in Peoria, Illinois, St. 

Louis, Missouri, La Crosse, Wisconsin and Moline, Illinois. 

The workshops were structured to achieve the following main objectives: 

1) Identification of UMR-IWW environmental objectives

Collaboratively review, refine, and add to a database of specific, quantitative, 

local to regional scale environmental objectives (for the workshop region) 

building on previous work from the EMP Habitat Needs Assessment, Pool Plans, 

USFWS Comprehensive Conservation Plans, and related study efforts. 

2) Identification of UMR-IWW management actions

Review and identify management actions that are most likely to contribute to 

achieving the established goals and objectives. 

3) Discuss and identify species and population parameters

Identify plant and animal species and appropriate units of measure that should be 

considered for future environmental objectives planning efforts. 

4) Present and discuss UMR-IWW ecosystem conceptual model

Present and discuss the utility of developing an UMR-IWW ecosystem conceptual 

model to gain a better understanding of the linkages between environmental 

objectives, management actions, and the state of the ecosystem. 

Participants were invited from a variety of organizations including the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, U.S. Department of Forestry, U.S. Department of Transportation – 

Maritime Administration, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, U.S. Geological Survey, Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Illinois 

DNR, Illinois Department of Water Resources, Illinois Natural History Survey, IL State 

water Survey, Minnesota DNR, Missouri Department of Conservation, Missouri DNR, 

Wisconsin DNR, Audubon Society, Environmental Defense, Iowa Farm Bureau, Izaak 

Walton League, MARC 2000, MRBA, Mississippi River Revival, Missouri Coalition for 

the Environment, Sierra Club, Southern Illinois University, The Nature Conservancy, 

University of Miami, UMIMRA, UMRCC, and Quincy Park District. There were a total 

of 142 people who participated in the interactive workshop process. This report presents 

the results of the enormous amount of effort and energy the participants contributed to the 

workshops. 

Workshop Process 

The workshop was organized by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Rock 

Island District. A subset of the workshop participants helped review and edit this 

Workshop Report. Outside review by non-participants will not be part of the process. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

5
No content changes were made by the editors and the participants checked that accurate 

representations were made of the work they had done during the workshop. 

The La Crosse workshop was conducted 18 - 19 November, 2002 at the Fish and Wildlife 

Service Refuge Office La Crosse, Wisconsin. There were 42 participants, with most 

present the entire duration of the workshop. These participants, from more than 60 issued 

invitations, included state and federal wildlife agency personnel, non-governmental 

agency representatives, and public citizens. Participants and invitees are listed in 

Appendix A. 

The agenda for the workshop (Appendix B) was followed loosely, allowing extra time for 

questions and time in the workgroups as needed. A record of these plenary discussions is 

found in Appendix C, while workgroup reports can be found in the appendices related to 

their topic of discussion. 

Background on the General Workshop Structure 

The workshop process was designed to maximize the time and resources available at each 

of the meetings. The workshops utilized three components of meeting structure to meet 

the objectives of eliciting information, discussing key issues, and informing the 

participants of developing strategies. 

The first component was the standard meeting style wherein a few speakers provided 

information to the group as a whole allowing for questions and some discussion. 

The second component was key for eliciting information and involved breaking the group 

into working groups based on some criteria such as geography or content. Breaking a 

large meeting into working groups comprised of 10 or fewer individuals optimized the 

opportunity for participation of the greatest number of people and for timely discussion 

and progression on key issues. The number of working groups varied depending on the 

number of participants and geographic areas to be covered. 

The third component were the plenary sessions, which allowed all of the participants to 

hear a summary of what was accomplished in the other working groups and to have input 

into the entire set of results. It also allowed the facilitators to refine the GIS database as a 

coordinated team. 

Before getting started with the first task of this workshop, each participant was asked to 

introduce themselves and to write out and then read aloud answers to an introductory 

question. This process allowed for expression of individual perspectives without being 

immediately influenced by previous responses. This process indicated potential areas of 

common ground and provided a first insight into the diversity of perceived issues present 

in the group. Answers to the question can be found in Appendix D of this report. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

6
After the Workshops 

The workshops were an early step in a planning process to establish environmental 

alternatives that strive to secure the environmental sustainability of the UMR-IWW. 

Once the environmental objectives are well defined and management actions are 

identified to achieve them, the next step will be estimating the potential costs and 

outcomes (i.e., benefits) for the suggested actions. This information will be used to 

develop alternative plans (made up of multiple combinations of management actions) that 

seek to address the local, river reach, and system-wide needs of the UMR-IWW 

ecosystem. These environmental alternative plans will then be integrated with alternative 

plans for the UMR-IWW Navigation System. Tradeoff analysis will be conducted to 

identify and compare the environmental, economic, and social benefits of the integrated 

plans. The results of the alternative analysis, and further collaborative review and input 

from stakeholders, will be used to develop a recommended plan portrayed in the Final 

Feasibility Report scheduled for completion in late 2004. 

Formal Report 

Five reports will be produced as a result of the four, two-day workshops. The first four 

reports are Workshop Reports, which will be reviewed by the workshop participants. A 

final integrated report summarizing the results from the four workshops will be published 

as part of the Navigation Study’s formal documentation process. The final integrated 

report will contain a full accounting of the site-specific objectives in the form of an atlas 

as well as the tabulated system, reach, and pool wide objectives and management actions 

(Table 1). Workshop participants will have an opportunity to review and comment on the 

integrated Draft Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops Report before its 

completion in early 2003. 

Table 1. UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objective 

Workshops reports contents. 

• La Crosse Environmental Workshop Report

- Summary of La Crosse workshop and results 

- Tables of identified Upper Mississippi River pool-wide and site-specific 

objectives 

- Table of identified management actions 

- Narrative of species and population parameters 

- Working Group Reports 

- Plenary Session Report 

• Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops Report 

- Summary of all four workshops 

- Tables of all identified UMR-IWW pool-wide and site-specific objectives 

- Atlas maps of all identified site-specific objectives 

- Table of all identified managements actions 

- Narrative of UMR-IWW species and population parameters 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

7
Environmental Objectives 

The primary goal of the Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops was to have 

participants collaboratively review, refine, and add to a database of specific, quantitative, 

and local to regional scale UMR-IWW environmental objectives obtained from previous 

study efforts. The La Crosse Workshop was successful in reviewing and identifying both 

site-specific and pool-wide objectives for the Mississippi River (Pools 1-11) using a 

combination of breakout groups and a plenary session. Objective atlas maps and 

worksheets were reviewed and filled out by breakout groups. A plenary session then 

followed where the information from each group was compiled into the objective 

database using GIS tools (Figure 3). 

Figure 3. UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study GIS Objective Tool and Database.

The environmental objective database used at the La Crosse Workshop included 1,451 

site-specific objectives obtained from the Upper Mississippi River System Habitat Needs 

Assessment (HNA) and Mississippi River Environmental Pool Plans. An additional data 

source was identified during the La Crosse Workshop and later added to the objective 

database. This included objectives noted by the Habitat Rehabilitation and Enhancement 

Project (HREP) documents. HREP objectives were noted only for projects described as 

‘under general design’ or ‘future opportunities’. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

8
Table 2. Number of site-specific env. objectives identified for the Mississippi River.

uantitative target ranges for objectives were usually not identified at specific locations. 

ansparency of 

• ibutaries, 

, 

on, 

t through natural processes. 

 more complete list of Mississippi River pool-wide objectives gathered at the La Crosse 

60

21

67

72

89

65

21

Based on comments from the workshop participants and removal of redundant objectives 

(e.g., two identical depth objectives in the same backwater area), the database was refined 

to 1,168 objectives (see Table 2). Over 240 of these identified objectives were enhanced 

with additional detailed information (i.e., target ranges, seasonality, and descriptive 

comments) provided by the participants. Land cover/use, terrestrial area, and backwater 

depth were the most common type of objectives identified for this portion of the river. 

Emergent and submersed aquatic vegetation made up the largest number of identified 

land cover objectives and terrestrial area objectives most often referred to island 

restoration. The 21 environmental objectives identified as ‘Other’ included objectives 

related to improving dissolved oxygen levels, controlling invasive species, and 

restoration of river rapids habitat. Pool 7 had the largest density of identified objectives 

with an average of over six per river mile. Appendix E provides additional detail on the 

objectives listed in Table 2. Maps of all site-specific objectives identified in the 

workshop will be distributed for review in the integrated Environmental Objectives 

Planning Workshops Draft Report (in January). 

Objective Pool 1 Pool 2 Pool 3 Pool 4 Pool 5 Pool 5a Pool 6 Pool 7 Pool 8 Pool 9 Pool 10 Pool 11 Total

Water Clarity 0 8 6 11 10 7 7 10 25 26 30 20 1

Backwater Depth 0 8 8 12 11 8 10 10 21 25 40 20 173

Water Level 131211421212

Connectivity 169863765493

Aquatic Areas 13 1 1 7 4 3 1 5 1 3 15 18

Terrestrial Areas 1 19 7 38 21 6 12 21 37 36 51 40 2

Land Cover/Use 2 55 41 36 36 16 10 25 42 46 26 30 3

Other 123103204032

Total 19 102 76 115 89 47 53 79 136 142 175 135 1168

Mississippi River Reach

Q

Rather, they were noted with the pool-wide objectives. Some examples of the pool-wide 

environmental objectives identified by workshop participants include: 

• water clarity in secondary channels should have a secchi disk tr

1.5m during all seasons by 2010, 

decrease sediment-loading from tr

• actively manage floodplain forests, 

• create a more natural hydrograph, 

• support Environmental Pool Plans,

• preserve native species/communities

• complete storm/sanitary drain separati

• protect mussels – recovering communities,

• reduce erosion, and 

• sustain quality habita

A

Workshop is located in Appendix E. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

9
Management Actions 

The purpose of the Management Actions working groups and plenary session was to 

review and identify management actions that were most likely to contribute to achieving 

the established goals and objectives. This was accomplished by reviewing current tables 

of management actions (see the Interim Report for the Restructured Upper Mississippi 

River – Illinois Waterway system Navigation Feasibility Study pages 251-255), tailoring 

them to the ecosystem elements under consideration, and revising them where necessary. 

Management Actions are defined as specific actions, tools, techniques or combinations of 

actions, tools and techniques used to meet defined objectives. Management actions are 

implemented as specific projects whose reconnaissance and feasibility studies provide the 

detail required to assess and develop environmental analyses, funding, staffing, 

engineering and partnerships needed to implement the plan. Table 3 is an example of the 

Management Actions Tables where actions have been changed or added. All 

management actions can be found in Appendix F. 

Table 3. Example Management Action Table. 

Element/ 

Parameter Extent ID Management Action Comments 

Water Quality 

Water Clarity Main Channel 1Apply watershed BMPs (best 

management practices) 

 2Stabilize river banks 

 3Pool scale drawdown to consolidate soft 

sediments 

 4 Minimize dredge disturbance/frequency 

 5 Minimize dredge slurry return water 

 6 Minimize bankside dredged material 

placement 

 7Stabilize dredged material 

 8Tributary reservoirs 

 9Speed and wake restrictions - rec. 

boats (all watercraft) 

Comments/ 

Additions: 

Evaluate and modify mechanisms to 

deal with watershed influences to 

eliminate spiking hydrographic cycle 

(system wide) 

 

 Restore natural tributary areas through 

delta areas 

 Minimize open water dredged material 

placement 

 Sediment traps 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

10
Species and Population Parameters 

The purpose of this session was to identify plant and animal species and appropriate units 

of measure that should be considered for future environmental objectives planning 

efforts. Below is a summary of the discussion that took place during the plenary session. 

Participants at the La Crosse workshops expressed apprehension about setting species 

targets. The source of apprehension was that environmental management actions to 

achieve species targets may be undertaken without knowing or evaluating the impacts on 

the rest of the ecosystem. Overwhelmingly, the participants expressed a desire for habitat 

objectives (i.e., Pool Plans), with the understanding that habitat management will likely 

result in increased abundance of both targeted and non-targeted species. Monitoring and 

understanding existing conditions was mentioned several times with the thought that preproject conditions should be compared to post-project responses. Environmental 

monitoring data was also mentioned as valuable to help understand existing conditions 

and to establish expectations for restoration efforts. Workshop participants thought the 

catch rate and relative abundance of species in the catch were viable measures of the fish 

community response to aquatic restoration initiatives. They also thought that physical 

responses to project implementation may be reliable assessments of project performance. 

Several participants espoused the adaptive management philosophy put forth in the 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Interim Report. The adaptive 

management process allows for action despite uncertainties, and evaluation to refine 

management practices where actions fall short of anticipated results. 

Considering all the issues, participants seemed to agree that sensitive and exotic species 

should be tracked as indicators of ecosystem condition and that community level 

assessments should be targeted at specific habitats and project areas. The desire for 

absolute abundance estimates should not be ignored, but should also not be acquired at 

the expense of other monitoring or restoration efforts. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

11
Conceptual Model 

At the end of the workshop, participants were provided with a brief presentation on the 

ecosystem conceptual model being developed for the UMR-IWW Navigation Study. The 

purpose of the UMR-IWW conceptual model is to identify the linkages and sequencing 

of identified environmental objectives and associated management actions and facilitate a 

comprehensive assessment of the potential risks and impacts posed by improvements to 

the navigation infrastructure. The conceptual model can contribute to this overall 

purpose through the following: 

• Visually characterize a complex system to better understand and manage it 

• Identify the major drivers, stressors, and endpoints of the system 

• Define the functional relationships (i.e., linkages) between stressors and endpoints 

• Assist in decisions on impact assessment, restoration and management actions, 

and evaluation tools 

• Provide a framework for implementing adaptive management and restoration 

• Facilitate dialog and develop a structure for additional input from stakeholders 

The ecosystem conceptual model presentation can be found in Appendix H. All the 

PowerPoint slides used during the 2-day workshop are accessible through a FTP site 

noted in Appendix I. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

12
Appendix A. Invitation List with Participants Highlighted 

Name Affiliation Address Phone E-mail Mark Andersen WI DNR 

3550 Mormon Coulee Rd La Crosse, WI 54601 608.785.9994 Mark.Andersen@dn

Gretchen Benjamin WI DNR 

3550 Mormon Coulee Rd. La Crosse, WI 54601 608.785.9982 Gretchen.Benjamin

Ron Benjamin WI DNR 

3550 Mormon Coulee Rd. La Crosse, WI 54601 608.785.9012 benjar@dnr.state.w

Mark Beorkrem Sierra Club/MRBA 

P.O. Box 370 Morrisonville, IL 62546 314.882.8425 beorkrem@ctitech.c

Paul Bertels MARC 2000 

632 Cepi Crive Chesterfield, MO 63005 636.733.9004 bertels@ncga.com

Kevin Bluhm CEMVP-PM-E 

190 Fifth Street East St. Paul, MN 55101-1638 651.290.5247 Kevin.W.Bluhm@m

Pete Boma UMESC 

575 Lester Ave Onalaska, WI 54650 608.783.7550x14 pete_boma@usgs.g

Brian Brecka WI DNR 

Buffalo County Court House Alma, WI 54610-0088 608.685.6221 Breckb@dnr.state.w

Kurt Brownell ECMVP-CO-NR 

190 Fifth Street East St. Paul, MN 55101-1638 507.895.6341 Kurt.A.Brownell@mvp

Ed Britton USFWS (Savanna) 

USFWS UMRNWR 7071 Riverview Rd, Thompson, IL 61285 815.2733.2732

Mike Cox CEMVR-OD-T 

PO Box 2004 Clock Tower Building Rock Island, IL 61201 309-794.5558 Michael.D.Cox@mv

Betsy Croker MARC 2000 

122 C Street, NW, Ste. 510, Washington DC 20001 202.628.7001 croker@dc.ncga.co

Mike Davis MN DNR 

1801 South Oak Street Lake City, MN 55041 651.345.3331 mike.davis@dnr.sta

Jeffrey DeZellar CEMVP-PM-A 

190 Fifth Street East St. Paul, MN 55101-1638 651.290.5433 Jeffrey.T.DeZellar@

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Name Affiliation Address Phone E-mail

Robert Dolan IA DNR 

NE Iowa Professional Building, PO Box 700 Fayett, IA 52142 563.927.3276 Robert.Dolan@dnr.state

Bob Drieslein USFWS (Winona) 

51 E. 4th St. Room 101, 

Winona, WI 55987 507.494.6229 Bob drieslein@fws.gov

Terry Dukerschein LTRMP - Pools 4,8 

575 Lester Ave Onalaska, WI 54650 608.783.7550x706 terry_dukerschein@usg

Scott Faber 

Environmental Defense 

1875 Connecticut Ave. N.W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20009 

202.387.3500 x3315 sfaber@environmentald

Barbra Frank Sierra Club 

N1965 Vakket Rd La Crosse, WI 54601 608.788.3914 bdfrank@centurytel.net

Jeff Gulan CEMVP-CO-LD 

431 North Shore Dr, PO Box 397, Fountain City, WI 54629 608.687.9140 jeffrey.j.gulan@mvp02.u

Scott Gritters IA DNR 

PO Box 250 Guttenberg, IA 563.252.1156 Scott.Gritters@dnr.state

Dave Heath WI DNR 

3550 Mormon Coulee Rd La Crosse, WI 54601 608.785.9993 heathd@dnr.state.wi.us

Patricia Heglund UMESC 

575 Lester Ave Onalaska, WI 54650 608.783.7550 x62 pheglund@usgs.gov

Jon Hendrickson CEMVP-ED-H 

190 Fifth Street East St. Paul, MN 55101-1638 651.290.5634 jon.s.hendrickson@mvp

Don Hultman USFWS (Winona) 

51 E. 4th Street Room 101, Winona, WI 55987 507.494.6218 Don_Hultman@fsw.gov

Jeff Janvrin WI DNR 

3550 Mormon Coulee Rd La Crosse, WI 54601 608.785.9005 janvrj@dnr.state.wi.us

Barry Johnson UMESC 

575 Lester Ave Onalaska, WI 54650 608.783.7550 x47 barry_johnson@usgs.g

Scot Johnson MN DNR 

1801 South Oak Street Lake City, MN 55041 651.345.5601 scot.johnson@dnrmn.st

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Name Affiliation Address Phone E-mail 

Kevin Kenow UMESC 

2630 Fanta Reed Road La Crosse, WI 54603 608.781.6278 kevin_kenow@usgs.g

Eileen Kirsch UMESC 

2630 Fanta Reed Road La Crosse, WI 54603 608.781.6226 eileen_kirsch@usgs.g

Brent Knights UMESC 

575 Lester Ave Onalaska, WI 54650 608.783.7550x22 brent_knights@usgs.g

Melinda Knutson UMESC 

575 Lester Ave Onalaska, WI 54650 608.783.7550x68 melinda_knutson@us

Fred Kollman NRCS 

575 Lester Ave Onalaska, WI 54650 

608.783.7550 x711 fkollmann@umesc.er.

Dan Krumholz CEMVP-CO-CH 

190 Fifth Street East St. Paul, MN 55101-1638 608.687.3112 Daniel.J.Krumholz@m

Ron Kucera MO DNR 

PO Box 176 Jefferson City MO 65102 573.751.3195 nrkucer@mail.dnr.stat

Robert Kurtt IA DNR 

944 South Mill Street, Decorah, IA 52101 563.382.4895 Robert.Kurtt@dnr.stat

Dan Larson MARC 2000 

5077 144th St. West St. Paul MN 55124 952.423.7218 Dan27@frontiernet.ne

John Lindell USFWS (McGregor) 

PO Box 460 McGregor, IA 52157 563.873.3427 john_lindell@fws.gov

Catherine McCalvin 

The Nature Conservancy 

PO Box 305 Trempealeau, WI 54661-0305 608.534.6514 CMcCalvin@tnc.org

Dan McGuiness - Director 

Audubon, Upper Mississippi River Campaign 

26 East Exchange Street, Suite 110 St. Paul, MN 55101 651.290.1695 dmcguiness@audubo

Dave Moeller IA DNR 

22693 205th Ave Manchester, IA 52057 563.927.3276 dave.moeller@dnr.sta

Rick Moore Isaac Walton League 

820 Brickl Rd, West Salem, WI 54669 651.649.1446 rxmoore@iwla.org

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Name Affiliation Address Phone E-mail 

Eric Nelson USFWS (Winona) 

51 E. 4th Street Room 101, Winona, WI 55987 507.494.6214 Eric_Nelson@fws.gov

Lee Nelson MARC 2000 

40 State Street St. Paul, MN 55107 651.292.9293 lee@URSI.net

Jim Nissen USFWS 

555 Lester Ave, Onalaska, WI 54650 608.783.8401 James_Nissen@fws.g

Dick Otto CEMVP-CO-NR 

190 Fifth Street East St. Paul, MN 55101-1638 507.895.6341 Richard.J.Otto@mvp0

Dean Peterson CEMVP-CO-LD 

190 Fifth Street East St. Paul, MN 55101-1638 608.687.9104 Dean.J.Peterson@mv

Fred Pinkard CEERDC-HC-R 

3909 Halls Ferry Road Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199 601.634.3086 Fred.Pinkard@erdc.us

John Pitlo IA DNR 

Bellevue Reasearch Station, RR 3, Box 63, Bellevue, IA 52031 563.872.4976 John.Pitlo@dnr.state.i

Don Powell CEMVP-PM-A 

190 Fifth Street East St. Paul, MN 55101-1638 651.290.5402 Donald.L.Powell@usa

Jim Rogala UMESC 

575 Lester Ave Onalaska, WI 54650 608.783.7550x60 jim_rogala@usgs.gov

Paul Rohde MARC 2000 

906 Olive Street, Suite 1010 St. Louis, MO 63101 314.436.7303 paulcr2k@aol.com

Jennie Sauer UMESC 

575 Lester Ave Onalaska, WI 54650 608.783.7550x64 jennie_sauer@usgs.g

Tim Schlagenhaft MN DNR 

2300 Silver Creek Road NE Rochester, MN 55906 507.280.5058 tim.schlagenhaft@dnr

Patrick Short WI DNR 

1502 East Lessard Prairie du Chien, WI 53821 608.326.8818 shortp@dnr.state.wi.u

Sol Simon 

Mississippi River Revival 

51 E. 4th St., Winona, MN 55987 507.457.0393 ssimon@hbci.com

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Name Affiliation Address Phone E-mail 

Elliott Stefanik CEMVP 

190 Fifth Street East St. Paul, MN 55101-1638 651.290.5260 elliott.l.stefanik@mvp0

Jon Stravers 

Research and Fieldtrip Coordinator for Audobon UMR Campaign 

PO Box 309 McGregor IA 52157 563.586.2621 hawk@alpinecom.net

Gary Swenson CEMVR-OD-MN 

PO Box 2004 Clock Tower Building Rock Island, IL 61201 309.794.4489 Gary.V.Swenson@mv

Steve Tapp CEMVP-CO-CH 

431 North Shore Dr, PO Box 397, Fountain City, WI 54629 608.687.3112 Steven.D.Tapp@usac

Randy Urich CEMVP-CO-NR 

190 Fifth Street East St. Paul, MN 55101-1638 507.895.6341 Randall.R.Urich@mvp

Jon Vallazza UMESC 

575 Lester Ave Onalaska, WI 54650 608.783.7550x734 jon_vallazza@usgs.go

Gary Wege USFWS-TCFO 

4101 East 80th St. 

Bloomington, MN 55425-1665 612.725.3548 Gary_Wege@fws.gov

Shawn Weick UMESC 

575 Lester Ave Onalaska, WI 54650 608.783.7550x63 shawn_weick@usgs.g

Dan Wilcox CEMVP-PE-M 

190 Fifth Street East St. Paul, MN 55101-1638 612.290.5276 Daniel.B.Wilcox@mvp

Steven Zigler UMESC 

2630 Fanta Reed Road La Crosse, WI 54603 608.781.6395 steven_zigler@usgs.g

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Appendix B. Agenda 

Day 1 

9:00 Opening 

Hank DeHaan and Chuck Theiling 

9:10 Introduction to the Workshop Process and Participant Introductions 

 Rebecca Soileau 

9:30 UMR-IWW Restructured Navigation Feasibility Study Overview and Schedule 

Ken Barr 

9:45 Vision, Goals, and Environmental Objectives 

 Chuck Theiling 

10:00 Working Definitions of Terminology for this Workshop 

Nicole McVay

10:10 Overview of GIS Database and Existing Objectives and Management Actions 

Hank DeHaan 

10:30 Working Groups (I): Identify and refine environmental objectives for the 

Illinois Waterway ecosystem. . 

12:00 Lunch 

1:00 Working Groups (I): Continued work and Report Preparation 

3:30 Plenary: Presentation of objectives identified by each working group and input 

into GIS 

5:30 Adjourn 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

B-1
DAY 2 

8:00 Plenary: Presentation and discussion of synthesis of results from previous 

days work 

 

9:00 Working Groups (II): Review and identify management actions that are 

most likely to contribute towards achieving the established goals and 

objectives 

10:30 Plenary: Group presentations of new and revised management actions. 

12:00 Lunch 

1:00 Plenary: Overview of regional evaluation data and tools for assessing the efficiency 

of management actions both initially and in an adaptive management framework. 

Discussion of species and population parameters. 

Chuck Theiling

2:30 Review of Regional Ecosystem Conceptual Models 

 

3:00 Workshop Closing

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

B-2
Appendix C. Plenary Session Notes 

Below are the plenary session notes that were captured by the facilitators during the twoday workshop. Participant names have been removed from all comments except those 

made by the facilitators. 

La Crosse Workshop November 18th – Day 1 

Chuck Theiling’s Intro (9:08 –9:11)

Chuck Theiling’s introduction briefly described what the workshop will accomplish as 

well as introduced Hank DeHaan, Nicole McVay, Rebecca Soileau and himself. 

Participant Introductions (9:11 – 9:32)

See Appendix D for a list of written and verbal responses.

Ken Barr’s Talk (9:32- 10:31)

Ken Barr discussed the history of the Navigation Study – its original focus as well as 

some of the studies that originated from that process. He then went on to discuss the 

restructured navigation study, describing the vision as well as the new scope of the study. 

He showed how the two studies differed with respect to the ecological integrity (the 

original study focused on direct effects of construction or more tow boats on fish, 

sediment resuspension, mussels, etc; while the restructured study will consider the 

existing project impacts and establish objectives to have the environment reach a desired 

state). During his presentation he also displayed the six-step planning process and 

reminded all workshop participants that the Corps has to follow this process. He 

concluded the presentation by discussing how the environmental portion of the 

navigation study will be viewed in an adaptive management framework as well as 

showing the participants the schedule of the study. At the end of the presentation he told 

people that they were open to attend NECC/ECC meetings and that the meeting minutes 

could be found on the web. 

Questions 

– How is this scope comparative to EMP? 

Barr – It is probably pretty similar, maybe a bit narrower. There is a greater opportunity 

to identify things in an O&M context. 

– Are you looking at the incremental difference because of the lock extensions or the 

difference that might be needed because there is navigation on the river? 

Barr – The latter and perhaps broader. Sediment is more from outside of navigation but 

we may be able to address this. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-1
– Bed degradation in the lower river has affected side channels and wetlands way out on 

the floodplain. We need to consider this too. 

Barr – Those gray lines are fuzzy and we will be looking to see what we can do. 

– Will you be looking outside the gray lines? 

Barr – There are other agencies and organizations that can use these objectives, but we 

will be looking to recommend things that focus on navigation effects. 

– This navigation study will only look at effects directly related to the dotted lines 

(changes in navigation). Is the only part of the environmental based on the changed to 

the navigation system? (Confusion due to dotted line, navigation effects vs. traffic 

effects) 

Barr – No we will look at all actions that we might take to contribute to those objectives 

somewhere where the navigation system has effects. This is not just traffic, the entire 

navigation system. 

– Is this your response to the federal task force to deal with being out of compliance of 

NEPA? Have limited resources so what part of the study/mitigation are we focusing on? 

Barr – Lots of debates on on-going effects. We are focused more on what are the needs 

of the system and how can we modify the system to address those needs? We did 

sidestep mitigation of past effects, but we will have to go through similar steps as we 

would for mitigation. 

– The reason you don’t do mitigation is funding? 

Barr – We consider there to be three baskets for funding: Mitigation (50% Federal, 50% 

Fuel tax); 100% Federal (things on federal land, Operations and Maintenance (O&M) as 

well as Construction General (CG) funds); and Cost sharing with entities who want to 

restore (private land). We anticipate 3 ways to fund things with changes in authority. 

Possible dual authority for navigation and environment. 

Question on second basket: CG or OM? 

Barr - Good question. That is an authority issue. 

– Everglades program up here? If you are looking for sustainability you need to look at 

the entire watershed. So is the Navigation study moving towards “Everglades” type 

sustainability or is it constrained by the dotted lines? 

Barr – When the study was first restructured the Navigation Study was termed a 

Comprehensive study. Talked it over and it is still a navigation study. It is bigger than 

the previous study, but still tied to navigation. We know we need to understand the 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-2
effects of the tributaries in a watershed context. However the management actions we 

recommend will be associated with the navigation study. 

– There are big differences between the Everglades and the Navigation Study. They 

never determined if the water supply was cost effective, it was assumed to be necessary. 

There were also lots of other sponsors. Everything is cost shared among the agencies. 

Wege – I was hoping for a more comprehensive plan, but I’m not hearing that here. How 

are they handling this downstream? Are they setting objectives for recapturing the 

floodplain? 

Response – Downstream they are setting objectives for recapturing the floodplain. 

– Eventually we can set objectives for the condition of the river system that ties us to the 

watershed plan. Then we can work towards obtaining targets. We can set targets for the 

input of tributaries. 

– TMDL projects have a good process for setting targets in the watershed. 

– Adaptive Management. Right now we have a 40% funding reduction in EMP-LTRMP 

(something that is existing). Yet you are promising 3 new baskets. Why was there a cut to 

EMP? 

Barr –It was a 40% cut across the board that effected EMP. In August of 2001 we were 

told to look at how EMP can address sustainability of the river ecosystem. 

– Some of us will be cautious as to what we will get out of this based on past budget 

outcomes. 

– The new funding will show how committed HQ is to this process since Missouri and 

Everglades did not get the 40% cut. 

– Could agriculture areas be part of those cost sharing. What if we need to address these 

to acquire sustainability? What if agriculture becomes the most important cause for 

environmental sustainability? 

Barr –We know there are private lands where navigation system has an effect. We 

bought easements to lands – they are on the table for this project. We will probably 

recommend cost sharing for these. Areas that are FWS or fee title would be easier to 

justify 100%. However, HQ might say that the 1135 authority already addresses 

navigation effects. 

– We are going to need multiple funds and tools to address sustainability. How are you 

going to do this? Top 4 priorities because these are systemic or individual tools for 

different areas? Are you looking for a prioritized list? 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-3
Barr – Today and tomorrow we aren’t going to be prioritizing, we want to have all the 

tools in our toolbox. However later we will prioritize. We want to use the most effective 

tools possible. We understand that St. Louis is different than St. Paul. 

– Will you be looking systemically or locally? Draw down may be best systemic tool, 

but will affect the 1-foot habitat of a mussel. 

Barr – You have to deal with the critter in that resolution. There will always be 

tradeoffs. 

– Where the animals live will be overlooked. What you can see from an airplane will be 

what we do. We never get to plan for the habitat area. Our greatest concern is that what 

is going to be overlooked is the habitat level – specific areas for specific species. 

Soileau – You can state your areas of concern and place them on the maps. 

– How big is the 2nd basket and what is the philosophy that we use that basket? The 

channel is guaranteed for nine feet of depth. Corps manages for 13 feet of depth, but if 

we really manage for 9 feet of depth it wouldn’t cost as much to open backwaters and do 

drawdowns. Requires a shift in philosophy. 

– The tools Hank and Chuck have put together are a remarkable framework to do this- to 

gather objectives at different scales. Have a nested set of scales for setting objectives. 

Implementation is also done at different scales. We also need to identify many different 

management actions at various scales. 

– How do you identify what is best for the river once we have this laundry list? 

Barr – Reasonable alternatives that can be evaluated at a certain scale that will be good 

enough for the feasibility study. We will be working through NECC. 

– Clarify Tim’s question what is the sequence again? 

–We have to discuss systemic effects. Will this discussion occur in the Expert panel? 

Will we have opportunity to participate in this discussion? 

Barr – Expert panels will help with the conceptual model. They can help us. At the end 

of the day the actual management structure will be as important as the site-specific info. 

It will have to be adaptive. 

– Key to this is the adaptive management actions. Corps is so good at not doing this. 

They are better at designing, building and then walking away. Is the Corps willing to do 

this... adaptive management? 

Barr – The environment at HQ seems to be ripe for this. The proof is in the pudding. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-4
Chuck Theiling’s Talk (10:31-10:57)

Chuck began his talk by reviewing many of the reports that have been written concerning 

the environment of the UMR-IWW. He then went on to discuss how the Corps has 

structured this study and where in the study these workshops take place. Next he 

discussed the expert panel, their functions, the individuals who will make up the panel, as 

well as how they will fit into the entire process. Chuck then discussed goals, objectives 

and management actions. He displayed the goals from Grumbine that were adopted by 

the Navigation Study in the interim report as well as the goals listed in the UMRCC 

report “A River that Works and a Working River.” Next he discussed objectives, 

described them and listed several example objectives. Chuck continued his presentation 

by giving an overview of the framework for setting objectives. He then continued by 

showing where the data to create the objectives database came from. He concluded the 

talk by reiterating exactly where the focus of the navigation study was as well as 

discussing how other agencies and authorities could use these overarching goals. 

Questions 

– When can we talk about water quality? 

Soileau – In your working group and in the plenary 

DeHaan – There is always “other” that can be entered into the database. Just follow the 

hierarchical structure. 

– Who decides what objectives are the priorities? Especially if they oppose each other? 

Response – Probably the NECC. 

– Make an effort to have decisions be open and transparent because they are very 

important. 

– TMDL – EPA and States to address water quality standards. EPA will have to address 

the Mississippi sedimentation. This is about ready to be developed. What is the 

framework for addressing them...water quality standards of the states? Maybe deal with 

habitat degradation if objective framework doesn’t allow for that. 

– As we talk about prioritizing the objectives different agencies will prioritize differently. 

From a large universe of objectives the Corps will have to decide what will be authorized 

in this project. 

Theiling – The study team will start with that deal. 

– I spent 2 years getting USDA money for restoring habitat. Confused as to what scale 

the Corps will develop these objectives on so others can use them. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-5
– How will you determine these management actions? You are using target ranges that 

are usually used when you are designing a project but no one is doing that here. 

Theiling – Set pool-wide values, individual objectives will happen later. 

– We have the detail here. It is more a matter of taking the detail of the pool plans and 

putting them on the map. 

DeHaan – The verbiage of the pool plans will be linked to the database. 

– Is this the tiered approach that you are talking about? 

Theiling – No, this is one step in the process. 

– If the consensus is to use the pool plans how do you get the numbers? 

– Appendix to the pool plans will be more specific and we will get that to you. You are 

asking us for recommendations for things that aren’t quite done. What time frame do we 

want to meet this in? 

– Endorse the idea of going with the environmental pool plans. This is the template that 

the refuge will be using for the CCP. To get to the nitty gritty we aren’t there yet, but 

what can we implement in the next 15 years? We need to put the effort in the watershed. 

If you think of sustainability you have to look at what is going on in the watershed. 

Barr – We have some stakeholders here who may not have been in the Pool Plan 

process. We can all get a common vision as to what we need and why we need it. Take 

this chance to share with others in your group. 

Break (10:57 – 11:15) 

Rebecca Soileau’s Talk (11:15 – 11:23)

Rebecca Soileau discussed the overall workshop process including a brief agenda. She 

then discussed the working agreement and had participants agree to abide by it. Finally 

she defined her role as a facilitator as well as the expected roles of the participants. She 

then presented the working definitions. 

Hank DeHaan’s Objectives (11:23-11:35)

Hank discussed the objective database, including where the information came from, and 

how the database is structured. This included a detailed discussion of the framework for 

setting objectives. He then gave a brief demonstration of the database in Arc View 3.2. 

Questions 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-6
– Is the CARR data integrated into this database? 

DeHaan – We don’t want to put the protected data into this database, but we do have 

access to it and it will be used during the efforts. We brought an atlas with us for your 

use. 

– What additional info are you trying to glean from us? I can’t see us going through all 

of these hatch marks and identifying depth and time ranges? How did you get this info? 

DeHaan – We are looking for stakeholder buy in. Data came from pool plans. 

– We can get more info into this database. However, one thing that wasn’t captured 

accurately from the pool plans to this database is that we wanted some areas to be 

disconnected and this needs to be shown in this group. Also, we can work in some areas 

where we didn’t come to an agreement during the pool plan process. Also, the pool plans 

represent a stabilized system, but not sustainable. Do we want to take next step to 

realistic pie in the sky? We had an optimum that we wanted (2m for submersed 

vegetation) but we settled for more realistic (1.5m). Our pools plans represent stabilized 

system but not an ultimate system. 

Objectives Plenary Session (3:35):

The plenary began by asking each group to give a brief overview of what they did, as 

well as listing their reach and pool-wide objectives. 

Group 1 Summary (Pools 10-11) 

Brought people up to speed on pool plans. Decided UMRCC addressed common 

objectives for the pools. Looked at framework and added things in. Added several water 

quality parameters. Weren’t comfortable with backwater depth ranges but couldn’t come 

up with something better. Water levels – “added increase water level for over wintering 

EMP monitoring”. Look at dropping water levels in the winter as well. Connectivity –

Pools are inundated 100% at the 10-year flood, so maintain current conditions. Added 

bank full connectivity parameter. Feel that there is too much connectivity. Too many 

areas have flow 365 days of the year. 15% is the average for connectivity for Pool 11. 

Sediment transport may be another parameter. Acquire a more natural sediment regime 

in the pools, but didn’t come up with target ranges. In Plants and Animals we didn’t feel 

that many animals were well represented. Need to modify target use days because these 

pools already exceed the given range (2 billion use days would be better range). 

–35 million use days is maximizing the refuge. Never the less, range is definitely low. 

Group 2 Summary (Pools 7-9)

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-7
Looked at reach. Started to look at framework. Need to explore reconnecting Root River 

to floodplain. Questioned ranges of target ranges. 

Water levels – draw down is good 

Water depth in backwaters –refer to pool plans. 

Spent lots of time in pool plans to familiarize everyone in the group 

Need to add “Floating Aquatics” in Aquatic Areas 

Terrestrial Areas – Land use/cover – concerned about target ranges. 

Plants and animals – why more guilds aren’t included and also questioned use days. 

Overall – this was a good discussion. 

Group 3 Summary (Pools 4-6) 

Started to talk about pool plans. 

Went through ecosystem elements and looked to see what was different from the pool 

plans 

Group 4 Summary (Pools 1-3)

Discussed pool plans, HNA and Cumulative Effects to give everyone a background as to 

where info came from. 

Pools 1-2 are different because they are very urban. 

Pool –Reach-Wide Objectives: 

Potential contaminant spills – need early warning system. 

Need to treat urban storm water runoff 

Need to have annual trash clean up along river 

More effort to separate storm and sewer in twin cities 

MN River conveys lots of sediment, phosphorus and algae... needs to be reduced. 

Lot of boating traffic causing bank erosion. Need education and structural means to deal 

with this. 

Fish passage – improve through the dams. However, concerned about movement of 

exotics. 

More trees for a more continuous corridor for riparian habitat. 

Rapids by St. Anthony Falls – Lock and Dam 1 floods the area to a considerable depth. 

There might be an opportunity to open up Dam 1 and let fish migrate up to St. Anthony’s 

fall. 

Site Specific Objective Setting for La Crosse (3:30)

Once each group gave their report we then started at St. Anthony Falls and moved down 

river, allowing all participants to provide input. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-8
Group 4 (Pools 1-3) specific data – 

Construct a string of small islands by St. Anthony Falls. Create green corridor. From RM 

858 to Upper St. Anthony’s Falls. 

Shingle Creek, Rice Creek and Coon Creek reduce sediment input. 

Pool-wide (1) – Bank protection where needed. 

St. Anthony Falls to LD1 – area to restore rapids (see discussion above) 

– When will these go from objective to “approved” objectives? 

Theiling – These will never become consensus objectives. For projects these will 

become alternatives and you will have input to this process. 

General consensus of Group 4 –Pool plans were very complete. 

Pool 2 – 

Water Quality objectives for MN River –reduce loading for sediment, nutrients 

(phosphorus) and algae. Also moderate hydrologic regime of the river, it has become 

flashier due to agriculture. 

Water Quality at water treatment plant at RM 835.7 – upgrade plant to handle increased 

population. Be able to handle pH, nitrogen, phosphorus, and endocrine disruptors. 

– Floodplain development. We can’t build any islands because it raises the flood level 

too much. Need to have better floodplain management. 

Pool-wide riparian restoration/improvement 

Improve fish passage through LD 2 

 Pool plans are generally accepted. 

Pool 3 – 

Water Quality – Prairie Island Nuclear Power Plant – reduce thermal loading. 

Pool plans – number of backwaters identified for more depth. Different ranges might 

work better. Range of 0-6 feet with at least 5% at 6 feet of depth. Who suggested water 

depth indicators for pool plans? Mentioned that this was cartoonish. Some however need 

to be deepened for connectivity. 

Fish Passage through LD3 

How to protect St. Croix River from exotics. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-9
– There is a master plan for St. Croix. May want to consult that. Terry Mohl/Steve 

Johnson. 

Should be including St. Croix because part of authorized navigation project. There are 

some good habitat areas. There could be some benefit to restore backwater areas. 

– Make sure that is goes up to Taylor Falls. 

– Put invasive species control point at LD3. Stop zebra mussels from coming up. There 

is a nuclear power plant there. Maybe put hot water into the lock chamber or something. 

Pool 3 – Flood plain forest needs improvement. 

Marsh and Gantenbin Lake by lock and dam 3 WI. Want lateral floodplain connectivity 

for fish. 

– Make sure that lots of the “C”s are reduce connectivity – Maybe use “IC” or “RC” for 

increase or reduce connectivity. Need to go back through the database. 

– Connectivity used to mean open areas in the floodplain that had been cut off. 

–We just need to be specific in the comments. 

– That is why we used the term bank-full. 

– Need to key this to a specific flow (1.5-year event) Clarify with Chuck Theiling.

Group 3 (Pools 4-6) 

We didn’t get any specific data for the 4 pools because we thought the pool plans were 

adequate. 

Water Quality – Minimum of 1.5 meters in backwaters. 

0 (zero) sedimentation in BW 

Water Level Management 

Range from no draw down to open river conditions. 

Drought years are an important time for water level management. We thought that 

adaptive management was a necessary part of water level management. 

–Pool plans did not state any specific draw down. 

Maintain natural high water levels at the lower end of the pools. Reduce drawn down. 

Natural sustainability of habitat type more than plants and animals. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-10
– Lake Pepin will be gone because of MN river watershed. Reduce sediment loading to 

Lake Pepin from MN River. 

– Delta is pretty nice habitat. Filling rate has been estimated at 300 years. Lake Pepin 

used to extend up to St. Paul. We will want to reduce the rate yet preserve the habitat. 

What is going on there is good and bad. 

– We are assuming that this map accurately depicts the pool plans so we didn’t want to 

waste time on them. Trusted that they were there. 

– Pool plans represent stabilized system not restored system. Suggest a reduction in 

connectivity. 70-100% of flow confined to channel (MC, 2°, 3°) From pools 3-11. Mud 

flat, sand bar habitat and isolated wetland habitats need to be increased at less than bankfull (1.5 year events). Iowa put in what they thought they could do, not what we wanted 

to do. In upper pool, pool plans did not depict restoration, just what we thought we could 

do. So did not depict fisheries in closed areas. Pool plans represent what is necessary for 

populations to maintain themselves and handle stress, but not be what we ideally want. 

Understand that this will have to be actively maintained. 

Theiling – In the Peoria meeting they said, “Oh, no, not another wish list”. They didn’t 

have a restored level verses other levels. Wish I had told them Gretchen’s 5 levels. 

– We are in a degraded system. Stabilized means that the endangered are still there and 

restored means that they are in a less threatened state. 

– We use pre-settlement conditions as a reference. Set objectives for abundance for life. 

As far as system-wide, the thing to pay attention to is that we have raised the water 

surface profile. We have raised the water level tables in the floodplains. This has greatly 

affected our floodplain forests. We need to actively maintain our forests and increase 

height for trees. 

Group 2 (Pools 7-9)

Not real site specific 

Add floating aquatic. 

Community changes with depth. Under restored system emergents from floating to 

submersed based on improved water clarity. 

Reiterate need for watershed approach. Landuse planning, USDA tools. 

Soileau – EPA would like us to set target ranges for tributaries so they could backtrack 

up into the watersheds for setting goals for sediment and contaminant loading. 

– This is done for pool 2: Dan Engstrom and Alemendinger are the contacts involved in 

this effort. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-11
Whole reach -Water Clarity in a fully restored system 

Target date of 2010, in spring, disk reading of 1-meter in the main channel. Assumed it 

would be better in other areas. 2-meters in backwater. 

– Locations where pool plans reduced connectivity. 

– Is there a good study that is reliable for mass balance input of sediment above lock and 

dam 26 (input versus outflow)? 

– Started with Simon and others. Nakato and others updated this for Pools 11-26. Does 

not include bed materials. As part of Navigation Study we hope to expand on this. 

– Will this ultimately include bedload? 

– Would like to see this but understand how difficult this will be to do. 

– If you don’t know where you are on the continuum it is hard to set priorities. 

Theiling – We were cautioned in St. Louis that a sediment-starved river is a bad thing 

too. 

– River and sediment go together like Ham and eggs. Conservation in 1930’s has greatly 

reduced problems, but there are still stored sediments in beds and bank lines. 

– LA is trying to open up tributaries to allow more sediment movement to help Gulf. 

Sediment bypass may be helpful to all. 

– Someone in WES has developed a good model for estimating bedload movement. 

– How can we use sedimentation and scour for habitat management? More recent 

projects have used these processes. Pool 8 islands phase 2 and 3. How do we manage for 

these processes that we know are out there? 

– Quality of sediment is a big issue as well. There are a lot more nutrients then before. 

Group 1 (Pools 10-11)

All things were pool wide 

Target ranges 

Water Quality – 

Clarity Contiguous backwater: Target Range of 4 for summer average 

 Main Channel and Side Channel: Target Range of 3 for Summer Average 

DO have daily minimum .5% 5ppm, 100%>3ppm 

Velocity – BW -<or= 0.3 m3/sec during bank-full conditions. 

Temperature >1 °C in Winter 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-12
More parameters 

More extents (MC, SC, Contiguous Backwater, isolated Back Water 

Geomorphology – Don’t want drawdowns to be the same level or the same way. Need 

variety. Also look at water levels for winter, both high and low. 

– Objectives for DO...Under the most pristine conditions we had swings in DO that went 

under 5ppm. As site specific planning we can accept areas that go anoxic. We know that 

several critters need anoxic conditions.

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-13
La Crosse Workshop November 19th – Day 2 

Managements Actions – Chuck Theiling (8:15 – 9:25) 

Chuck began this section by discussing why it is important for management actions to be 

identified, as well as defining what a management action is. Next he discussed how the 

current list of management actions was created. Finally he and Rebecca projected the 

management action worksheet and discussed how to work during the breakout sessions. 

Discussion Before Management Actions Working Groups: 

– Our task is to identify tools. Are we to rank them now? 

Soileau - No, just make sure they are on the list. 

– For just our pools that we are assigned to? 

Soileau -You can do the entire reach. However, if you know that there is an action that 

only ties to a specific area please list that in the comments. 

– Have you used the crosswalk of management actions from the Pool Plans? 

Theiling – No. 

– I recommend that you use them. 

Theiling - We will. 

Soileau – If you have any other sources that would be helpful, please let us know. 

Management Action Working Groups (8:25-10:21)

Management Action Plenary (10:21- 11:48)

Page W2-2 Water Quality

Group 1 

Lots of discussion about what management actions are and what we are trying to achieve. 

Wrestled about how much detail we needed. Looked at the UMRCC report. 

Water Clarity in the Main Channel - 

Maybe island construction in the backwaters that reduce wind fetch so sediment 

resuspension won’t affect the main channel. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-14
Group 2 

Redesign barge hulls to make more efficient. 

Group 3 

We thought that best management practices (BMP’s) were essential to all efforts. We also 

felt that algae production was related to BMP’s. 

Group 4 

Also felt that watershed BMP’s were important. 

Page W2-3,4 Geomorphology

Group 1 

Structures to maintain backwater depth – rock and bio-technical bank protections, islands 

see the group’s notes. 

We could lower backwaters by closing upper end. Don’t need to have permanent 

structure. It could be a temporary sand plug. 

Group 2 

All in notes 

Group 3 

Didn’t understand what #39 meant, so deleted this. 

Group 4 

Using the power of the river to do work would be better than using diesel engines to 

perform work. 

Agreed that connectivity was an overused word. 

For #39 – clarified that to add elevation to islands and floodplains to grow trees. 

Page W2-4 Geomorphology and Pattern of Habitats

Group 1 

We discussed Lock & Dam as well as dike modifications. We recorded it in our computer 

notes. 

Group 2 

All in notes 

Group 3 

Felt that Item 61 was a duplicate to item 70 so deleted. 

Group 4 

All in notes. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-15
Page W2-5 Pattern of Habitats

Group 4 (aquatic areas) 

Width of bends is narrow so tows might have to wait for another and churn things up in 

the meantime. It might be good for protection of mussel beds. 

Get a brief sentence for each management action describing what will be done and what 

the expected outcomes will be. 

Theiling – Jeff and Jon did this in the UMRCC. We will be looking at this. 

Group 1 

–There is an advantage to increase width of main channel border areas. In historic times 

it experienced filling in of training structures. Increasing width will increase quantity and 

quality of main channel border. Management actions – remove dikes, notch wing dams, 

remove old dredge islands. 

Group 2 

All in notes. 

Group 3 

Confused about number #81 did it mean take area from floodplain? 

Group 4 

All in notes. 

Page W2-6 Pattern of Habitats (cont)

Group 1 

All in notes. 

Group 2 

All in notes. 

Group 3 

Discussion items of 97-100 that these were covered in other areas. 

Group 4 

Confused about #90. 

Page W2-7 Plants and Animals

Group 1 

First thing we did was to include 1-109 as efficient habitat restoration/management. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-16
– These were mostly social and regulatory issues. However, if you don’t have the habitat 

then you won’t have the critters so need to address that first. 

– We are going to need more than clichés. We are going to need causal mechanisms. We 

are going to get some hard questions that we are going to have to answer. How much 

investment are we going to need to develop adequate habitat? 

– You are missing the microhabitats in our large overarching fish and population actions. 

Soileau – So we need you to add in the microhabitat management actions. This wasn’t 

intended to be exclusive. 

– You are managing the forest for a certain species. So if I want a type of bird in the 

forest I will manage the forest for a certain species. 

– We have been setting objectives in a very simple way. We could be using landscape 

(architecture) that we can be using to address very specific life forms. As we understand 

things more we will be creating management actions. 

Soileau – Was there an explicit outcome for the education? (Under wildlife) 

– Promote BMP’s 

Group 2 

All in notes. 

Group 3 

#114 – What was the thinking on this? 

– Adjust predator/prey relationships, commercial harvest. Directly managing biota rather 

than habitat. 

Group 4 

We talked about bio-manipulation. 

Were concerned about invasive and aggressive exotics. 

High water temperatures set zebra mussels back. During the hot summers have power 

plants do open water cycling to bring the water temperatures higher. 

Need a fresh look at what is considered exotics. 

There was a discussion about reintroducing mammoths, bison. These are native, but 

could be harmful. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-17
Page W2- 8 Plants and Animals, T&E

Group 1 

136 – May effect downstream by holding sediment back from sediment starved areas. 

Consider system-wide impacts before implementing any projects. 

Group 2 

All in notes. 

Group 3 

Consider changing 134. Distinguish CRP from land set aside programs. Don’t limit 

yourself. 

Group 4 

All in notes. 

– Implement the Galloway report recommendations. USDA, EPA, and FEMA need to be 

added to this study effort. They are controlling 3/4th of the pie. They control the drainage 

districts. So far we have not been successful in getting them involved at the local level 

rather than just the National level. 

Theiling – You are right. They are involved in the NECC, and the Federal Task force. 

– We need them involved in the local efforts. 

– We do seem to get them more involved in the lower river and the Illinois River. 

Theiling – The latest farm bill has lots of money for conservation. If we can get the local 

DC involved we can get some dollars and more importantly the contacts. 

– Put together a main stem, multi-state CREP plan using CREP and WHIP dollars for the 

Mississippi River. Mostly there is a 20% match, but that has been waived in some cases. 

You should ask your senators for $’s from USDA. 

–Hundreds of Millions of dollars are going to IL and MN for the basin. They don’t have 

much of a scientific process to allocate that money. They don’t have to show results. If 

we set some targets for delivery of materials to main stem it might wake some people up. 

If we had a quantitative model of sediment transport of materials in the system it would 

help. The USDA money is not being used in the most cost effective way. It is being done 

in a political manner. 

– USDA knows this is a problem. The Corps, with all of it’s planning, would be 

welcome at the USDA. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-18
–We as a group can complain about USDA’s culture and how it doesn’t deliver 

conservation on the land efficiently. However, even if the USDA knew exactly which 

acres they wanted to put conservation treatment on to get the most efficient treatment 

they still have to have the landowners come through the door because the program is 

strictly voluntary. What we aren’t doing is getting to the landowners themselves (part of 

nebulous education programs discussed earlier) and fostering an ecological conscience in 

people. USDA is only half of that bridge. 

Theiling – In IL they have more people on the waiting list, so participation is not an 

issue, thought maybe targeted participation is. Corps is recognizing its role in the 

watershed. 

– Take a look at the Great Reports and the Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive plan. 

– What do you think about coming up with point source criteria for the tributaries? 

Theiling -This is a golden opportunity to put a dot at each tributary. 

Soileau – I spoke with someone in the EPA that would love to have us do this. 

Theiling – We could do this regionally. 

– We already have estimates of yields from each watershed in the Upper Miss. We can 

refine those. We can set realistic objectives for loading from tributaries. We should set 

targets for sediment loading and hydrologic regime of each of the tributaries. 

Evaluation Tools and Data Chuck Theiling (11:48 12:00) 

Chuck discussed evaluation data such as the LTRMP monitoring data, the state’s 

fisheries sampling, aerial waterfowl censuses, and other data that might be used to 

evaluate ecological responses to restoration or to help evaluate cause and effect 

relationships among ecosystem components and stressors. Chuck also discussed 

evaluation tools such as conceptual and predictive models that have been or will be 

developed to help predict environmental response to restoration measures. Other tools 

available to evaluate restoration response include the large variety of sampling techniques 

used to evaluate plants and animal populations. 

Lunch – 12:00 – 1:07 

Species and Parameters – Chuck Theiling (1:07 – 2:28)

Chuck discussed some of the problems that were encountered when he was trying to set 

species target ranges for the objectives. He asked participants to offer suggestions as to 

the merit of doing this as well as for species and target ranges. 

– There is some apprehension about setting species targets. Setting targets is risky. We 

can make decisions without knowing impacts on the systems. If we implement the 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-19
habitat from the pool plans you can take the abundance and quality of that. Work on 

diversifying habitats as best as we can provide at that site – then use measured 

abundances as a healthy goal. In MN we are concerned about targeting for a specific 

species. 

– Pre and Post project monitoring is important. Biological response for habitat 

monitoring. What is the biological concentration around the potential project? Need 

some more focused research from LTRM. See if current populations decline once a new 

project starts. Also look and that area’s habitat (disease, dissolved oxygen, temperature) 

to ensure response is from project. If you have a great enough separation of sites you are 

probably not taking fish from one area, but are giving new habitat for larval drift. 

–Worked with Carl Korschgen to create a matrix (Phase II Pool 8 island) (before HNA). 

Looked at a whole range of critters and vegetation classes. 

- Look at the area where bluegills are the majority. The contiguous backwater is the main 

habitat of them. So, try to identify preferred habitat of organisms. Develop a matrix that 

would be more refined than phase II but take the same approach. Look at LTRM 

databases and query to find the percentages to determine preferred habitat. 

–We don’t fund EMP to a decent level so how are we going to get this kind of 

information? If there are certain ways we want to collect data are there any assurances 

that this will happen out in the future? 

Theiling – This is important to ask in this kind of venue because it is telling the program 

managers this. Ken Barr and others have stated that they would like the monitoring 

(cause and effect) to become part of the adaptive management. 

– You say money will be available for focused research, but what about baseline 

monitoring? We need more trend analysis and baseline information. 

Theiling – Are you talking more historic baseline or today? Because some areas are 

better today than they were in history. 

– There is a shift in species dominance over time – it takes 50-60 years to see a response 

to our actions. 

Theiling – This brings in baselines. Also justifying existing impacts. Yes they are there, 

but let’s go and find out what is causing certain degradation. So then we can build a 

predictive model to help us even more. 

– We did that in phase II, however this was not focused research. A picture can speak a 

thousand words. Power analysis showed how low you could go but also how high you 

should go. We have data to justify the level of monitoring that is needed. If you think 

these numbers are important give us an idea of where the really good areas are. Maybe in 

30-40 years we can fill this database. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-20
Theiling – I appreciate the monitoring you do. Who thinks this needs to be written 

down? Does the Corps need to make arrangements to get it written down or support the 

states to write it down? 

– In fisheries we have 10 years of data, but many species have longer life spans, so the 

data won’t help. Not going to be able to pull out lots of data because of that. 

– I can build my pop can because I have a design. But that is why we have adaptive 

management on the river because we don’t have plans. I think that HREP and LTRM 

should have been tied together. Stoddard Island shows what EMP and HREP can do 

together. That is a success story. You will see bits and pieces but one of these days you 

will see these little cartoons come about. In each project we should have monitoring 

included. 

– What don’t you have now? We know that we built the project, Velocity, Temp, and 

DO improved. What else do you need to know? We are assessing data from our 

projects. It takes some time to get it published but it is there. We will never get biomass 

info from LTRM unless we want to spend a lot of money. We shouldn’t worry about it 

because it isn’t going to happen. We shouldn’t tear apart the entire ecosystem into 

numbers. 

–The real question I have now...are you saying we need this information to justify this 

program? I say no, there is no way we can do this. 

Theiling – No one says you have to; however we may need to, in order to compete with 

other programs. If we could show that because a project went in we got x bluegills that 

are worth x $’s do the math and show how the economic benefits are better than the costs. 

They will see that the recreational benefits will outweigh navigation. 

– The authority to use recreation benefits, as part of our environmental benefits, like 

navigation can, would be a good change. 

Theiling – We need to come up with a model to estimate benefits better than everyone 

else. 

– We did come up with Habitat Units (HEP). You are talking about revisiting this. 

Bottom line is that you should compare this dollar per dollar. 

Theiling – No one is asking us or telling us to do this. But this is a good opportunity. 

– This is the same problem we had before we developed HEP. But we don’t need to do 

that. We need to show a little cartoon. But if that is not enough then we need to have 

another discussion. I don’t think they went through a HEP analysis in Florida. If we do 

economic then we start to get into incremental analysis and only get what is cost 

effective. Adaptive management will be hard for Corps to do. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-21
– It might be able to help us to prioritize. 

– We want a sustainable river. Now we are where we get the biggest bang for your buck. 

If we do this we will overlook the subtle needs of the ecosystem that are essential for 

restoring sustainability. Something that is essentially critical for the system may cost a 

lot of money and not get a lot of return. What may be really, really important will be 

things that take a lot of work. Land acquisition will be very difficult, but we know we 

need that. Is that a top priority... we need all of the tools. It is all interrelated. 

– We shouldn’t worry about making the math justifying the expenditures. The 

justification will be political and social mostly anyway. Monitoring data should be 

collected to make sure you are making the correct investments. One of the big fallouts of 

the Everglades is that this Congress isn’t going to write a blank check. They are going to 

want to see a higher level of detail (what project, when built, what outcomes). A lot of 

members have said, we aren’t going to do that again. Come up with a suite of very 

specific projects with a built in monitoring program. 

– If we are talking adaptive management we have to have some monitoring involved. We 

see response out there. Build in a standard 1% into the cost of the project. We could come 

up with some very simple monitoring aspects. We may have to get at more subtleties. 

Theiling – If you are going to have objectives then you need to have a monitoring - 

accountability. 

– That is why we need to look about the chemical response because the biological 

response takes time. It takes many years to monitor biological yet the chemical and 

physical response is almost immediate. Islands in Pool 8 at first didn’t show the 

biological response. However the response took longer than the monitoring. 

–Are the pools plans the kind of information that we can package up to Congress? Will 

this successfully get us $ to congress? 

– It won’t be enough today. You need to have specific projects. Here are the hypothetical 

projects that we would implement. Give Congress assurance that you have pegged the 

cost a little bit. Congress will want to see some thinking behind the numbers. 

– What about the UMRCC. 

– Some members see this as an unrealistically huge number because Members of 

Congress don’t understand it. Also Congress thinks that the Corps can’t handle it. 

– Here is what we can handle annually now, here is what we could handle in the future. 

Show a curve of increasing amounts. It is hard to see the Corps numbers going way up, 

the members of Congress are having a visceral reaction to this. It would help me to show 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-22
what you are monitoring for. A matrix of habitats or desired habitat would be a better 

index for monitoring. 

– The HNA query tool could be used. It will generate a number for the bean counters. 

We could make this a log linear. This is a long process (the UMRCC is a need) that 

needs to get more money to the Corp, FWS and states. 

– Are there some critters that we will monitor that we don’t know much about? There is 

skepticism about what LTRMP is producing. 

– There shouldn’t be the skepticism because there was an EMP report to Congress that 

did that. As far as monitoring, we have had these discussions many times over. We 

monitor what we can with what funds are available. We’ve monitored both structural and 

functional. It would be good to fund the LTRM to be close to our objectives; to see if we 

are getting there (SMART Criteria). Long-term estimate of cost to some target future 

condition... we have a whole set of objectives with dates and we are required to do some 

plan formulation within the Navigation Studies. With regard to the size of the dollar 

figure, I’m not sure. There will be more data and plan formulation behind it. 

– Does there come a time when you don’t evaluate an HREP project because you know it 

works? 

Theiling– Sure, ideally. 

– Achieving ecological integrity is the ultimate goal of the objectives. As for species it 

becomes too overwhelming to have quantitative objectives for all guilds/species. Are 

there certain categories that are important (T&E or indicator species). The pool plans 

don’t represent ecological health. Don’t think so much about monitoring, but think about 

original goals and what you are trying to achieve. 

–You are trying to get us to a different level in each project report. The problem is that 

by the time we are done in the entire river there will be new information that will cause 

us to do this again. So instead we need to show our evolution in our thought process... 

Look at effects outside the project area and other things have evolved. We cannot 

develop that level of detail. Let’s just do it. We’ve got plans. We need to get down to 

work and do something. We need a propaganda person to start telling people that we have 

been doing a good job. We are beating everyone for dollars spent. 

– Comments from John Sullivan – The environmental goals will have to be a multitude of 

things, we have to use some best judgment and others will have to trust us as we do them. 

There is a wealth of knowledge in the LTRM database and the Corps needs to mine that 

data out in the next year. Also use this to identify data gaps and figure out how to 

address them. The Corps should be financially supporting them in their effort. 

We have to validate everything that we have gone before. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-23
– Members of Congress think EMP is a valuable program. What they don’t know is that 

EMP is not provided sufficient resources to implement to pool plans. You do have 

incredible integrity because you are scientists and that is your biggest tool. We need to 

get scientists up to the hill. 

– What you are saying is that we need to tell Congress that EMP is a prototype and we 

need to implement the full thing. 

– It will be a tough climb. Status and trends did not make good conclusions that common 

folks can understand. 

– It is amazing where we have come in 4 years. We are in an exponential growth in what 

we believe we can accomplish, what we need, and what we know. This is because of 

HNA and LTRM. HNA gave us a true picture of what we need to do. Congress asked for 

HNA report and that is where the numbers came from. 

– Perhaps for population or species we should stick with goals rather than developing this 

fine level of management with detailed objectives that we cannot accomplish. The 

USFWS has been going to mostly developing habitat rather than focusing on individual 

species. 

– Are there indicator species? 

Theiling – If money and time were no objects would you want total species indicators? 

–Why? 

– Look at sensitive species vs. exotics and see how they each respond to what we do. To 

look for really rare stuff the sampling effort is really big. Figure out over time if rare 

things dropped off and exotics boomed. Or vice versa. 

– We have been measuring habitats, so if we see something that is desirable and describe 

what we want we can say this is what we are getting at. We are still able to look at 

numbers. Look at representative sites and use this. 

 - We still need to do spatial study (land cover, hydrology, changes in land form). That 

gets us a long way to look at the physical patterns of the systems. Come to agreement on 

array of organisms to monitor to come up with condition of the ecosystem. We need 

information about abundance of life. There is a compilation of non-LTRM data through 

the UMRCC. 

– We need to put this in context that the Congressman can understand. 

– The farm bill is a perfect example of how Congress wants feedback. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-24
– We will have to do what we can and keep it real simple. Our 404 dredging study has 

taken a lot of individual studies. How much detail will we have to do? Do it at every 

project or make some assumptions. 

Conceptual Models Hank DeHaan (2:28 –3:00)

Hank provided participants with some background regarding the conceptual model, as 

well as an overview of the purposes for having a conceptual model. He then displayed 

the conceptual model in it’s current form as well as a more simplistic diagram that gave 

an example of how the model might be used to asses the effectiveness of a management 

action. 

Discussion of Conceptual Models

– You want this model upfront to justify the amount of money? 

DeHaan – This is upfront to help us identify alternative plans that use several 

management actions to address several objectives. 

– We are still assuming that we want everything, not just the cheap stuff. 

– If we know we need all of the tools in the toolbox, why even bother do this model? 

This will be ruling things out, yet we want this big list. You need to do the same thing to 

the navigation. 

– This might help with sequencing and prioritization. 

– You need to have all of your tools available to be able to do this. With channel 

maintenance you need all of them (might have drought and might have flood). Do a 

ramp down in funding rather than a ramp down in importance. Your desire to do this by 

science isn’t going to happen. It makes it harder to do adaptive management. 

– Adaptive Management is based upon scientific learning. In this case we want to 

provide good answers to people who ask. We want ongoing adaptive and integrated river 

management program. This includes the full range of doing things. What combination of 

things will get us there? One of the best ways of doing this is a conceptual model. “This 

will be a better set of combinations will be more effective than this other combination” 

We have to do this as a federal organization. Yes we know that there will not be an even 

application of management actions in time or space, but this will help us provide 

scientists credibility to win us Congressional funding. 

– We want everything, we don’t want anything cut out of this. 

Theiling – That is incremental analysis used incorrectly. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-25
DeHaan – This is a tool to justify the site-specific projects and educate congress. This is 

sequencing, not prioritization. The conceptual model will help to identify how to proceed 

forward. 

– I’ve never seen that work. You all ways get less than what you need. 

– There is a planning process that we are obliged to follow. That does not call for 

incremental analysis, but it does call for a comparison of alternative plans. You are 

getting what you want in the most economically and efficient manner. 

Theiling – I wish I could say that this program will recommend everything, but it is not 

going to. But I don’t think that the conceptual model is going to be doing this, it will be 

political. The conceptual model will help evaluate how well management actions address 

objectives. 

– The model doesn’t concern me, incremental analysis does. 

– How will you validate this? 

Theiling – You don’t evaluate an entire conceptual model. Some parts will be pulled out 

as predictive and those may be evaluated. 

– What you are doing makes some sense. We have never prioritized this. You have to 

see what will work best for the system. I am hoping your approach will do this. We have 

to have some reality that there will be a sequence to do this. 

– Did they use a conceptual model and incremental analysis on the Everglades? 

- They did use conceptual model but not incremental analysis. 

When will output come out – mid December for the workshop, March for the conceptual 

model. Stuff from Bartell can be given out soon. 

Please send us model outcomes as soon as you can. 

–Some of the assumptions in the Large River Conference need to be validated for the 

Mississippi River. Validate and make sure you are looking at the Mississippi river. We 

can make some errors and run down the wrong path if we take the wrong approach. The 

model better look at the correct factors. Some of the goals and objectives are not good for 

this area. Hopefully the expert panel will pick that up. This model should have a 

funding/implementation level to it. Say we fund one but not all, or fund all but at 

different levels. We would prefer some money for all tools rather than all money for 

some tools. Prioritize through adaptive management. 

– we went through AEA approach. Look at a file for the AEA stuff. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-26
Appendix D. Participant Introductions 

All the participants were asked to write down an answer to the question printed on page 4 

of the workshop handout: “What do you hope this workshop will accomplish?” Then all 

participants introduced themselves to the group and read their answer to the question. 

The first list below contains the answers that were taken directly from the written forms 

that were turned in. Not everyone put his or her name on the form. Following the first list 

is the set of verbal responses that was captured as part of the meeting minutes. The 

verbal responses are included because they were substantially different than the written 

responses that had no identification. 

WRITTEN RESPONSES 

1. - Link Nav Study & Upper Mississippi River Refuge Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan (15-yr. Outlook) activities. 

- Link objectives to the term sustainability. 

2. Kucera -- Determine feasibility of providing consistent application of restoration and

sustainability objectives on entire reach of upper Mississippi including reach from L/D 26 

to Cairo. 

3. Anderson -- I hope the environmental side of the river system will be given the same 

or greater degree of attention to the navigation side.

4. - A better understanding of the potential for habitat protection and habitat 

restoration as the plans for continued expansion of navigation on the Mississippi River. 

I’d like to see positive evidence for a hope that a balance can be achieved between 

navigation needs and the needs for ecological diversity. 

5. - Clarify all of the information out there and how to pull it together into a 

cohesive vision for protecting & restoring biodiversity. 

6. - Give us an idea of how Nav study is going to treat the natural resources 

component. 

7. - Identify what can be realistically accomplished. 

8. - To further define & refine the environmental objectives & goals. 

9. - Consistency between Nav Study and the current St. Paul District’s L/D 2-10 

embanking study environmental enhancements. 

10. - Establish a plan for the future of the river. Work for common goals. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

D-1
11. - Continue programmatic planning toward comprehensive river management, with 

specific progress toward setting quantifiable objectives for habitat patterns & keystone 

species abundance. 

12. - A compilation of realistic goals and objectives for further refinement of systemic 

needs of the ecosystem. The systemic needs should be general and not supercede 

detailed analysis and implementation at the systemic level. 

13. Cox -- I hope that this workshop will focus on identifying regional differences and 

try to find ways to achieve better consistency. 

14. - More concrete, definable goals for sustainability. How LTRMP, the program I 

work in, can help. 

15. -Learning. 

16. - Learn more about how this process will build on previous exercises. How will 

this process build on planning efforts already done or underway? 

17. - Get a good start on getting objectives for condition of the UMRS ecosystem... 

leading to adaptive and more integrated river management. 

18. Benjamin -- Validate past work done by most of the people in this room that 

represents a course of action to begin adaptive stabilization and eventual restoration of 

the river’s ecosystem. 

19. Schlazft --Determine steps needed (policy changes, funding) to implement the pool 

plans. 

20. - Help me gain a better understanding of the navigation study. 

21. Pinkard -- Determine if additional study support by Corps CHL is needed. 

22. - Environmental pool plans and UMRCC cost estimates used to fulfill first 2 

general objectives. 

23. - Understand alternative objectives and how they can be accomplished. 

24. - Achieve consensus, or identify & discuss areas of difference regarding goals & 

objectives for the UMR system and river management actions to achieve the goals & 

objectives. 

25. - Identify practical methods to implement river management actions. 

26. DeZellar -- Use info from workshops to help in preparing UMRCP & enhancement 

maintenance study (L/D 2-10). 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

D-2
ADDITIONAL VERBAL RESPONSES 

27. Kucera – Pools north of St. Louis are well taken care of. St. Louis to Cairo has 

suffered the greatest. We are forming a national committee to study sediment input. If 

you have knowledge, we are looking for scientists. 

28. Cox – Learn more about the upper river. Focus on the regional differences and focus 

on consistency. 

29. Barr – Shared understand of the objectives. 

30. Janvrin – Worked on Pool Plan. 

31. Stefanik – How we can take the work and efforts already done and incorporate it in 

the Navigation Study.

32. Andersen – I want to see the environmental end of the river gets as much 

consideration as the navigation. 

33. Faber –What new tools can be developed to implement the pool plans. Need to 

ensure that we have adopted proper scope, and who pays. 

34. Hultman –Here to ensure the refuge prospective is taken into account. 

35. Otto – Let’s see how some of this stuff will become implemented. 

36. Ron Benjamin – I have no preconceived notions. 

37. Lubinski –Want to ensure the opportunities where scientists can help with 

management mission. Where we can help we will. We will support a unified vision. 

38. Stravers – Seek a balanced approach where we can find partners to fund this. Need 

to keep middle river in mind. 

39. Brecka – Help out where I can and bring in local knowledge. 

40. Tapp – Understand objectives. 

41. Driesland – Curious to see how these efforts will fit together. 

42. Pinkard – Learn more about the upper Miss. See if the Coastal and Hydraulics lab 

can offer assistance. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

D-3
43. Eric Nelson – Hope we don’t lose any endangered species on our watch. 

44. Wege – Don’t have a good idea of the scope. Get to an understanding of these 

scopes. 

45. Croker – I am here to listen. 

46. Rhode – Eager to hear the objectives and management actions. 

47. Lee Nelson – Listen and hopefully see the beginning of getting things off dead 

center. 

48. McCalvin –Get a feel where TNC might play a role. 

49. DeZellar –Practical methods for the management actions. Keeping an eye on the 

process to make sure objectives and management actions are usable. Keep things 

consistent between Comp. plan and Navigation study. 

50. Johnson – Let’s use the Pool plans and the HNA; not reinvent the wheel. 

51. Schlagenhaft – Lead to funding and positive changes to implement pool plans. 

These represent a common vision. 

52. Benjamin – Hope this will validate all of the other efforts. 

53. Wilcox – Encouraged seeing this group integrate the complete set of pool plans. 

54. Nissen – Put this all together in the adaptive management. 

55. Duckerschein – See what kinds of integrated objectives. See how our organization 

can aid in this effort. 

56. Gulan –See how this study correlates with COMP study. 

57. Powell – See this workshop be another step forward in coming up with an overall 

plan. 

58. Zigler – Learn about the process and help in any way I can. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

D-4
Appendix E. Environmental Objectives 

Purpose:

To have participants collaboratively review, refine, and add to a database of specific, 

quantitative, and local to regional scale UMR-IWW environmental objectives obtained 

from previous study efforts.

Background:

Objectives are incremental steps taken toward achieving a goal and thus may be goal 

specific. They are a concise statement of what we want to achieve, how much we want to 

achieve, when and where we want to achieve it. Objectives provide the basis for 

determining management actions, monitoring accomplishments and evaluating the 

success of management actions. There may be multiple objectives for a goal. 

Participants were asked to review, revise if necessary, and supplement the Environmental 

Objectives taken from previous work (HNA, Pool Plans, etc.) to achieve the Navigation 

Environmental Coordination Committee (NECC)/Economics Coordinating Committee 

(ECC) UMR-IWW Navigation System Vision: 

“To seek long term sustainability of the economic uses and ecological integrity of the 

Upper Mississippi River System.” 

The working groups were specifically tasked to apply the widely known SMART criteria 

to each objective making them: specific, measurable, achievable, results –oriented, timespecific. 

The participants were asked, for the purposes of this workshop, to utilize the following 

two sets of goals as a framework for setting objectives. 

Ecosystem Goals (from Interim Report) 

During planning for the 1994 Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee 

(UMRCC) Ecosystem Management Initiative, resource managers agreed to adopt 

Grumbine’s (1994) ecosystem management goals (Grumbine, R. Edward. 1994. What is 

ecosystem management? Conservation Biology 8(1): 27-38.): 

Goal 1: Maintain viable populations of native species in situ. 

Goal 2: Represent all native ecosystem types across their natural range of variation. 

Goal 3: Restore and maintain evolutionary and ecological processes (i.e., disturbance 

regimes, hydrological processes, nutrient cycles, etc.). 

Goal 4: Manage over periods long enough to maintain the evolutionary potential of 

species and ecosystems. 

Goal 5: Integrate human use and occupancy within these constraints. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-1
The UMRCC expanded their list of goals in the A River That Works and a Working River

(2000) document. These goals are: 

1. Improve water quality for all uses, 

2. Reduce erosion and sediment impacts, 

3. Restore natural floodplain, 

4. Restore natural hydrology, 

5. Increase backwater connectivity with main channel, 

6. Increase side channel, island, shoal, and sand bar habitat,

7. Minimize or eliminate dredging impacts, 

8. Sever pathways for exotic species introductions/dispersal,

9. Improve native fish passage at dams. 

Working Group Process 

The process began with participants dividing into four groups based in part on their 

expertise within four segments of the UMR. The four geographic regions were: Pools 1-

3, Pools 4 - 6, Pools 7 - 9, and Pools 10 - 11. Group 1 worked on Pools 10 - 11, Group 2 

worked on Pools 7 - 9. Group 3 covered Pools 4 - 6. And Group 4 covered Pools 1 - 3. 

Working groups were tasked with first setting reach and pool-wide objectives and then 

reviewing and setting site-specific objectives within their section of the river. If groups 

finished their section and had time remaining they could extend into the adjacent areas. 

When setting site-specific objectives, participants were asked to use the data structure 

outlined in the Framework for Setting Objectives (Figure E1). This hierarchical structure 

categorizes environmental objectives into four primary ecosystem elements and then 

breaks these down into more specific parameters, extents, and target ranges. In addition 

to this information, participants were also asked to consider and note (if possible) the 

seasonality, frequency of occurrence, target date, and any other comments associated 

with the objectives they identified. This data framework provided a means to capture and 

merge objectives from previous study efforts, and those identified by workshop 

participants, into one standardized database. Additional objectives not found in the 

framework were also identified and added to the database using the established data 

structure (e.g., Invertebrates was added under Plants and Animals

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-2
Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent TR Target Range 

Water Quality Water Clarity Main Channel 1 Secchi disk transparency 0.3 m 

 Backwater Areas 2 Secchi disk transparency 0.7 m 

 3 Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m 

 4 Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m 

 5 Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m 

Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 1 100% of area <1 m 

 2 50% of area 1 - 2 m 

 3 50% of area 2 - 3 m 

 4 50% of area >3 m 

 

 Water Level Main Channel 1 0.3 m below project pool at dam 

 Backwater Areas 2 0.6 m below project pool at dam 

 3 1.0 m below project pool at dam 

 4 >1 m below project pool at dam 

 

 Connectivity Floodplain 1 0% floodplain area inundated during 10 year flood 

 2 20% floodplain area inundated during 10 year flood 

 3 40% floodplain area inundated during 10 year flood 

 4 80% floodplain area inundated during 10 year flood 

 5 100% floodplain area inundated during 10 year flood

 

 Secondary Channel 1 <20% of year 

 2 20-40% of year 

 3 40-60% of year 

 4 60-80% of year 

 5 >80% of year 

 

 Longitudinal 1 0% chance of fish passage 

 2 20% chance of fish passage 

 3 40% chance of fish passage 

 4 80% chance of fish passage 

 5 100% chance of fish passage 

Figure E1. Framework for Setting Objectives for Condition of the UMR-IWW Ecosystem. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-3
Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent TR Target Range 

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 1 <10% of area 

 Secondary Channel 2 10-20% of area 

 Tertiary Channel 3 20-40% of area 

 Impounded Area 4 40-60% of area 

 Contiguous Backwater 5 >60% of area 

 Isolated Backwater 

 

 Terrestrial Areas Contiguous Floodplain 1 <10% of area 

 Isolated Floodplain 2 10-20% of area 

 Island 3 20-40% of area 

 4 40-60% of area 

 5 >60% of area 

 

 Land Cover/Use Open Water 1 <10% of area 

 Submersed Aquatics 2 10-20% of area 

 Emergent Aquatics 3 20-40% of area 

 Grassland 4 40-60% of area 

 Shrub 5 >60% of area 

 Forest 

 Agriculture 

 Developed 

Plants and Animals Plants Emergent Aquatics 1 <10 plants/m2 

 Submersed Aquatics 2 10 - 20 plants/m2 

 3 20 - 50 plants/m2 

 4 50 - 100 plants/m2 

 5 >100 plants/m2 

 

 Fish Protected Fish Species CPUE, Length distribution, or kg/ha 

 Sport Fish Species 

 Commercial Fish Species 

 Forage Fish Species 

 Exotic Fish Species 

 

 Birds Dabbling Ducks 1 0 - 1,000 use days/yr 

 Diving Ducks 2 1,000 - 10,000 use days/yr 

 3 10,000 - 100,000 use days/yr 

 4 >100,000 use days/yr 

Figure E1. Framework for Setting Objectives for Condition of the UMR-IWW Ecosystem, continued.

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-4
Results: 

The environmental objective information gathered and reviewed at the La Crosse 

Workshop has been organized into the following four sections. They include a pool-wide 

objectives table, site-specific objectives table, plenary report, and working group reports. 

Pool-wide objectives identified by workshop participants were compiled from comments 

recorded in the plenary sessions, working group reports, group worksheets, and atlas map 

notations (Table E1). In cases where management actions were recorded, an objective 

was created and the management action was listed in the comments section, denoted by 

“MA”. 

Site-specific objectives and supporting information identified and reviewed by workshop 

participants are listed by pool (Table E2) and organized to follow the Framework for 

Setting Objectives format (Figure E1). These objectives were compiled from previous 

study efforts, participant comments during the plenary session (with GIS tools), working 

group reports, group worksheets, atlas map notations. The objectives identified in the 

workshop were recorded exactly as written. For the final integrated report, site-specific 

objectives will be standardized, new parameter icons may be created and similar 

comments will be assimilated into one comment. 

The plenary comments are taken directly from the plenary report and only include 

discussion specifically related to environmental objectives. The entire plenary report can 

be found in Appendix C. 

The working group reports were prepared by the recorder in each group as a record of the 

discussion. They contain a subset of the pool-wide and site-specific objective 

information generated by the groups. The group reports are not inclusive of all the 

objective descriptions because much of the groups’ data generation was also recorded on 

master worksheets and maps. 

 Examples of objectives at various scales were given as guidelines, they included: 

• System – Restore X acres of secondary channel habitat system wide, 

• Reach – Increase the amount of marsh habitat by X acres in the Open River Reach 

of the Mississippi River, 

• Pool – Return Pool 13 to a more natural hydrologic regime by having a 90 day 

low water stage X feet below maximum pool elevation during late summer every 

three years, 

• Local – Increase the average depth of backwater area X to six feet. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-5
Table E1. Pool-wide Environmental Objectives (Pool 1 – Pool 3 Reach). 

Ecosystem Element 

TR/ Target Range 

Frequency of Occurrence 

Target 

Parameter Extent Season Date Comments 

Water Quality 

Other Tributaries 

Decrease setributaries. 

Geomorphology 

Water Level 10 2015 Seasonal DConnectivity Longitudinal Fish passagOther 

Reduce banwakes, off-s

Pattern of Habitats 

Land Cover/Use Forest 

Actively ma- Create higareas to supnative floodprairie, etc. 

Plants and Animals Other 

Other Need for mo

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E1. Pool-wide Environmental Objectives (Pool 4 – Pool 6 Reach). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent 

TR/ Target Range Season 

Frequency of Occurrence 

Target Date Comment

Water Quality 

Water Clarity Backwater Areas >4 Non-flood Secchi disSedimentation Net sedim

Geomorphology 

Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 

Diversity ohabitat. MA areas with 

Water Level 

Main Channel and Backwater Areas 

Create a mdrawdownMA - Strive MA - COE point (to Lo

Connectivity Floodplain 5 5

Enhance cbackwaterin the PooPools 5, 5AZumbro R

Secondary Channel 5

Enhance csee "C"s o

Longitudinal 5 Support Po

Pattern of Habitats 

Aquatic Areas See Pool PTerrestrial Areas See Pool PLand Cover/Use See Pool POther 

100% of qthrough na

Plants and Animals Other 

Other 

EnvironmeGroup 3 to the group's 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E1. Pool-wide Environmental Objectives (Pool 7 – Pool 9 Reach). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent TR/ Target Range Season 

Frequency of Occurrence 

Target Date Commen

Water Quality 

Water Clarity Main Channel 3 All 10 2010

Will do bewatershed 

Secondary Channel 4 All 10 2010

Will do bewatershed 

Impounded Areas 5 All 10 2010 Can be acBackwater Areas 5 All 10 2010 Already a

Other All 

Sufficient life. 

Geomorphology 

Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Varies All Greater aWater Level 

Main Channel and Backwater Areas 1-4 

Growing Season See Grou

Connectivity Floodplain 

Root Rive

Secondary Channel See GrouLongitudinal Fish pass

Pattern of Habitats 

Aquatic Areas Refer to PTerrestrial Areas Forests aLand Cover/Use Grassland Land-use 

Other 

Submersepool plan

Plants and Animals 

Plants 

Eliminate species/c

Plants Emergent Aquatics 3 (20-50 stems/m2

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E1. Pool-wide Environmental Objectives (Pool 7 – Pool 9 Reach cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent 

TR/ Target Range Season 

Frequency of Occurrence 

Target Date Commen

Plants and Animals (cont.) 

Plants Submersed Aquatics 4-5 Plants Other 10-20 plants/m2Plants 

Overlap plants, i.

Fish Preserve Birds 

Enhance elsewherto. 

Other UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E1. Pool-wide Environmental Objectives (Pool 10 – Pool 11 Reach). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent 

TR/ Target Range Season 

Frequency of Occurrence 

Target Date Comment

Water Quality 

Water Clarity 

Main Channel/ Secondary Channel 4

Summer Average 10 2025

Other 4

Summer Average 10 2025

Other 

Main Channel/ Secondary Channel >5.0ppm All 10 2010Backwater Areas 

75% > 5ppm 100% > 3ppm 

Summer Average 10 2010 To be met 

Velocity Backwater Areas

Average <= 0.3 m/sec 

Up to Bankfull 10 2040 To meet d

Temperature Backwater Areas >1°C Winter 10 2030

Geomorphology 

Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 

100% water depth >1meter Winter 10 2025

Water Level At Dam Variable Summer 3-7

Pattern of Habitats Plants and Animals Other UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E1. Pool-wide Environmental Objectives (Pool 1). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent 

TR/ Target Range Season 

Frequency of Occurrence 

Target Date Comments 

Water Quality 

Other Entire Pool 10 2010

Complete stseparation. 

Entire Pool 10 2010

Implement ssystem. 

Entire Pool 10 2020 Treat urban 

Geomorphology Pattern of Habitats 

Land Cover/Use Forest 

Actively ma- Create higareas to supnative floodprairie, etc. 

Plants and Animals Other 

Other Entire Pool 10 Clean up tra

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E1. Pool-wide Environmental Objectives (Pool 2). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent 

TR/ Target Range Season 

Frequency of Occurrence 

Target Date Comments 

Water Quality 

Other Entire Pool Treat urban 

Geomorphology Pattern of Habitats 

Land Cover/Use Forest 

Actively ma- Create higareas to supnative floodprairie, etc. 

Plants and Animals 

Other 

Protect muscommunity. 

Other 

Other Entire Pool 10 Clean up tra

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E1. Pool-wide Environmental Objectives (Pool 11). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent 

TR/ Target Range Season 

Frequency of Occurrence 

Target Date Comments 

Water Quality Geomorphology 

Connectivity Floodplain 5

flood event 1 2000

Other 

up to bankfull 10 2050

% chosen aupper sectiobankfull stag

Pattern of Habitats 

Land Cover/Use Forest 

Actively ma- Create higareas to supnative floodprairie, etc. 

Plants and Animals 

Other 

Protect muscommunity. 

Other 

Environmental Clean Up Entire Pool 10 Clean up tra

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 1). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date Comments Geomorphology Water Level Main Channel Other 

Variable drawdovegetation 

Geomorphology Connectivity Longitudinal Geomorphology Other 10 2015 Restore Rapids, Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other 10 2015 Rapids/Riffle Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other 10 2015 Rapids/Riffle Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other 10 2015 Rapids/Riffle Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other 10 2015 Rapids/Riffle Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other 10 2015 Rapids/Riffle Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other 10 2015 Rapids/Riffle Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other 10 2015 Rapids/Riffle Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other 10 2015 Rapids/Riffle Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other 10 2015 Rapids/Riffle Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other 10 2015 Rapids/Riffle Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other 10 2015 Rapids/Riffle Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other 10 2015 Rapids/Riffle Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other 10 2015 Rapids/Riffle Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 

Island developm858-854 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Open Water Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 2). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date Comments Water Quality Water Clarity 

Backwater Areas 

Water Quality Water Clarity 

Backwater Areas 

Water Quality Water Clarity 

Backwater Areas 

Water Quality Water Clarity 

Backwater Areas 

Water Quality Water Clarity 

Backwater Areas 

Water Quality Water Clarity 

Backwater Areas 

Water Quality Water Clarity 

Backwater Areas 

Water Quality Water Clarity 

Backwater Areas 

Water Quality Other 

Reduce loading oendrocrine disrup

Water Quality Other 

Reduce nitrogensediment 

Geomorphology Backwater Depth

Backwater Areas 

Geomorphology Backwater Depth

Backwater Areas 

Geomorphology Backwater Depth

Backwater Areas 

Geomorphology Backwater Depth

Backwater Areas 

Geomorphology Backwater Depth

Backwater Areas 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 2 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date Comments Geomorphology Backwater Depth

Backwater Areas 

Geomorphology Backwater Depth

Backwater Areas 

Geomorphology Backwater Depth

Backwater Areas 

Geomorphology Water Level

Main Channel Other 

Variable drawdowvegetation 

Geomorphology Water Level

Backwater Areas See Long Meado

Geomorphology Water Level Other 

Moderate the hydMinnesota River 

Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain Geomorphology Connectivity

Secondary Channel 

Geomorphology Connectivity

Secondary Channel 

Geomorphology Connectivity

Secondary Channel 

Geomorphology Connectivity

Secondary Channel 

Geomorphology Connectivity Longitudinal Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other 10 2015 Rapids/Riffles Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas 

Contiguous Floodplain 

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas 

Contiguous Floodplain 

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas 

Contiguous Floodplain 

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas 

Contiguous Floodplain 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 2 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date Comments Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas 

Contiguous Floodplain 

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas 

Contiguous Floodplain 

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Open Water Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Submersed Aquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Submersed Aquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Submersed Aquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Submersed Aquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Submersed Aquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Submersed Aquatics 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 2 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date Comments Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Submersed Aquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Submersed Aquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics See Long Meado

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics Increased emerg

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 2 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date Comments Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics Increased emerg

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics Increased emerg

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics Increased emerg

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics Increased emerg

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics Increased emerg

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics Increased emerg

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics Increased emerg

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics Increased emerg

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics Increased emerg

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics Increased emerg

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics Increased emerg

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics Increased emerg

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics Increased emerg

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 2 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date Comments Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Restore grasslanPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Restore grasslanPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Restore grasslanPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Restore grasslanPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Restore grasslanPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Restore grasslanPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Restore grasslanPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Restore grasslanPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Restore grasslanPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Restore grasslanPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest See Long MeadoUMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 3). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Season Frequency Target Date Comments Water Quality Water Clarity 

Backwater Areas 

Water Quality Water Clarity 

Backwater Areas 

Water Quality Water Clarity 

Backwater Areas 

Water Quality Water Clarity 

Backwater Areas 

Target Range 

Water Quality Water Clarity 

Backwater Areas 

Water Quality Water Clarity 

Backwater Areas 

Water Quality Other Reduce thermal Geomorphology Backwater Depth

Backwater Areas 

Geomorphology Backwater Depth

Backwater Areas 

Geomorphology Backwater Depth

Backwater Areas 

Geomorphology Backwater Depth

Backwater Areas 

Geomorphology Backwater Depth

Backwater Areas 

Geomorphology Backwater Depth

Backwater Areas 

Geomorphology Backwater Depth

Backwater Areas 

Geomorphology Backwater Depth

Backwater Areas 

Geomorphology Water Level

Main Channel Other 

Variable drawdovegetation 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 3 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date Comments Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain 

Fish passage strthe slough 

Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain 

For Marsh and GSub-Area Comp

Geomorphology Connectivity Longitudinal Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas 

Isolated Backwater Wetland restorat

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Delta, reduce seformation 

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Delta, reduce seformation 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics Increased emerg

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics Increased emerg

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics Increased emerg

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 3 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date Comments Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics Increased emerg

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics Increased emerg

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics Increased emerg

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics Increased emerg

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Restore grasslanPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Restore grasslanPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Restore grasslanUMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 3 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date Comments Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Restore grasslanPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other Sand/Mud Flat Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other Sand/Mud Flat Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other Sand/Mud Flat Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other Sand/Mud Flat Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other Sand/Mud Flat Plants and Animals Other Invasive species Plants and Animals Other Limit northward mTable E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 4). Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date CommWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m In non-

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m In non-

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m In non-

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m In non-

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m In non-

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m In non-

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m In non-

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m In non-

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 4 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date CommWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m In non-

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m In non-

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m In non-

Water Quality Other 

ReducMinnesof Lake 

Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Water Level Main Channel Other 

Variabrestore 

Geomorphology Water Level Backwater Areas Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain Use levGeomorphology Connectivity Floodplain Use levGeomorphology Connectivity Floodplain Use levUMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 4 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date CommGeomorphology Connectivity

Secondary Channel 

Geomorphology Connectivity Longitudinal Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas 

Secondary Channel 

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas 

Secondary Channel 

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas 

Secondary Channel 

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Impounded Area Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Impounded Area Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Island UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 4 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date CommPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Delta, rformati

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Delta, rformati

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Delta, rformati

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Delta, rformati

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Delta, rformati

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Delta, rformati

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Season 

Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 4 cont.). Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Frequency Target Date CommPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics 

Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics 

Increasaquatic

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics 

Increasaquatic

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics 

Increasaquatic

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics 

Increasaquatic

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics 

Increasaquatic

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Restore Pattern of Habitats UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 4 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date CommPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Restore Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Restore Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Restore Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other Sand/MPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other Sand/MPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other Sand/MPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other Sand/MTable E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 5). Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date ComWater Quality Water Clarity Main Channel 

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m In no

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m In no

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m In no

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m In no

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m In no

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 5 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date ComWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m In no

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m In no

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m In no

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m In no

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m

In noIslan

Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas See SGeomorphology Water Level Main Channel Other 

Variaresto

Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel Geomorphology Connectivity Longitudinal Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 5 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date ComPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Impounded Area See SPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Isolated Backwater WetlaPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island See SPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Deltadelta 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Submersed AquaticsPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics See SUMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
 Range 

Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 5 cont.). Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Season Frequency Target Date ComPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increaqua

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increaqua

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increaqua

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increaqua

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increaqua

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increaqua

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increaqua

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increaqua

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland RestoPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland RestoPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland RestoPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Extent 

Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 5 cont.). Ecosystem Element Parameter Target Range Season Frequency Target Date ComPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other 

SandIsland

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other 

SandIsland

Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 5a). Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date Comments Water Quality Water Clarity 

Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m In non-floo

Water Quality Water Clarity 

Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m In non-floo

Water Quality Water Clarity 

Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m In non-floo

Water Quality Water Clarity 

Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m In non-floo

Water Quality Water Clarity 

Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m In non-floo

Water Quality Water Clarity 

Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m In non-floo

Water Quality Water Clarity 

Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m In non-floo

Geomorphology Backwater Depth

Backwater Areas 

Geomorphology Backwater Depth

Backwater Areas 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 5a cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date Comments Geomorphology Backwater Depth

Backwater Areas 

Geomorphology Backwater Depth

Backwater Areas 

Geomorphology Backwater Depth

Backwater Areas 

Geomorphology Backwater Depth

Backwater Areas 

Geomorphology Backwater Depth

Backwater Areas 

Geomorphology Backwater Depth

Backwater Areas 

Geomorphology Water Level Main Channel Other 

Variable drvegetation 

Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain Geomorphology Connectivity Longitudinal Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas 

Secondary Channel 

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas 

Impounded Area 

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas 

Isolated Backwater Wetland re

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Island ProtPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Island ProtPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Island ProtPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 5a cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date Comments Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics 

Increased eaquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics 

Increased eaquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics 

Increased eaquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Restore graPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Restore graPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Other Other Land easemOther Other Land easemOther Other Land easemTable E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 6). Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date CommWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m In non-

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m In non-

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m In non-

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 6 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date CommWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m In non-

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m In non-

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m In non-

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m In non-

Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Water Level Main Channel Other 

Variablrestore 

Geomorphology Water Level Backwater Areas Geomorphology Water Level Backwater Areas Geomorphology Water Level Backwater Areas Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain Use levGeomorphology Connectivity Floodplain Use levGeomorphology Connectivity Floodplain Use levGeomorphology Connectivity Longitudinal Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 6 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date CommPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Island PPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Island PPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Island PPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Island P

Delta, rdelta fo

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent AquaticsPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent AquaticsPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent AquaticsPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent AquaticsPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent AquaticsPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent AquaticsPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Increasaquatic

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Restore Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Other Other Land eaOther Other Land eaPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 7). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date CoWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m All Year 10 2010

Wasec7-9 

Water Quality Water Clarity Main Channel transparency 1.0 m 

Wacha

Secchi disk 

All Year 10 2010

Water Quality Water Clarity Main Channel 

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m All Year 10 2010

Wilwin

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 2010

Alrebac

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 2010

Alrebac

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 2010

Alrebac

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 2010

Alrebac

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 2010

Alrebac

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 2010

Alrebac

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 2010

Alrebac

Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Other UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 7 cont.). 

Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date Comments Water Level Main Channel Other 

Variable drawdown as nerestore vegetation 

Water Level Backwater AreasConnectivity Floodplain Connectivity Floodplain Connectivity Floodplain Connectivity Floodplain Connectivity Floodplain Use levee to reduce connConnectivity Longitudinal Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Aquatic Areas Impounded Area Aquatic Areas Impounded Area Terrestrial Areas Island Terrestrial Areas Island Terrestrial Areas Island Terrestrial Areas Island Island Protection Terrestrial Areas Island Island Protection Terrestrial Areas Island Island Protection Terrestrial Areas Island Island Protection Terrestrial Areas Island Island Protection Terrestrial Areas Island Island Protection Terrestrial Areas Island Island Protection Terrestrial Areas Island Island Protection Terrestrial Areas Island Island Protection Terrestrial Areas Island Island Protection Terrestrial Areas Island Island Protection Terrestrial Areas Island Island Protection Terrestrial Areas Island Island Protection UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 7 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date ComPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IslaPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IslaPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IslaPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Deldelt

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Deldelt

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Submersed AquaticsPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Submersed AquaticsPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Incsub

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Incsub

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland ResPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland ResPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 7 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date ComPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 8). Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date ComWater Quality Water Clarity Main Channel 

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m All Year 10 2010

Watchan

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m All Year 10 2010

Watseco9 

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 2010

Alreback

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 2010

Alreback

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 2010

Alreback

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 2010

Alreback

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 2010

Alreback

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 2010

Alreback

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 2010

Alreback

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 2010

Alreback

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 2010

Alreback

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 8 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date ComWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 2010

Alreback

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 2010

Alreback

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 2010

Alreback

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 2010

Alreback

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 2010

Alreback

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 2010

Alreback

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 2010

Alreback

Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 2010

Alreback

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 2010

Alreback

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 2010

Alreback

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 2010

Alreback

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 2010

Alreback

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 2010

Alreback

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 2010

Alreback

Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Water Quality UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 8 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date ComGeomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Water Level Main Channel Other 

Variresto

Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel Geomorphology Connectivity Longitudinal Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Impounded Area Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 8 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date ComPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 

Terrestrial Areas Island 

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IslanPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IslanPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IslanPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IslanPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IslanPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IslanPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IslanPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IslanPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IslanPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IslanPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IslanPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IslanPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IslanPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IslanPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IslanPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IslanPattern of Habitats UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 8 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date ComPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Deltdelta 

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Deltdelta 

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Deltdelta 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Submersed AquaticsPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Submersed AquaticsPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Submersed AquaticsPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Incresubm

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Incresubm

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Incresubm

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Incresubm

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Incresubm

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Incresubm

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Incresubm

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Incresubm

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 8 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date ComPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Incresubm

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland RestPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland RestPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland RestPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland RestPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland RestPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland RestPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland RestPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland RestPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland RestPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland RestPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other SanPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other SanPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other SanOther Other Land Other Other Land Other Other Land UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 9). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date ComWater Quality Water Clarity Main Channel 

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m All Year 10 2010

Watchan

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m All Year 10 2010

Watseco9 

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 2010

Alreback

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 2010

Alreback

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 2010

Alreback

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 2010

Alreback

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 2010

Alreback

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 2010

Alreback

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 2010

Alreback

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 2010

Alreback

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 2010

Alreback

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 2010

Alreback

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 2010

Alreback

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 2010

Alreback

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 2010

Alreback

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 9 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date ComWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 2010

Alreback

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 2010

Alreback

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 2010

Alreback

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 2010

Alreback

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 2010

Alreback

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 2010

Alreback

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 2010

Alreback

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 2010

Alreback

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 2010

Alreback

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 2010

Alreback

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m All Year 10 2010

Alreback

Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 9 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date ComGeomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas See Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas See Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas See Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas See Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas See Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas See Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas See Geomorphology Water Level Main Channel Other 

Variresto

Geomorphology Water Level Backwater Areas See Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain Geomorphology Connectivity Longitudinal Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Isolated Backwater WetPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other 

RifflCap

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other 

RifflHarp

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 9 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date ComPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island See Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island See Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island See Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island See Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island See Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island See Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island See Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island See Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island See Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island See Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IslanPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IslanPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IslanPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IslanPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IslanPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IslanPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IslanPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IslanPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IslanPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IslanPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IslanPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 

IslanSlou

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 

IslanSlou

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 9 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date Com

Terrestrial Areas Island 

IslanSlou

Terrestrial Areas Island 

IslanSlou

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 

IslanSlou

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Deltdelta 

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Deltdelta 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Submersed AquaticsPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Submersed AquaticsPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Submersed AquaticsPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Submersed Aquatics See Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics See Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics See Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics See Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics See Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics See 

Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics See 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics See Pattern of Habitats Pattern of Habitats Pattern of Habitats UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 9 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date Com

Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increaqua

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increaqua

Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increaqua

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increaqua

Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increaqua

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increaqua

Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increaqua

Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increaqua

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

IncreaquaHRE

Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

IncreaquaHRE

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

IncreaquaHRE

Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

IncreaquaHRE

Land Cover/Use Grassland 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland RestPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland RestPattern of Habitats Pattern of Habitats Pattern of Habitats Pattern of Habitats Pattern of Habitats Pattern of Habitats Pattern of Habitats Pattern of Habitats UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 9 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date ComPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland RestPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland RestPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland 

RestCap

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland 

RestCon

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland 

RestHarp

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland 

RestHarp

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland 

RestHarp

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other SanPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other 

SanHRE

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 10). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date CWater Quality Water Clarity Main Channel 

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Summer 

Wmc

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 10 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date CWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m

Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m

Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m

Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m

Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m

Water Quality Water Quality Water Quality Water Quality UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 10 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date CWater Quality Other All Year 10

c

Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 10 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date CGeomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas SGeomorphology Water Level Main Channel Other Sum. + Win. 

5 2005

Vt

Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel Geomorphology Connectivity Longitudinal Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 10 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date CPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Tertiary Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Isolated Backwater WPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Isolated Backwater WPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other RPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other RPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other RPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other RPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 10 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date CPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Da

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Submersed AquaticsUMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 10 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date CPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Submersed AquaticsPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Is

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland RPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland RPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland RPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland RPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland RPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland RPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland RPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland RPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland RPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland RPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland RPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland RPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland RPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland RPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Other Other LOther Other LUMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 11). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date CWater Quality Water Clarity Main Channel 

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Summer 

Wmc

Water Quality Water Clarity Main Channel 

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Summer 10 2010

Wmc

Water Quality Water Clarity Main Channel 

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Summer 10 2025

Wmc

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m Summer 10 2025

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m Summer 10 2025

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m Summer 10 2025

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m Summer 10 2025

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m Summer 10 2025

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m Summer 10 2025

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m Summer 10 2025

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m Summer 10 2025

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m Summer 10 2025

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m Summer 10 2025

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m Summer 10 2025

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 11 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date CWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m Summer 10 2010

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m Summer 10 2010

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m Summer 10 2010

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m Summer 10 2010

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m Summer 10 2025

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Summer 2010

Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m 10

Water Quality Other All Year 10

Dch1

Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
C

Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 11 cont.). Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target DateGeomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 

Water Level Main Channel Sum. + Win. 5

Vt

Geomorphology Water Level Backwater Areas Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain 

Uc

Geomorphology Connectivity Longitudinal Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas 

Secondary Channel 

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas 

Secondary Channel 

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas 

Secondary Channel 

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas 

Secondary Channel 

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Impounded Area Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Impounded Area Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Impounded Area Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Impounded Area Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Impounded Area Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other RPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other RGeomorphology Other 2005UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 11 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date CPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other RPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other RPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other RPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 

Terrestrial Areas Island 

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 

Terrestrial Areas Island 

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IPattern of Habitats Pattern of Habitats UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 11 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date CPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Da

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Da

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Da

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent AquaticsPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent AquaticsPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent AquaticsPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent AquaticsPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent AquaticsPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent AquaticsPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent AquaticsPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent AquaticsPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent AquaticsPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent AquaticsPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent AquaticsPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent AquaticsPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent AquaticsPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent AquaticsPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent AquaticsUMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 11 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date CPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Is

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Is

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Is

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Is

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics

Is

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland RPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland RPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland RPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland RPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland RPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland RPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Other Other LUMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Plenary Report 

 

The plenary comments are taken directly from the plenary report and only include 

discussion specifically related to environmental objectives. The entire plenary report can 

be found in Appendix C. 

Nov 18th, Objectives Plenary Session:

The plenary began by asking each group to give a brief overview of what they did, as 

well as listing their reach and pool-wide objectives. 

Group 1 Summary (Pools 10-11) 

Brought people up to speed on pool plans. Decided UMRCC addressed common 

objectives for the pools. Looked at framework and added things in. Added several water 

quality parameters. Weren’t comfortable with backwater depth ranges but couldn’t come 

up with something better. Water levels – “added increase water level for over wintering 

EMP monitoring”. Look at dropping water levels in the winter as well. Connectivity –

Pools are inundated 100% at the 10-year flood, so maintain current conditions. Added 

bank full connectivity parameter. Feel that there is too much connectivity. Too many 

areas have flow 365 days of the year. 15% is the average for connectivity for Pool 11. 

Sediment transport may be another parameter. Acquire a more natural sediment regime 

in the pools, but didn’t come up with target ranges. In Plants and Animals we didn’t feel 

that many animals were well represented. Need to modify target use days because these 

pools already exceed the given range (2 billion use days would be better range). 

–35 million use days is maximizing the refuge. Never the less, range is definitely low 

Group 2 Summary (Pools 7-9)

Looked at reach. Started to look at framework. Need to explore reconnecting Root River 

to floodplain. Questioned ranges of target ranges. 

Water levels – draw down is good 

Water depth in backwaters –refer to pool plans. 

Spent lots of time in pool plans to familiarize everyone in the group 

Need to add “Floating Aquatics” in Aquatic Areas 

Terrestrial Areas – Land use/cover – concerned about target ranges. 

Plants and animals – why more guilds aren’t included and also questioned use days. 

Overall – this was a good discussion. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-67
Group 3 Summary (Pools 4-6) 

Started to talk about pool plans. 

Went through ecosystem elements and looked to see what was different from the pool 

plans 

Group 4 Summary (Pools 1-3)

Discussed pool plans, HNA and Cumulative Effects to give everyone a background as to 

where info came from. 

Pools 1-2 are different because they are very urban. 

Pool –Reach-Wide Objectives: 

Potential contaminant spills – need early warning system. 

Need to treat urban storm water runoff 

Need to have annual trash clean up along river 

More effort to separate storm and sewer in twin cities 

MN River conveys lots of sediment, phosphorus and algae... needs to be reduced. 

Lot of boating traffic causing bank erosion. Need education and structural means to deal 

with this. 

Fish passage – improve through the dams. However, concerned about movement of 

exotics. 

More trees for a more continuous corridor for riparian habitat. 

Rapids by St. Anthony Falls – Lock and Dam 1 floods the area to a considerable depth. 

There might be an opportunity to open up Dam 1 and let fish migrate up to St. Anthony’s 

fall. 

Site Specific Objective Setting for La Crosse (3:30)

Once each group gave their report we then started at St. Anthony Falls and moved down 

river, allowing all participants to provide input. 

Group 4 (Pools 1-3) specific data – 

Construct a string of small islands by St. Anthony Falls. Create green corridor. From RM 

858 to Upper St. Anthony’s Falls. 

Shingle Creek, Rice Creek and Coon Creek reduce sediment input. 

Pool-wide (1) – Bank protection where needed. 

St. Anthony Falls to LD1 – area to restore rapids (see discussion above) 

– When will these go from objective to “approved” objectives? 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-68
General consensus of Group 4 –Pool plans were very complete. 

Theiling – These will never become consensus objectives. For projects these will 

become alternatives and you will have input to this process. 

Pool 2 – 

Water Quality objectives for MN River –reduce loading for sediment, nutrients 

(phosphorus) and algae. Also moderate hydrologic regime of the river, it has become 

flashier due to agriculture. 

Water Quality at water treatment plant at RM 835.7 – upgrade plant to handle increased 

population. Be able to handle pH, nitrogen, phosphorus, and endocrine disruptors. 

– Floodplain development. We can’t build any islands because it raises the flood level 

too much. Need to have better floodplain management. 

Pool-wide riparian restoration/improvement 

Improve fish passage through LD 2 

 Pool plans are generally accepted. 

Pool 3 – 

Water Quality – Prairie Island Nuclear Power Plant – reduce thermal loading. 

Pool plans – number of backwaters identified for more depth. Different ranges might 

work better. Range of 0-6 feet with at least 5% at 6 feet of depth. Who suggested water 

depth indicators for pool plans? Mentioned that this was cartoonish. Some however need 

to be deepened for connectivity. 

Fish Passage through LD3 

How to protect St. Croix River from exotics. 

– There is a master plan for St. Croix. May want to consult that. Terry Mohl/Steve 

Johnson. 

Should be including St. Croix because part of authorized navigation project. There are 

some good habitat areas. There could be some benefit to restore backwater areas. 

– Make sure that is goes up to Taylor Falls. 

– Put invasive species control point at LD3. Stop zebra mussels from coming up. There 

is a nuclear power plant there. Maybe put hot water into the lock chamber or something. 

Pool 3 – Flood plain forest needs improvement. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-69
Range from no draw down to open river conditions. 

Marsh and Gantenbin Lake by lock and dam 3 WI. Want lateral floodplain connectivity 

for fish. 

– Make sure that lots of the “C”s are reduce connectivity – Maybe use “IC” or “RC” for 

increase or reduce connectivity. Need to go back through the database. 

– Connectivity used to mean open areas in the floodplain that had been cut off. 

–We just need to be specific in the comments. 

– That is why we used the term bank-full. 

– Need to key this to a specific flow (1.5-year event) Clarify with Chuck Theiling.

Group 3 (Pools 4-6) 

We didn’t get any specific data for the 4 pools because we thought the pool plans were 

adequate. 

Water Quality – Minimum of 1.5 meters in backwaters. 

0 (zero) sedimentation in BW 

Water Level Management 

Drought years are an important time for water level management. We thought that 

adaptive management was a necessary part of water level management. 

–Pool plans did not state any specific draw down. 

Maintain natural high water levels at the lower end of the pools. Reduce drawn down. 

Natural sustainability of habitat type more than plants and animals. 

– Lake Pepin will be gone because of MN river watershed. Reduce sediment loading to 

Lake Pepin from MN River. 

– Delta is pretty nice habitat. Filling rate has been estimated at 300 years. Lake Pepin 

used to extend up to St. Paul. We will want to reduce the rate yet preserve the habitat. 

What is going on there is good and bad. 

– We are assuming that this map accurately depicts the pool plans so we didn’t want to 

waste time on them. Trusted that they were there. 

– Pool plans represent stabilized system not restored system. Suggest a reduction in 

connectivity. 70-100% of flow confined to channel (MC, 2°, 3°) From pools 3-11. Mud 

flat, sand bar habitat and isolated wetland habitats need to be increased at less than bankUMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-70
full (1.5 year events). Iowa put in what they thought they could do, not what we wanted 

to do. In upper pool, pool plans did not depict restoration, just what we thought we could 

do. So did not depict fisheries in closed areas. Pool plans represent what is necessary for 

populations to maintain themselves and handle stress, but not be what we ideally want. 

Understand that this will have to be actively maintained. 

Theiling – In the Peoria meeting they said, “Oh, no, not another wish list”. They didn’t 

have a restored level verses other levels. Wish I had told them Gretchen’s 5 levels. 

– We are in a degraded system. Stabilized means that the endangered are still there and 

restored means that they are in a less threatened state. 

– We use pre-settlement conditions as a reference. Set objectives for abundance for life. 

As far as system-wide, the thing to pay attention to is that we have raised the water 

surface profile. We have raised the water level tables in the floodplains. This has greatly 

affected our floodplain forests. We need to actively maintain our forests and increase 

height for trees. 

Group 2 (Pools 7-9)

Not real site specific 

Add floating aquatic. 

Community changes with depth. Under restored system emergents from floating to 

submersed based on improved water clarity. 

Soileau – EPA would like us to set target ranges for tributaries so they could backtrack 

up into the watersheds for setting goals for sediment and contaminant loading. 

– This is done for pool 2: Dan Engstrom and Alemendinger are the contacts involved in 

this effort. 

Whole reach -Water Clarity in a fully restored system 

Target date of 2010, in spring, disk reading of 1-meter in the main channel. Assumed it 

would be better in other areas. 2-meters in backwater. 

– Is there a good study that is reliable for mass balance input of sediment above lock and 

dam 26 (input versus outflow)? 

– Started with Simon and others. Nakato and others updated this for Pools 11-26. Does 

not include bed materials. As part of Navigation Study we hope to expand on this. 

– Will this ultimately include bedload? 

Reiterate need for watershed approach. Landuse planning, USDA tools. 

– Locations where pool plans reduced connectivity. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-71
– Would like to see this but understand how difficult this will be to do. 

– If you don’t know where you are on the continuum it is hard to set priorities. 

Theiling – We were cautioned in St. Louis that a sediment-starved river is a bad thing 

too. 

– River and sediment go together like Ham and eggs. Conservation in 1930’s has greatly 

reduced problems, but there are still stored sediments in beds and bank lines. 

– LA is trying to open up tributaries to allow more sediment movement to help Gulf. 

Sediment bypass may be helpful to all. 

– Someone in WES has developed a good model for estimating bedload movement. 

– How can we use sedimentation and scour for habitat management? More recent 

projects have used these processes. Pool 8 islands phase 2 and 3. How do we manage for 

these processes that we know are out there? 

– Quality of sediment is a big issue as well. There are a lot more nutrients then before. 

Group 1 (Pools 10-11)

All things were pool wide 

Target ranges 

Water Quality – 

Clarity Contiguous backwater: Target Range of 4 for summer average 

 Main Channel and Side Channel: Target Range of 3 for Summer Average 

DO have daily minimum .5% 5ppm, 100%>3ppm 

Velocity – BW -<or= 0.3 m3/sec during bank-full conditions. 

Temperature >1 °C in Winter 

More parameters 

More extents (MC, SC, Contiguous Backwater, isolated Back Water 

Geomorphology – Don’t want drawdowns to be the same level or the same way. Need 

variety. Also look at water levels for winter, both high and low. 

– Objectives for DO...Under the most pristine conditions we had swings in DO that went 

under 5ppm. As site specific planning we can accept areas that go anoxic. We know that 

several critters need anoxic conditions. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-72
Working Group Reports 

The working group reports were prepared by the recorder in each group as a record of the 

discussion. They contain a subset of the pool-wide and site-specific objective 

information generated by the groups. The group reports are not inclusive of all the 

objective descriptions because much of the groups’ data generation was also recorded on 

master worksheets and maps. 

GROUP 1 

Participants List: Elliott Stefanik (recorder), Mike Cox, John Lindell, John 

Hendrickson, Ron Kucera, Mark Anderson, Don Larson, Jeff Janvrin 

UMR Pools 10 and 11 

Pool 11 RM 583 to 615 

Reach-wide objectives 

Jeff J: provides an overview of Pool planning process. 

How do these plans differ from UMRCC effort – the plans try to capture specific actions 

that meet UMRCC objectives for key components of water quality, flood plain habitat, 

etc. Common themes for all pool plans include backwater restoration, sand bar habitat, 

island creation, water level management, etc. 

Restoration, restoring to aspects after or before dam placement? 

The premise is that the navigation system will remain in place. We would like to 

maximize the river to do the work to create a desired condition that maybe mimics predam condition. 

For habitat features, we based habitat features on historical conditions, in some cases 

1940 and 50s, in other cases 1970s. We are targeting some condition post-dam before 

habitat was degraded through sedimentation and erosion. The pool plans did leave a lot 

of room for further revision. Areas with conflicting goals and objectives need revision 

(i.e., fish vs. wildlife habitat). 

What about sport species vs. diversity? 

That is an issue that has been and will continue to be considered. 

Pool wide and reach-wide objectives. How do we apply the UMRCC objectives? The 

pool plans have applied these objectives. But do we need to add any more objectives 

specific for Pools 10 and 11? Yes, we will want to fine tune these. Discussion held on 

whether all 9 of these directly apply or not to each Pool. Aspects of each of these would 

likely apply to at least a part of both Pools. 

Approach: Go through the list of parameters and go through or Reach Wide quantitative 

objectives. Agreed upon. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-73
Lunch Break 

Quantitative Objectives 

Pool-wide objectives 

Water quality 

Temp (mainly a winter target for backwater) %area >1C 

0-30-60-100% of backwater area 

DO – backwater and mainchannel 

Summer range, main channel >5ppm; backwater 75% of area that >5 ppm early 

morning. 100% greater than 3 ppm. 

Winter: main channel o.k.; backwater sites areas 100% of area > 1m deep with 5 ppm. 

75%of area > 3 ppm. 

Velocity, 

Example for backwaters;20%, 40, 60 or 80% of area with velocity of 0 ft/sec. 

Water Clarity: Sechi Disk or TSS 

Backwater 

Side-channel 

Main-channel suggested, do not exceed TMDL 

Geomorphology 

Flood plain connectivity gradient (connectivity at low flows, high flows, etc.). 

Also, reduced inundation at lower flows. Reduce connectivity at bankfull connectivity. 

Percent bankfull connectivity: 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50% 

Flood stage connectivity: as listed. 

We also discussed adding sediment transport – did not officially “add” this to the list, but 

it was noted for later discussion. 

Backwater depths – leave as is, use a range. But backwater area target area size may be 

variable. 

Water levels – could add a fifth category: to be 1 foot (0.3 m) above pool elevation for 

winter conditions. 

Pattern of Habitats 

Leave as written. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-74
Plants and Animals 

-include categories for amphibians, reptiles, invertebrates, and a wide range of bird guilds 

(shore birds, neo-tropical migrants, etc). 

-expand target range for waterfowl (use-days probably too low). 

-include some form of Diversity measurements as an overall ecosystem element. 

Pool 11. 

Upper Pool 11: RM 608 to 615

Sechi Disk depth, main and secondary channels, midsummer – 1.0 m. Target date of 

2010. 

Contiguous backwater, summer average 4m. Target date 2010. 

Isolated backwater, summer average 5m. Target date 2010. 

Frequency of occurrence: 10%, 20, 30, 50, 70, 80 and 90%. 

Mid Pool 11: RM 596 to 608

Sechi Disk depth, main and secondary channels, midsummer – 1.0 m. Target date of 

2030. 

Contiguous backwater, summer average 4m. Target date 2025. 

Isolated backwater, summer average 5m. Target date 2025. 

Frequency of occurrence: 10%, 20, 30, 50, 70, 80 and 90%. 

Lower Pool 11: 583 to 596 

Sechi Disk depth, main and secondary channels, midsummer – 1.0 m. Target date of 

2030. 

Contiguous backwater, summer average 4m. Target date 2025. 

Isolated backwater, summer average 5m. Target date 2025. 

Frequency of occurrence: 10%, 20, 30, 50, 70 

Dissolved Oxygen, Velocity and Temp

Implement reach-wide goals, with various target year dates (2020 to 2040). 

Water level management: target, variable on a 3 to 7 year cycle. (2005 for Pool 11). 

Geomorphology and Connectivity 

Lateral (bankfull connectivity): 

Longitudinal: Fish passage provided 100% of the time. 

Ensure stabilization of Island 189. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-75
 

GROUP 2

Participants List: Jim Nissen, Jeff Gulan, Don Powell, Steve Zigler, Jeff DeZellar, Rick 

Moore, Barbara Frank, Gretchen Benjamin, John Lindell, Terry Dukerschein, Scott 

Johnson 

Time Keeper: Jeff DeZellar 

Recorder: Terry Dukerschein 

Facilitator: Gretchen Benjamin 

Reporter: Jim Nissen 

Master Chart: Jeff Gulan 

Target Objectives for Poolwide Scale, Pools 7, 8, 9 

Facilitator defined the aquatic areas first for clarification. Main Channel, Backwater, 

Side Channel (primary, secondary, tertiary), Impounded Area 

Target water clarity for Main Channel Water Clarity: Discussed typical seasonal 

Secchi’s and Turbidities first. Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter (flooding) target 1 Meter 

Secchi) Comments: likely we’ll do better in summer and winter. Target date = 2010 

Secondary channels, 7,8,9 Water Clarity: 1.5 Meters (#4) 

Impounded, Pools 7,8,9 Water Clarity: #5 (2.0 Meters) Comments-management 

actions needed 

Backwaters 7, 8, 9 Water Clarity #5 (2.0 Meters) Comments: Some attainment at 

some times and places now, but will need more management actions to increase time and 

area extent. 

Target water depth backwaters 7, 8, 9. We want a gradient of depth from 0-3 meters, 

with backwaters that contain areas at least 2-3 Meters deep in major overwintering areas 

spaced every two miles. The areas need to big enough so that there is oxygen there 

throughout diurnal variations. This is a site-specific criteria with a diverse range of depth 

in each backwater. 

Consider target velocity as a critical variable for backwaters 

Dissolved Oxygen: All areas: Sufficient dissolved oxygen to support aquatic life. 

Water Levels, 7, 8, 9. Poolwide main channel drawdowns are the most efficient, and 

others can be done as needed on a case by case basis. How much to change the water 

level depends on the pool and the situation—a range of 0.3 to over 1.0 Meter should be 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-76
considered. Investigate what the absolute minimum depth that we need is to provide for 

the tows. If boats required more than 9 feet of draft, it’s too bad for them if a nine-foot 

channel and no more is maintained. We would like all options and we want to review 

how to implement it. Spring, summer, fall, consider the length of the growing season, 

recreational navigation, mussels, commercial navigation, etc. Winter months: maintain 

water levels as high and as level as practical. 

Lateral Connectivity, Pools 7, 8, 9. Comments: Habitats are getting homogenized over 

time. We want to restore a matrix of depths and current velocities—repair and 

maintenance. Work with the river wherever possible. There are different types of 

connectivity—lateral, longitudinal. Focus on the Root River, work with private parties to 

acquire land and maintain. Secondary channels like Summer Chute, Raft Channel and 

Shady Maple are examples of areas already connected to the main channel. It is not 

always the temporal nature of the connectivity but the level of connectivity (closing 

structures) that may be of concern. Asian carp are raising new concerns in the area of 

connectivity. 

Longitudinal Connectivity (fish passage, etc.): Lock and Dam 3 was used as an 

example. If you say 100% , the opportunity for passage is there 100% of the time, but 

only a small proportion of the target population might get through at any given time. 

Non-targeted populations (exotics) are also a concern. Other management options not in 

the 100% category are worth acknowledging as possible ways to improve the situation. 

We are aiming for 100% of fish passage Spring—fall, the most critical seasons. 

Aquatic areas, all pools: Aquatic areas are a crude measure for habitat. We’re not 

comfortable with using criteria associated with such broad categories. We are really 

looking for diversity of depth, current velocity, and connectivity. Implement the Pool 

Plans. 

Terrestrial Areas: In general, the floodplain forest is middle-old age and we want to 

maintain a corridor of floodplain forest at least what we have now. A concern in urban 

areas is loss of connectivity to the blufflands. The forest is aging and we need to increase 

species diversity within the floodplain forest. We need more islands and we need to look 

at all management alternatives. Implement the Pool Plans. 

Land Cover/Land Use: The floating leaf plant community needs to be added as a 

category. 0--0.5 Meter emergent, 0.5—1 Meter floaters, 0.5-2 Meters submersed. 

Minimum: Implement the Pool Plans, but preferable to do better. We have lost a lot of 

prairies—work with and support the local land trusts for saving grasslands. Encourage 

and foster Smart Growth. Land Use Planning is needed for all counties—offer 

information and encourage and foster it at every opportunity. Work with USDA to 

encourage implement of their full range of programs. 

PLANTS AND ANIMALS 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-77
Plants: Plants include the floating plant community, please add it at the following 

category--Floaters: 10-20 plants/square meter. Overlap is needed between categories 

(mosaic of plants, i.e. diversity). Emergents: 20-50 stems per Meter. Submersed: 

category 4-5. We feel that using fixed numbers will vary with the area under 

consideration. These are general estimates. We want no nuisance exotic species. We 

want to preserve diversity with native species. 

Fish: We don’t have enough historical, baseline data to tell yet ( need two to three 

lifetimes for most fish, and the current LTRMP database of 10 years only covers one 

lifespan in many cases). We are just beginning to get trends information and apply 

community metrics, and we do not have the capability to provide desired numbers at this 

time. We want no nuisance exotic species. We want to preserve diversity with native 

species. Balanced length distributions need to be maintained to sustain healthy native 

fish populations. 

Add a category for invertebrates. Mussels, fingernail clams, butterflies, aquatic 

invertebrates, etc. 

Birds and wildlife: Use Days for waterfowl, a measure of sustainability (habitat) that 

ties back to the ability of the area to sustain a particular avian activity such as breeding or 

migration. Distribute habitat up and down the river or laterally, not all in one place. 

Enhance habitat in traditional areas as well as elsewhere. Give the birds alternative areas 

to go to. Missing whole communities of Concern: black terns (need rooted floated 

aquatics), Neotropical migrants, breeding birds, herps, songbirds, waders, shorebirds, 

marsh birds, resident birds, mammals.

GROUP 3

Participants: Tim Schlagenhaft, Bob Drieslein, Steve Tapp, Brian Brecka, Catherine 

McCalvin, Sol Simon, Betsy Croker, Paul Rohde, Eric Nelson, Fred Pinkard, Pat 

Heglund 

UMR Pools 4 - 6 

Reach-wide Recommendation: 

The group was in general agreement on the goals of the Pool Plans. Other statements by 

the group go beyond the Pool Plans and were not necessarily arrived by consensus, but 

were items not included in the Pool Plans. 

Water Quality: Add a Parameter: Objective: Net Sedimentation Rate of zero 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-78
Water Clarity Goal: Secchi Disk goal of >1.5 meters 

Geomorphology: Objective: Restore a more natural hydrologic regime and hydrograph 

of open-river conditions, as much as practicable 

Backwater Depth Target: Utilize Open water areas of Pool Plans, as show as 

"D" on UMR-IWW Nav Study Map 

 

Drawdown Target: Open River Conditions 

Water Levels: Attain more stable water levels at tailwaters. 

 Operate water levels at the dams, during flood events, depend less 

on hinge points 

 

Connectivity: Promote Connectivity concept at points where "C" symbols occur 

on Nav Study Map; 

Promote side channel connectivity in upper end of Pools 5, 5A, and 6. 

 Longitudinal: Optimize fish passage as shown in Pool Plans 

Pool 5: In Zumbro River Area, breech levees and have flood event every two years. 

Pattern of Habitats: Objective Level: Utilize Pool Plans 

 100% of quality natural habitat, sustainable through natural processes 

Plants and Animals: 

GROUP 4

Participant List: Dick Otto, Ron Benjamin, Lee Nelson, Jon Stravers, Dan Wilcox, Kurt 

Brownwell, Don Hultman, Gary Wege, Scott Faber, Randy Urich, Mike Davis 

UMR Pools 1 - 3 

DISCUSSIONPOOL 1

Need for pollution/spill detection 

Need for additional treatment of storm sewer water 

Fish passage at all Locks & Dams 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-79
Possibility of restoring rapids 

Possibility of seasonal exposure of rapids 

Need for more public lands 

Finish separation of sanitary and storm sewers 

POOL 2 

MN River sediment and nutrient clean up needed. 

Moderation of hydrologic regime needed 

(All Pools) Suggested actions indicated on maps need to be reviewed to see if they make 

sense ecologically. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-80
Appendix F. Management Actions 

Purpose:

To review and identify management actions that are most likely to contribute towards 

achieving the established goals and objectives. 

Background:

For the purposes of these workshops, Management Actions are: regulatory, operational or 

structural tools or activities that can be implemented to positively address environmental 

objectives (e.g. hydraulically dredge a backwater area). Participants reviewed a list of 

management actions that had been compiled from previous planning to assess their ability 

to meet the objectives that were discussed the previous day Time was given to ensure all 

the groups were able to review all of the actions. The reports from each group were 

presented in a plenary session to provide other participants the opportunity to ask for and 

receive clarification. 

Results:

What follows is the management information gathered and reviewed at the La Crosse 

Workshop. It is organized into three sections: management action tables, plenary report, 

and working group reports. 

Each working group prepared a master worksheet to record the group’s changes, 

additions, and deletions to the list of management actions. The changes from all the 

groups were compiled in the following worksheets (Table F1). There were 130 new 

management actions, and 54 comments added. The whole group modified 44 existing 

management actions and deleted 10 of the actions listed. 

 These results will be merged with those from other workshops, and the entire 

management actions database published in the UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility 

Study Interim Report will be updated. 

The plenary comments are taken directly from the plenary report and only include 

discussion specifically related to management. The entire plenary report can be found in 

Appendix C. 

The Working Group reports below were prepared by the recorder in each group as a 

record of the discussion. Working group reports are not inclusive of all of the work that 

was produced for Management Actions. Much of the groups’ data generation was done 

on master worksheets and maps and compiled for production in a formal report for the 

Upper Mississippi River – Illinois Waterway Navigation Feasibility Study. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

F-1
Table F1. Management Actions. 

Element / Parameter Extent ID Management Action Com

Water Quality Water Clarity Main Channel 1 Apply watershed BMPs (best management practices) 

2 Stabilize river banks 

3 Pool scale drawdown to consolidate soft sediments in loc

Revisvegein MV

4 Minimize dredge disturbance/frequency 

5 Minimize dredge slurry return water 

6 Minimize bankside dredged material placement 7 Stabilize dredged material 8 Tributary reservoirs to red9 Speed and wake restrictions - rec. boats add t

Comments/ Additions: 

Pool scale drawdowns to promote emergent vegetation Protect aquatic vegetation (regulatory) - do no harm Encourage regulation for BMPs Strict runoff and erosion control regulations for new developments Temporary mooring facility Tow boat speed control to minimize stops Modify propulsion system Hull redesign Wingdams Recreation management on the main channel (camping, fires, sanitation, speed, noise) Promote emergent plant growth Create wetlands to promote biological waste management of storm water. 

 
Table F1. Management Actions (cont.). 

Element / Parameter Extent ID Management Action Com Water Quality cont. 

Remove levees throughout floodplains (mostly tribs in St. Paul Dist.) 

Phosphate limits @ sewage treatment plants NTE 1 ppm

Industry self help & small scale improvements, nonstructural navigation elements Modify tow size/configuration Urban stormwater treatment 

Eliminate phosphorus in lawn fertilizer Agricultural BMPs Urban stormwater BMPs Restore hydrologic regime of tributaries Tributary stream channel stabilization 

Larger, more effective dredged material placement sites for silty material Off-shore revetments to reduce sediment resuspension & bank erosion Improve channel marking (USCG buoys) Install mooring buoys to keep tow away from sensitive areas Construct islands to reduce wind waves and sediment resuspension 

Minimize impacts of barge fleeting & mooring 

Backwaters 10 Pool scale drawdown to consolidate soft sediments in loc

prom

11 Drawdown management units 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table F1. Management Actions (cont.). 

Element / Parameter Extent ID Management Action Com Water Quality cont. 12 Drawdown isolated backwaters 

11 - 1MVP 

13 Isolate and drawdown contiguous backwaters @ s14

Temporarily isolate and drawdown contiguous backwaters 13 & 

15 Construct wind breaks

islandbreak

16 Construct Wave breaks

17 Remove bottom feeding fishes (carp) 

18 Increase plant density Delet19 Increase plant distribution Delet20 Reduce algae production Delet

Comments/ Additions: 

Manage recreational boaters- speed & wake restrictions Increase water depths Stabilize existing islands Urban BMPs Promote emergent plant growth Phosphate limits @ sewage treatment plants NTE 1 ppmOff-shore revetments to reduce sediment resuspension & bank erosion Winter water level fluctuations - bring in DO water Operate pools on "high side" Aerators to improve DO Divert tribs into backwaters to deliver DO Apply BMPs Plant vegetation to increase diversity and distribution Open springs in isolated backwaters 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table F1. Management Actions (cont.). 

Element / Parameter Extent ID Management Action ComGeomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 21 Hydraulic dredging Inclu

22 Mechanical dredging 23 Consolidate sediment limite

throu

24 Divert flow to increase backwater scour 

Comments/ Additions: Increase water levels and hold constant in winter 

Pool-scale drawdown - allow tribs to scour 

Temporarily remove closing structures, build high wing dikes to divert flow into side channels Experiment with management actions during scheduled Nav. System closure 

Use structures to maintain BW depth list aApply BMPs Bank protection to reduce sed input Add mooring buoy to reduce sed resuspension 

Mechanical movement of sediment during drawdowns (land based) 

Water Level Main Channel 25 Pool scale drawdown Comments/ Additions: Manage tributary and dam flows to mimic natural patterns

Maintain minimum water gradient Run of the river tributaries Wetland restoration to increase infiltration system-scale or multiple pool drawdowns Hold winter water levels high Use dam point control more - limit hinge point operationsMake frequent gate adjustments to minimize fluctuations 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table F1. Management Actions (cont.). 

Element / Parameter Extent ID Management Action Com Geomorphology (cont) Backwater Areas 26 Pool scale drawdown 

27 Drawdown management units 27 - 3

28 Drawdown isolated backwaters spec

29 Isolate and drawdown contiguous backwaters 30

Temporarily isolate and drawdown contiguous backwaters 

Comments/ Additions: Wetland restoration to increase infiltration 

Moderate hydrologic regime of tributaries - establish objectives for trib hydrology De-channelize tributaries Rock ramps at spillways and other overflow sections Pool scale flooding - winter Flow diversion to reduce flow, create a head difference 

Connectivity Floodplain 31

Acquire real estate rights, restore water to leveed floodplain areas may 

32 Reconfigure, restore flow to secondary channels incre33 Restore flow to isolated backwater areas or lim

34 Create habitat corridors for floodplain terrestrial wildlife 

2 extents 35 Restore natural tributary channels through delta areas 1. Flood stage 36 Notch levees 2, bank full 37 Set back levees All mgmt action apply to both 38 Increase water levels 

Raise pool 

39 Increase terrestrial area 

Revismateplant 

Comments/ Additions: No government bailouts for repetitive flood damage 

Restore lost physical structure 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table F1. Management Actions (cont.). 

Element / Parameter Extent ID Management Action Com

Geomorphology (cont) Remove leveesConnectivity (cont) More floodplain zoning 

Rock ramps at spillways and other overflow sections Deposit sand, cap with fines, plant trees Construct islands to increase connectivity 

Secondary Channels 40 Notch closures 

41 Divert flow gravi

incre

42 Increase water levels 43 Dredge secondary channels 44 Remove levees 

Restrict flow to contiguous backwaters 

Construct islands to increase flow Restrict flow to secondary channels 

Longitudinal 45 Build fishways or loc

46 Modify gate operations 

47 Modify lock operations See 48 Remove tributary dams 

Comments/ Additions: Lower embankments and spillways 

Modify control structures (such as spot dikes) Remove dams (mainstem and tribs) More research on fish passage Build barriers to restrict exotic species movements 

Comments/ Additions: 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table F1. Management Actions (cont.). 

Element / Parameter Extent ID Management Action ComPattern of Habitats Aquatic areas 49 Introduce flow to isolated backwater areas Modi

50 Restore flow to secondary channels 51 Restore flow to floodplain areas isolated by levees 52 Restore natural tributary channels through delta areas 53

Divert more tributary delta flow into open impounded areas 

54 Create rock and gravel substrate areas 55 Create shallow rock and gravel riffle areas 56 Incorporate woody debris into bank protection 57 Incorporate woody debris into 2° and small channels 58 Restore flow and geometry of secondary channels 59 Modify flow distribution from dam gates - tailwater habitat60 Grading, vegetation planting 61 Rock groins, hard points Cons

Reduce flow to isolated backwater areas Restrict flow to secondary channels 

62 Anchored woody debris 

63 Off-shore rock revetments Dupl

64 Submerged rock vanes 65 Notch wing dams to create hydraulic, depth diversity 66 Notch closing dams to increase side channel flow 67 Construct temporary structures to divert flow 68 Use larger rock, make bank revetments irregular 69 Incorporate woody debris into channel structures 70 Construct hard points, groins for shoreline stabilization 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table F1. Management Actions (cont.). 

Element / Parameter Extent ID Management Action ComPattern of Habitats (cont) 71 Construct off-shore revetments Aquatic areas (cont) 72 Construct seed islands 

73 Construct bendway weirs NA in 74 Construct chevrons NA in 75 Modify flow splits between main and off-channel areas 76 Dredge backwater areas, increase depth 77 Dredging to restore and create secondary channels 78 Shore pipe, boosters to reach target sites 79 Use small dredges to expand placement options 80 Bend width reductions where possible 

What placeBendnarro

to red

Comments/ Additions: Increase shoreline dynamics/complexity 

Pool-wide drawdowns Submerged sills into backwaters Remove/knock down wingdams to create fish habitat 

Break low spots in dam embankments - riffle type aquatic habitat Use mgmt actions to reduce/eliminate flow (include islands, dikes, and closures) 

Construct islands Water level management Increase channel border width Notch levees Pool-wide to system-wide drawdowns 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table F1. Management Actions (cont.). 

Element / Parameter Extent ID Management Action ComPattern of Habitats (cont) 81 Place dredged material to create wetland areas  Terrestrial 82 Placement on existing, construct new beaches

Revisrecre

83 Semi-confined channel placement (chevrons) 84 Unconfined placement in floodplain (for mast trees)

Revisfor haflood

85 Unconfined placement in floodplain Delet86 Beaches

Revisnesti

87 Island construction 88 On floodplain to raise areas for mast-producing trees 89 Confined placement in floodplain Delet90 Construct hard point in floodplain 91 Construct islands in impounded areas and backwaters 

Recolevee

92 Seed islands 93 Chevron islands 94 Rock islands 95 Islands with varied top elevation, fine material 96 Low islands - mud flats and sand bars 

Comments/ Additions: 

Create/maintain sand nesting sites for turtles, shorebirds, and water-birds for loafing, resting, or basking areas Encourage natural land formation - deltas 

Stabilize and protect landforms so we can protect what we have Open barrier islands - create channel, induce delta formation into open BW areas 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table F1. Management Actions (cont.). 

Element / Parameter Extent ID Management Action ComPattern of Habitats (cont) Excavate floodplain potholes  Terrestrial (cont) 

Need foresareas 

Smarestomate

Land Cover/Use 97

Modify and manage habitats on refuges (see habitat below) 

98 Manage vegetation cover 99 Manage water levels 

100 Modify habitat structure in floodplain and backwaters 101 Plant vegetation on dredged material deposits

Revisand pdepo

102 Plant floodplain trees 103 Harvest floodplain trees Mana104 Plant floodplain prairie Resto105 Burn floodplain prairie 106 Control invasive exotic species Mana107 Place dredged material to create wetland areas 108

Unconfined dredged material placement in floodplain (for mast trees) Delet

109 Growing season drawdowns 

Comments/ Additions: See c

Restrict use in the river floodplain (regulate) Manage water levels 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table F1. Management Actions (cont.). 

Element / Parameter Extent ID Management Action ComPattern of Habitats (cont) 

Land Cover/Use (cont)

Acquire floodplain land from willing sellers (easement or fee), restore habitat Reestablish disease resistant elms in floodplain Excavate wetland scrapes 

Plants and Animals Fish 110 Adjust angling, commercial fishing regulations as needed

111 Modify angler attitudes about exploitation

Educuse o

112 Enforce fishing regulations 113 Stock fish

Deletexist

nativcomp

Comments/ Additions: 

Improve habitat for fish, provide a diversity of habitats for fish communities (MAs 1 - 109) Control invasive exotic species 

More population studies of biological research such as fish, wildlife, birds, herps, invertebrates, and plants 

Use predator control where appropriate 

Wildlife 114

Conduct biomanipulation of fish and wildlife community (various actions) 

115 Adjust hunting and trapping regulations as needed 116 Modify hunter attitudes about exploitation

Educuse o

117 Enforce hunting regulations 118 Reintroduce native species 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table F1. Management Actions (cont.). 

Element / Parameter Extent ID Management Action ComPlants and Animals (cont.) Wildlife Comments/ Additions: Control invasive exotic species Delet

Predator management where appropriate or needed Voluntary closed areas 

Need mussel management plan Need mussel component in restoration projects 

Implement MAs 1 - 109 

Management for protection of neotropical migrants and other species of concern 

Exotics 119 Control invasive exotic species Mana

120 Construct, operate, maintain barrier on Illinois River 121

 Require antibiotic treatment of Great Lakes freighter ballast water 

Concantibthat taffecterres

122 Regulate use of exotic species for fishing bait 123 Regulate biota transfer by fishing boats and c124 Apply species-specific toxicants 125 Kill zebra mussels on vessels in lock chambers 126

 Restrict and enforce use of exotic species in aquaculture 

Comments/ Additions: 

Increase water temperature using power plant open-cycle cooling water during warm summers to kill zebra mussels

Implement MAs 1 - 109 

Prevent introduction of aquatic and terrestrial species 

Mussels and other invertebrates 

Control exotic introductions through other ports (New Orleans) 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table F1. Management Actions (cont.). 

Element / Parameter Extent ID Management Action ComPlants and Animals 127

Protect, increase populations of threatened, endangered species add r

T&E Reintroduction of extirpated species to the area Comments/ Additions: Restore populations of T&E species. 

Restore and improve T&E species habitats 

 Best Management Practices All Modify habitat (see below) 

128 BMPs 129 Conservation tillage 130 Contour farming, terraces 131 Grassed waterways 132 Establish perennial cover, crops 133 Stabilize eroding ravines 134 Conservation Reserve Program land set-aside

Don't progr

135 Erosion control structures along intermittent streams 136 Construct, maintain small impoundments 137 Restore drained lakes, wetland areas 138 Riparian buffer strips 139 Restore stream channels, floodplain areas 140 Urban stormwater management practices 141 Construction site erosion prevention practices 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table F1. Management Actions (cont.). 

Element / Parameter Extent ID Management Action Com Best Management Practices (cont.) 142 Increase pervious surface in developed areas Comments/ Additions: 

Encourage land trusts and individuals to conserve grasslands, blufflands, open space in perpetuity along the watershed (encourage all means of land conservation) Establish hydrologic objectives for tributaries Provide sanitary facilities for campers on islands 

Adjust dredging frequency and volume to enable pool scale drawdowns, limit frequency of disturbance, WQ problems, gain cost efficiencies Acquire tributary floodplain areas - areas hydrologically affected by Nav. System impoundment 

Look at Galloway Report recommendations 

USDA, EPA, FEMA need to be involved in river management Consider system-wide cumulative impacts during evaluations of any project 

Wetland Reserve Program Environmental education and outreach 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Plenary Report

The plenary comments are taken directly from the plenary report and only include 

discussion specifically related to management actions. The entire plenary report can be 

found in Appendix C. 

Nov 19th, Management Actions Plenary Session:

The plenary began by asking each group to give a brief overview of what they did, as 

well as listing their modifications to the list of Management Actions. The Tables of 

Management Actions were visited section by section with all four groups having an 

opportunity to give their input on each section before moving to the next. 

Managements Actions – Chuck Theiling (8:15 – 9:25) 

Chuck began this section by discussing why it is important for management actions to be 

identified, as well as defining what a management action is. Next he discussed how the 

current list of management actions was created. Finally he and Rebecca projected the 

management action worksheet and discussed how to work during the breakout sessions. 

Discussion Before Management Actions Working Groups: 

– Our task is to identify tools. Are we to rank them now? 

Soileau - No, just make sure they are on the list. 

– For just our pools that we are assigned to? 

Soileau -You can do the entire reach. However, if you know that there is an action that 

only ties to a specific area please list that in the comments. 

– Have you used the crosswalk of management actions from the Pool Plans? 

Theiling – No. 

– I recommend that you use them. 

Theiling - We will. 

Soileau – If you have any other sources that would be helpful, please let us know. 

Management Action Working Groups (8:25-10:21)

Management Action Plenary (10:21- 11:48)

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

F-16
Page W2-2 Water Quality

Group 1 

Lots of discussion about what management actions are and what we are trying to achieve. 

Wrestled about how much detail we needed. Looked at the UMRCC report. 

Water Clarity in the Main Channel - 

Maybe island construction in the backwaters that reduce wind fetch so sediment 

resuspension won’t affect the main channel. 

Group 2 

Redesign barge hulls to make more efficient. 

Group 3 

We thought that best management practices (BMP’s) were essential to all efforts. We also 

felt that algae production was related to BMP’s. 

Group 4 

Also felt that watershed BMP’s were important. 

Page W2-3, 4 Geomorphology

Group 1 

Structures to maintain backwater depth – rock and bio-technical bank protections, islands 

see the group’s notes. 

We could lower backwaters by closing upper end. Don’t need to have permanent 

structure. It could be a temporary sand plug. 

Group 2 

All in notes 

Group 3 

Didn’t understand what #39 meant, so deleted this. 

Group 4 

Using the power of the river to do work would be better than using diesel engines to 

perform work. 

Agreed that connectivity was an overused word. 

For #39 – clarified that to add elevation to islands and floodplains to grow trees. 

Page W2-4 Geomorphology and Pattern of Habitats

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

F-17
Felt that Item 61 was a duplicate to item 70 so deleted. 

Group 1 

We discussed Lock & Dam as well as dike modifications. We recorded it in our computer 

notes. 

Group 2 

All in notes 

Group 3 

Group 4 

All in notes. 

Page W2-5 Pattern of Habitats

Group 4 (aquatic areas) 

Width of bends is narrow so tows might have to wait for another and churn things up in 

the meantime. It might be good for protection of mussel beds. 

Get a brief sentence for each management action describing what will be done and what 

the expected outcomes will be. 

Theiling – Jeff and Jon did this in the UMRCC. We will be looking at this. 

Group 1 

–There is an advantage to increase width of main channel border areas. In historic times 

it experienced filling in of training structures. Increasing width will increase quantity and 

quality of main channel border. Management actions – remove dikes, notch wing dams, 

remove old dredge islands. 

Group 2 

All in notes. 

Group 3 

Confused about number #81 did it mean take area from floodplain? 

Group 4 

All in notes. 

Page W2-6 Pattern of Habitats (cont)

Group 1 

All in notes. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

F-18
Group 2 

All in notes. 

Group 3 

Discussion items of 97-100 that these were covered in other areas. 

Group 4 

Confused about #90. 

Page W2-7 Plants and Animals

Group 1 

First thing we did was to include 1-109 as efficient habitat restoration/management. 

– These were mostly social and regulatory issues. However, if you don’t have the habitat 

then you won’t have the critters so need to address that first. 

– We are going to need more than clichés. We are going to need causal mechanisms. We 

are going to get some hard questions that we are going to have to answer. How much 

investment are we going to need to develop adequate habitat? 

– You are missing the microhabitats in our large overarching fish and population actions. 

Soileau – So we need you to add in the microhabitat management actions. This wasn’t 

intended to be exclusive. 

– You are managing the forest for a certain species. So if I want a type of bird in the 

forest I will manage the forest for a certain species. 

– We have been setting objectives in a very simple way. We could be using landscape 

(architecture) that we can be using to address very specific life forms. As we understand 

things more we will be creating management actions. 

Soileau – Was there an explicit outcome for the education? (Under wildlife) 

– Promote BMP’s 

Group 2 

All in notes. 

Group 3 

#114 – What was the thinking on this? 

– Adjust predator/prey relationships, commercial harvest. Directly managing biota rather 

than habitat. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

F-19
Group 4 

We talked about bio-manipulation. 

Were concerned about invasive and aggressive exotics. 

High water temperatures set zebra mussels back. During the hot summers have power 

plants do open water cycling to bring the water temperatures higher. 

Need a fresh look at what is considered exotics. 

There was a discussion about reintroducing mammoths, bison. These are native, but 

could be harmful. 

Page W2- 8 Plants and Animals, T&E

Group 1 

136 – May effect downstream by holding sediment back from sediment starved areas. 

Consider system-wide impacts before implementing any projects. 

Group 2 

All in notes. 

Group 3 

Consider changing 134. Distinguish CRP from land set aside programs. Don’t limit 

yourself. 

Group 4 

All in notes. 

– Implement the Galloway report recommendations. USDA, EPA, and FEMA need to be 

added to this study effort. They are controlling 3/4 of the pie. They control the drainage 

districts. So far we have not been successful in getting them involved at the local level 

rather than just the National level. 

th

Theiling – You are right. They are involved in the NECC, and the Federal Task force. 

– We need them involved in the local efforts. 

– We do seem to get them more involved in the lower river and the Illinois River. 

Theiling – The latest farm bill has lots of money for conservation. If we can get the local 

DC involved we can get some dollars and more importantly the contacts. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

F-20
– Put together a main stem, multi-state CREP plan using CREP and WHIP dollars for the 

Mississippi River. Mostly there is a 20% match, but that has been waived in some cases. 

You should ask your senators for $’s from USDA. 

–Hundreds of Millions of dollars are going to IL and MN for the basin. They don’t have 

much of a scientific process to allocate that money. They don’t have to show results. If 

we set some targets for delivery of materials to main stem it might wake some people up. 

If we had a quantitative model of sediment transport of materials in the system it would 

help. The USDA money is not being used in the most cost effective way. It is being done 

in a political manner. 

– USDA knows this is a problem. The Corps, with all of it’s planning, would be 

welcome at the USDA. 

–We as a group can complain about USDA’s culture and how it doesn’t deliver 

conservation on the land efficiently. However, even if the USDA knew exactly which 

acres they wanted to put conservation treatment on to get the most efficient treatment 

they still have to have the landowners come through the door because the program is 

strictly voluntary. What we aren’t doing is getting to the landowners themselves (part of 

nebulous education programs discussed earlier) and fostering an ecological conscience in 

people. USDA is only half of that bridge. 

Theiling – In IL they have more people on the waiting list, so participation is not an 

issue, thought maybe targeted participation is. Corps is recognizing its role in the 

watershed. 

– Take a look at the Great Reports and the Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive plan. 

– What do you think about coming up with point source criteria for the tributaries? 

Theiling -This is a golden opportunity to put a dot at each tributary. 

Soileau – I spoke with someone in the EPA that would love to have us do this. 

Theiling – We could do this regionally. 

– We already have estimates of yields from each watershed in the Upper Miss. We can 

refine those. We can set realistic objectives for loading from tributaries. We should set 

targets for sediment loading and hydrologic regime of each of the tributaries. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

F-21
Working Group Reports 

The Working Group reports below were prepared by the recorder in each group as a 

record of the discussion. Working group reports are not inclusive of all of the work 

produced concerning management actions. Much of the groups’ data generation was 

done on master worksheets and maps and compiled for production in a formal report for 

the Upper Mississippi River – Illinois Waterway Navigation Feasibility Study. 

GROUP 1

Participants List: (Was not listed, assumed to be same as previous day) Elliott Stefanik 

(recorder), Mike Cox, John Lindell, John Hendrickson, Ron Kucera, Mark Anderson, 

Don Larson, Jeff Janvrin 

Include all of the management measures identified in the UMRCC report “A preliminary 

description of habitat objectives....” And the appendix to the report. 

Note, see master hand written notes for some items which may have been missed. 

Water quality - Main Channel

3 - water level management does not achieve any substantial amount of soft sediment 

consolidation in pool 4-11 due to the high percentage of sand in the sediments. Soft 

flocculent sediments are mainly found in very deep areas, which would require run of the 

river, or even lower drawdowns. However, if water level management is successful at 

increasing the amount of aquatic vegetation, then it the vegetation may help improve 

clarity in the summer by trapping sediment. Therefore, water level management can 

seasonally improve water clarity. 

10 – speed and wake restriction for recreation and commercial vessels 

8 – add to trap sediment 

11 – add mooring buoys to keep barges away from sensitive areas. 

12 – Island construction to reduce sediment resuspension in the pool year round benefit 

13 – Island construction to promote the growth of vegetation to trap sediment 

14 – wind breaks 

15 – wave breaks 

Water Clarity - Backwater 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

F-22
10 - water level management does not achieve any substantial amount of soft sediment 

consolidation in pool 4-11 due to the high percentage of sand in the sediments. Soft 

flocculent sediments are mainly found in very deep areas, which would require run of the 

river, or even lower drawdowns. However, if water level management is successful at 

increasing the amount of aquatic vegetation, then it the vegetation may help improve 

clarity in the summer by trapping sediment. Therefore, water level management can 

seasonally improve water clarity. 

21 – speed and wake restriction for recreation and commercial vessels 

22 – add best management practices 

23 – add mooring buoys to keep barges away from sensitive areas. 

24 – Island construction to reduce sediment resuspension in the pool year round benefit 

25 – Island construction to promote the growth of vegetation to trap sediment 

26 – Backwater dredging 

Backwater Depth 

25 – structures to maintain backwater depth 

 complete closures 

 partial closure 

 dikes 

 groins 

 trib bmp 

 flow diversion structures 

 bank protection 

 rock 

 bio tech 

 

Islands to concentrate flood flows to promote scour 

23 – this will only have a limited affect if there is a dd of > 3 feet, even then, the depth 

will only be increased by a few inches due to the high sand content of sediments in the 

majority of areas in pools 4-11. These affects will also only be short term due to re 

hydration and flocculation of consolidated sediments 

Water Level Main Channel and Back Water 

for both add the following 

 31 – winter pool drawdown 

32 – pool scale flooding in the winter 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

F-23
33 – flow reduction into backwater (for example, the closures and partial closures in 

lansing big lake pool 9, caused a water surface reduction in the upper portion of the 

project area due to increase in head difference. By letting in less flow, the “glass isn’t as 

full”. 

Connectivity has two different extents (flood and bankfull) the ones presented apply to 

both 

40 – eliminate flow from contiguous backwaters using the following techniques 

 complete closures 

 partial closure 

 dikes 

 groins 

 trib bmp 

 flow diversion structures 

 bank protection 

 rock 

 bio tech 

41 – construct islands to reduce connectivity in backwaters 

Connectivity Secondary Channels 

41 – the diversion would be used for increasing and decreasing 

45 – construct islands to improve flow conditions in channel (i.e. harpers slough pool 9 

and pool 8 islands phase III 

Longitudinal 

Add - Lock and dam dike modifications 

 Lower dike 

 Roller gate in spillway 

 Tainter gate in spillway 

 Additional spillways 

Note, fish passage can be several different structures 

Patterns of habitat – Aquatic Areas. 

Increase the width of the main channel border area by: 

 Notching wing dams 

 Removal of dredge material disposal sites 

 Remove dikes 

81 – Add structures to decrease or eliminate flow, i.e. 

 complete closures 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

F-24
 partial closure 

 dikes 

 groins 

 trib bmp 

 flow diversion structures 

 bank protection 

 rock 

 bio tech 

 islands 

82 – construct islands 

83 – water level manage (all options) 

61– ADD construct to this explanation 

86 – change to sand beaches 

84 – remove reference to unconfined 

85 – delete 

89 – delete (85 and 86 are duplicated by other items) 

Land Cover/Use 

110 – Uneven forest management 

111 – placement of 1-3 feet of fine or fine topped sand dredged material to suppress 

reed canary grass and plant to forest or prairie 

112 – use root pruned method tree planting to reestablish forest in reed canary grass 

areas 

Fish, Wildlife, Exotics, Mussels and other inverts, Shorebirds etc. 

add all of the above 1-109 and 119-142. The listed techniques for fish and wildlife only 

address regulatory or social attitude modifications/education. All of the actions listed 

above (1-109) have been used in various combinations to improve or restore habitat 

conditions for all of these. If the habitat is not there, then the animal will not be there and 

regulatory measures will be unnecessary 

Wildlife, add -- Manage for protection of neo tropical migrants or other species of 

concern 

Exotics 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

F-25
128 – prevent the introduction of terrestrial and aquatic species 

119 – delete the word invasive 

121 – expand to all vessels (recreation and commercial) hull (exterior) and interior 

129 – control of exotic introduction through other ports (i.e. New Orleans) 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

128 – protect, improve, restore and increase habitats for t and e 

127 – add restore 

add 1-109 and 119-142 as actions needed to improve habitat to improve populations of t 

and e 

Comment on 136 there was concern leaving this in. A more appropriate description of 

this technique would be to more accurately define these as small sediment retention 

“ponds” 

Add systemwide impact evaluation of all/any project 

GROUP 2

Participants List: Jeff DeZellar, Steve Ziger, Don Powell, Jeff Gulan, Terry 

Dukerschein, Jim Nissen, Gretchen Benjamin, Scot Johnson, Richard Moore 

Recorder: Gretchen Benjamin 

Facilitator: Rick Moore 

Reporter: Jim Nissen 

Master scribe: Jeff Gulan 

Water Clarity 

Pool Scale drawdown to consolidate soft sediment promote growth of emergents – May 

do more to “consolidate” sediment 

Main Channel 

9) Recreation management on the main channel, camping, fires, sanitation, speed, noise 

10wc) Promote emergent plant growth 

11wc) Do no harm to aquatic vegetation (?) 

12wc) Encourage appropriate of authorization for BMP 

13wc) Create wetlands to promote biological waste management of storm water 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

F-26
14wc) Storm management plan with strict runoff and erosion control 

15wc) Implement development regulation for storm water, erosion control, 

16wc) Remove levees throughout the floodplains (mostly tributaries in St. Paul District) 

to allow sediment to settle out on land 

17wc) Phosphorus limits at sewage treatment plants should not exceed 1 ppm 

18wc) Temporary mooring facilities 

19wc) Towboat speed control to minimize stops 

20wc) Modify propeller systems to cause fewer disturbances 

21wc) Redesign hulls to make them more efficient 

22wc) Modify size of the tow 

23wc) Wingdams to make channel deeper to minimize tow impact to bottom 

24wc) Industry self help and small scale improvements, non-structural navigation 

elements 

Backwaters 

20wc) BMP urban and suburban 

10wc) Promote emergent plant growth 

15) Should be changed to - Construct islands to service wind and wave breaks 

13wc) Create wetlands to promote biological waste management of storm water 

13 and 14) are the same – Not sure we want isolated dd temporary or permanent 

21wc) Manage recreation in the backwaters 

22wc) Increase water depths 

23wc) Stabilize existing islands 

17wc) Phosphorus limits at sewage treatment plants should not exceed 1 ppm 

GEO 

Backwater 

25geo) Increase water levels during the winter 

Water Level MC 

26wl) Manage flows at dam and trib. flows. Mimic natural flows 

27wl) Run of the river – tributaries from hydro facilities, Chip, Black, WI, Cannon, Coon 

Rapids, etc. 

28wl) Minimum water gradient – amend law to say that during a drought the 7Q10 must 

be met. May have to eliminate 9-foot channel during this time. 

29wl) Wetland restoration to increase infiltration 

Backwaters 

29wl) Wetland restoration to increase infiltration 

28wl) 

27wl) 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

F-27
26wl) 

Connectivity 

Floodplain 

40con) More floodplain zoning 

41con) No money from federal gov’t for repetitive flood insurance 

42con) Restore lost physical structure in the impounded and other areas. 

43con) Remove levees 

Secondary Channel 

41) Change wording to: Divert flow by gravity or other means 

 

Longitudinal 

45) Reword to: Build fish ways or lock fish through 

49long) Lower embankments and spillways 

50long) Modify control structures, i.e. spot dikes, culverts to allow flow 

51long) Remove tributary and main stem dams. 

52long) Encourage new methods for fish passage 

Aquatic areas 

81ph) More shoreline dynamics and complexity 

82ph) Pool-wide drawdowns 

83ph) Submerged sills into backwater 

84ph) Remove or knock down wingdams to create fisheries habitat (substrate diversity). 

 Take out 73, 74 not appropriate in St. Paul District 

Terrestrial 

82 – Maintain existing recreation beaches 

84 – material placement for habitat restoration in the floodplain (not unconfined) 

97ter) Create and maintain sand nesting sites for turtles, shorebirds and water birds for 

loafing, resting or basking areas 

98ter) Encourage natural land formation – deltas, 

99ter) Stabilize and protect landforms so we can keep what we have 

Land cover / Use 

101) Re-sculpt the site and plant dredged material deposits, if necessary 

103) Manage floodplain forest 

104) Restore or plant vegetation 

110lcu) Restrict use in the river floodplain. (regulate) 

111lcu) Manage water levels to control reed canary grass 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

F-28
Fish 

111) Change wording to: Educate anglers about wise use of the resources 

113) Eliminate for St. Paul District – preserve existing genetic diversity 

114fi) Improve habitat for fish, provide a diversity of habitats for fish communities 

115fi) Control invasive exotic species 

116fi) More population studies of biological research such as fish, wildlife, birds, herps, 

invertebrates, and plants 

Wildlife 

116fi) More population studies of biological research such as fish, wildlife, birds, herps, 

invertebrates, and plants 

116) Change wording to Educate hunters about wise use of the resources 

119wild) Predator management where appropriate or needed 

Exotics 

121) Concern with the use of term antibiotic. Want to make sure that the treatment does 

not affect other aquatic and terrestrial organisms. 

Threatened and Endangered 

128te) Reintroduction of extirpated species to the area 

129te) Restore populations of endangered and threatened species 

All 

143) Encourage land trusts and individuals to conserve grasslands, blufflands, open 

space, in perpetuity along the watershed (Encourage all means of land conservation.)

GROUP 3

Participant List: (Was not listed, assumed to be same as previous day) Tim 

Schlagenhaft, Bob Drieslein, Steve Tapp, Brian Brecka, Catherine McCalvin, Sol Simon, 

Betsy Croker, Paul Rohde, Eric Nelson, Fred Pinkard, Pat Heglund

Water Clarity, Main Channel: add: minimize impacts of barge mooring and waiting 

for lockage; deals with bank erosion and resuspension of sediments. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

F-29
Backwaters: add watershed BMPs to the list. 

Combine 18 and 19: increase plant density and distribution by doing plantings. 

Delete 20 

These management actions address the objective of having a net sedimentation rate of 

zero (see above). 

Geomorphology: #23 consolidate sediment by drawdown and excavation during 

drawdowns with land-based equipment 

Add: apply watershed BMP 

Water level: add reach wide drawdowns 

 Hold winter water levels higher; maintain control at lock and dam more frequentless hinge point operation. 

Manage gate adjustment to minimize water level fluctuations 

 Combine main channel and backwater areas methodology 

Connectivity: add: Restrict flow into specified backwaters under certain conditions or 

needs 

 #33 add "specified" rather than isolated. 

 # 38 raise low control pool water levels. 

 # 39 delete 

Secondary channels: restrict flow to secondary channel where needed. 

Longitudinal: construct fish barriers to restrict invasive species 

Aquatic Areas: 

 Add Pool-wide and system-wide drawdowns 

 Delete item 61 and 63 

General Comment: review actions and clarify whether they are an objective of 

management action 

Terrestrial: move item 81 to aquatic areas 

Land Cover/Use 

Add: Excavate or construct wetlands 

Plants and Animals 

Delete 114 Is this predator control? 

Item 114: conduct predator control 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

F-30
All 

 Add Wetland Reserve Program 

 Item 134 remove "set-aside" 

Add Environmental Education, Outreach to keep public informed about all programs 

GROUP 4

Participants List: Don Hultman, Kurt Brownell, Gary Wege, Ron Benjamin, Dan Wilcox, Lee Nelson, 

Mike Davis, Randy Urich 

Task: Management action development. 

Water quality – main channel 

- need to educate the public on runoff and disposal issues in urban settings, storm 

sewer inputs to river, etc. (use BMPs) 

- ban phosphorus in lawn fertilizers 

- is there a way to influence construction codes which require the use of impervious 

materials (ie: concrete, asphalt) to instead incorporate new pervious construction 

materials that aid in runoff/infiltration issues (some effort is being made along 

these lines locally). 

- new technologies in agriculatural drainage 

- separate rural sanitary systems from tile systems where they are linked (this is 

critical where large livestock operations are occurring). 

- Tributary stream channel stabilization is important 

- Dredge material placement sites that hold fine material need a return water system 

that filters out all solids (especially significant issue in urban areas where real 

estate for disposal is difficult to come by); larger and more effective placement 

sites are needed 

- Try to minimize the frequency of dredging 

- Rain gardens (Dane Co. in Wisconsin is using these to manage stormwater on 

site) miniature detention areas – use these as management actions in various 

locations 

Water quality – backwaters 

- keep the river levels on the high side of the band during the winter 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

F-31
- we don’t see carp removal as an option 

- Ids 18-20 may not fit in the list as management actions – they are actually goals 

- Use backwater aeration systems 

- Opening up springs to increase flow in backwaters could help water quality 

Geomorphology 

- Promote use of natural flows to manage geomorphology over hard construction 

methods; water level mgmt – allow tributary channels to scour 

- drawdowns – in St. Paul District, we’ve already investigated the opportunities in 

the various pools but need to come up with a schematic for implementation 

(which pools? When?) (Gary Palesh is working on a 10-year plan ... so we are 

getting there). 

- Dechannelize the tributaries to moderate the hydrology 

- Set objectives for both TMDLs and the hydrologic regime of tributaries 

Connectivity 

- hydrology changes in tributary delta areas and floodplains are unnatural due to 

navigation and causing die-off of high quality timber and conversion to lower 

quality vegetation (marsh and reed canary), so there is a dilemma for the private 

landowners whose real estate values have been degraded (then the govt comes 

along and offers to buy up the land at low value) 

- elevating floodplain areas with dredged material to improve 

groundwater/hydrologic conditions for vegetation (i.e. bottomland hardwoods, 

mast, etc.) – (the downside might be to diminish flood storage capacity, although 

this would probably be done over smaller areas where impacts would not be that 

great) 

- use of rock ramps at spillway locations and other overflow sections to allow fish 

passage 

- lower embankments; replace portion of railroad embankment at Trempealeau with 

trestle to allow passage of flood flows 

- taking places at risk (from flood damage) out of floodplains is good public policy 

- Unsure of what hardpoint in floodplain means? 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

F-32
Patterns of Habitat 

- create low areas in embankments to provide better connectivity between 

backwater sloughs; make use of water control gates in these isolated areas 

(longitudinal connectivity) 

- Ref to ID49 – may also need to eliminate flow 

- Need to expand on the definition of ID80 – this may be a significant problem for 

commercial navigation 

- Add openings to long barrier islands to allow sediment laden flows to pass 

through and build deltas or island width on the backwater side of the island 

(promotes natural river processes vs. heavy construction methods to achieve the 

same) 

- Reconstruct old channel levees that have eroded away to create riparian habitat 

and intercept wave energy 

- Use of dredged material to increase ridge/swale topography within floodplain and 

restore mast trees; this could be done on smaller scale in combination of light 

selective logging in well-established forest stands to improve light conditions for 

planted trees – or on larger scale in mid-pool areas where forest has already 

converted over to reed canary or other more mesic herbaceous vegetation 

- Add land acquisition as a management action 

- There is a need to expand on the definitions of some of the management actions 

from the spreadsheet – clarifying which are really actions and which are 

objectives – and possibly linking them to actual outcomes to help define 

Plants and animals 

- Should there be a barrier on St.Croix River to prevent movement of exotic 

species? How could this be done without impeding native species? 

- Make use of additional voluntary closed areas for waterfowl protection 

- Focus more research on disease resistant elm seedlings that could be produced 

economically and re-established in the floodplain 

- Implement a mussel conservation plan, including a list of management actions 

- Include control of exotic/invasive plant species as a management action (reed 

canary, purple loosestrife, buckthorn, etc.) 

- Zebra mussels were set back by high water temperatures a couple years ago. 

Look into taking the opportunity during a hot summer to have local utilities 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

F-33
discharge water at higher temps in main channel and reduce zebra mussel 

populations 

All 

- develop techniques to provide sanitary facilities for beach/island campers and 

other rec users 

- adjust dredging frequencies to gain cost efficiencies and other benefits 

- Add to the BMP list the following – Set objectives for both TMDLs and the 

hydrologic regime of tributaries 

- Get USDA, USGS and FEMA involved in this entire process. We need these 

people at the field level discussions. MVR says they get some involvement at the 

RRCT level and on Illinois River, but they is still a need for more involvement. 

- Implement the Galloway report recommendations 

- River managers need to set some targets for the watershed programs that USDA 

implements, since these projects are currently being implemented on more of a 

political basis instead of an organized fashion that meets main stem river 

ecosystem objectives 

- River management agencies could take on more responsibility to educate the 

public on the importance of watershed protection to the health of the river. The 

agencies should use their respective interpretive programs to get the word out. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

F-34
Appendix G. Species and Population Parameters 

Purpose: To identify plant and animal species and appropriate units of measure that 

should be considered for future environmental objectives planning efforts. 

Background: Recent environmental planning efforts for the Environmental 

Management Program and other Upper Mississippi River System restoration and 

maintenance programs have focused on habitats and the impacts of Corps activities on 

habitats. It has been recognized that planning needs to be expanded to include additional 

functional and structural ecosystem elements. 

During the planning stages of this workshop, organizers were considering objectives for 

plant and animal species and quickly encountered difficulty in selecting guilds, species, 

or units of measure for plants and animals. Emergent and submersed aquatic plants, 

diving ducks, and dabbling ducks were eventually selected based on the perception that 

knowledgeable resource managers could interpret the units of measure selected. It was 

determined that stem density was a relatively standard unit of measure for aquatic plants 

and that use-days during migration periods were relatively standard measures of 

waterfowl abundance. 

Specific objectives for fish were desired, but the selection of guilds, or species, or units of 

measure quickly complicated the issue. It was decided therefore to back-off on the 

specifics for fish objectives and only indicate that there is an objective for several general 

categories of fish determined during earlier phases of the Navigation Study: protected, 

sport, commercial, forage, and exotic fishes in channel and backwater habitats. The unit 

of measure became particularly complicated because of our desire to establish 

quantitative objectives, but our general inability or lack of commitment to fish 

community stock assessments. Discussion of the unit of measure is particularly 

important because of our need for measurable objectives and our selection of evaluation 

tools. 

These issues were discussed during a plenary session at the workshop, with the results to 

be forwarded to an expert panel. A focus group of workshop participants will continue 

work with the expert panel to refine fisheries objectives. The larger list of species such 

as reptiles, amphibians, other birds, and mammals will be considered during future 

phases of the adaptive management and assessment process recommended in the 

Navigation Study Interim Report. 

Results: 

Participants at the La Crosse workshops expressed apprehension about setting species 

abundance targets. The source of apprehension for some was that environmental 

management actions to achieve species targets may be undertaken without knowing or 

evaluating the impacts on the rest of the ecosystem. Stocking fish, for example, may help 

achieve species targets, but may also result in overpopulation and food or habitat 

limitations on other species. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

G-1
Overwhelmingly, the participants expressed a desire for habitat objectives, with the 

understanding that habitat management will likely result in increased abundance of both 

targeted and non-targeted species. Environmental Pool Plans were suggested as the 

preferred mechanism to illustrate habitat objectives. Monitoring and understanding 

existing conditions was mentioned several times with the thought that pre-project 

conditions should be compared to post-project environmental responses. Environmental 

monitoring data was also mentioned as valuable to help understand existing conditions 

and to establish expectations for restoration efforts. Workshop participants thought the 

catch rate and relative abundance of species in the catch were viable measures of the fish 

community response to aquatic restoration initiatives. Participants also suggested that 

monitoring and project performance assessments should be habitat specific. Funding 

monitoring and project performance assessments should be a high priority for an adaptive 

management scheme proposed for UMR-IWW ecosystem management efforts. 

Workshop participants thought that physical responses (e.g., current, dissolved oxygen, 

depth, etc.) to project implementation may be reliable measures of project performance. 

Their thoughts were that projects should be designed to accommodate the physical needs 

of target organisms or communities, thus the effectiveness of the project could be 

evaluated by its ability to achieve desired physical targets. That line of reasoning 

circumvents the problems of waiting for biological communities to respond, or expending 

huge amounts of effort to estimate biological responses to projects separate from other 

influences on the population. Some long-lived species or wide-ranging species responses 

may be very difficult or impossible to evaluate. The lag time between project 

implementation, post-project performance evaluations (biological and physical), and 

reporting results was seen as an important issue to understand. 

Several participants espoused the adaptive management philosophy put forth in the 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Interim Report and other venues. The 

adaptive management process allows for action despite uncertainties, and evaluation to 

refine management practices where actions fall short of anticipated results. 

As in Peoria, the question of why species abundance needs to be enumerated was raised 

in La Crosse. Theiling suggested that the efforts to enumerate species may provide 

information to estimate economic output from restoration projects. There were concerns 

that abundance cannot be accurately measured economically, and that the effort and 

potential impacts of extensive sampling may not be worth the answered obtained. There 

were also concerns that some of the necessary ecosystem restoration measures might not 

provide results that appear cost effective in the short-run, but are in fact critical to the 

well-being of the ecosystem; land acquisition was put forth as and example. 

The cost-benefit issues initiated a discussion of what Congress is looking for to support 

UMR-IWW restoration initiatives. Scott Faber suggested that Congress was not going to 

write a blank check and that the UMR-IWW environmental management community 

needs to describe specific hypothetical projects, their outcomes, and costs. He suggested 

the approach should be one of establishing the need (as done with the HNA) and 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

G-2
recommending short-term and long-term efforts to address those needs. Monitoring 

efforts should be an integral component of any restoration plan. 

Considering all the issues, participants seemed to agree that sensitive and exotic species 

should be tracked as indicators of ecosystem condition and that community level 

assessments should be targeted at specific habitats and project areas. The desire for 

absolute abundance estimates should not be ignored, but should also not be acquired at 

the expense of other monitoring or restoration efforts. 

Plenary Report

The plenary comments are taken directly from the plenary report and only include 

discussion specifically related to the species and population measurements. The entire 

plenary report can be found in Appendix C. 

Species and Population Plenary Session:

– There is some apprehension about setting species targets. Setting targets is risky. We 

can make decisions without knowing impacts on the systems. If we implement the 

habitat from the pool plans you can take the abundance and quality of that. Work on 

diversifying habitats as best as we can provide at that site – then use measured 

abundances as a healthy goal. In MN we are concerned about targeting for a specific 

species. 

– Pre and Post project monitoring is important. Biological response for habitat 

monitoring. What is the biological concentration around the potential project? Need 

some more focused research from LTRM. See if current populations decline once a new 

project starts. Also look and that area’s habitat (disease, dissolved oxygen, temperature) 

to ensure response is from project. If you have a great enough separation of sites you are 

probably not taking fish from one area, but are giving new habitat for larval drift. 

–Worked with Carl Korschgen to create a matrix (Phase II Pool 8 island) (before HNA). 

Looked at a whole range of critters and vegetation classes. 

- Look at the area where bluegills are the majority. The contiguous backwater is the main 

habitat of them. So, try to identify preferred habitat of organisms. Develop a matrix that 

would be more refined than phase II but take the same approach. Look at LTRM 

databases and query to find the percentages to determine preferred habitat. 

–We don’t fund EMP to a decent level so how are we going to get this kind of 

information? If there are certain ways we want to collect data are there any assurances 

that this will happen out in the future? 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

G-3
Theiling – This is important to ask in this kind of venue because it is telling the program 

managers this. Ken Barr and others have stated that they would like the monitoring 

(cause and effect) to become part of the adaptive management. 

– You say money will be available for focused research, but what about baseline 

monitoring? We need more trend analysis and baseline information. 

Theiling – Are you talking more historic baseline or today? Because some areas are 

better today than they were in history. 

– There is a shift in species dominance over time – it takes 50-60 years to see a response 

to our actions. 

Theiling – This brings in baselines. Also justifying existing impacts. Yes they are there, 

but let’s go and find out what is causing certain degradation. So then we can build a 

predictive model to help us even more. 

– We did that in phase II, however this was not focused research. A picture can speak a 

thousand words. Power analysis showed how low you could go but also how high you 

should go. We have data to justify the level of monitoring that is needed. If you think 

these numbers are important give us an idea of where the really good areas are. Maybe in 

30-40 years we can fill this database. 

Theiling – I appreciate the monitoring you do. Who thinks this needs to be written 

down? Does the Corps need to make arrangements to get it written down or support the 

states to write it down? 

– In fisheries we have 10 years of data, but many species have longer life spans, so the 

data won’t help. Not going to be able to pull out lots of data because of that. 

– I can build my pop can because I have a design. But that is why we have adaptive 

management on the river because we don’t have plans. I think that HREP and LTRM 

should have been tied together. Stoddard Island shows what EMP and HREP can do 

together. That is a success story. You will see bits and pieces but one of these days you 

will see these little cartoons come about. In each project we should have monitoring 

included. 

– What don’t you have now? We know that we built the project, Velocity, Temp, and 

DO improved. What else do you need to know? We are assessing data from our 

projects. It takes some time to get it published but it is there. We will never get biomass 

info from LTRM unless we want to spend a lot of money. We shouldn’t worry about it 

because it isn’t going to happen. We shouldn’t tear apart the entire ecosystem into 

numbers. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

G-4
–The real question I have now...are you saying we need this information to justify this 

program? I say no, there is no way we can do this. 

Theiling – No one says you have to; however we may need to, in order to compete with 

other programs. If we could show that because a project went in we got x bluegills that 

are worth x $’s do the math and show how the economic benefits are better than the costs. 

They will see that the recreational benefits will outweigh navigation. 

– The authority to use recreation benefits, as part of our environmental benefits, like 

navigation can, would be a good change. 

Theiling – We need to come up with a model to estimate benefits better than everyone 

else. 

– We did come up with Habitat Units (HEP). You are talking about revisiting this. 

Bottom line is that you should compare this dollar per dollar. 

Theiling – No one is asking us or telling us to do this. But this is a good opportunity. 

– This is the same problem we had before we developed HEP. But we don’t need to do 

that. We need to show a little cartoon. But if that is not enough then we need to have 

another discussion. I don’t think they went through a HEP analysis in Florida. If we do 

economic then we start to get into incremental analysis and only get what is cost 

effective. Adaptive management will be hard for Corps to do. 

– It might be able to help us to prioritize. 

– We want a sustainable river. Now we are where we get the biggest bang for your buck. 

If we do this we will overlook the subtle needs of the ecosystem that are essential for 

restoring sustainability. Something that is essentially critical for the system may cost a 

lot of money and not get a lot of return. What may be really, really important will be 

things that take a lot of work. Land acquisition will be very difficult, but we know we 

need that. Is that a top priority... we need all of the tools. It is all interrelated. 

– We shouldn’t worry about making the math justifying the expenditures. The 

justification will be political and social mostly anyway. Monitoring data should be 

collected to make sure you are making the correct investments. One of the big fallouts of 

the Everglades is that this Congress isn’t going to write a blank check. They are going to 

want to see a higher level of detail (what project, when built, what outcomes). A lot of 

members have said, we aren’t going to do that again. Come up with a suite of very 

specific projects with a built in monitoring program. 

– If we are talking adaptive management we have to have some monitoring involved. We 

see response out there. Build in a standard 1% into the cost of the project. We could come 

up with some very simple monitoring aspects. We may have to get at more subtleties. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

G-5
Theiling – If you are going to have objectives then you need to have a monitoring - 

accountability. 

– That is why we need to look about the chemical response because the biological 

response takes time. It takes many years to monitor biological yet the chemical and 

physical response is almost immediate. Islands in Pool 8 at first didn’t show the 

biological response. However the response took longer than the monitoring. 

–Are the pools plans the kind of information that we can package up to Congress? Will 

this successfully get us $ to congress? 

– It won’t be enough today. You need to have specific projects. Here are the hypothetical 

projects that we would implement. Give Congress assurance that you have pegged the 

cost a little bit. Congress will want to see some thinking behind the numbers. 

– What about the UMRCC. 

– Some members see this as an unrealistically huge number because Members of 

Congress don’t understand it. Also Congress thinks that the Corps can’t handle it. 

– Here is what we can handle annually now, here is what we could handle in the future. 

Show a curve of increasing amounts. It is hard to see the Corps numbers going way up, 

the members of Congress are having a visceral reaction to this. It would help me to show 

what you are monitoring for. A matrix of habitats or desired habitat would be a better 

index for monitoring. 

– The HNA query tool could be used. It will generate a number for the bean counters. 

We could make this a log linear. This is a long process (the UMRCC is a need) that 

needs to get more money to the Corp, FWS and states. 

– Are there some critters that we will monitor that we don’t know much about? There is 

skepticism about what LTRMP is producing. 

– There shouldn’t be the skepticism because there was an EMP report to Congress that 

did that. As far as monitoring, we have had these discussions many times over. We 

monitor what we can with what funds are available. We’ve monitored both structural and 

functional. It would be good to fund the LTRM to be close to our objectives; to see if we 

are getting there (SMART Criteria). Long-term estimate of cost to some target future 

condition... we have a whole set of objectives with dates and we are required to do some 

plan formulation within the Navigation Studies. With regard to the size of the dollar 

figure, I’m not sure. There will be more data and plan formulation behind it. 

– Does there come a time when you don’t evaluate an HREP project because you know it 

works? 

Theiling– Sure, ideally. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

G-6
– Achieving ecological integrity is the ultimate goal of the objectives. As for species it 

becomes too overwhelming to have quantitative objectives for all guilds/species. Are 

there certain categories that are important (T&E or indicator species). The pool plans 

don’t represent ecological health. Don’t think so much about monitoring, but think about 

original goals and what you are trying to achieve. 

–You are trying to get us to a different level in each project report. The problem is that 

by the time we are done in the entire river there will be new information that will cause 

us to do this again. So instead we need to show our evolution in our thought process... 

Look at effects outside the project area and other things have evolved. We cannot 

develop that level of detail. Let’s just do it. We’ve got plans. We need to get down to 

work and do something. We need a propaganda person to start telling people that we have 

been doing a good job. We are beating everyone for dollars spent. 

– Comments from John Sullivan – The environmental goals will have to be a multitude of 

things, we have to use some best judgment and others will have to trust us as we do them. 

There is a wealth of knowledge in the LTRM database and the Corps needs to mine that 

data out in the next year. Also use this to identify data gaps and figure out how to 

address them. The Corps should be financially supporting them in their effort. 

We have to validate everything that we have gone before. 

– Members of Congress think EMP is a valuable program. What they don’t know is that 

EMP is not provided sufficient resources to implement to pool plans. You do have 

incredible integrity because you are scientists and that is your biggest tool. We need to 

get scientists up to the hill. 

– What you are saying is that we need to tell Congress that EMP is a prototype and we 

need to implement the full thing. 

– It will be a tough climb. Status and trends did not make good conclusions that common 

folks can understand. 

– It is amazing where we have come in 4 years. We are in an exponential growth in what 

we believe we can accomplish, what we need, and what we know. This is because of 

HNA and LTRM. HNA gave us a true picture of what we need to do. Congress asked for 

HNA report and that is where the numbers came from. 

– Perhaps for population or species we should stick with goals rather than developing this 

fine level of management with detailed objectives that we cannot accomplish. The 

USFWS has been going to mostly developing habitat rather than focusing on individual 

species. 

– Are there indicator species? 

Theiling – If money and time were no objects would you want total species indicators? 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

G-7
–Why? 

– Look at sensitive species vs. exotics and see how they each respond to what we do. To 

look for really rare stuff the sampling effort is really big. Figure out over time if rare 

things dropped off and exotics boomed. Or vice versa. 

– We have been measuring habitats, so if we see something that is desirable and describe 

what we want we can say this is what we are getting at. We are still able to look at 

numbers. Look at representative sites and use this. 

 - We still need to do spatial study (land cover, hydrology, changes in land form). That 

gets us a long way to look at the physical patterns of the systems. Come to agreement on 

array of organisms to monitor to come up with condition of the ecosystem. We need 

information about abundance of life. There is a compilation of non-LTRM data through 

the UMRCC. 

– We need to put this in context that the Congressman can understand. 

– The farm bill is a perfect example of how Congress wants feedback. 

– We will have to do what we can and keep it real simple. Our 404 dredging study has 

taken a lot of individual studies. How much detail will we have to do? Do it at every 

project or make some assumptions. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

G-8
Appendix H. Conceptual Model Presentation 

The overall purpose of a conceptual model developed for the UMR-IWW Navigation 

Study is to identify the linkages and sequencing of identified objectives and associated 

management actions and facilitate a comprehensive assessment of the potential risks and 

impacts posed by improvements to the navigation infrastructure. The conceptual model 

can contribute to the overall purpose through the following: 

• Visually characterize a complex system to better understand and manage it 

• Identify the major drivers, stressors, and endpoints of the system 

• Define the functional relationships (i.e., linkages) between stressors and endpoints 

• Assist in decisions on impact assessment, restoration and management actions, 

and evaluation tools 

• Provide a framework for implementing adaptive management and restoration 

• Develop a structure for additional input from stakeholders 

The following slides were used at each of the workshops to present information on the 

current draft conceptual model. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

H-1
UMR-IWW Ecosystem 

Conceptual Models

• Background

– Conceptual models help to gain a better 

understanding of the linkages between:

• Environmental Objectives

• Management Actions

• State of the Ecosystem

• Task

– Discuss the utility of developing a UMRIWW ecosystem conceptual model

Purposes of a Conceptual 

Model for the UMR-IWW

• To visually present a complex system

• Creates a framework for additional input

• Provides a basis for decision making in 

relation to the achievement of objectives 

• Develops a structure for implementing 

adaptive management and restoration

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

H-2
Geomorphology Habitat Biota

Water Quality

and Sediment

Composition

Wildlife Unionid

Mussels

Submerged

Aquatic

Vegetation

Keystone

Species

Threatened

Endangered

Species

Fish Wetlands

& FP

Sed & Water

Quality

Backwater

Sediment 

Accum

Fish

Spawning 

Habitat

Land & Water Use

Altered 

Hydrology

Climate

Change Sediments Nutrients Contaminants Fragmentation

Invasive 

Species Harvesting Rec. Use Natural Disturb

Altern

Transport

Land and Water Use 

Emergent 

Vegetation

X% increase

0.5 m 

Drawdown

Habitat

Altered 

Hydrology

Larger scale stressor

Specific stressor

Management Action

General ecological effect

Specific effect

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

H-3
MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION

INFORMATION

ASSESSMENT PLANNING

ADAPTIVE

MANAGEMENT

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

H-4
Appendix I. Power Point Presentations 

This section contains the power point slides used to present background and introductory 

information throughout the workshops. They are given in the order they were presented 

on the agenda. 

The Power Point Presentations will be included in the final 

version of the printed workshop reports. You can download 

them by going to the following FTP site 

ftp://ftp.usace.army.mil/Incoming/MVR/NavStudy/.

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

La Crosse, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

I-1
Appendix G. Moline Environmental Workshop Report 

The following report summarizes the results of the Moline Environmental Workshop that 

was held November 20-21, 2002. The report includes: 

1. a summary of the workshop and results, 

2. tables of identified UMR-IWW environmental objectives, 

3. a table of identified management actions, 

4. a narrative on UMR-IWW species and population parameters, 

5. working group reports, and 

6. the plenary session report. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops 

DRAFT REPORT

G-1
Upper Mississippi River – Illinois 

Waterway System Navigation 

Feasibility Study 

Moline Environmental Workshop 

November 20-21, 2002 

Moline, IL 

DRAFT REPORT 

January 2003 

 

United States Army Corps of Engineers 

 
UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

 Page

Executive Summary ................................................................................1

Introduction and Workshop Process ..................................................1 

Environmental Objectives.................................................................8

Management Actions.....................................................................11 

Species and Population Parameters...................................................12 

Conceptual Model........................................................................13 

 

Figures 

Figure 1. UMR-IWW Lock and Dams.........................................................2 

Figure 2. Areas in red show the extent of selected landcover or landuse types on the 

UMR-IWW..............................................................................3 

Figure 3. UMR-IWW GIS Objective Tool and Database..................................8 

Tables

Table 1. UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objective 

Workshops reports contents.........................................................7 

Table 2. Number of site-specific environmental objectives identified for the 

Mississippi River........................................................................9 

Table 3. Example Management Action Table...............................................11 

Appendices

A. Workshop Invitation List, Participants, Participant Information...........A-1

 

B. Agenda....................................................................................B-1

C. Plenary Session Notes...................................................................C-1 

 

D. Answers to Introductory Questions.................................................D-1

 

E. Environmental Objectives.............................................................E-1

F. Management Actions...................................................................F-1 

G. Species and Population Parameters.................................................G-1 

H. Conceptual Models.....................................................................H-1

I. Power Point Presentations.............................................................I-1

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

iii
 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Introduction and Workshop Process 

The restructured Upper Mississippi River –Illinois Waterway (UMR-IWW) System 

Navigation Feasibility Study is focused on the authorized Federal navigation projects on 

the Upper Mississippi River System (UMRS; including the Illinois Waterway; Figure 1) 

and the ecological and floodplain resources that are affected by these navigation projects. 

The objectives of this restructured feasibility study are to relieve lock congestion, achieve 

an environmentally sustainable navigation system, and address ecosystem and floodplain 

management needs related to navigation in a holistic manner. The restructured 

navigation study will seek to ensure that the rivers and waterway system will continue to 

be an effective transportation system and a nationally treasured ecological resource. The 

restructured study will: (1) further identify the long-term economic and ecological needs, 

and potential measures to meet those needs, through collaboration with interested 

agencies, stakeholders and the public; (2) evaluate various alternative plans to address 

those needs; (3) present a plan consisting of a set of measures for implementation that 

will achieve the study objectives; and (4) identify and address issues related to the 

implementation of the recommended plan.

The study area comprises the entire Illinois Waterway and the Upper Mississippi River. 

The Illinois Waterway extends 327 miles from its confluence with the Mississippi River 

to Lake Michigan via the Illinois River, Des Plaines River, and a series of canals. The 

Upper Mississippi River extends 854 miles from the confluence with the Ohio River to 

Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota. The study area lies 

within portions of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin. The total Illinois 

Waterway and Mississippi River navigation system contains 1,200 miles of nine-foot 

deep channels, 37 lock and dam sites (43 locks) and thousands of channel training 

structures (Figure 1). 

Much of the UMRS lock and dam system was in place by the 1940s. Except as noted 

below, the locks are 600 feet long, although, modern tow configurations include 15 

barges and approach 1,200 feet long. As a result, most tows must lock through using a 

time-consuming two-step process in which the first three rows of barges (9 barges) are 

locked through first and the last two rows of barges (6 barges) and the tow boat are 

locked through second. The entire process may take 1.5 hours or longer depending on 

many variables. In contrast, Lock 19 has a 1,200-foot lock and Melvin Price Lock and 

Dam (Lock 26 replacement) and 27 have both a 1,200-foot and a 600-foot chamber at 

each site. The lockage process takes an average of 1.0 hours at Lock 19 and 0.6 hours at 

Locks 26 and 27. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

1
Lock & Dam 5A

Lock & Dam 2

Lock & Dam 1

Lock & Dam 6

Lock & Dam 5

Lock & Dam 8

Lock & Dam 11

Lock & Dam 12

Lock & Dam 13

Lock & Dam 15 Lock & Dam 14

Lock & Dam 16

Lock & Dam 17

Lock & Dam 18

Lock & Dam 19

Lock & Dam 21

Lock & Dam 22

Lock & Dam 24

Lock & Dam 25 Mel Price Lock & Dam

La Grange Lock & Dam

T.J. O'Brien Lock & Control Works

Lock & Dam 10

Lockport Lock & Dam

Brandon Road Lock & Dam

Dresden Island Lock & Dam

Marseilles Lock & Dam

Starved Rock Lock & Dam

Peoria Lock & Dam

ILLINOIS WATERWAY

MISSISSIPPI RIVER

Lock & Dam 9

Lock & Dam 7

Lock & Dam 4

Lock & Dam 3

Upper St Anthony Falls Lock & Dam

Lower St Anthony Falls Lock & Dam

Lock 27

Lock & Dam 20

OHIO RIVER

La Cr osse

Min neapol is

Du buq ue

PEORIA

ST. L OUIS

CAPE GIRA RDEA U

Roc k Isl and

ÊÚ

ÊÚ

ÊÚ

ÊÚ

ÊÚ

ÊÚ

ÊÚ

Figure1. UMR-IWW Locks and Dams. 

Eight locks on the Upper Mississippi River and 3 Illinois Waterway locks were among 20 

locks with the highest average delays in 1987 at the beginning of this study. This 

remains the case with UMR-IWW facilities highly ranked in the peak monthly delays at 

locks around the country in 1998. The UMRS had over half (19 of 36) of the most 

delayed lock sites in the country. Under current conditions, delays to tows are common 

at a number of locks on the UMRS. In general, delays are greatest at the most 

downstream 600-foot locks. For the 10-year period 1990-1999, delays per tow average 

3.4 hours at Locks 20-25; 2.2 hours at Locks 14-18; 0.9 hour at Locks 8-13; and 0.4 hour 

for Upper St. Anthony Lock to Lock 7. On the IWW over the same period, delays per 

tow average 1.8 hours at Peoria and La Grange and 1.1 hours for the other locks. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

2
Ecosystem 

The Upper Mississippi River ecosystem includes the river reaches described above, as 

well as the floodplain habitats that are critically important to large river floodplain 

systems. The total acreage of the river-floodplain system exceeds 2.6 million acres of 

aquatic, wetland, forest, grassland, and agricultural habitats. The Mississippi Flyway is 

used by more than 40% of the migratory waterfowl traversing the United States. These 

Trust Species and the threatened and endangered species in the region are the focus of 

considerable Federal wildlife management activities. In the middle and southern portions 

of the basin the habitat provided by the mainstem rivers represents the most important 

and abundant habitat in the region for many species.

Habitat types are disproportionately distributed throughout the river system, and their 

absolute abundance is dependent on the total area of the reach under consideration 

(Figure 2). The largest differences occur in the amount and distribution of agriculture 

and the proportion of open water in the floodplain. Agriculture dominates the wide 

floodplain south of Rock Island, Illinois and open water occupies a greater proportion of 

the floodplain north of Clinton, Iowa. Wetland classes are generally more abundant in 

northern river reaches, wet meadows are fairly evenly distributed, and grasslands are rare 

throughout the river system. Forest classes generally occupy between 10 to 20 percent of 

the floodplain in a narrow strip along the river banks throughout the system. 

Marsh Agriculture

Peoria

Cape Girardeau

Forest

Minneapolis

Dubuque

Rock Island

St. Louis

La Crosse

Minneapolis

Dubuque

Rock Island

Peoria

St. Louis

Cape Girardeau

La Crosse

Minneapolis

Dubuque

Rock Island

Peoria

St. Louis

Cape Girardeau

La Crosse

Levees

Minneapolis

Dubuque

Rock Island

Peoria

St. Louis

Cape Girardeau

La Crosse

Peoria

Cape Girardeau

Public Land

Minneapolis

Dubuque

Rock Island

St. Louis

La Crosse

Marsh Agriculture

Peoria

Cape Girardeau

Forest

Minneapolis

Dubuque

Rock Island

St. Louis

La Crosse

Minneapolis

Dubuque

Rock Island

Peoria

St. Louis

Cape Girardeau

La Crosse

Minneapolis

Dubuque

Rock Island

Peoria

St. Louis

Cape Girardeau

La Crosse

Levees

Minneapolis

Dubuque

Rock Island

Peoria

St. Louis

Cape Girardeau

La Crosse

Peoria

Cape Girardeau

Public Land

Minneapolis

Dubuque

Rock Island

St. Louis

La Crosse

Figure 2. Areas in red show the extent of selected landcover or landuse types on the 

UMR-IWW. 

Section 1103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (WRDA 86) recognized 

the Upper Mississippi River system as a unique, nationally significant ecosystem and a 

nationally significant commercial navigation system. The system provides: 

1. A means for shippers to transport million of tons of commodities within the study 

area---130 million tons on the Mississippi River and 44 million tons on the Illinois 

Waterway in 2000, 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

3
2. Food and habitat for at least 485 species of birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and 

fish (including 10 Federally endangered or threatened species and 100 state listed 

species), 

3. More than 226,650 acres of national wildlife and fish refuge, 

4. Water supply for 22 communities and many farmers, and industries, 

5. A multi-use recreational resource providing more than 11 million recreational visits 

each year, 

6. Cultural evidence of our Nation’s past. 

Establishing Goals for the System 

The original UMR-IWW Navigation Feasibility Study was narrowly focused on the 

problem of reducing commercial navigation traffic congestion on the system. 

Coordination was occurring between economic and environmental interests;, however, 

the work was being accomplished independently. With the new focus of the restructured 

study on sustainability, it became important for the stakeholders of the system to prepare 

a common vision for the future of the UMRS. In November 2001, the Economic 

Coordinating Committee (ECC) and the Navigation Environmental Coordinating 

Committee (NECC) met jointly to prepare this vision:

“To seek long-term sustainability of the economic uses and ecological integrity of the 

Upper Mississippi River System” 

The following definition of sustainability was collaboratively developed and agreed to by 

the group as well: 

“The balance of economic, ecological, and social conditions so as to meet the 

current, projected, and future needs of the Upper Mississippi River System without 

compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.” 

This definition will serve as the primary goal for integrated and adaptive management of 

the Upper Mississippi River System.

Planning for future navigation system infrastructure needs; navigation system operation 

and maintenance; habitat protection, enhancement, and restoration; river recreation; 

floodplain management; and water quality management should be conducted in the 

context of a set of clear goals and objectives for condition of the UMRS. Setting these 

goals and objectives should be done collaboratively, with participation of the full 

community of river stakeholders. Development of a set of measurable objectives for 

integrated and adaptive management of the UMRS will be challenging. It will require 

considerable collaborative effort, making use of conceptual models, predictive models, 

and visualization tools to comprehend the interconnections between system components 

and to enable the community of stakeholders to actively participate in planning for a 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

4
sustainable multiple use river-floodplain system. Integrated planning will be an on-going 

effort to optimize the National benefits achieved from efficient and effective adaptive 

river management. 

Introduction to the Workshop 

Four two-day workshops were held during November 2002, to aid the process of 

establishing measurable environmental objectives for the Upper Mississippi River-Illinois 

Waterway System (UMR-IWW). Workshops were conducted in Peoria, Illinois, St. 

Louis, Missouri, La Crosse, Wisconsin and Moline, Illinois. 

The workshops were structured to achieve the following main objectives: 

1) Identification of UMR-IWW environmental objectives

Collaboratively review, refine, and add to a database of specific, quantitative, 

local to regional scale environmental objectives (for the workshop region) 

building on previous work from the EMP Habitat Needs Assessment, Pool Plans, 

USFWS Comprehensive Conservation Plans, and related study efforts. 

2) Identification of UMR-IWW management actions

Review and identify management actions that are most likely to contribute to 

achieving the established goals and objectives. 

3) Discuss and identify species and population parameters

Identify plant and animal species and appropriate units of measure that should be 

considered for future environmental objectives planning efforts. 

4) Present and discuss UMR-IWW ecosystem conceptual model

Present and discuss the utility of developing an UMR-IWW ecosystem conceptual 

model to gain a better understanding of the linkages between environmental 

objectives, management actions, and the state of the ecosystem. 

Participants were invited from a variety of organizations including the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, U.S. Department of Forestry, U.S. Department of Transportation – 

Maritime Administration, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, U.S. Geological Survey, Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Illinois 

DNR, Illinois Department of Water Resources, Illinois Natural History Survey, IL State 

water Survey, Minnesota DNR, Missouri Department of Conservation, Missouri DNR, 

Wisconsin DNR, Audubon Society, Environmental Defense, Iowa Farm Bureau, Izaak 

Walton League, MARC 2000, MRBA, Mississippi River Revival, Missouri Coalition for 

the Environment, Sierra Club, Southern Illinois University, The Nature Conservancy, 

University of Miami, UMIMRA, UMRCC, and Quincy Park District. There were a total 

of 142 people who participated in the interactive workshop process. This report presents 

the results of the enormous amount of effort and energy the participants contributed to the 

workshops. 

Workshop Process

The workshop was organized by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Rock 

Island District. A subset of the workshop participants helped review and edit this 

Workshop Report. Outside review by non-participants will not be part of the process. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

5
No content changes were made by the editors and the participants checked that accurate 

representations were made of the work they had done during the workshop. 

The Moline workshop was conducted 20 - 21 November, 2002 at the Moline Holiday Inn, 

Moline Illinois. There were 28 participants, with most present the entire duration of the 

workshop. These participants, from more than 50 issued invitations, included state and 

federal wildlife agency personnel, non-governmental agency representatives, and public 

citizens. Participants and invitees are listed in Appendix A. 

The agenda for the workshop (Appendix B) was followed loosely, allowing extra time for 

questions and time in the workgroups as needed. A record of these plenary discussions is 

found in Appendix C, while workgroup reports can be found in the appendices related to 

their topic of discussion. 

Background on the General Workshop Structure 

The workshop process was designed to maximize the time and resources available at each 

of the meetings. The workshops utilized three components of meeting structure to meet 

the objectives of eliciting information, discussing key issues, and informing the 

participants of developing strategies. 

The first component was the standard meeting style wherein a few speakers provided 

information to the group as a whole allowing for questions and some discussion. 

The second component was key for eliciting information and involved breaking the group 

into working groups based on some criteria such as geography or content. Breaking a 

large meeting into working groups comprised of 10 or fewer individuals optimized the 

opportunity for participation of the greatest number of people and for timely discussion 

and progression on key issues. The number of working groups varied depending on the 

number of participants and geographic areas to be covered. 

The third component were the plenary sessions, which allowed all of the participants to 

hear a summary of what was accomplished in the other working groups and to have input 

into the entire set of results. It also allowed the facilitators to refine the GIS database as a 

coordinated team. 

Before getting started with the first task of this workshop, each participant was asked to 

introduce themselves and to write out and then read aloud answers to an introductory 

question. This process allowed for expression of individual perspectives without being 

immediately influenced by previous responses. This process indicated potential areas of 

common ground and provided a first insight into the diversity of perceived issues present 

in the group. Answers to the question can be found in Appendix D of this report. 

After the Workshops 

The workshops were an early step in a planning process to establish environmental 

alternatives that strive to secure the environmental sustainability of the UMR-IWW. 

Once the environmental objectives are well defined and management actions are 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

6
identified to achieve them, the next step will be estimating the potential costs and 

outcomes (i.e., benefits) for the suggested actions. This information will be used to 

develop alternative plans (made up of multiple combinations of management actions) that 

seek to address the local, river reach, and system-wide needs of the UMR-IWW 

ecosystem. These environmental alternative plans will then be integrated with alternative 

plans for the UMR-IWW Navigation System. Tradeoff analysis will be conducted to 

identify and compare the environmental, economic, and social benefits of the integrated 

plans. The results of the alternative analysis, and further collaborative review and input 

from stakeholders, will be used to develop a recommended plan portrayed in the Final 

Feasibility Report scheduled for completion in late 2004. 

Formal Report 

Five reports will be produced as a result of the four, two-day workshops. The first four 

reports are Workshop Reports, which will be reviewed by the workshop participants. A 

final integrated report summarizing the results from the four workshops will be published 

as part of the Navigation Study’s formal documentation process. The final integrated 

report will contain a full accounting of the site-specific objectives in the form of an atlas 

as well as the tabulated system, reach, and pool wide objectives and management actions 

(Table 1). Workshop participants will have an opportunity to review and comment on the 

integrated Draft Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops Report before its 

completion in early 2003. 

Table 1. UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objective 

Workshops reports contents. 

• Moline Environmental Workshop Report

- Summary of Moline workshop and results 

- Tables of identified Upper Mississippi River pool-wide and site-specific 

objectives 

- Table of identified management actions 

- Narrative of species and population parameters 

- Working Group Reports 

- Plenary Session Report 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

7
• Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops Report 

- Summary of all four workshops 

- Tables of all identified UMR-IWW pool-wide and site-specific objectives 

- Atlas maps of all identified site-specific objectives 

- Table of all identified managements actions 

- Narrative of UMR-IWW species and population parameters 

Environmental Objectives 

The primary goal of the Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops was to have 

participants collaboratively review, refine, and add to a database of specific, quantitative, 

and local to regional scale UMR-IWW environmental objectives obtained from previous 

study efforts. The Moline Workshop was successful in reviewing and identifying both 

site-specific and pool-wide objectives for the Mississippi River (Pools 12-22) using a 

combination of breakout groups and a plenary session. Objective atlas maps and 

worksheets were reviewed and filled out by breakout groups. A plenary session then 

followed where the information from each group was compiled into the objective 

database using GIS tools (Figure 3). 

Figure 3. UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study GIS Objective Tool and Database.

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

8
he environmental objective database used at the Moline Workshop included 374 siteve 

ement 

n additional 247 site-specific objectives were identified through the workshop process 

water 

DL 

uantitative target ranges for objectives were usually not identified at specific locations. 

 is inundated during 10-year 

• eate islands that provide protection from windfetch, 

eters deep with 

proximity to flow and DO >= 5ppm, 

T

specific objectives obtained from the Upper Mississippi River System Habitat Needs 

Assessment (HNA) and Mississippi River Environmental Pool Plans. Two additional 

data sources were identified during the Moline Workshop and later added to the objecti

database. They included objectives noted by the Fish and Wildlife Interagency 

Committee (FWIC) Restoration Priorities and Habitat Rehabilitation and Enhanc

Project (HREP) documents. HREP objectives were noted only for projects described as

‘under general design’ or ‘future opportunities’. 

A

bringing the total to 621 environmental objectives for the Pool 12-22 reach of the 

Mississippi River (see Table 2). Over 400 of the identified objectives were also 

enhanced with additional detailed information (i.e., target ranges, seasonality, and

descriptive comments) provided by the participants. Land cover/use, aquatic area, 

clarity, and backwater depth were the most common type of objectives identified for this 

portion of the river. Emergent aquatic and forest vegetation made up the largest number 

of identified land cover objectives and aquatic area objectives most often referred to 

secondary channel habitat. The 62 environmental objectives identified as ‘Other’ 

included objectives related to restoring historic migratory bird habitat, meeting TM

requirements for tributaries, reducing urban stormwater runoff, and targeting land for 

acquisition. Pool 22 had the largest density of identified objectives with an average of

over four per river mile. Appendix E provides additional detail on the objectives listed in 

Table 2. Maps of all site-specific objectives identified in the workshop will be 

distributed for review in the integrated Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops 

Draft Report (in January). 

Table 2. Number of site-specific env. objectives identified for the Mississippi River.

Objective Pool 12 Pool 13 Pool 14 Pool 15 Pool 16 Pool 17 Pool 18 Pool 19 Pool 20 Pool 21 Pool 22 Total

Water Clarity 14 14 10 0 8 6 8 8 9 9 11

Backwater Depth 16 14 12 0 7 7 8 9 6 6 11

Water Level 11111111211

Connectivity 2 2 2 2 2 4 6 2 1 9 10

Aquatic Areas 4 9 5 2 11 7 9 6 21 3 19

Terrestrial Areas 12 16 6 1 2 1 7 10 3 9 9

Land Cover/Use 15 15 11 0 9 12 10 12 18 10 23 135

Fish 11110010000

Other 0 0 3 3 1 2 0 3 20 14 16

Total 65 72 51 10 41 40 50 51 80 61 100 621

97

96

12

42

96

76

5

62

Mississippi River Reach

Q

Rather, they were noted with the pool-wide objectives. Some examples of the pool-wide 

environmental objectives identified by workshop participants include: 

• address concerns of 303D (impaired water's list), 

• increase connectivity so that 20% of the floodplain

flood events 

restore and cr

• restore 10% of the backwater areas so that they are at least three m

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

9
• e area of every backwater, 

• fish species during key life cycles and 

A m e -wide objectives gathered at the Moline 

Workshop is located in Appendix E. 

• provide one 1000-acre core block habitat (wetland, grassland and forest) per pool, 

increase emergent plants to 10% of th

• work to achieve habitat restoration through agricultural programs on the 

floodplain (e.g., CRP, WRP, etc.), 

• eliminate reed canary grass wherever possible, 

allow passage for the 27 migratory 

migratory periods, and 

• restore the presence of Lake sturgeon. 

or complete list of Mississippi River pool

 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

10
Management Actions 

The purpose of the Management Actions working groups and plenary session was to 

review and identify management actions that were most likely to contribute to achieving 

the established goals and objectives. This was accomplished by reviewing current tables 

of management actions (see the Interim Report for the Restructured Upper Mississippi 

River – Illinois Waterway system Navigation Feasibility Study pages 251-255), tailoring 

them to the ecosystem elements under consideration, and revising them where necessary. 

Management Actions are defined as specific actions, tools, techniques or combinations of 

actions, tools and techniques used to meet defined objectives. Management actions are 

implemented as specific projects whose reconnaissance and feasibility studies provide the 

detail required to assess and develop environmental analyses, funding, staffing, 

engineering and partnerships needed to implement the plan. Table 3 is an example of the 

Management Actions Tables where actions have been changed or added. All 

management actions can be found in Appendix F. 

Table 3. Example Management Action Table. 

Element/ 

Parameter Extent ID Management Action Comments 

Water Quality 

Water Clarity Main Channel 1Apply watershed BMPs (best 

management practices) 

 2Stabilize river banks 

 3Pool scale drawdown to consolidate soft 

sediments 

 4 Minimize dredge disturbance/frequency 

 5 Minimize dredge slurry return water 

 6 Minimize bankside dredged material 

placement 

 7Stabilize dredged material 

 8Tributary reservoirs 

 9Speed and wake restrictions - rec. 

boats (all watercraft) 

Comments/ 

Additions: 

Evaluate and modify mechanisms to 

deal with watershed influences to 

eliminate spiking hydrographic cycle 

(system wide) 

 

 Restore natural tributary areas through 

delta areas 

 Minimize open water dredged material 

placement 

 Sediment traps 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

11
Species and Population Parameters 

The purpose of this session was to identify plant and animal species and appropriate units 

of measure that should be considered for future environmental objectives planning 

efforts. Below is a summary of the discussion that took place during the plenary session. 

Participants at the Moline workshop suggested that what is really needed, more than 

species assessments, is a comprehensive ecological assessment of the UMRS to establish 

an arbitrary baseline of the System’s ecological condition. This suggestion was similar to 

the recommendations for various biological indices recommended at other workshops. 

Another point considered during the discussion was the spatial scope of investigations. 

Many species are wide-ranging (e.g., migratory bird or fishes) and may be greatly 

influenced by factors beyond the UMRS, and within the UMRS resident species may also 

have differing sized territories that must be considered. There was a suggestion to 

consider conservative species (habitat specialists) needs as an umbrella approach to be 

able to assess the more general species. One concern was that expending considerable 

effort to understand lots of different species could consume considerable amounts of 

money and not leave any for actual restoration efforts. 

Workshop participants did not desire species abundance estimates because: 1.) the 

precision of the estimate would likely not be very good, 2.) some populations may be 

effected by factors outside of the UMRS or may be habitat independent (e.g., 

overexploitation), and 3.) many species life histories are such that strong or weak year 

classes can greatly affect population sizes of short time periods. It was recognized that in 

some instances total population estimates are required, but these should be done for very 

specific purposes not routine surveys. The discussion ended with the statement that in 

actuality a whole handful of measurement techniques will be needed to assess progress 

toward restoration targets. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

12
Conceptual Model 

At the end of the workshop, participants were provided with a brief presentation on the 

ecosystem conceptual model being developed for the UMR-IWW Navigation Study. The 

purpose of the UMR-IWW conceptual model is to identify the linkages and sequencing 

of identified environmental objectives and associated management actions and facilitate a 

comprehensive assessment of the potential risks and impacts posed by improvements to 

the navigation infrastructure. The conceptual model can contribute to this overall 

purpose through the following: 

• Visually characterize a complex system to better understand and manage it 

• Identify the major drivers, stressors, and endpoints of the system 

• Define the functional relationships (i.e., linkages) between stressors and endpoints 

• Assist in decisions on impact assessment, restoration and management actions, 

and evaluation tools 

• Provide a framework for implementing adaptive management and restoration 

• Facilitate dialog and develop a structure for additional input from stakeholders 

The ecosystem conceptual model presentation can be found in Appendix H. All the 

PowerPoint slides used during the 2-day workshop are accessible through a FTP site 

noted in Appendix I. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

13
UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

14
Appendix A. Invitation List with Participants Highlighted 

Name Affiliation Address Phone E-mail Ed Anderson IL DNR 

Division of Natural Heritage Dearborn Hall 205 E Seminary Street Mt. Carroll, IL 61053 eanderson@dnrmail.

Rick Anderson WIU Mark Beorkrem Sierra Club/MRBA 

P.O. Box 370 Morrisonville, IL 62546 314.882.8425 beorkrem@ctitech.co

Bill Bertrand IL DNR - Fisheries 

2106 SE Third Street PO Box 149 Aledo, IL 61231 bbertrand@dnrmail.s

Kim Bogenschutz IA DNR 

1436 255th Street Boone, IA 50036 515.432.2823 Kim.Bogenschutz@d

Tom Boland IA DNR 

Bellevue Research Station 24143 Highway 52, Bellevue, IA 52031 563.872.4976 Tom.Boland@dnr.sta

Ken Brenner CEMVR-OD-T 

PO Box 2004 Clock Tower Building Rock Island, IL 61201 309-794-5842 

Chris Brescia MARC 2000 

906 Olive Street, Ste. 1010 St. Louis, MO 63101 314.436.7303 Bresh@aol.com

Ken Brummett 

MO Dept of Conservation 

653 Clinic Rd. Hannibal MO 63401 573.248.2530 brummk@mcd.state.m

Dru Buntin MO DNR 

PO Box 176 Jefferson City MO 65102 573.751.3195 nrbuntd@mail.dnr.sta

Charlene Carmack CEMVR-PM-A 

PO Box 2004 Clock Tower Building Rock Island, IL 61201 309.794.5570 charlene.carmack@m

Wade Conn MO DOC - Forestry 

653 Clinic Road Hannibal, MO 63401 ConnJ@mdc.state.m

Bob Clevenstine FWS 

4469 48th Ave. Ct. Rock Island, IL 61201 

309.493.5800 x521 Robert_Clevenstine@

Kenneth.J.Brenner@

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Name Affiliation Address Phone E-mail

Mark Cornish CEMVR-PM-A 

PO Box 2004 Clock Tower Building Rock Island, IL 61201 309.794.5385 Mark.A.Cornish@mvr02

Mike Cox CEMVR-OD-T 

PO Box 2004 Clock Tower Building Rock Island, IL 61201 309-794-5558 Michael.D.Cox@mvr02

Tom Cox 

USFWS (Port Louisa) 319.523.6982 Tom_Cox@fws.gov

Cynthia Drew 

Univ of Miami Law School 

PO Box 258087 Coral Gables, FL 33124 305.284.6387 cdrew@law.miami.edu

Jon Duyvejonck USFWS/UMRCC 

4469 48th Ave. Ct. Rock Island, IL 61201 309.793.5800 Jon_Duyvejonck@fws.g

Ralph Eads IL DNR - Forestry 

205 E Seminary Street PO Box 6 Mt. Carroll, IL 61053 815.244.3655 reads@dnrmail.state.il.

Gordon Farabee 

7509 County Road 332 Palmyra, MO 63461 573.769.2620 sfarabee@nemonet.com

Steve Felt IL DNR - Forestry 

116 North East Street PO Box 126 Cambridge, IL 61238 309.937.2122 Sfelt@dnrmail.state.il.u

Al Fenedick USEPA 

Mail Code: B-19J 77 West Jackson Boulevard Chicago, IL 60604 312.886.6872 Fenedick.Al@epa.gov

Kathryn Gray CEMVR-PM-A 

PO Box 2004 Clock Tower Building Rock Island, IL 61201 309.794.5815 Kathry.J.Gray@mvr02.

Mike Griffin IA DNR 

206 Rose Street Bellevue, IA 52031 319.872.5700 michael.griffin@dnr.sta

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Name Affiliation Address Phone E-mail 

Greg Gremaud 

MO DOC - Natural History 

2500 S. Halliburton Kirksville, MO 63501 GremaG@mdc.state.m

Allen Haas MRBA 

3024 N. Lincoln, Davenport, IA 52804 563.391.2086 

James Haring IWLA 

1449 25th Ave South Clinton, IA 52732 563.243.3155 fishfndr@cis.net

Mark Heinicke Quincy Park District 

1310 Wash. St., Quincy IL 62301 217.223.7703

Judd Hulting MARC 2000 

1605 Commerce Parkway Bloomington, IL 61704 309-663-7692 hultingj@ilsoy.org

Keith Jackson MO DOC - Wildlife 

653 Clinic Road Hannibal, MO 63401 jacksk@mdc.state.mo

 Kevin Landwehr CEMVR-ED-HH 

PO Box 2004 Clock Tower Building Rock Island, IL 61204 309.794.5578 Kevin.J.Landwehr@m

Mindy Larsen Poldberg Iowa Farm Bureau 

5400 University, West Des Moines, IA 50266 515.225.5432 mpoldberg@ifbf.org

Joe Lundh CEMVR-OD-MN 

PO Box 2004 Clock Tower Building Rock Island, IL 61204 309-794-4528 Joseph.S.Lundh@mv

Anne Mankowski IL DNR 

Division of Natural Heritage 116 North East Street PO Box 23 Cambridge, IL 61238 309.937.3384 amankowski@dnrmai

Catherine McCalvin 

The Nature Conservancy 

PO Box 305 Trempealeau, WI 54661-0305 608.534.6514 CMcCalvin@tnc.org

Dan McGuiness 

Audubon, Upper Mississippi River Campaign 

26 East Exchange Street, Suite 110 St. Paul, MN 55101 651.290.1695 dmcguiness@audubo

Dave Moeller IA DNR 

22693 205th Ave Manchester, IA 52057 563.927.3276 dave.moeller@dnr.sta

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Name Affiliation Address Phone E-mail 

Rick Moore Isaac Walton League 

1619 Dayton Ave., Suite 202 St Paul, MN 55104-6206 651.649.1446 rxmoore@iwla.org

Chris Neeld UMIMRA 

1665 30th St, New Boston, IL 309.937.2122

Rick Nelson USFWS/UMRCC 

4469 48th Ave. Ct. Rock Island, IL 61201 309.793.5800 Richard_Nelson@fws

Don Pfeiffer IA DNR 

110 Lake Darling Rd Brighton, IA 52540 319.694.2430 don.pfeiffer@dnr.state

John Pitlo IA DNR 

Bellevue Research Station, RR 3, Box 63, Bellevue, IA 52031 563.872.4976 John.Pitlo@dnr.state.i

Mike Ramono WIU 

240 Waggoner Hall 1 University Circle Macomb, IL 61455-1390 309.298.1374 M-Romano@wiu.edu

Rick Robinson Iowa Farm Bureau 515.225.5432 rrobinson@ifbf.orgDan Salee IL DNR 

2317 E Lincolnway Suite A Sterling, IL 61081 815.625.2968 dsallee@dnrmail.state

Scott Schaeffer IL DNR 

District 2 DWHB 205 E Seminary Street Mt. Carroll, IL 61053 sschaeffer@dnrmail.st

Bernard Schonoff IA DNR 

3390 Hwy. 22 Muscatine, IA 52761 563.263.5062 bernard.Schonhoff@d

Mike Schwar CEMVR-ED-HH 

PO Box 2004 Clock Tower Building Rock Island, IL 61204 309.794.5410 Michael.T.Schwar@m

Dick Steinbach USFWS 

1704 North 24th St Quincy, IL 62301 217.224.8580 Dick_Steinback@fws.

Mike Steuck LTRM Pool 14 

206 Rose Street Bellevue, IA 52031 563.872.5495 mike_steuck@usgs.go

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Name Affiliation Address Phone E-mail 

Jon Stravers 

Research and Fieldtrip Coordinator for Audubon UMR Campaign 

PO Box 309 McGregor IA 52157 563.586.2621 hawk@alpinecom.net

Scott Stuewe IL DNR 

One Natural Resources Way Springfield IL 62702-1271 Sstuewe@dnrmail.sta

Gary Swenson CEMVR-OD-MN 

PO Box 2004 Clock Tower Building Rock Island, IL 61201 309.794.4489 Gary.V.Swenson@mv

Steve Waters IA DNR 

110 Lake Darling Rd Brighton, IA 52540 319.694.2430 steve.waters@dnr.stat

Karen Westphall USFWS Refuge 

1704 North 24th St Quincy, IL 62301 Karen_Westphall@fws

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Appendix B. Agenda 

Day 1 

9:00 Opening 

Hank DeHaan and Chuck Theiling 

9:10 Introduction to the Workshop Process and Participant Introductions 

 Rebecca Soileau 

9:30 UMR-IWW Restructured Navigation Feasibility Study Overview and Schedule 

Ken Barr 

9:45 Vision, Goals, and Environmental Objectives 

 Chuck Theiling 

10:00 Working Definitions of Terminology for this Workshop 

Nicole McVay

10:10 Overview of GIS Database and Existing Objectives and Management Actions 

Hank DeHaan 

10:30 Working Groups (I): Identify and refine environmental objectives for the 

Illinois Waterway ecosystem. . 

12:00 Lunch 

1:00 Working Groups (I): Continued work and Report Preparation 

3:30 Plenary: Presentation of objectives identified by each working group and input 

into GIS 

5:30 Adjourn 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

B-1
DAY 2 

8:00 Plenary: Presentation and discussion of synthesis of results from previous 

days work 

 

9:00 Working Groups (II): Review and identify management actions that are 

most likely to contribute towards achieving the established goals and 

objectives 

10:30 Plenary: Group presentations of new and revised management actions. 

12:00 Lunch 

1:00 Plenary: Overview of regional evaluation data and tools for assessing the efficiency 

of management actions both initially and in an adaptive management framework. 

Discussion of species and population parameters. 

Chuck Theiling

2:30 Review of Regional Ecosystem Conceptual Models 

 

3:00 Workshop Closing

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

B-2
Appendix C. Plenary Session Notes 

Below are the plenary session notes that were captured by the facilitators during the twoday workshop. Participant names have been removed from all comments except those 

made by the facilitators. 

Moline Workshop November 20th – Day 1 

Opening – Theiling (9:04 –9:10)

Chuck Theiling’s introduction briefly described what the workshop will accomplish as 

well as introduced Hank DeHaan, Nicole McVay, Rebecca Soileau and himself. 

Intro of Participants – Soileau (9:10 – 9:30)

Rebecca Soileau asked all participants to turn to page 4 of the Workshop Handbook and 

write down the answer to the question printed there: “What do you hope this workshop 

will accomplish?” Participants were given a few minutes to write their answer down. 

Then all participants verbally answered the question. 

See Appendix D for a list of written and verbal responses.

Navigation Study Introduction – Barr (9:30- 10:03)

Ken Barr discussed the history of the Navigation Study – its original focus as well as 

some of the studies that originated from that process. He then went on to discuss the 

restructured navigation study, describing the vision as well as the new scope of the study. 

He showed how the two studies differed with respect to the ecological integrity (the 

original study focused on direct effects of construction or more tow boats on fish, 

sediment resuspension, mussels, etc; while the restructured study will consider the 

existing project impacts and establish objectives to have the environment reach a desired 

state). During his presentation he also displayed the six-step planning process and 

reminded all workshop participants that the Corps has to follow this process. He 

concluded the presentation by discussing how the environmental portion of the 

navigation study will be viewed in an adaptive management framework as well as 

showing the participants the schedule of the study. At the end of the presentation he 

asked people to take this opportunity to ask questions about the overall concerns or 

questions with the Navigation Study. 

Questions 

– Will your EIS include just improvements or the whole system? 

Barr –The whole system, navigation and environment. 

– Will it take the place of the 1975 EIS? 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-1
Barr – The federal task force first thought that we should redo this. However the final 

decision was not to look at past effects but to look at ongoing effects and what we can 

contribute that will go into the future. 

– How much of what we do here will effect the tributaries? 

Barr – We are trying to understand these tributaries from where they enter our system (at 

the mouths). We have to be aware of what is going on in the watersheds. We at first 

thought this was going to be a completely comprehensive program. Then the Federal task 

force said that this is still is a navigation project, so focus on what you can do within the 

confines of the navigation study. 

Soileau – If you have objectives that you would like to see at the mouth of the tributaries 

you can do that, but the authorities will probably come from other areas (EPA, NRCS, 

etc.) 

 Environmental Study Overview –Theiling (10:03 -10:20)

Chuck began his talk by reviewing many of the reports that have been written concerning 

the environment of the UMR-IWW. He then went on to discuss how the Corps has 

structured this study and where in the study these workshops take place. Next he 

discussed the expert panel, their functions, the individuals who will make up the panel, as 

well as how they will fit into the entire process. Chuck then discussed goals, objectives 

and management actions. He displayed the goals from Grumbine that were adopted by 

the Navigation Study in the interim report as well as the goals listed in the UMRCC 

report “A River that Works and a Working River.” Next he discussed objectives, 

described them and listed several example objectives. Chuck continued his presentation 

by giving an overview of the framework for setting objectives. He then continued by 

showing where the data to create the objectives database came from. He concluded the 

talk by reiterating exactly where the focus of the navigation study was as well as 

discussing how other agencies and authorities could use these overarching goals. 

Workshop Process – Soileau (10:20 – 10:30)

Rebecca Soileau discussed the overall workshop process including a brief agenda. She 

then discussed the working agreement and had participants agree to abide by it. Finally 

she defined her role as a facilitator as well as the expected roles of the participants. She 

then presented the working definitions. 

10:30 10:46 Break

Objectives - DeHaan (10:46 – 11:10)

Hank DeHaan discussed the objective database, including where the information came 

from, and how the database is structured. This included a detailed discussion of the 

framework for setting objectives. He then gave a brief demonstration of the database in 

Arc View 3.2. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-2
Questions 

– How much repetition do you want? For every backwater? 

DeHaan – Pool and reach-wide objectives can be used to input targets and ranges for all 

backwaters, etc. 

– For the national heritage data, what are you doing with it? 

DeHaan – We do not have this info included in the database because the database will be 

widely distributed. However, the expert panel and other decision makers will be looking 

at the information concerning the threatened and endangered species. 

– Looking at icon #145 – how many areas does that cover? Do I have to put 3 D’s down 

on the map to cover every backwater in that area? 

DeHaan – No, you can write down backwater names or use river mile extents to capture 

the entire area. 

– Are these working groups set in stone? Could we move pool 19 to another group so 

that Missouri is all in one group and move 15 to the other group with the Iowa Managers? 

Soileau - OK – Groups are pools: 12-15, 16-19, 20-22 

Objectives Plenary Session (3:22-5:30)

The plenary began by asking each group to give a brief overview of what they did, as 

well as listing their reach and pool-wide objectives. 

Group 1 Summary (Pools 12-15)

Spent most of our time going over goals for most pools. 

Overall 

Most backwaters should be 50% 1-3 m deep. 

Most should have 10% emergents around them. >3ft at low pool should have 80% submergents. 

Dredging in backwater should be used to create topographic diversity

Group 2 Summary (Pools 20-22) 

Identified pool and reach specific goals first. 

Relied heavily on already prepared pool plans. 

Didn’t repeat things, but added site specific objectives 

Pool Objectives 

Restore 20% of floodplain that is not isolated to be flooded during a 10-year event. 

Reduce erosion and habitat loss due to barge fleeting. 

Examine opportunities for fish passage at all 3 dams, but on a case-by-case basis. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-3
Group 3 Summary (Pools 16-19) 

Talked about general objectives that would fit all pools. 

Then we went through each pool and figured that the HNA and Pool Plans covered things 

well. 

Site Specific Objective Setting for Moline (3:30)

Once each group gave their report we then started at Pool 12 and moved down river, 

allowing all participants to provide input. 

Pool 12 

Reach wide objectives 12 -15 

Pool doesn’t have much lateral connectivity issues because located between the two 

bluffs. 

Water Quality 

Secchi 1 m depth during high water events for 5 out of 10 years. If we can keep it to 1 

meter during the floods then it will be good during the rest of the time. 

Barr – Did you tie the need for water clarity to the growing season? 

– No we did not. We accounted for the difficulty of attaining the goal by giving it a 

50/50 implementation target range. 

Back Water 

1-2 meters minimum, especially during the winter. Achieved by 2030 

Increase topographic diversity on all terrestrial islands and shoreline habitats by 

increasing height. 

Increase height by 2 meters on 10% of all islands. 

Survey to identify priority areas for erosion. Upstream areas in particular need attention 

and need to be restored to pre-dam condition. 

Use pre-existing islands/bankline as a base to rebuild them. 

Restore islands in all pools to provide protection from wind fetch. 

Every pool, drawn down 1 out of every 10 years (on a rotational basis). 

– How did you come up with 1 out of 10 years? 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-4
– Just the seat of our pants. 

– How much of a drawdown? 

– It would be different by every pool. 

– What is the duration of a drawdown? 

– From the hydrograph we can’t start before June, so June to September. 

– But you don’t need 90 days? 

– Minimum is 30 days, 60 are good, but 90 is best. 

Barr – Told the economic modelers to model a 60-day shut down. 

– If you plan one for 2006 and you cut out navigation you might get 50/50 but if you 

don’t then you only have a 20% 

– If you alternate pools then you would be shutting the system every year. So you might 

as well do them all at the same time. 

Barr – We were talking about shutting them down all at once. A planned shut down is 

different than an emergency one; there would be less impact. 

Maintain what we’ve got. 

Achieve some general criteria for designs for entrances of backwaters and minimize 

sedimentation into those connections. 

Restore former connections from Main Channel to backwaters 

Maintain existing depths of secondary channels, where possible, use regulatory structures 

to maintain them as opposed to dredging them. 

– Introduce a design change to secondary channel that is a fishhook design that will allow 

large debris to pass by, but keep water flowing in. 

– We discussed that maintenance will have to be done on this system. 

Habitat Patterns – 

Maintain all secondary and tertiary patterns that exist. 

Maintain patterns of contiguous backwaters as they existed (1989 is a good baseline for 

this). 

Maintain all islands and restore island shown on 1989 photography. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-5
Terrestrial Habitat should contain ox bow, potholes... from Pool Plans. 

Eliminate Reed Canary Grass where possible. 

Need a forest management program to restore age-gradation. 

Land Cover 

Drawdown is the most important tool to use. 

Moist soil – 1 every 25 RM for birds. 

Restore lake sturgeon in all pools – Monitoring goal: collect 2 sturgeons each year for 

monitoring. 

– Menominee Slough is good habitat for neo-tropical birds. Manage floodplain forest. 

Group 1 did not have any specific objectives for Pool 12. 

Pool 13 

Pool 14 

– Beaver’s slough is part the 9-foot channel project. We have to maintain 9-feet through 

that entire pool. 

– Hannover Ridge carries migration traffic. 

Pool 15 

– Isn’t the entire pool on the list for DO objectives? 

Group 3 Overall Objectives 

In their notes. 

Integrated Complex idea (written in notes)

Theiling – This is very similar to what was done in the Peoria workshop. 

– We are a little more aggressive because we want forest and prairie as well. 

– Wherever there is a leveed area you can put a mark for connectivity. Set back the flank 

levees on the tributaries to allow for natural meanders. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-6
Pool 16 

Beorkrem -At RM 481 – Look at structure of wing dams. They may be causing 

sedimentation into side channel. 

Some discussion that causeway was major issue, wing dams have not been changed since 

1903 

Pool 17 

Down stream of Muscatine – the whole reach is scheduled for aTMDL assessment , 

locally for industrial pollution and urban runoff. 

Fourth Slough – There is an issue of water quality during the summer and winter. 

Discussion about protecting agriculture – 

– Just because we list connectivity it doesn’t mean we are going to connect 100%. That 

will have to be looked into during other phases of the study. Let’s not put an icon on for 

every area. 

Pool 18 

Make sure you link both Odessa and Louisa Creek EMP fact sheet to these. 

Identified new area at RM 433 Boston Bay, Geomorphology, connectivity, backwater 

access to backwater is filling in, needs to be restored. 

RM 432 - 415 is the Yellow Banks Sand Prairie area on the Illinois Side Habitat, 

landcover, grassland....Restore Sand Prairie 

– Are there targets for water quality and clarity issue for the entire pools? 

Pool wide water clarity targets – 1m clarity during the summer MC. Concern for aquatic 

vegetation. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-7
Moline Workshop November 21st – Day 2 

Continuation of Objectives: (8:10-9:30)

Pool 19 

Percentages of each pool-wide objective are the total percentage of plan form area. (It is 

not an increase) 

Pool 19 has the least amount of public land so there is a need to buy more public land. 

The following should be included: 

Generalized goal to acquire land where possible. 

– Try not to acquire tilled farm land where possible. Try to prioritize to least productive 

farmland first. Willing land owners are OK, but again try not to acquire really productive 

land, even if from willing land owners. 

–Acquire lands that influences flooding such as FEMA priority buyouts. Reduce pinch 

points in the floodway. 

Group 2 

Reach-wide Objectives Pools 20-22 

Restore and enhance large tracts of bottomland hardwood forests for neo-tropical birds. 

(1000 acre min 25-30 miles apart) 

Same for grassland. 

Meet TMDL’s for all major tributaries (those that have designated TMDL’s). 

Agricultural - maintain aerial percentage of use. 

Pool 20 –Pool-wide 

Islands – land interest/acquisition of all islands. Acquire 100% fee title or interest of 

islands. 

Restore and protect aquatic vegetation – 50% of the pool area. 

Pool 20 Specific Objectives 

RM 356 – Gray chute – The Corps has placed rock at the bottom of the island to keep it 

as one island. 

Mississippi – Fox levee district – This has a 5-year levee. Investigate land acquisition for 

habitat restoration. 

Lima Levee setbacks around blew holes (eyebrow crescent setbacks) 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-8
Pool 21 –Pool-wide 

Water level management to look at potential draw down 

Pool 21 Specific Objectives 

RM 341 – Set back levees on Bear Creek. 

– Please note the reach-wide objectives to restore connectivity to every levee setback 

levees to all tributaries. 

Restore Rock/Ursa Creeks to natural meanders. 

Pool 22 – Pool-wide 

Pool 22 Specific Objectives 

Managements Actions –Theiling (9:43 – 9:51) 

Chuck Theiling began this section by discussing why it is important for management 

actions to be identified, as well as defining what a management action is. Next he 

discussed how the current list of management actions was created. Finally he and 

Rebecca projected the management action worksheet and discussed how to work during 

the breakout sessions. 

Management Action Working Groups (9:51-12:35)

Lunch (11:30-12:35)

Management Action Plenary (12:35-1:24)

Page W2-2 Water Quality

Group 1 (Pools 12-15) 

All in notes. 

Group 3 (16 – 19) 

All in notes. 

((Group 1) – the smaller the boat the slower you have to go – allows fisherman in the 

backwaters but not the jet skies).. 

Group 2 (20-22) 

– You should change # 11 Develop management units for water level regulation.

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-9
Page W2-3,4 Geomorphology

Group 1 

“Raise the water level” is specified for winter. 

Pipes are for backwater areas that are sequestered due to being adjacent to earthen part of 

dam. 

Group 3 

 All in notes. 

Group 2 

#39 – Not sure what how this relates to connectivity. 

– Use it to connect terrestrial areas. 

– When dredging is used to increase floodplain connectivity, use the dredge material to 

create islands. 

Fishless ponds – maybe have shallow enough for winter kill. 

Page W2-4 Geomorphology and Pattern of Habitats

Group 1 

All in notes. 

Group 3

All in notes. 

Group 2

 All in notes. 

Page W2-5 Pattern of Habitats

Group 1

All in notes. 

Beach plan – St. Paul has a beach plan – we should have a plan for beach nourishment in 

the Rock Island District. 

Group 3 

– There are some liability concerns about beach plans. If we call it a beach then we 

become liable for them. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-10
Group 2

All in notes.

Page W2-6 Pattern of Habitats (cont)

Group 1 

All in notes. 

Group 3 

All in notes. 

Group 2 

Educational or policy changes to help with BMP. Find crops that have greater benefit for 

the floodplain rather than the typical row crops.

Page W2-7 Plants and Animals

Group 1 

All in notes. 

Group 3

All in notes. 

Discussion about physical barrier with the Great Lakes. 

– suggested severing the connection to the Great Lakes. 

Group 2 

All in notes. 

Page W2- 8 Plants and Animals, T&E

Group 1 

Stabilize nesting islands for Cormorants. 

Group 3 

All in notes. 

Group 2 

All in notes. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-11
Evaluation Data and Tools – Theiling (1:25-1:32)

Chuck Theiling discussed evaluation data such as the LTRMP monitoring data, the 

state’s fisheries sampling, aerial waterfowl censuses, and other data that might be used to 

evaluate ecological responses to restoration or to help evaluate cause and effect 

relationships among ecosystem components and stressors. Chuck also discussed 

evaluation tools such as conceptual and predictive models that have been or will be 

developed to help predict environmental response to restoration measures. Other tools 

available to evaluate restoration response include the large variety of sampling techniques 

used to evaluate plants and animal populations. 

– HEP’s are bad because you are never taking into account that this is an indicator 

species. So you make 1 Mallard, yet it doesn’t see the benefits to all of the other species. 

They don’t take into affect that other species are also benefiting from the single 

designated species benefit. 

– HEP isn’t bad, it’s how you interpret HEP. All it is supposed to do is to help evaluate a 

project. 

–We need a better definition of the guilds associated with the habitat. 

Theiling – HNA does have a species to habitat relationship. 

Theiling – I appreciate your comments. Janvrin has a series of tables with the first series 

islands in Pool 8. It shows how as they continued through the project they created more 

objectives to take advantage of the HEP models. When we get a large list of objectives it 

shows how we need to validate models. 

Species and Population Parameter – Theiling (1:32 – 2:14)

Chuck Theiling discussed some of the problems that were encountered when he was 

trying to set species target ranges for the objectives. He asked participants to offer 

suggestions as to the merit of doing this as well as for species and target ranges. 

– The two studies on small mammals are you including academic literature? 

Theiling – This is all that I am aware of. 

– There are some dredge site surveys. 

– Vole study on Stoddard Island that ate all of the trees. 

– There are a few on furbearers – Clark, Dahlgren. 

 – Lake Sturgeon - Protected 

– Should we add protected, T&E under reptiles and amphibians? 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-12
– What we need is an ecological assessment by species of the Mississippi River by pool. 

Set 70 traps for reptiles, ... have an arbitrary line that values health. 

Theiling – Index for rapid Diversity works well in streams. None of them are tailored to 

a large river. 

– Hard part is deciding whether it is impaired or not. On the open the river 80% 

confidence is darn good – doesn’t shoot for 95% confidence. 

Theiling – Do that protocol in a good habitat and in a really degraded habitat to develop 

that range. 

– Are you looking pool wide? 

Soileau – We are looking for your guidance. 

– Habitat size and structure is good for an area dependent bird. Look for a reach or 

habitat within a good pool, do habitat survey rather than census data. To a certain extent 

we could approach that with grassland species as well. The Herps, because of low 

motility, I am reluctant to work on in a pool-scale even in habitat. Focusing on 

conservative species (habitat specialists) as an umbrella approach to be able to assess the 

more general species. 

– Again, you start put things into a box by saying “I am making this habitat for x 

species”. If you come in as a generalist then we are better. 

– I understand your point, but all habitat is not created equal. By capturing habitat for 

area sensitive species that are habitat specialists you will capture needs for more general 

species. 

– When you start putting a 3rd of your money away to expand the literature then you are 

only able to do a limited amount. Lots of times they study a wetland or lake to see what 

they did. In the end they didn’t change the habitat because they spent all of the money on 

research. There are all kinds of studies looking at finite habitat types, but they use up the 

money in research. 

– On grasslands and forest birds I feel there is enough literature out there to assess habitat 

and come up with estimates of population structure. 

– I THINK WE CAN DO BIRDS

– LTRM’s community sampling can help to correlate species and community and show 

changes/improvements as an indicator. 

Theiling – If money and time were no object would you want to do total population? 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-13
– No, you have noise from every single factor. Your habitat may not suck; it may be 

some other factor. 

– You spend a fortune to make a figure and then the figure changes the next year. 

Theiling – If you rely on the habitat basis then other things won’t change. 

Soileau – It’s not important to build habitat for habitats sake, but we need to build them 

for species. So, what are those species and what targets do we want to try and achieve? 

– Controlling the deer population is a problem. If you don’t have a count on the deer it is 

very difficult to have the State help to reduce their numbers. We have been told that we 

have to have a count. 

– If you look at habitat, you can see how areas are effected by an over abundance of deer. 

However, for some people 1 deer is too much, in other areas a few deer are really nice. 

– Can use habitat effects such as eaten branches as an indicator of too high a population. 

Also can do a count in a square mile for making estimates. 

– For some nuisance species it is a good idea to have some more exact population 

measures. 

Theiling – The answer I take is to not count everything on the river but it is ok in specific 

areas or for specific purposes. 

– To do general assessment – IBA – pick some out and do in 2003. 

– We have been looking at entrainment. Do you think we need to know stock population 

counts to see how significant this entrainment is? 

– I think it is a percentage. 

Theiling – The original study was just percentage. If it is x now, and we increase by x 

barges, then there will be x more entrained. However now it is a more total effects study, 

so it becomes more important to know the entire thing. The original navigation study 

looked at the relative abundance, but the new scope makes absolute numbers more 

important. 

– The abundance is very tricky. Maybe we should focus on the relative abundance of fish 

(sport vs. forage). Focus on community structure rather than absolute numbers. 

– For natural community health, Natural History has been focusing on presence of exotic 

species as an indicator of health – this has a structural and food element in terrestrial 

areas. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-14
– In actuality we will probably use a whole handful of measurement techniques to assess 

our achievement of the objectives. Someone will have to use an array of these 

techniques. 

Conceptual Models Hank DeHaan (2:22 –2:27)

Hank provided participants with some background regarding the conceptual model, as 

well as an overview of the purposes for having a conceptual model. He then displayed 

the conceptual model in it’s current form as well as a more simplistic diagram that gave 

an example of how the model might be used to asses the effectiveness of a management 

action. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-15
UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-16
Appendix D. Participant Introductions 

All the participants were asked to write down an answer to the question printed on page 4 

of the workshop handout: “What do you hope this workshop will accomplish?” Then all 

participants introduced themselves to the group and read their answer to the question. 

The first list below contains the answers that were taken directly from the written forms 

that were turned in. Not everyone put their name on the form. Following the first list is 

the set of verbal responses that was captured as part of the meeting minutes. The verbal 

responses are included because they were substantially different than the written 

responses that had no identification. 

WRITTEN RESPONSES 

1. Brenner – As a person of many hats, my hope is that I can observe what this program 

is going to accomplish. As a private citizen who cares about the environment, I hope that 

this study involves the input from the little guy. As a Corps person from operations, 

dredging, & survey, I hope that this program brings about needed improvements in the 

navigation system. 

2. Larsen – I am new in my job at FB and mostly came to learn from others about the 

details of the Mississippi River issue. I expect to be working on this issue for a number 

of years. My role for FB will be to achieve goals of the environment without unduly 

jeopardizing farmers of causing undue financial hardship. 

3. – That a plan will finally be presented and things can be implemented. 

4. – Bring out ideas that can be used to formulate environmental objective with 

regards to the UMR-ILWW and how to implement 

5. Cox – I hope this workshop will help bring everyone together, working on the same 

page toward the same goals. 

6. Brummett – Provide a forum for input from people not closely involved in the Nav. 

Study. Also, to place the efforts of field level folks into study records. 

7. Schonhoff – Bring together all the pieces of information that have been generated. 

8. Bertrand – At least a compilation of the various management objectives for fish and 

wildlife so that agreement can be reached among all river interests in support of 

management goals. 

9. Landwehr – Better understanding of participants’ objectives and management actions 

and the role we (H&H) can provide flushing out the details. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

D-1
10. Carmack – As the sole environmental team member for the Comp Study present 

today, my hope is that this workshop will do such a through job of identifying 

environmental objectives and management actions for the whole floodplain that we won’t 

have to repeat this exercise specific to the Comp Study. 

11. Neeld – A balance of all the aspects of river system. 

12. Gray – My primary goal with this workshop is simply to learn & gain a more 

thorough understanding of the feasibility & sustainability possibilities & practices for the 

waterways. 

13. Felt – (Why am I here?) To become familiar with this planning process and to result 

in forest resource management on the ground 

14. Clevenstine – Gather enough objectives detail to allow partners to move forward with 

RNS & application of adaptive management. 

15. Anderson – Hope that good, meaningful objectives will be established in the plan and 

subsequently met/accomplished, which will lead to a functioning, sustainable river 

ecosystem. 

16. Drew – Better definition of specific environmental goals that all can agree with. 

17. – Finalize the documentation of goals & objectives for environmental restoration 

of Upper Mississippi River System. 

ADDITIONAL VERBAL RESPONSES 

18. Ed Anderson – I hope we set good, meaningful objectives that are actually met. 

19. Eads – I want to see what this is all about. 

20. Lundh – I would like to address some of the environmental problems on the river and 

put some of our financial resources to use. 

21. Mankowski – I don’t have specific expectations for these workshops. 

22. Duvvejonck – I hope that at the end of the day we can say we have goals and 

objectives done and implemented them. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

D-2
23. Drew – I hope everyone finds agreement. 

24. Heinicke – I am an architect from Quincy, IL. 

25. Brenner – As a private person I am concerned about what this will do to the 

environment. As a Corps person I hope this will bring improvement to the navigation 

system. 

26. Barr – I would like to achieve a shared understanding of the objectives. I am looking 

forward to learning from you. 

27. Larsen – I need to learn a lot from everyone. I hope to encourage restoration of the 

river that won’t cause financial hardship to farmers along the river. 

28. Schonhoff – I would like to bring together all the pieces that we have been 

generating. 

29. Haas – I am here as a recreationist. 

30. Cox – I hope this workshop helps compile everything and brings everyone onto the 

same page. 

31. Swenson – Hopefully this workshop develops sensible and implement able 

objectives. 

32. Buntin – I am here to listen and learn. 

33. Brummett – I hope this process allows those not close to the study to supply their 

input, especially those who have knowledge of the river. 

34. Bertrand – Let’s pull together, in one place, the various management objectives. 

35. Gray – I would like to gain a better understanding of the feasibility study. 

36. Carmack – I am working on the Comprehensive (Comp) Plan –I hope this workshop 

will do such a thorough job of planning for the entire floodplain, bluff to bluff, that the 

Comp Plan won’t have to redo this. 

37. Clevenstine – Gather enough objective detail to allow partners to move on to 

implementation. 

38. Felt – Why am I here? To become familiar with the planning process. See a result in 

forest management on the ground rather than on paper. 

39. Landwehr – Try to get a better understanding as to how Hydrology and Hydraulics 

can help flush out the details during the study’s later steps. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

D-3
40. Neeld – Hoping there will be a balance between all of the aspects. I live behind the 

levee and am concerned about my kids and grandkids. 

41. Griffin – Get it down on paper as to what we decided. Get the environment up to a 

somewhat equal level as navigation (look at it the same way as we look at maintenance of 

the navigation system). 

42. Bogenschutz – I am concerned with invasive species and preventing their spread into 

Iowa. 

43. Fenedick – I want to listen to folks who haven’t been a part of this. I want to get to a 

point that we can apply and implement these things rather than talk about them. 

44. Whitney – I am very excited about the opportunities to merge this with the 

Navigation study. Hopefully this will gain the attention of Washington. 

45. Lundberg – I am the Project Manager for the Navigation Study. I like to say that I sit 

in the air traffic control tower and make sure the planes don’t run into each other. 

Sometimes I like to ride on the plane from time to time and this workshop is one of the 

planes. 

46. Dolan – This is my first meeting as a Public Involvement Specialist for the Corps of 

Engineers. 

47. Cox – I represent the Port Louisa Refuge.

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

D-4
Appendix E. Environmental Objectives 

Purpose:

To have participants collaboratively review, refine, and add to a database of specific, 

quantitative, and local to regional scale UMR-IWW environmental objectives obtained 

from previous study efforts.

Background:

Objectives are incremental steps taken toward achieving a goal and thus may be goal 

specific. They are a concise statement of what we want to achieve, how much we want to 

achieve, when and where we want to achieve it. Objectives provide the basis for 

determining management actions, monitoring accomplishments and evaluating the 

success of management actions. There may be multiple objectives for a goal. 

Participants were asked to review, revise if necessary, and supplement the Environmental 

Objectives taken from previous work (HNA, Pool Plans, etc.) to achieve the Navigation 

Environmental Coordination Committee (NECC)/Economics Coordinating Committee 

(ECC) UMR-IWW Navigation System Vision: 

“To seek long term sustainability of the economic uses and ecological integrity of the 

Upper Mississippi River System.” 

The working groups were specifically tasked to apply the widely known SMART criteria 

to each objective making them: specific, measurable, achievable, results –oriented, timespecific. 

The participants were asked, for the purposes of this workshop, to utilize the following 

two sets of goals as a framework for setting objectives. 

Ecosystem Goals (from Interim Report) 

During planning for the 1994 Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee 

(UMRCC) Ecosystem Management Initiative, resource managers agreed to adopt 

Grumbine’s (1994) ecosystem management goals (Grumbine, R. Edward. 1994. What is 

ecosystem management? Conservation Biology 8(1): 27-38.): 

Goal 1: Maintain viable populations of native species in situ. 

Goal 2: Represent all native ecosystem types across their natural range of variation. 

Goal 3: Restore and maintain evolutionary and ecological processes (i.e., disturbance 

regimes, hydrological processes, nutrient cycles, etc.). 

Goal 4: Manage over periods long enough to maintain the evolutionary potential of 

species and ecosystems. 

Goal 5: Integrate human use and occupancy within these constraints. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-1
The UMRCC expanded their list of goals in the A River That Works and a Working River

(2000) document. These goals are: 

1. Improve water quality for all uses, 

2. Reduce erosion and sediment impacts, 

3. Restore natural floodplain, 

4. Restore natural hydrology, 

5. Increase backwater connectivity with main channel, 

6. Increase side channel, island, shoal, and sand bar habitat,

7. Minimize or eliminate dredging impacts, 

8. Sever pathways for exotic species introductions/dispersal,

9. Improve native fish passage at dams. 

Working Group Process 

The process began with participants dividing into three groups based in part on their 

expertise within three segments of the UMR. Group 1 worked on Pools 12 - 15, Group 2 

worked on Pools 20 – 22, and Group 3 covered Pools 16 - 19. Working groups were 

tasked with first setting reach and pool-wide objectives and then reviewing and setting 

site-specific objectives within their section of the river. If groups finished their section 

and had time remaining they could extend into the adjacent areas. 

When setting site-specific objectives, participants were asked to use the data structure 

outlined in the Framework for Setting Objectives (Figure E1). This hierarchical structure 

categorizes environmental objectives into four primary ecosystem elements and then 

breaks these down into more specific parameters, extents, and target ranges. In addition 

to this information, participants were also asked to consider and note (if possible) the 

seasonality, frequency of occurrence, target date, and any other comments associated 

with the objectives they identified. This data framework provided a means to capture and 

merge objectives from previous study efforts, and those identified by workshop 

participants, into one standardized database. Additional objectives not found in the 

framework were also identified and added to the database using the established data 

structure (e.g., Invertebrates was added under Plants and Animals

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-2
Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent TR Target Range 

Water Quality Water Clarity Main Channel 1 Secchi disk transparency 0.3 m 

 Backwater Areas 2 Secchi disk transparency 0.7 m 

 3 Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m 

 4 Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m 

 5 Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m 

Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 1 100% of area <1 m 

 2 50% of area 1 - 2 m 

 3 50% of area 2 - 3 m 

 4 50% of area >3 m 

 

 Water Level Main Channel 1 0.3 m below project pool at dam 

 Backwater Areas 2 0.6 m below project pool at dam 

 3 1.0 m below project pool at dam 

 4 >1 m below project pool at dam 

 

 Connectivity Floodplain 1 0% floodplain area inundated during 10 year flood 

 2 20% floodplain area inundated during 10 year flood 

 3 40% floodplain area inundated during 10 year flood 

 4 80% floodplain area inundated during 10 year flood 

 5 100% floodplain area inundated during 10 year flood

 

 Secondary Channel 1 <20% of year 

 2 20-40% of year 

 3 40-60% of year 

 4 60-80% of year 

 5 >80% of year 

 

 Longitudinal 1 0% chance of fish passage 

 2 20% chance of fish passage 

 3 40% chance of fish passage 

 4 80% chance of fish passage 

 5 100% chance of fish passage 

Figure E1. Framework for Setting Objectives for Condition of the UMR-IWW Ecosystem. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-3
Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent TR Target Range 

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 1 <10% of area 

 Secondary Channel 2 10-20% of area 

 Tertiary Channel 3 20-40% of area 

 Impounded Area 4 40-60% of area 

 Contiguous Backwater 5 >60% of area 

 Isolated Backwater 

 

 Terrestrial Areas Contiguous Floodplain 1 <10% of area 

 Isolated Floodplain 2 10-20% of area 

 Island 3 20-40% of area 

 4 40-60% of area 

 5 >60% of area 

 

 Land Cover/Use Open Water 1 <10% of area 

 Submersed Aquatics 2 10-20% of area 

 Emergent Aquatics 3 20-40% of area 

 Grassland 4 40-60% of area 

 Shrub 5 >60% of area 

 Forest 

 Agriculture 

 Developed 

Plants and Animals Plants Emergent Aquatics 1 <10 plants/m2 

 Submersed Aquatics 2 10 - 20 plants/m2 

 3 20 - 50 plants/m2 

 4 50 - 100 plants/m2 

 5 >100 plants/m2 

 

 Fish Protected Fish Species CPUE, Length distribution, or kg/ha 

 Sport Fish Species 

 Commercial Fish Species 

 Forage Fish Species 

 Exotic Fish Species 

 

 Birds Dabbling Ducks 1 0 - 1,000 use days/yr 

 Diving Ducks 2 1,000 - 10,000 use days/yr 

 3 10,000 - 100,000 use days/yr 

 4 >100,000 use days/yr 

Figure E1. Framework for Setting Objectives for Condition of the UMR-IWW Ecosystem, continued.

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-4
Results:

The environmental objective information gathered and reviewed at the Moline Workshop 

has been organized into the following four sections. They include a pool-wide objectives 

table, site-specific objectives table, plenary report, and working group reports. 

Pool-wide objectives identified by workshop participants were compiled from comments 

recorded in the plenary sessions, working group reports, group worksheets, and atlas map 

notations (Table E1). In cases where management actions were recorded, an objective 

was created and the management action was listed in the comments section, denoted by 

“MA”. 

Site-specific objectives and supporting information identified and reviewed by workshop 

participants are listed by pool (Table E2) and organized to follow the Framework for 

Setting Objectives format (Figure E1). These objectives were compiled from previous 

study efforts, participant comments during the plenary session (with GIS tools), working 

group reports, group worksheets, atlas map notations. The objectives identified in the 

workshop were recorded exactly as written. For the final integrated report, site-specific 

objectives will be standardized, new parameter icons may be created and similar 

comments will be assimilated into one comment. 

The plenary comments are taken directly from the plenary report and only include 

discussion specifically related to environmental objectives. The entire plenary report can 

be found in Appendix C. 

The working group reports were prepared by the recorder in each group as a record of the 

discussion. They contain a subset of the pool-wide and site-specific objective 

information generated by the groups. The group reports are not inclusive of all the 

objective descriptions because much of the groups’ data generation was also recorded on 

master worksheets and maps. 

 Examples of objectives at various scales were given as guidelines, they included: 

• System – Restore X acres of secondary channel habitat system wide, 

• Reach – Increase the amount of marsh habitat by X acres in the Open River Reach 

of the Mississippi River, 

• Pool – Return Pool 13 to a more natural hydrologic regime by having a 90 day 

low water stage X feet below maximum pool elevation during late summer every 

three years, 

• Local – Increase the average depth of backwater area X to six feet. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-5
Table E1. Pool-wide Environmental Objectives (Pool 12 – Pool 22 Reach). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent 

TR/ Target Range Season 

Frequency of Occurrence 

Target Date Comments 

Water Quality 

Other Address concerns of 30

Geomorphology 

Connectivity Floodplain 2 All 10 2010 Increase unleveed flood

Longitudinal 

Allow passage for the 2cycles and migratory pe

Pattern of Habitats 

Other 

Wetland, grassland, and forest All 10 2020

3000 acres of 1000 acrpool (30-40 miles) - for 

Plants and Animals 

Birds Neotropical Migrants See Integrated Comple

Other 

Other Reduce Habitat loss in 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E1. Pool-wide Environmental Objectives (Pool 12 – Pool 15 Reach). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent 

TR/ Target Range Season 

Frequency of Occurrence 

Target Date Comments 

Water Quality 

Water Clarity 3 Spring 5 

Occur during high water evsmall watersheds entering emphasized as critical to iriver. MA - Restoring depth 

Geomorphology 

Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 4 All 7 2030

Specific locations might va

all seasons of year, but wiin BW is part of WQ impro

Backwater Areas 

Minimum of 1-2 meters All 2030 Some locations will need t

Backwater Areas 

Maintain secondary channUse regulatory structures tto dredging. 

Water Level June-September 1 

To maximize habitat: sedimclarity, increase aquatic vetypes. 

Connectivity Secondary Channel 

Maintain aquatic BackwateMain Channel. Restore forhave been lost since impoBW/SC entrances should sedimentation (fish hook d

Bank Stabilization 

Upstream islands in particto pre-9-ft project dimensio

would be locations to startprotection from wind fetch

due to erosion since impoupriority locations that are eto allow O&M remedy. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E1. Pool-wide Environmental Objectives (Pool 12 – Pool 15 Reach cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter 

TR/ Target Range Season 

Frequency of Occurrence 

Target Date Comments 

Pattern of Habitats 

Aquatic Areas 

Maintain all secondary and etc) that now exist in all po

2010 Identify priority secondary 

Maintain continuity pattern

Terrestrial Areas 5% All 

5% of all terrestrial floodpllakes, oxbows and similar 

Increase elevation by 2m on 10% of all terrestrial habitats All 2030

Increased topographic dive

habitats in all pools. Gene- Use material form channincrease elevation on terre

Maintain all islands shown 

Land Cover/Use 

Restore and maintain diveexist. 

80% 

Backwaters should have 8all under 3m depth (see po

Create moist soil units for river miles. 

10% Increase emergent plants 

Even-aged forests need to timber management. 

10% 

Work to achieve habitat reon floodplain (CRP, WRP)

Plants and Animals 

Extent 

Secondary and Tertiary Channels Secondary Channels Contiguous Backwaters 

Isolated Floodplain 

Islands and floodplain Islands Submergent Emergent Emergent Forest Shrub Agriculture 

Plants Other Eliminate reed canary grasFish Protected Fish Species 

Restore presence of lake s2 times per year. 

Protected Fish Species Restore crystal darter and 

Exotic Fish Species 0/hr catch All Asian Carp 

Other UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E1. Pool-wide Environmental Objectives (Pool 16 – Pool 19 Reach). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent TR/ Target Range Season 

Frequency of Occurrence 

Target Date Comments 

Water Quality Geomorphology 

Backwater Depth Backwater Area 10% >3m Winter 10 2020 depth >10 ft, proximity Water Level 0.3m above project Pool 

All 10 2005 Water level manageme

Connectivity Floodplain 2 All 10 2020

Goal is for levee district

Pattern of Habitats 

Land Cover/Use Submersed Aquatics 100% increase of 1989 All 8 2010 Reference is HNA 

Emergent Aquatics 100% increase of 1989 All 8 2010 Reference is HNA 

Plants and Animals Other UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E1. Pool-wide Environmental Objectives (Pool 20 – Pool 22 Reach). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent 

TR/ Target Range Season 

Frequency of Occurrence 

Target Date Comments 

Water Quality 

Other Maintain in compliance with appli

Geomorphology 

Connectivity Floodplain 20% 10 yr flood event 

20% of floodplain not isolated by event. 

Longitudinal Spawning Allow fish passing during key stag

Other Reduce erosion/habitat loss due t

Pattern of Habitats 

Terrestrial Areas Floodplain 

Restore and enhance large tracts neotropicals 

Floodplain Consolidate cover classes in corr

Floodplain 50-80% Restore tributary riparian corridor

Floodplain Restore 200' width riparian corrid

Land Cover/Use Grassland 2 2010 10% of isolated areas converted t

Forest 2 2050 1000 acre minimum, 25-30 miles Agriculture 2002 Maintain aerial % of Ag. Use. 

Plants and Animals Other UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E1. Pool-wide Environmental Objectives (Pool 12). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent 

TR/ Target Range Season 

Frequency of Occurrence 

Target Date Comments 

Water Quality Geomorphology Pattern of Habitats Plants and Animals 

Exotic Fish Species Entire 0/hr catch All Asian Carp 

Other Table E1. Pool-wide Environmental Objectives (Pool 16). Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent 

TR/ Target Range Season

Frequency of Occurrence 

Target Date Comments

Water Quality Geomorphology Pattern of Habitats 

Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 40% Summer 8 2025 Reference i

Contiguous Backwater 6% Summer 8 2025 Reference iIsolated Backwater 1% Summer 8 2025 Reference i

Terrestrial Areas Island 6000 acres Summer 8 2025 Reference i

Plants and Animals Other UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E1. Pool-wide Environmental Objectives (Pool 17). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent 

TR/ Target Range Season 

Frequency of Occurrence 

Target Date Comments 

Water Quality Geomorphology Pattern of Habitats 

Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 28% Summer 8 2025 Reference i

Contiguous Backwater 7% Summer 8 2025 Reference iIsolated Backwater 2% Summer 8 2025 Reference i

Plants and Animals Other Table E1. Pool-wide Environmental Objectives (Pool 18). Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent 

TR/ Target Range Season 

Frequency of Occurrence 

Target Date Comments 

Water Quality Geomorphology Pattern of Habitats 

Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 26% Summer 8 2025 Reference i

Contiguous Backwater 4% Summer 8 2025 Reference iIsolated Backwater 2% Summer 8 2025 Reference i

Plants and Animals Other UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E1. Pool-wide Environmental Objectives (Pool 19). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent 

TR/ Target Range Season 

Frequency of Occurrence 

Target Date Comments 

Water Quality Geomorphology Pattern of Habitats 

Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 13% Summer 8 2025 Reference i

Contiguous Backwater 10% Summer 8 2025 Reference iIsolated Backwater 1% Summer 8 2025 Reference i

Terrestrial Island 20% All 10 2025Land Cover/Use Other All 10 2050 Acquire pub

Plants and Animals Other UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E1. Reach-wide Environmental Objectives (Pool 20). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent 

TR/ Target Range Season 

Frequency of Occurrence 

Target Date Comments 

Water Quality Geomorphology 

Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 

Deepen and islands 

Pattern of Habitats Plants and Animals Other 

Other Islands 100% 

Need for grelands. 

Floodplain 50%

Restore and terrestrial flo

Table E1. Reach-wide Environmental Objectives (Pool 21). Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent 

TR/ Target Range Season 

Frequency of Occurrence 

Target Date Comments 

Water Quality Geomorphology 

Water Level Pool draw d

Pattern of Habitats Plants and Animals Other UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 12). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date CommWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring 

5 During 

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring 

5 During 

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring 

5 During 

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring 

5 During 

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring 

5 During 

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring 

5 During 

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring 

5 During 

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring 

5 During 

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring 

5 During 

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring 

5 During 

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring 

5 During 

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring 

5 During 

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring 

5 During 

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring 

5 During 

Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas

50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 2010

Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas

50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 2010

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 12 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date CommGeomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 2010Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 2010Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 2010Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 2010Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 2010Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 2007 See PGeomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 2010 See PGeomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 2010 See PGeomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 2007 See PGeomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 2007 See PGeomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 2 - 3 m Winter 

9 2014

Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 2 - 3 m Winter 

9 2014

Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 2 - 3 m Winter 10 2010Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 2 - 3 m Winter 10 2007 See PGeomorphology Water Level Main Channel 

Variabrestore 

Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain

100% inundation during 10 year flood 1 2007 See P

Geomorphology Connectivity Longitudinal

40% chance of fish passage 

Spr. + Fall 

7 2010 See W

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas 

Secondary Channel 

Hard pHREP 

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Tertiary Channel 2009

Clean m dee

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Impounded Area 2010 100% Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other 2007

Riffle/12 Ov

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas 

Contiguous Floodplain 

IncreaRaise winter

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 12 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date CommPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas 

Contiguous Floodplain 

IncreaRaise winter

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas 

Contiguous Floodplain 2007

IncreaRaise winter

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas 

Contiguous Floodplain 

IncreaRaise winter

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 2010 Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 2010 Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 2010 Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 

IncreaRaise 

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 

IncreaRaise 

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 2006

IncreaRaise 

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 2014

IncreaRaise 

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Delta, delta fup wa

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics 

Increaaquati

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics 

Increaaquati

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics 

Increaaquati

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 12 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date CommPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics 

Increaaquati

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics 

Increaaquati

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics 

Increaaquati

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics 

Increaaquati

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics 

Increaaquati

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics 

Increaaquati

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics 

Increaaquati

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics 

Increaaquati

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics 

Increaaquati

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics 

Increaaquati

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics 

Increaaquati

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest 

Land abluff foShoul

Plants and Animals Fish 

Protected Fish Species Resto

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 13). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date ComWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring

5

DuriJune 

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring

5

DuriJune 

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring

5

DuriJune 

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring

5

DuriJune 

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring

5

DuriJune 

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring

5

DuriJune 

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring 

5

DuriJune 

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring 

5

DuriJune 

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring 

5

DuriJune 

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring 

5

DuriJune 

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring 

5

DuriJune 

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring 

5

DuriJune 

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring

5

DuriJune 

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring 

5

DuriJune 

Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 2010Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 2010Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 2010Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 2010Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 2 - 3 m Winter 10 2010UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 13 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date ComGeomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 2010Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 2010Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 2010Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 2010Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 2010Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 2010Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 2010 HavGeomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 2010 MainGeomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 2010

Muswith 

Geomorphology Water Level Main Channel 

Variresto

Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain

100% inundation during 10 year flood Main

Geomorphology Connectivity Longitudinal

40% chance of fish passage 

Spr. + Fall 

7 2010 See 

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 2015 RedPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 2015 50% Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 2011 50% Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 2015 50% Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 2015 50% Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Tertiary Channel 2015 50% Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Impounded Area 2014 50% Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Impounded Area 2014 50% Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other 2015 RifflePattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas 

Contiguous Floodplain 2015

IncreRais

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas 

Contiguous Floodplain 2015

IncreRaisentra

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island CreaUMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 13 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date ComPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island CreaPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 2015 RaisPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 2015 RaisPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 2015 RaisPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 2015 RaisPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 2014 IslanPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 2014 IslanPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 2014 IslanPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 2015 IslanPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 2015

Islanwav

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 2015

Islanwav

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Deltdelta 

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Deltdelta 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics MoisPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Incresubm

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Incresubm

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Incresubm

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Incresubm

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Incresubm

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Incresubm

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Incresubm

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 13 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date ComPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Incresubm

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Incresubm

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Incresubm

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Incresubm

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Incresubm

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Incresubm

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

IncresubmCree

Plants and Animals Fish 

Protected Fish Species 

Rest15 

Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 14). Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring 

5

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring 

5

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring

5

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring 

5

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring 

5

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 14 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring

5

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring 

5

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring 

5

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring

5

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas

Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m Spring 

5

Water Quality Other Water Quality Other Water Quality Other Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 2010Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 2010Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 2020Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 2020Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 2010Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 2010Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 2010Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 2010Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 2020Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 2020Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 2020Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 2010UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 14 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date Geomorphology Water Level Main Channel Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain Geomorphology Connectivity Longitudinal

80% chance of fish passage Spr. + Fall

7 2010

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 2020Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 2020Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas 

Secondary Channel 2020

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas 

Secondary Channel 2020

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Impounded Area 2005Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas 

Contiguous Floodplain 2020

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 2020Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 2020Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 2020Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 2020Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 14 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics 2010

Plants and Animals Fish 

Protected Fish Species 

Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 15).Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date Water Quality Other Water Quality Other Water Quality Other UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 15 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date Geomorphology Water Level Main Channel Geomorphology Connectivity

Secondary Channel 60-80% of year Winter 10 2005

Geomorphology Connectivity Longitudinal

80% chance of fish passage Spring 10 2005

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas 

Secondary Channel 2005

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas 

Secondary Channel 2005

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 2005 Plants and Animals Fish 

Protected Fish Species 

Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 16). Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date CommWater Quality Water Clarity Main Channel 

Resusfleetinrequir

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater AreasWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater AreasWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater AreasWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater AreasWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater AreasWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater AreasWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater AreasGeomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m All Year 

8 2020 Patter

Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Other Winter 10 2020

10% oare de

Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Other Winter 10 2020

10% oare de

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 16 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date CommGeomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Other Winter 10 2020

10% oare de

Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Other Winter 10 2020

10% oare de

Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Other Winter 10 2020

10% oare de

Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Other Winter 10 2020

10% oare de

Geomorphology Water Level Main Channel 

Variabrestor

Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain 2020 ConneGeomorphology Connectivity Longitudinal 

80% chance of fish passage Winter 10 2005

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 

Fleetihabita

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas 

Secondary Channel Other 2025

40% osecon

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas 

Secondary Channel Other 2025

40% osecon

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas 

Secondary Channel Other 2025

40% osecon

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Tertiary Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Tertiary Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Impounded Area Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other Riffle/Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other Riffle/Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other Riffle/Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other Riffle/Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Delta, delta f

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 16 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date CommentPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Delta, redformation 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics Other 2010

Increased aquatics, Iidentified i

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics Other 2010

Increased aquatics, Iidentified i

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics Other 2010

Increased aquatics, Iidentified i

Land Cover/Use Other 

Increased aquatics, Iidentified i

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics Other 2010

Increased aquatics, Iidentified i

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics Other 2010

Increased aquatics, Iidentified i

Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics Other 2010

Increased aquatics, Iidentified i

Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics Other 2010

Increased aquatics, Iidentified i

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest 

Loss of ripshoreline 

Other Other 

Examine wside chann

Pattern of Habitats 

Emergent Aquatics 2010

Pattern of Habitats Pattern of Habitats UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 17). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date Comments Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater AreasWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater AreasWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater AreasWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater AreasWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater AreasWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater AreasWater Quality Other 

Water qualitindustrial sit

Water Quality Other 

Water qualitmonitoring f

Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Other Winter 10 2020

10% of backdeeper than 

Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Other Winter 10 2020

10% of backdeeper than 

Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Other Winter 10 2020

10% of backdeeper than 

Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Other Winter 10 2020

10% of backdeeper than 

Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Other Winter 10 2020

10% of backdeeper than 

Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Other Winter 10 2020

10% of backdeeper than 

Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Other Winter 10 2020

10% of backdeeper than 

Geomorphology Water Level Main Channel 

Variable dravegetation 

Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain 2020

Restore concomplex 

Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain 2020

Restore conand ditches habitat 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 17 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date Comments Geomorphology

Connectivity water qualit

Secondary Channel 

Restore flow

Geomorphology Connectivity Longitudinal Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas 

Secondary Channel Other 2025

28% of Poochannel hab

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas 

Secondary Channel Other 2025

28% of Poochannel hab

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas 

Secondary Channel Other 2025

28% of Poochannel hab

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other Riffle/Pool aPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other Riffle/Pool aPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other Maintain anPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other Restore tribPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics Other 2010

Increased eaquatics, Inin HNA, Poo

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics Other 2010

Increased eaquatics, Inin HNA, Poo

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics Other 2010

Increased eaquatics, Inin HNA, Poo

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics Other 2010

Increased eaquatics, Inin HNA, Poo

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics Other 2010

Increased eaquatics, Inin HNA, Poo

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 17 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date Comments Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics Other 2010

Increased eaquatics, Inin HNA, Poo

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics Other 2010

Increased eaquatics, Inin HNA, Poo

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics Other 2010

Increased eaquatics, Inin HNA, Poo

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Protect, resPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Agriculture Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Agriculture Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 18). Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date CommWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater AreasWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater AreasWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater AreasWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater AreasWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater AreasWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater AreasWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater AreasWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater AreasGeomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 2020Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 2020UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 18 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date CommGeomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 1 - 2 m Winter 10 2020Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Other Winter 10 2020

10% of are dee

Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Other Winter 10 2020

10% of are dee

Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Other Winter 10 2020

10% of are dee

Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Other Winter 10 2020

10% of are deeHuron 

Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Other Winter 10 2020

10% of are deeLake O

Geomorphology Water Level Main Channel 

Variablrestore 

Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain 2020 Isolate Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain 2020 See LaGeomorphology Connectivity Floodplain All Year 10 2005

Restore depth 

Geomorphology Connectivity

Secondary Channel All Year 10 2005

Restore mainta

Geomorphology Connectivity Longitudinal Geomorphology Connectivity Other All Year 10 2005 Restore Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas 

Secondary Channel Other 2025

26% of channe

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas 

Secondary Channel Other 2025

26% of channe

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas 

Secondary Channel Other 2025

26% of channe

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas 

Secondary Channel Other 2025

26% of channe

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 18 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date CommPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas 

Secondary Channel Other 2025

26% of channe

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other Riffle/PPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other Riffle/PPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other Restore Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island See LaPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IncreasPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 

IncreasHuron 

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 

IncreasHuron 

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Delta, rformati

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Delta, rformati

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics Other 2010

Increasaquaticidentifie

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics Other 2010

Increasaquaticidentifie

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics Other 2010

Increasaquaticidentifie

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics Other 2010

Increasaquaticidentifie

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 18 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date CommPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics Other 2010

Increasaquaticidentifie

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics Other 2010

Increasaquaticidentifie

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics Other 2010

Increasaquaticidentifie

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics Other 2010

Increasaquaticidentifie

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland 10-20% of area 

Restore Banks 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest See HuPlants and Animals Fish Other 

Create See La

Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool19). Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date CommWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater AreasWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater AreasWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater AreasWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater AreasWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater AreasWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater AreasWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater AreasWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas RM 395Water Quality Other Water qGeomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 2 - 3 m All Year 10 2015 RM 395Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Other Winter 10 2020

10% of are dee

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool19 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date CommGeomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Other Winter 10 2020

10% of are dee

Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Other Winter 10 2020

10% of are dee

Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Other Winter 10 2020

10% of are dee

Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Other Winter 10 2020

10% of are dee

Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Other Winter 10 2020

10% of are dee

Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Other Winter 10 2020

10% of are dee

Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Other Winter 10 2020

10% of are dee

Geomorphology Water Level Main Channel 

Variablrestore 

Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain 2020 Levee Geomorphology Connectivity Longitudinal Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas 

Secondary Channel Other 2025

13% of channe

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas 

Secondary Channel Other 2025

13% of channe

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Impounded Area Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Impounded Area Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other Riffle/PPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 2015

50 acreRM 374

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool19 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date CommPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Delta, rformati

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Delta, rformati

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Delta, rformati

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Delta, rformati

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Delta, rformati

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Delta, rformati

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Delta, rformati

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics Other 2010

Increasaquaticidentifie

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics Other 2010

Increasaquaticidentifie

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics Other 2010

Increasaquaticidentifie

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics Other 2010

Increasaquaticidentifie

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics Other 2010

Increasaquaticidentifie

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool19 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date CommPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics Other 2010

Increasaquaticidentifie

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics Other 2010

Increasaquaticidentifie

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics Other 2010

Increasaquaticidentifie

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics Other 2010

Increasaquaticidentifie

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics Other 2015

Increasaquaticpool lev19 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest 2015

Agricul

396-40

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other Restore Other Other Target Other Other 

Target Acquisbottomneotrop

Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 20). Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date CommeWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 20 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date CommeWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Water Quality Water Clarity Other 

Restore Moines sedimenRiver 

Water Quality Other StormwaGeomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Other ReconneGeomorphology Backwater Depth Other 

Restore seconda

Geomorphology Water Level Main Channel 

Variable restore v

Geomorphology Water Level Backwater Areas Geomorphology Connectivity Longitudinal Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 20 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date CommePattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

Maintain seconda

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Impounded Area Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Island PPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Island PPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Submersed AquaticsPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Submersed Aquatics

Restore vegetati

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increaseaquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increaseaquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increaseaquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increaseaquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increaseaquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increaseaquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Other 2010

10-20% grasslan

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Other 2050

10-20% forest ha

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 20 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date CommePattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Other 2050

10-20% forest ha

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Other 2050

10-20% forest ha

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Other 2050

10-20% forest ha

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Other 2050

10-20% forest ha

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Other 2050

10-20% forest ha

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Other 2050

10-20% forest ha

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other Restore Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other 

Restore Maintain 

Plants and Animals Other Historic Other Other Public AOther Other Public AOther Other Target LOther Other Target LOther Other Target LOther Other Target LOther Other Target LOther Other Target LOther Other Target LOther Other Target LOther Other Target LOther Other Target LOther Other Target LOther Other Target LOther Other Target LUMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 20 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date CommeOther Other 

Target Lhabitat r

Other Other Remove Other Other ImplemeTable E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 21). Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date Comments Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater AreasWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater AreasWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater AreasWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater AreasWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater AreasWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater AreasWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater AreasWater Quality Water Clarity Other 

Reduce sedinto Canton 

Water Quality Water Clarity Other 

Reduce sedwatershed 

Water Quality Other Reduce sedWater Quality Other Reduce urbGeomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater AreasGeomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater AreasGeomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater AreasGeomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater AreasGeomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas See GardneGeomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas See GardneGeomorphology Water Level Main Channel 

Variable dravegetation 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 21 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date Comments 

Connectivity Floodplain 

Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain 

Connectivity Floodplain 

Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain 

Land acquisRM 342-336

Geomorphology Connectivity Longitudinal Geomorphology Connectivity Other Close off Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Hard points

Secondary Channel 

Aquatic Areas 

Secondar

See Gardne

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas 

Secondary Channel See Gardne

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Island ProtePattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Island ProtePattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Island ProtePattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Create islanPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Delta, reducformation 

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Delta, reducformation 

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Delta, reducformation 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics Wetland res

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics 

Increased eaquatics 

Geomorphology Geomorphology Pattern of Habitats 

y 

Channel 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 21 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date Comments Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics 

Increased eaquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics 

Increased eaquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics 

Increased eaquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics 

Increased eaquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics 

Increased eaquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use 

Emergent Aquatics 

Increased eaquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Other 2050

10-20% of thabitat, PooHREP 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Other 2050

10-20% of thabitat, PooHREP 

Pattern of Habitats Other Investigate Plants and Animals Other Restore HisPlants and Animals Other Restore HisPlants and Animals Other Restore HisPlants and Animals Other Restore HisPlants and Animals Other Restore HisPlants and Animals Other Restore HisOther Other Target Land Other Other Target Land Other Other Target Land Other Other Target Land Other Other Implement CUMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 22). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date CoWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Water Quality Other 

Mtri

Water Quality Other 

Mtri

Water Quality Other 

Repo

Water Quality Other 

Reid

Water Quality Other 

Reid

Water Quality Other 

Resour

Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 22 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date ComGeomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 2 - 3 mGeomorphology Water Level Main Channel 

Varirest

Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain RecGeomorphology Connectivity Secondary ChannelGeomorphology Connectivity Secondary ChannelGeomorphology Connectivity Secondary ChannelGeomorphology Connectivity Secondary ChannelGeomorphology Connectivity Secondary ChannelGeomorphology Connectivity Longitudinal Geomorphology Connectivity Other ResPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary ChannelPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary ChannelPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary ChannelPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary ChannelPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary ChannelPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary ChannelPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary ChannelPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel PlacUMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 22 cont.).

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date CoPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel SePattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas 

Contiguous Backwater

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas 

Contiguous Backwater

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas 

Contiguous Backwater

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Isolated Backwater Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IsPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IsPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IsPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island IsPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 

Ism

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Dede

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Dede

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Insu

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Insu

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Insu

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Insu

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Insu

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Insu

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Insu

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 22 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date CoPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Insu

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Insu

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Insu

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Insu

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Grassland Other 2010

10up 20

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Other 2050

10up 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Other 2050

10up 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Other 2050

10up 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Other 2050

10up 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Other 2050

10up 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Other 2050

10up 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Other 2050

10up 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Other 2050

10up 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Other 2050

10up 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 22 cont.). 

Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date Comments Land Cover/Use Forest Other 2050

10-20% of the pool area up of forest habitat, PooLevee setback, widen ripcorridor 

Land Cover/Use Other Restore natural habitat Other Target Land for AcquisitOther Target Land for AcquisitOther Target Land for AcquisitOther Target Land for AcquisitOther Target Land for AcquisitOther Target Land for AcquisitOther Target Land for AcquisitOther Target Land for AcquisitOther Target Land for AcquisitOther Target Land for AcquisitUMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Plenary Report 

 

The plenary comments are taken directly from the plenary report and only include 

discussion specifically related to environmental objectives. The entire plenary report can 

be found in Appendix C. 

Nov 20th, Objectives Plenary Session:

The plenary began by asking each group to give a brief overview of what they did, as 

well as listing their reach and pool-wide objectives. 

Group 1 Summary (Pools 12-15)

Spent most of our time going over goals for most pools. 

Overall 

Most backwaters should be 50% 1-3 m deep. 

Most should have 10% emergents around them. >3ft at low pool should have 80% submergents. 

Dredging in backwater should be used to create topographic diversity

Group 2 Summary (Pools 20-22) 

Identified pool and reach specific goals first. 

Relied heavily on already prepared pool plans. 

Didn’t repeat things, but added site specific objectives 

Pool Objectives 

Restore 20% of floodplain that is not isolated to be flooded during a 10-year event. 

Reduce erosion and habitat loss due to barge fleeting. 

Examine opportunities for fish passage at all 3 dams, but on a case-by-case basis. 

Group 3 Summary (Pools 16-19) 

Talked about general objectives that would fit all pools. 

Then we went through each pool and figured that the HNA and Pool Plans covered things 

well. 

Site Specific Objective Setting for Moline (3:30)

Once each group gave their report we then started at Pool 12 and moved down river, 

allowing all participants to provide input. 

Pool 12 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-49
Reach Wide Objectives Pools 12 -15 

Pool doesn’t have much lateral connectivity issues because located between the two 

bluffs. 

Water Quality 

Secchi 1 m depth during high water events for 5 out of 10 years. If we can keep it to 1 

meter during the floods then it will be good during the rest of the time. 

Barr – Did you tie the need for water clarity to the growing season? 

– No we did not. We accounted for the difficulty of attaining the goal by giving it a 

50/50 implementation target range. 

Back Water 

1-2 meters minimum, especially during the winter. Achieved by 2030 

Increase topographic diversity on all terrestrial islands and shoreline habitats by 

increasing height. 

Increase height by 2 meters on 10% of all islands. 

Survey to identify priority areas for erosion. Upstream areas in particular need attention 

and need to be restored to pre-dam condition. 

Use pre-existing islands/bankline as a base to rebuild them. 

Restore islands in all pools to provide protection from wind fetch. 

Every pool, drawn down 1 out of every 10 years (on a rotational basis). 

– How did you come up with 1 out of 10 years? 

– Just the seat of our pants. 

– How much of a drawdown? 

– It would be different by every pool. 

– What is the duration of a drawdown? 

– From the hydrograph we can’t start before June, so June to September. 

– But you don’t need 90 days? 

– Minimum is 30 days, 60 are good, but 90 is best. 

Barr – Told the economic modelers to model a 60-day shut down. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-50
– If you plan one for 2006 and you cut out navigation you might get 50/50 but if you 

don’t then you only have a 20% 

– If you alternate pools then you would be shutting the system every year. So you might 

as well do them all at the same time. 

Barr – We were talking about shutting them down all at once. A planned shut down is 

different than an emergency one; there would be less impact. 

Maintain what we’ve got. 

Achieve some general criteria for designs for entrances of backwaters and minimize 

sedimentation into those connections. 

Restore former connections from Main Channel to backwaters 

Maintain existing depths of secondary channels, where possible, use regulatory structures 

to maintain them as opposed to dredging them. 

– Introduce a design change to secondary channel that is a fishhook design that will allow 

large debris to pass by, but keep water flowing in. 

– We discussed that maintenance will have to be done on this system. 

Habitat Patterns – 

Maintain all secondary and tertiary patterns that exist. 

Maintain patterns of contiguous backwaters as they existed (1989 is a good baseline for 

this). 

Maintain all islands and restore island shown on 1989 photography. 

Terrestrial Habitat should contain ox bow, potholes... from Pool Plans. 

Eliminate Reed Canary Grass where possible. 

Need a forest management program to restore age-gradation. 

Land Cover 

Drawdown is the most important tool to use. 

Moist soil – 1 every 25 RM for birds. 

– Menominee Slough is good habitat for neo-tropical birds. Manage floodplain forest. 

Restore lake sturgeon in all pools – Monitoring goal: collect 2 sturgeons each year for 

monitoring. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-51
Group 1 did not have any specific objectives for Pool 12. 

Pool 13 

Pool 14 

– Beaver’s slough is part the 9-foot channel project. We have to maintain 9-feet through 

that entire pool. 

– Hannover Ridge carries migration traffic. 

Pool 15 

– Isn’t the entire pool on the list for DO objectives? 

Group 3 Overall Objectives 

In their notes. 

Integrated Complex idea (written in notes)

Theiling – This is very similar to what was done in the Peoria workshop. 

– We are a little more aggressive because we want forest and prairie as well. 

– Wherever there is a leveed area you can put a mark for connectivity. Set back the flank 

levees on the tributaries to allow for natural meanders. 

Pool 16 

-At RM 481 – Look at structure of wing dams. They may be causing sedimentation into 

side channel. 

Some discussion that causeway was major issue, wing dams have not been changed since 

1903 

Pool 17 

Fourth Slough – There is an issue of water quality during the summer and winter. 

Discussion about protecting agriculture – 

– Just because we list connectivity it doesn’t mean we are going to connect 100%. That 

will have to be looked into during other phases of the study. Let’s not put an icon on for 

every area. 

Down stream of Muscatine – the whole reach is scheduled for a TMDL assessment , 

locally for industrial pollution and urban runoff. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-52
Pool 18 

Identified new area at RM 433 Boston Bay, Geomorphology, connectivity, backwater 

access to backwater is filling in, needs to be restored. 

RM 432 - 415 is the Yellow Banks Sand Prairie area on the Illinois Side Habitat, 

landcover, grassland....Restore Sand Prairie 

– Are there targets for water quality and clarity issue for the entire pools? 

Pool wide water clarity targets – 1m clarity during the summer MC. Concern for aquatic 

vegetation. 

November 21st Continuation of Objectives: (8:10-9:30)

Pool 19 

Percentages of each pool-wide objective are the total percentage of plan form area. (It is 

not an increase) 

Pool 19 has the least amount of public land so there is a need to buy more public land. 

Generalized goal to acquire land where possible. 

– Try not to acquire tilled farm land where possible. Try to prioritize to least productive 

farmland first. Willing land owners are OK, but again try not to acquire really productive 

land, even if from willing land owners. 

–Acquire lands that influences flooding such as FEMA priority buyouts. Reduce pinch 

points in the floodway. 

Group 2 

Reach-wide Objectives Pools 20-22 

Restore and enhance large tracts of bottomland hardwood forests for neo-tropical birds. 

(1000 acre min 25-30 miles apart) 

Same for grassland. 

Meet TMDL’s for all major tributaries (those that have designated TMDL’s). 

Agricultural - maintain aerial percentage of use. 

Make sure you link both Odessa and Louisa Creek EMP fact sheet to these. 

The following should be included: 

Pool 20 –Pool-wide 

Islands – land interest/acquisition of all islands. Acquire 100% fee title or interest of 

islands. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-53
Restore and protect aquatic vegetation – 50% of the pool area. 

Pool 20 Specific Objectives 

RM 356 – Gray chute – The Corps has placed rock at the bottom of the island to keep it 

as one island. 

Mississippi – Fox levee district – This has a 5-year levee. Investigate land acquisition for 

habitat restoration. 

Lima Levee setbacks around blew holes (eyebrow crescent setbacks) 

Pool 21 –Pool-wide 

Water level management to look at potential draw down 

Pool 21 Specific Objectives 

RM 341 – Set back levees on Bear Creek. 

– Please note the reach-wide objectives to restore connectivity to every levee setback 

levees to all tributaries. 

Pool 22 – Pool-wide 

Pool 22 Specific Objectives 

Restore Rock/Ursa Creeks to natural meanders. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-54
GROUP 1 

Working Group Reports 

The working group reports were prepared by the recorder in each group as a record of the 

discussion. They contain a subset of the pool-wide and site-specific objective 

information generated by the groups. The group reports are not inclusive of all the 

objective descriptions because much of the groups’ data generation was also recorded on 

master worksheets and maps. 

Participants List: Ed Anderson, Ralph Eads, Kenny Brenner, Joe Lundh, Mike Griffin, 

Cynthia Drew, Jon Duyvejonck

UMR Pools 12 - 15 

Pool-wide objectives 12-15

Many of these objectives are described in draft pool plan documents and should be 

incorporated into the pool-wide objectives.

Water Quality – Secchi disk of 1 meter in 5 of 10 years (for all pools 12 – 15) during 

spring (April-June) high water event. This should include work on small watersheds 

entering pools (e.g. catfish creek, Galena River, Menominee R.) Tributary restoration is 

emphasized as critical to improving WQ on floodplain mainstem river. Restoring depth in 

BWs is part of WQ improvement. Without depth WQ improvement will be limited. 

Mike G. expressed concern about identifying specific objectives for some species in that 

it might 

Backwater objectives should be TR 4 for all pools in general. Specific locations might 

vary due to local circumstances. Critical all seasons of year, but winter is most important. 

Try for 7 of 10 years to meet this TR. 

All BWs should be 1-2 m minimum, especially during winter. Try to achieve all BW

depth objectives by 2030. Some locations will need to be deeper.

Increased topographic diversity is needed on Island/terrestrial habitats in all pools. Generally this is an 

increase in elevation. Pool-wide objective is to increase elevation by 2 meters on 10% of all terrestrial 

habitats (pools 12-15) by year 2030. 

Geomorphology 

Bank stabilization – conduct survey to ID priority locations that are eroding. Lots of discussion about 

implementation. Authority revision needed to allow navigation O&M to remedy. Upstream islands in 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-55
particular need to be protected and restored to pre-9 ft project dimensions (location of 6 ft. channel 

structure would be locations to start. Restore islands that provide protection from wind fetch. Many of 

these islands have been lost due to erosion since impoundment. 

Objective – Use material from channel dredging and backwater dredging to increase 

elevation on terrestrial habitats. This will provide increased habitat diversity for both 

terrestrial and aquatic species. 

Water level regulation – Draw pools down 1 of every 10 years to maximize habitat 

(sediment consolidation, increased water clarity, increase aquatic vegetation,) Optimum 

window for this is June to September. 

Connectivity – Maintain aquatic BW areas that area already connected to MC. Designs 

for all BW/SC entrances should be made to decrease obstructions and sedimentation (fish 

hook design). Review existing rock structures to determine which ones can be modified 

to channel more water from MC into BWs. Restore former connections from MC to BW 

habitats that have been lost since impoundment. 

Secondary channels – Maintain secondary channels to maintain existing depths. Use 

regulatory structures to maintain where possible as opposed to dredging. 

Longitudinal connectivity – 

Latitudinal connectivity – 

Habitat Patterns 

Maintain all secondary and tertiary channel patterns (depths, area, etc) that now exist in 

all pools. Identify priority SCs by year 2010. 

Contiguous BWs – maintain continuity patterns as they existed in 1989. See connectivity 

under Geomorphology) 

Islands – Maintain all islands shown on 1989 photography. 

Isolated floodplain habitat (lakes, pot holes) These have filled very quickly. 5% of all 

terrestrial floodplain habitats should consist of potholes, lakes, ox bows, and similar 

habitat types. 

Terrestrial land cover – Restore and maintain diversity of vegetation cover types that now 

exist. Restore land cover diversity has been lost. Reed canary grass is invading open 

areas and preventing reestablishment of some vegetation types. Eliminate reed canary 

grass wherever possible. Even-aged forests need to have a age gradation restored through 

timber management. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-56
Diversity of land cover uses – Optimize use of water pool drawdowns to optimize the 

variety of land cover types. Achieve 10% of land cover in shrubs (see draft pool plan for 

more specifics.) 

Agriculture – work to achieve habitat restoration through agricultural programs on 

floodplain (CRP, WRP, ) 

Developed – 

Moist soil units – create MSUs for migratory birds on average of every 25 river miles 

Plants & Animals – increase emergent plants to 10% presence in every back water. All 

BWs should have 80% coverage of submergent plants in all under 3m depth (see draft 

pool plans for more specifics) 

Fish – restore presence of lake sturgeon in all pools. As monitoring objective, it should 

be collected at least 2x per year. Crystal darter and sand darter populations should be 

restored. For sport and commercial fish goals see pool plans. Achieve 0 catch of Asian 

carp spp. In monitoring efforts. 

Birds - see pool plans for specifics. Songbirds ....... 

Specific G&Os for Pools 12 - 15

Pool 12 

Icon 1 – Reference Wilcox for this 

Icon 2 – same as No 1. 

Icon 3 – same as pool wide objective 

Icon 4 – same as pool 

Icon 5 – same as pool 

Icon 6 – 

Icon 9 – Catfish Cr. Improve watershed quality 

Icon 10 – Frentiss L. 

Icon 14 – good candidate for restoration/deepening 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-57
Icon 19 – change objective to increase connectivity 

Icon 20 – 25 for each location where topographic increase is recommended, there should 

also be an elevation increase associated with BW deepening 

Icon 26 – 

Icon 34 – stabilize bankline, but do not encroach into water where there is a stump field 

which is good centrarchid habitat. 

Icon 37 and 39 – include comment for 34 above. 

Pool 13 G&Os

Icon 44 – island erosion a problem. 

Icon 46 – major island loss occurring here 

Icon 48 – important walleye spawning area 

Icon 52 – 6 ft. channel wing dam is helping habitat here 

Icon – 54- Good example of SC mouth configuration. Very important to maintain 

because of large BW area it serves 

Browns Lake – It would benefit from increase foot print of dredged channel 

Icon 64 – needs increase connectivity between SC and main channel 

Icon 77 – Include with rip-rap protection and raise in elevation 

Icon 78 – Manage sediment from Elk river so it does not enter Gomer’s Lake 

Icon 79 – Place rock 

Icon 81 – Create new islands 

Icon 82 – Maintain existing Potter’s marsh 

Icon 83 – Create new islands 

Pool 14 G&Os

Icon 90 – Maintain existing channels 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-58
Icon 96 – Restoration challenge because of heavy industrial effluent in Beaver Slough 

Icon 110 - location of 6 ft. channel project structure 

Icon 112 – maintain connectivity 

Icon 115 – Princeton WMA 

Icon 117 – Dredging appears to be only solution 

Pool 15 G&O

Icon 120 – Dynamite island maintain add 2 ft of sand to elevation 

Icon 124 – maintain secondary channel 

Add: WQ improvement action and monitoring to Alcoa location 

 

GROUP 2

Participants List: Al Fenedick, Ken Brummett, Charlene Carmack, Bob Clevenstine, 

Dru Buntin, Kevin Landwehr, Kathryn Gray, and Mark Heinicke. Joined in afternoon by 

Mark Beorkrem. 

UMR Pools 20-22 

Discussion: 

 Began in Pool 22. However, Pool-wide objectives apply to all three pools. 

Existing Database is missing behind levee objectives. 

Objective to create/re-establish large blocks of bottomland forest. Currently none 

present from Delaire Division to Bay Island. Ag interests will want to protect number of 

acres in production. Potentially seek marginal blocks of Ag land for restoration. The 

current stands are fragmented, desirable to consolidate these areas. This ties to 

Opportunity 3 in the Pool Plan. Would need to have incentives to encourage 

participation by local landowners. What is the desired block size? Thousand acre blocks 

is initial estimate. Need to consider distance between stands and potential for developing 

corridors. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-59
Is there the potential to provide passage past Bay Island pump station (without 

affecting level of protection) to provide connectivity to interior aquatic areas? Perception 

is that there is very little depth available in these areas. Not discussed further. 

Desire to provide large blocks of grassed areas within levee districts. Potentially 

through a Conservation Reserve type program. Goal of 10% of isolated area converted to 

grasslands. 

Refuge manager would like to see 20% of floodplain inundated during the 10-year 

flood. Relates to Opportunity 6 in Pool Plan. Group clarified goal as 20% of the isolated 

areas. 

Objective for 50-80% of tributary riparian corridors restored between delta and 

bluff. Use Conservation Reserve type programs to obtain. May require flank levees to 

be set back. Potentially provide minimum of 200’ wide corridor for remnant and 

permanent diversion channels. 

Location of Bay Island land acquisition icon is in wrong locations. 

Should expand definition of “land acquisition” to include methods other than fee 

title (easements, conservation reserve programs, etc.). 

Need to expand water quality objectives beyond water clarity. Potentially focus 

on industrial, municipal, and pump station discharges for actions. Need to verify that 

these point sources are the problem. What is objective? Ensure they are in compliance? 

Reduce loading? Feeling is both. Should tributaries be included in terms of TMDL 

standards? Yes, including flows captured by levee districts. 

Need icons defined for DO and Nutrient Loading. 

Desire to restore historical alignment to tributary deltas. Implementation would 

require land acquisition and modification to existing levees. 

Water quality problems in isolated backwaters. 

Pool 21. 

Pool-wide objectives for Pool 22 are applicable to Pool 21. 

Sedimentation problem in Quincy Bay. Perception is that existing cut-through is 

major source of sediments. Dredging of deep channels and reduction in sediment loading 

would provide water quality and habitat benefits, as well as recreational opportunities. 

Problem has been evaluated previously under EMP. Successful restoration of Quincy 

Bay may require setback of the Indian Grave levee to reconnect upstream end of 

backwater complex and Bear Creek outlet to UMR. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-60
Potential to reconnect portion of floodplain in Union Township DD (between RM 

335 to 332). Portion of area behind levee is state park located in old gravel quarry. 

Suggestion to coordinate with Tri-State Port authority to avoid sensitive areas. 

Miscellaneous objectives: Reduce sediment input from Wyaconda River 

Watershed; Management of City of Quincy storm water runoff; Desire to improve aquatic 

plant production in Goose Lake within Indian Grave DD; Opportunity acquisition of 

lands along the unprotected Missouri bank between the Wyaconda confluence and 

Canton, MO; land/interest acquisition on privately owned islands. 

Need to stabilize island erosion (e.g., Long Island). Need icon for bank 

stabilization. 

Pool 20. 

Pool-wide objectives for Pool 22 are applicable to Pool 20. 

Need for greater amount of public lands. Desire Acquisition of islands (goal of 

100%) and other floodplain lands (goal of 50% of floodplain). 

Would like to acquire 25% of Hunt-Lima Lake isolated areas. Desire to be able to 

periodically isolate for aquatic vegetation management. This area was an important 

aquatic vegetation area prior to formation of the drainage district. 

General need for off-channel fish refuge. Setback of the Hunt-Lima levee would 

also support this need. Scour holes from historical levee failures on landward side of 

levee may have suitable depths. Also deepen and connect sloughs on islands in 

conjunction with land acquisition above. 

Mississippi and Fox Drainage District incurs frequent flood damages. 

Recollection of group member is that the levee doesn’t afford a major level of protection. 

This is a potential candidate for buy-out and reconnection to floodplain. 

Concern for water quality impacts of Keokuk municipal discharges (both treated 

and storm water). 

Concern for sediment loading from Des Moines River. Need for NRCS type 

measures below Red Rock where farmers are typically farming right up to bank line with 

no buffer strips. 

System Wide. 

Fish passage at all dams. What is desirability considering potential to facilitate 

movement by invasives? Perception is that the invasives have already made it passed 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-61
dams, so fish passage should be pursued. Goal is to allow passage for the 27 migratory 

species during key life cycle and migratory periods. 

Reduce habitat loss in barge fleeting areas. 

GROUP 3

Participants: Mike Cox Recorder, Tom Cox, Rick Nelson Facilitator, Steve Felt, Bill 

Bertrand, Jon Stravers, Anne Mankowski, Mindy Larsen, Bernie Schonoff, Allen Haas, 

Kim Bogenschutz Reporter, Gary Swenson 

UMR Pools 16 - 19 

Pool wide objectives, Pool 16 

Bill started our by reviewing the HNA processes, showing the geomorphic 

conditions. This is existing information that should be incorporated into this effort: 

Patterns of habitats, add secondary channels to equal 40% of open areas during the 

summer, frequency of 8 out of 10 years target date of 2025. 

Contiguous backwaters and separate backwaters, contig = 6% - isolated = 1%, with same 

info as above. 

Patterns of habitats, islands to a total of 6,000 acres, with same info as above 

Start looking into Pool plans to see what was pool wide plans were included there: 

 Bank stabilized 

 WLM 

 Mussel habitat management 

 Data collection and monitoring 

Discussion of plans and any gaps? None noted, except that it is fairly generic in 

scope. What about adding a note to consider feasibility of increasing connectivity in the 

floodplain through extending into levee areas. Discussion of how to determine target 

ranges instead of using what was figured in the HNA...decided on 20% of leveed area. 

 

* Discussions of needing a program similar to IL2020 along the UMR. We need 1000 

acres blocks each of contiguous forest, grassland, and wetland complexes every about 30 

miles for area-sensitive bird conservation. (To provide nesting habitat adequate for 

migratory area-sensitive birds - reduce non-natural fragmentation and promote native 

vegetation species to attain composition and structure that is suitable for area-sensitive 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-62
birds. Habitat complexes need to have a core area of about 1000 acres that approximates 

a square or round shape - additional habitat can build on core.) 

NOTE: The above wording was modified 11/21/02

 We also need 1000 block of marsh for migratory waterfowls every 40 miles 

(similar to what the Illinois workshop discussed). 

 We also need so many acres of over wintering habitat every 10 miles. 

Discussion of how to place this information into the ecosystem elements (e.g., 

patterns of habitat, but is the forest contiguous floodplain or land cover land use? Also 

discussed what is reasonable and reachable. Yes, we could incorporated existing stuff as 

well as accruing new stuff. 

 

So, we have agreed to incorporate a minimum of 3-1,000 acre blocks in include one for 

forest one for grassland and one for marsh area, to cover the 3 types of area-sensitive 

migrants (forest, grass, wetland, and waterfowl). 

Pool wide objective for aquatic veg. HNA says that there are 6 different types of veg 

categories in the list for Pool 16, totaling 2,300 acres of aquatic veg. The goal would be 

to identify this under Patterns of Habitat, but what is the percentage of area (what area, is 

it the entire pool? or the aquatic area, or what? Rebecca said that we could make the 

target range anything that we wanted to. So we agreed to increase the acreage by 100%, 

with all seasons (because of submergent perennials). This could be done by 2010, 

because of no acquisition required. 

Include over wintering habitat, as a new extent under backwater depth under backwater 

areas, with a target range of 10% >3m. 

Water quality is a reach wide issue (some areas of UMR have been named on the 303d 

list (impaired water list, that EPA says must be cleaned up. And, if the areas are not 

impaired they must be monitored and maintained. 

 

 Birds were discussed, but only dabbling and diving ducks were include 

(neotropical migrants e.g., were not mentioned were not mentioned in the extents.). We 

discussed riparian corridors as well as the blocks of 1,000 acre tracts. Look at the Milan 

bottoms area, about the largest forested area in this part of the UMR that is not 

fragmented. Other discussion showed that these blocks should be within about every 30 

miles. So, add another extent of neotropical migrant nesting areas of at least 1,000 unfragmented forested areas (we could break this down further but don't have the time). 

NOTE: this was covered under the habitat extent in greater detail. 

 

We then went through the atlases by pool to see if there were any obvious gaps in any 

area, so we can see if we need to add any icons here. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-63
Any HREP proposals (or any other stuff) not included (we just found out that they had 

not been incorporated yet) should be included, and we don't have to go into every icon to 

insert the detail. 

Specifics to Pool 16:

 Patterson Lake: RM 465.5-466.5, add an icon. 

Specifics to Pool 17: 

Secondary channels would increase to 28% 

 Isolated backwaters is also different. 

Protect, maintain and expand Muscatine Island sand prairie habitat (RM 443-455). 

We could not get a precise figure of the expansion. 

Specifics to Pool 18: 

Aquatic areas to change as recommended in HREP 

RM 420-418, Benton Island, inland connectivity to isolated backwater, all season, 

open access to the area. 

NOTE: reach-wide plan to include expansion of floodplain along tributaries (for 

example, setback flank levees to increase meander and delta). 

 RM 433, Boston (sturgeon bay) reconnect backwater. 

 RM 424.2, secondary channel, behind snipe island, just above Big River State 

Forest campground. 

 RM 432-415 restore sand prairie along Yellow Banks (up on bluff, east of 

highway) NOTE: This could be incorporated into the migratory habitat (1,000 acre 

blocks). 

 Is there any potential for more flooding at the refuge at Keithsburg? It is not 

holding water as much as is was in the past. 

Specifics to Pool 19: 

Aquatic areas to change as recommended in HREP 

Pool wide objective is to continue to expand and protect island complexes ( a 20% 

increase, no objection to keeping this number. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-64
 Pool wide objective is to avoid acquiring productive farm land (tillable/ 

cultivated) wherever possible. 

Pool wide objective to reduce pinch points within the floodway (e.g. levees close 

to the river). 

NOTE: These last 2 pool objectives should be included for entire Reach objectives.

Specific island creation at Nauvoo flats, RM 374.5-378. Concern about 

maintaining the existing eddy in the backwater area. 

Blackhawk 

Acquisition of Land in Blackhawk Bottoms, the state owns about 500 acres, the 

proposal includes buying some/all of the delta for waterfowl management/neotropical 

birds (note that there is a budget shortfall for both the corps and state). 

Specific work at Burlington Islands (backwater habitat management and 

restoration and dredging openings) at RM 402-395. Note that you can have more than 

one icon for the same area. 

We should add more public land acquisition for Pool 19. 

 

 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-65
UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-66
Appendix F. Management Actions 

Purpose:

To review and identify management actions that are most likely to contribute towards 

achieving the established goals and objectives. 

Background:

For the purposes of these workshops, Management Actions are: regulatory, operational or 

structural tools or activities that can be implemented to positively address environmental 

objectives (e.g. hydraulically dredge a backwater area). Participants reviewed a list of 

management actions that had been compiled from previous planning to assess their ability 

to meet the objectives that were discussed the previous day Time was given to ensure all 

the groups were able to review all of the actions. The reports from each group were 

presented in a plenary session to provide other participants the opportunity to ask for and 

receive clarification. 

Results:

What follows is the management information gathered and reviewed at the Moline 

Workshop. It is organized into three sections: management action tables, plenary report, 

and working group reports. 

Each working group prepared a master worksheet to record the group’s changes, 

additions, and deletions to the list of management actions. The changes from all the 

groups were compiled in the following worksheets (Table F1). There were three 

ecosystem elements, 67 new management actions, and 20 comments added. The whole 

group modified 22 existing management actions and deleted 10 of the actions listed. 

These results will be merged with those from other workshops, and the entire 

management actions database published in the UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility 

Study Interim Report will be updated. 

The plenary comments are taken directly from the plenary report and only include 

discussion specifically related to management. The entire plenary report can be found in 

Appendix C. 

The Working Group reports below were prepared by the recorder in each group as a 

record of the discussion. Working group reports are not inclusive of all of the work that 

was produced for Management Actions. Much of the groups’ data generation was done 

on master worksheets and maps and compiled for production in a formal report for the 

Upper Mississippi River – Illinois Waterway Navigation Feasibility Study. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

F-1
Table F1. Management Actions. 

Element/ Parameter Extent ID Management Action CommWater Quality Water Clarity Main Channel 1Apply watershed BMPs (best management practices) 

2Stabilize river banks 3Pool scale drawdown to consolidate soft sediments 4 Minimize dredge disturbance/frequency Recom5 Minimize dredge slurry return water 

Maximplacem

6 Minimize bankside dredged material placement 7Stabilize dredged material 8Tributary reservoirs 9Speed and wake restrictions - rec. boats add tow 

Comments/ Additions: Establish and enforce safety zone for tow boats 

Establish a permit system for tows over 9 foot draft Adjust sailing line 

Nutrient loading Monitor and minimize nutrient loading DO

Restore flow (all parameters except clarity) at selected side channels 

Contaminant loading 

Improver aids to navigation Additional mooring buoys 

Backwaters 10Pool scale drawdown to consolidate soft sediments 

11 Drawdown management units

Reviseunits fomanag

12 Drawdown isolated backwaters 13 Isolate and drawdown contiguous backwaters Redund14Temporarily isolate and drawdown contiguous backwaters 15 Construct wind breaks add: ba

add: bu

16 Construct Wave breaks 

 
Table F1. Management Actions (cont.). 

Element/ Parameter Extent ID Management Action Comm Water Quality (cont) 17 Remove bottom feeding fishes (carp) Replac

18 Increase plant density 19 Increase plant distribution 20 Reduce algae production 

Comments/ Additions: Construct isolated ephemeral wetlands 

Berm and construct moist soil area with water level control Access, speed, and wake restriction on rec. boats 

Impounded Reduce wind fetch 

Reduce sediment resuspension 

Secondary channel Isolate head of channel 

Modify flow in channel 

Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 21 Hydraulic dredging include 

22 Mechanical dredging include 23 Consolidate sediment 24 Divert flow to increase backwater scour 

Comments/ Additions: Divert flow of sediment laden water away from backwaters 

Change berms 

Modify drainage district operations 

Side channel Include 21-24 

Construct rock barbs 

Water Level Main Channel 25Pool scale drawdown 

revise: manag

Comments/ Additions: Secondary channel 

Operate dams to maintain winter water levels at the high end of the operating range 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table F1. Management Actions (cont.). 

Element/ Parameter Extent ID Management Action Comm Geomorphology (cont) Automate dam operations  Water Level (cont) Possibly change hinge point to dam point control 

Backwater Areas 26Pool scale drawdown 

revise: manag

27 Drawdown management units 28 Drawdown isolated backwaters 29 Isolate and drawdown contiguous backwaters 

30Temporarily isolate and drawdown contiguous backwaters 

Comments/ Additions: Pool raise within limits of system (winter) 

desirabmanag

Install pumps to flood or drawdown isolated backwater areas Modify drainage district operations 

Connectivity Floodplain 31

Acquire real estate rights, restore water to leveed floodplain areas 

32 Reconfigure, restore flow to secondary channels add: "h33 Restore flow to isolated backwater areas 34 Create habitat corridors for floodplain terrestrial wildlife 35 Restore natural tributary channels through delta areas 36 Notch levees 

Reviselevees 

37Set back levees 38 Increase water levels 39 Increase terrestrial area

Comments/ Additions: 

Recreate moist soil management areas that mimic natural hydrology of river Connect from the bottom isolated backwater areas (e.g., sloughs) 

Install flow structures (pipes) through earthen dams to connect to isolated backwaters 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table F1. Management Actions (cont.). 

Element/ Parameter Extent ID Management Action Comm Geomorphology (cont) Create and maintain fishless aquatic areas 

Protect, maintain and create isolated backwaters for amphibian conservation 

Secondary Channels 40 Notch closures Should 

Modify practica

Connectivity (cont) 41 Divert flow 

42 Increase water levels 43 Dredge secondary channels add: iso44 Remove levees Revise

Comments/ Additions: 

May or removanotchin

Construct islands to restore and create secondary channels 

Longitudinal 45Build fishways 

46 Modify gate operations 47 Modify lock operations 

ties in wdrawdoe.g., triat Lock 

48 Remove tributary dams 

Comments/ Additions: Modify gate structure UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table F1. Management Actions (cont.). 

Element/ Parameter Extent ID Management Action CommGeomorphology (cont) Island elevation Islands 

Raise elevation of islands above water level to allow growth of moisture intolerant trees, forbs, and grasses 

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic areas 49 Introduce flow to isolated backwater areas 

50 Restore flow to secondary channels 51 Restore flow to floodplain areas isolated by levees 52 Restore natural tributary channels through delta areas 53 Divert more tributary delta flow into open impounded areas 54 Create rock and gravel substrate areas 55 Create shallow rock and gravel riffle areas 56 Incorporate woody debris into bank protection 57 Incorporate woody debris into 2° and small channels 58 Restore flow and geometry of secondary channels 59 Modify flow distribution from dam gates - tail water habitat 60Grading, vegetation planting 61 Rock groins, hard points Delete 

Should places 

62Anchored woody debris 63Off-shore rock revetments 64Submerged rock vanes 65 Notch wing dams to create hydraulic, depth diversity 66 Notch closing dams to increase side channel flow 67 Construct temporary structures to divert flow 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table F1. Management Actions (cont.). 

Element/ Parameter Extent ID Management Action CommPattern of Habitats (cont) 68 Use larger rock, make bank revetments irregular Aquatic areas (cont) 69 Incorporate woody debris into channel structures 

70 Construct hard points, groins for shoreline stabilization 71 Construct off-shore revetments 72 Construct seed islands 73 Construct bendway weirs 74 Construct chevrons 75 Modify flow splits between main and off-channel areas 76 Dredge backwater areas, increase depth 77 Dredging to restore and create secondary channels 78Shore pipe, boosters to reach target sites

replacebanklin

79 Use small dredges to expand placement options 80Bend width reductions where possible r

Comments/ Additions: Raise island topography 

Make moist soil areas every 50 miles Insure over wintering centrarchid areas every 5 miles Manage barge fleeting areas Control invasive/exotic species Create islands to restore secondary channels 

Protect. Maintain and increase isolated backwater areas for amphibian conservation 

Remove beach plan from MVP 

Terrestrial 81Place dredged material to create wetland areas 

82Placement on existing, construct new beaches 83Semi-confined channel placement (chevrons) 

 eplace

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table F1. Management Actions (cont.). 

84 Unconfined placement in floodplain (for mast trees)

Extent ID Management Action Comm

Pattern of Habitats (cont) 85 Unconfined placement in floodplain 

Raise ediversit

Terrestrial (cont) 86 Beaches Need a 

87 Island construction Don't d88 On floodplain to raise areas for mast-producing trees

add: anintolera

89 Confined placement in floodplain90 Construct hard point in floodplain 91 Construct islands in impounded areas and backwaters 92 Seed islands 93 Chevron islands 94 Rock islands 95 Islands with varied top elevation, fine material 96 Low islands - mud flats and sand bars for sho

Comments/ Additions: 

Protect, restore, and increase grassland, forest, wetland habitats for areas sensitive sp - large habitat blocks for acquisition/easement programs Manage barge fleeting areas Control exotic/invasive spp. 

Land Cover/Use 97 Modify and manage habitats on refuges (see habitat below) 

98 Manage vegetation cover 99 Manage water levels 

Element/ Parameter UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table F1. Management Actions (cont.). 

100 Modify habitat structure in floodplain and backwaters 101Plant vegetation on dredged material deposits 

Element/ Parameter Extent ID Management Action Comm Pattern of Habitats (cont) 102Plant floodplain trees 

102-10floodpla

103 Harvest floodplain trees 104Plant floodplain prairie 

1042-1manag

105Burn floodplain prairie 106 Control invasive exotic species 107Place dredged material to create wetland areas 108

Unconfined dredged material placement in floodplain (for mast trees) 

Use finform rid

Revisefloodpla

109Growing season drawdowns 

Comments/ Additions: Pump into moist soil areas 

Acquire real estate interest Promote alternative agriculture n floodplain Regulate future floodplain development Soil amendment (beneficial use of dredged material 

Reevaluate existing authorities and policies for beneficial use of dredged material. Focus on securing management interest in large habitat blocks for area sensitive spp. 

Plants and Animals Fish 110Adjust angling, commercial fishing regulations as needed 

111 Modify angler attitudes about exploitation

revise: educat

112Enforce fishing regulations 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table F1. Management Actions (cont.). 

113Stock fish 

Revisespecies 

Comments/ Additions: Adjust introduced flow into over winter areas Element/ Parameter Extent ID Management Action Comm Plants and Animals (cont) Monitor and test for diseases as needed  Fish (cont) Reintroduce extirpated sp. Wildlife

Conduct bio-manipulation of fish and wildlife community 

114 (various actions) 

115Adjust hunting and trapping regulations as needed 116 Modify hunter attitudes about exploitation

revise: educat

117Enforce hunting regulations 

118 Reintroduce native species 

Concerlarge p

Comments/ Additions: Intensive management of moist soil areas 

Focus Federal aid on Miss. R Increase designated refuge 

Protect increase, and restore habitat for species of conservation concern including neotropical migrants and others Increase monitoring and research of nesting neotropical migrant 

Better management of game sp. (deer) so populations do not negatively impact other biodiversity 

Monitor and test for diseases as needed 

Exotics 119 Control invasive exotic species 

120 Construct, operate, maintain barrier on Illinois River 121

 Require antibiotic treatment of Great Lakes freighter ballast 

water 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table F1. Management Actions (cont.). 

122 Regulate use of exotic species for fishing bait 123 Regulate biota transfer by fishing boats and co124 Apply species-specific toxicants 

integrastrateg

Element/ Parameter Extent ID Management Action Comm Plants and Animals (cont) 125 Kill zebra mussels on vessels in lock chambers  Exotics (cont) 126 Restrict and enforce use of exotic species in aquaculture Comments/ Additions: Sever Great Lakes IWW connection 

Promote education Promote utilization of exotic biomass 

Develop interagency task force for coordination of control efforts 

T&E

Protect, increase, restore populations of threatened, 

127 endangered species 

Comments/ Additions:

Stabilize nesting islands and maintain vegetation cover (e.g., cormorant colonies in Pool 13) 

Will extislands 

Promote education Evaluate species of concern Reintroduce/expand species of concern to avoid listing Manage for T&E consideration as a priority where they exist 

Conservation easements to protect blufflands & grasslands in floodplain and beyond (local, state, NGO, Feds) 

Monitor and test for disease 

Biodiversity Manage for maximum diversity of native species UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table F1. Management Actions (cont.). 

 Best Management Practices All Modify habitat (see below) 

128BMPs 129 Conservation tillage 

Element/ Parameter Extent ID Management Action Comm Best Management Practices (cont) 130 Contour farming, terraces 

131 Grassed waterways 132 Establish perennial cover, crops 133 Stabilize eroding ravines 134 Conservation Reserve Program land set-aside and oth135 Erosion control structures along intermittent streams 136 Construct, maintain small impoundments for sed137 Restore drained lakes, wetland areas 138 Riparian buffer strips 139 Restore stream channels, floodplain areas 

140 Urban stormwater management practices 

141 Construction site erosion prevention practices 142 Increase pervious surface in developed areas 

Comments/ Additions: Update 

Environmental education and outreach 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Plenary Report

The plenary comments are taken directly from the plenary report and only include 

discussion specifically related to management actions. The entire plenary report can be 

found in Appendix C. 

Nov 21st, Management Actions Plenary Session:

The plenary began by asking each group to give a brief overview of what they did, as 

well as listing their modifications to the list of Management Actions. The Tables of 

Management Actions were visited section by section with all four groups having an 

opportunity to give their input on each section before moving to the next. 

Managements Actions –Theiling (9:43 – 9:51) 

Chuck Theiling began this section by discussing why it is important for management 

actions to be identified, as well as defining what a management action is. Next he 

discussed how the current list of management actions was created. Finally he and 

Rebecca projected the management action worksheet and discussed how to work during 

the breakout sessions. 

Management Action Working Groups (9:51-12:35)

Lunch (11:30-12:35)

Management Action Plenary (12:35-1:24)

Page W2-2 Water Quality

Group 1 (Pools 12-15) 

All in notes. 

Group 3 (16 – 19) 

All in notes. 

((Group 1) – the smaller the boat the slower you have to go – allows fisherman in the 

backwaters but not the jet skies).. 

Group 2 (20-22) 

– You should change # 11 Develop management units for water level regulation.

Page W2-3,4 Geomorphology

Group 1 

“Raise the water level” is specified for winter. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

F-13
Pipes are for backwater areas that are sequestered due to being adjacent to earthen part of 

dam. 

Group 3 

 All in notes. 

Group 2 

#39 – Not sure what how this relates to connectivity. 

– Use it to connect terrestrial areas. 

– When dredging is used to increase floodplain connectivity, use the dredge material to 

create islands. 

Fishless ponds – maybe have shallow enough for winter kill. 

Page W2-4 Geomorphology and Pattern of Habitats

Group 1 

All in notes. 

Group 3

All in notes. 

Group 2

 All in notes.

Page W2-5 Pattern of Habitats

Group 1

All in notes. 

Beach plan – St. Paul has a beach plan – we should have a plan for beach nourishment in 

the Rock Island District. 

Group 3 

– There are some liability concerns about beach plans. If we call it a beach then we 

become liable for them. 

Group 2

All in notes.

Page W2-6 Pattern of Habitats (cont)

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

F-14
Group 1 

All in notes. 

Group 3 

All in notes. 

Group 2 

Educational or policy changes to help with BMP. Find crops that have greater benefit for 

the floodplain rather than the typical row crops.

Page W2-7 Plants and Animals

Group 1 

All in notes. 

Group 3

All in notes. 

Discussion about physical barrier with the Great Lakes. 

– suggested severing the connection to the Great Lakes. 

Group 2 

All in notes. 

Page W2- 8 Plants and Animals, T&E

Group 1 

Stabilize nesting islands for Cormorants. 

Group 3 

All in notes. 

Group 2 

All in notes. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

F-15
Working Group Reports 

The Working Group reports below were prepared by the recorder in each group as a 

record of the discussion. Working group reports are not inclusive of all of the work 

produced concerning management actions. Much of the groups’ data generation was 

done on master worksheets and maps and compiled for production in a formal report for 

the Upper Mississippi River – Illinois Waterway Navigation Feasibility Study. 

GROUP 1

Participants List: Ed Anderson, Ralph Eads, Kenny Brenner, Joe Lundh, Mike Griffin, 

Cynthia Drew, Jon Duyvejonck

Management Actions – Pool 12 - 15

See draft Pool plans for additional specific comments on management actions 

Beaches – RID needs to complete a beach management plan as a prerequisite to beach 

management actions 

Traffic effects – increase attention to safety zone in channel shoaling locations. Boats 

that ignore these zones sometime exacerbate dredging and disposal problems. 

Overloaded barges create negative natural resource effects. Coast Guard needs to 

increase its attention to overloaded barges. Investigate use of permits for barges loaded 

over 9ft. All barges loaded over 9ft. should be required to have a permit. The locations 

of all overloaded barges would be known in the event of a situation where overloaded 

barges could create adverse effects. 

Erosion – examine potential for restricting recreational boat traffic to reduce shoreline 

erosion. 

Add: construction of ephemeral pools/wetlands should be added to BW actions 

Add to BW actions 10 -20: construction of berms to divert sediment around BW 

deepening actions. This will prolong the life of deepened habitats. 

Under 15 add: barrier islands as a tool to reduce wind fetch 

Action 24: Divert flow...This action should include attention to design considerations 

(i.e. fish hook design) which will help reduce sediment input into backwaters. 

Action 26: Raising the pool is a desirable action for some management objectives: 

improve wintering fish survival. Investigate use of pumps to manage backwater locations 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

F-16
Add: Wherever possible investigate the potential for using the head potential upstream of 

dams to route water (pipes?) to downstream areas (backwaters) in need of fresh water. 

For example L/D 9 Harper’s Slough 

Connectivity 

Dredge/connect backwaters at the lower entrances 

40 – Notch closures - these actions should be considered as O&M actions that can be 

repeated periodically without having to repeat planning justification. Many small 

management actions are not being performed because planning and engineering costs are 

too high. Programmatic justification should be examined so these actions can be 

implemented. 

44 – Remove levees - change to “modify” 

46 – Modify gate operations – Examine potential for running water through auxiliary gate 

valves to elevate dissolved oxygen. 

Pattern of habitats – Add construction of “terrestrial islands” on floodplain that can 

provide refuge to animals during floods, promote topographic and vegetation diversity 

(mast trees and other moisture intolerant species). 

Add: construct fish over-wintering habitat every 5 river miles. 

86 – Prepare a reach wide beach management plan as a prerequisite to beach management 

actions. Identify locations where beaches are appropriate and desirable. 

97-109 Add: cap dredged material sand placements with fine sediments 

Add: stabilize and manage vegetation on existing islands where cormorant colonies are 

present to minimize island and vegetation loss from cormorant use. 

Under wildlife Add: intensive management of moist soil units 

GROUP 2

Participants List: Al Fenedick, Ken Brummett, Charlene Carmack, Bob Clevenstine, 

Dru Buntin, Kevin Landwehr, Kathryn Gray, and Mark Heinicke. 

Pools 20-22 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

F-17
List Additions: 

1. Water Quality 

a. Water Clarity 

1. Main Channel 

a. Adjust Sailing Line in sensitive areas. 

b. Commercial tow speed restrictions – Expand ID No. 

9 to include. 

c. Recommend using cutterhead dredges – Comment 

to ID No. 4 

d. Maximize behind levee placement – Comment to 

ID No. 5 

2. Backwaters 

a. 13 is largely redundant with 14 

b. Change 17 to “Management of bottom feeding 

fishes” 

c. Access, Speed, and Wake restrictions on Rec Craft 

3. Impounded Areas 

a. Island Creation to reduce fetch lengths 

b. Increased plant density 

4. Secondary Channels 

a. Isolate at head of Side Channel 

b. Modify Flow through regulating structure 

b. Nutrient Loading 

a. BMPs in Watershed 

b. Restore flow to selected remnant channels 

c. DO 

a. Restore flow to selected side channels 

d. Contaminant Loading 

2. Geomorphology 

a. Backwater Depth 

1. Backwater Areas 

a. Control structures to control flow of water and 

sediment. 

b. Modify DD operations. 

b. Side Channel Depths 

a. Construct rock barbs. 

b. IDs 21 through 24 

c. Water Level 

1. Main Channel/Secondary Channel 

a. Pool raise during winter 

b. Convert hinge point to dam control 

c. Reduced fluctuations at wicket dams 

d. Automate dam gate controls 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

F-18
e. Reduced Surging from Chicago Stormwater 

Management 

2. Backwater Areas 

a. IDs 29 and 30 are redundant 

b. Modify drainage district operations 

d. Connectivity 

1. Floodplain 

a. Change 32 to “Reconfigure, restore flow to 

historical secondary channels” 

b. Remove 39. 

c. Create and maintain fish-less ponds 

2. Secondary Channels 

a. Isolate/restrict Secondary channels 

b. Change 44. “Remove/Modify levees” 

3. Longitudinal 

a. Modified Gate Structure – other gate types more 

conducive to fish passage? 

3. Pattern of Habitats 

a. Aquatic Areas 

a. Add “or permanent” to ID 67 

b. Modify 78 to “Minimize bankline/open-water 

placement” 

c. Modify 80 to “Bend width reductions where 

appropriate” 

b. Terrestrial 

a. IDs 84, 85, and 88 are redundant – Reduce to 85 

with comment to “increase topographic diversity” 

b. Remove 86 

c. Remove 87, redundant with 91-96 

c. Land Cover/Use 

a. Add ID 31 to this section 

b. Promote alternative agriculture on floodplain 

c. Regulation of flood plain development 

d. Modify 108 to be consistent with 85 above. 

e. Soil amendment with dredged material – beneficial 

use of dredged Materials 

f. Change “Harvest” in 103 to “Manage” 

4. Plants and Animals 

a. Fish 

a. Focus federal aid for acquisition of aquatic habitat 

b. “Promote angler education” instead of 111 

c. Change 113 to “Stock native fish species where 

appropriate” 

b. Wildlife 

a. “Promote hunter education” instead of 116 

b. Focus federal aid for UMR land acquisition 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

F-19
c. Increase designated refuge 

c. Exotics 

a. Change 120 to “...maintain lethal barrier...” 

b. Sever Lake Michigan Connection to IWW 

c. Promote education 

d. Promote utilization of exotic biomass 

d. T&E 

a. Promote education 

b. Evaluate species of concern 

c. Reintroduce/expand species of concern to avoid 

listing 

5. All 

GROUP 3

Participant List: Mike Cox Recorder, Bill Bertrand, John Stravers, Anne Mankowski, 

Mindy Larsen, Alan Haas, Bernie Schonoff, Gary Swenson 

Pools 16-19

Management actions:

Discussion about adding biodiversity to the element/parameter, and where to add this 

element. We added this after plants and animals, and included management action of 

manage max amount of diversity of native species. 

This group is starting on the last page... 

 Working on BMPs ... discussing other CRP both USDA and state EPA. Added 

environmental education and outreach. 

T&E. Added 2 items ( see master list) Question of how to include upland habitat into 

protection of T&E. (adding conservation easements?). Upriver snobs are concerned 

about bluff habitat. Add another management action (Use conservation easements to 

protect bluff lands and adjacent grasslands). It is thought that this would help local and 

state agencies and NGOs to create nature habitats. An example would be the Illinois 

designated mussel sanctuaries to protect sensitive areas for mussel habitat. The corps has 

a designation for natural areas but never use this option. 

Exotics: Question about invasive vs. exotic, and added a slash between invasive/exotic 

(there area invasive species that are native, but take over areas) from item 119. Also 

reworded some other items. Included both recreational and commercial vessels in most 

applicable items. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

F-20
Wildlife: Concern about introduction of large species (no predators allowed that may kill 

off livestock). It is thought that this is not really a very big issue as adequate habitat is 

needed before added populations are introduced. Protect increase and restore habitat for 

species of concern. 

Fish and inverts: (inverts added to element). Added mussel stuff to many items as 

applicable. Talk of largemouth bass virus and should this be included as management 

action. Added monitoring and regional coordination for diseases that may impact 

populations. NOTE: this was also added to Wildlife and T&E)

 

Land Cover Land Use: Merged some items. 

Terrestrial: See master sheet (combined many items) added management of barge 

fleeting areas to reduce impacts to sensitive areas (NOTE: this was also added to 

aquatic). 

Aquatic: Add the need to maintain and increase tributary backwaters for amphibian 

habitat (non-fish habitat). 

Connectivity: Much discussion about removing tributary dams (this conflicts with 

sediment reduction management actions). Added remove to notch closures. Add remove 

to notch levees. Added isolate backwaters to increase flow. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

F-21
UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

F-22
Appendix G. Species and Population Parameters 

Purpose: To identify plant and animal species and appropriate units of measure that 

should be considered for future environmental objectives planning efforts. 

Background: Recent environmental planning efforts for the Environmental 

Management Program and other Upper Mississippi River System restoration and 

maintenance programs have focused on habitats and the impacts of Corps activities on 

habitats. It has been recognized that planning needs to be expanded to include additional 

functional and structural ecosystem elements. 

During the planning stages of this workshop, organizers were considering objectives for 

plant and animal species and quickly encountered difficulty in selecting guilds, species, 

or units of measure for plants and animals. Emergent and submersed aquatic plants, 

diving ducks, and dabbling ducks were eventually selected based on the perception that 

knowledgeable resource managers could interpret the units of measure selected. It was 

determined that stem density was a relatively standard unit of measure for aquatic plants 

and that use-days during migration periods were relatively standard measures of 

waterfowl abundance. 

Specific objectives for fish were desired, but the selection of guilds, or species, or units of 

measure quickly complicated the issue. It was decided therefore to back-off on the 

specifics for fish objectives and only indicate that there is an objective for several general 

categories of fish determined during earlier phases of the Navigation Study: protected, 

sport, commercial, forage, and exotic fishes in channel and backwater habitats. The unit 

of measure became particularly complicated because of our desire to establish 

quantitative objectives, but our general inability or lack of commitment to fish 

community stock assessments. Discussion of the unit of measure is particularly 

important because of our need for measurable objectives and our selection of evaluation 

tools. 

These issues were discussed during a plenary session at the workshop, with the results to 

be forwarded to an expert panel. A focus group of workshop participants will continue 

work with the expert panel to refine fisheries objectives. The larger list of species such 

as reptiles, amphibians, other birds, and mammals will be considered during future 

phases of the adaptive management and assessment process recommended in the 

Navigation Study Interim Report. 

Results: Participants at the Moline workshop suggested that what is really needed, more 

than species assessments, is a comprehensive ecological assessment of the UMRS to 

establish an arbitrary baseline of the System’s ecological condition. This suggestion was 

similar to the recommendations for various biological indices recommended at other 

workshops. As at previous workshops, the availability of rapid bio-assessment 

techniques for streams was mentioned, but most of these have not been adapted to large 

river ecosystems yet. One participant suggested the most difficult task is determining 

whether conditions are impaired when sampling capabilities are imperfect. It was 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

G-1
suggested that even achieving 80 percent confidence in sampling results would be about 

as good as could be expected and that most results are much less reliable. 

Another point considered during the discussion was the spatial scope of investigations. 

Many species are wide-ranging (e.g., migratory bird or fishes) and may be greatly 

influenced by factors beyond the UMRS. Resident species also have differing sized 

territories that must be considered. Some bird species territories are area dependent, 

meaning the must have large blocks of relatively homogeneous habitat. For these 

species, large-scale habitat surveys may be appropriate measures of habitat availability. 

For smaller, less mobile species small habitat patches may be sufficient to support 

healthy populations. This latter group requires more detailed assessments/surveys in 

smaller areas. A final suggestion was to consider conservative species (habitat 

specialists) needs as an umbrella approach to be able to assess the more general species. 

One concern was that expending considerable effort to understand lots of different 

species could consume considerable amounts of money and not leave any for actual 

restoration efforts. There was consensus that there is probably enough information on 

birds to complete some sort of assessment protocol. The Long Term Resource 

Monitoring Program fisheries database should provide information to evaluate 

opportunities to assess fish populations. 

Facilitators posed the question of whether total population assessments would be desired 

if time or money were not a factor. Workshop participants responded no because: 1.) the 

precision of the estimate would likely not be very good, 2.) some populations may be 

effected by factors outside of the UMRS or may be habitat independent (e.g., 

overexploitation), and 3.) many species life histories are such that strong or week year 

classes can greatly affect population sizes of short time periods. The discussion 

continued with some specific examples of controlling deer populations, estimating fish 

entrainment in tow boat propellers, and endangered, exotic, or nuisance species. It was 

recognized that in some instances total population estimates are required, but these 

should be done for very specific purposes not routine surveys. Relative abundance of 

species or guilds obtained from traditional survey techniques should be sufficient to 

assess community structure. 

The discussion ended with the statement that in actuality a whole handful of 

measurement techniques will be needed to assess progress toward restoration targets. 

Note: The following comments were submitted after the workshop by Bill Bertrand – 

Illinois Department of Natural Resources and have not been reviewed or discussed by the 

other workshop participants. 

Submitted (post-workshop) by Bill Bertrand – Illinois Department of Natural Resources 

I feel I would be remiss if I did not submit some suggestions for fish 

target species and units of measurement in assessing objectives for 

environmental sustainability. I’ve spent a good part of 30 years trying 

to determine just what measures are best used to indicate improvement, 

relative stability, or decline for populations of river sport species 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

G-2
(don’t use largemouth as target species in reaches 9 and 10). For 

and entire communities. I will still not claim to have definitive 

answers, but I can argue justification for selection of certain measures 

over others. 

*Regarding spatial coverage, I believe that you can work with the 

geomorphic reaches rather than pools, just so long as you keep in mind 

that management actions will be applied on a pool-by-pool basis. Still 

you can apply reach standards for a target species to pool management to 

assess the success of the actions taken within that pool. 

*As I stated at the workshop, gaining population estimates seems 

fruitless in most cases. A great deal of time and resources are spent 

in the effort, and the populations can change so rapidly for the 

relatively short-lived fish. Many river fish only live 5 years or less, 

with drastic drops in abundance of fish older than 5. In this situation 

a single strong or weak year class can dramatically change population 

numbers. Population estimates can work for longer-lived species, as 

shown by the Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station studies on drum, and 

might work for catfish, sturgeon or paddlefish. Since it is precisely 

the population numbers of PROTECTED and EXOTIC species that everyone is 

concerned about, perhaps population estimates should be reserved as 

measures to assess these groups of fish, although population structure 

might work just as well. For example, if a protected species can be 

shown to have fairly stable reproduction success i.e. consistent strong 

year classes produced and fish of all ages and sizes present in expected 

distribution, then you could assume a healthy population, without trying 

to estimate exact numbers present. 

*As a PROTECTED species target I would support lake sturgeon and suggest 

that a very specific capture program be designed using tied-down trammel 

nets in deep holes in late fall or winter. The nets should fish the 

bottom of the holes (the reason for the tie-down) and preliminary 

surveys may be necessary to identify specific sites in use. Rob Maher 

of IDNR can provide further details on fishing gear, method and timing. 

In pursuit of PROTECTED minnows or darters, seining or trawling in 

appropriate habitat should work. Stratified random sampling will get 

you completely zilch, if you are pursuing these species whose low 

abundance results in their protected status. 

*For the SPORT fish group, target largemouth bass, walleye and sauger in 

combination, and channel catfish. Summer or fall backwater 

electrofishing catch per hour of largemouth bass 15” or longer can be 

the unit of measure, with a reach-specific target numbers. I suggest 10 

per hour for reaches 4, 5 and 6, and 5 per hour in reaches 7 and 8 

walleye and sauger combined, use late fall electrofishing in tailwaters 

with target catches of number of fish per hour 14” and over. For sauger 

and walleye catch combined I suggest a target of 40 fish per hour, 14” 

and over, for reaches 6 and 7 – no suggestions for 4, 5, or 8 and should 

not use sauger/walleye for 9 and 10. I think the only appropriate 

target SPORT species for reaches 9 and 10 are the catfish species – 

blue, channel, and flathead -- and would suggest large hoop nets in May 

as a means of obtaining useable numbers. Rob Maher could probably 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

G-3
provide some target numbers. Channel catfish catch could also be used 

in reaches 4 through 8, but I have no recommended target number per net 

day. 

*I support using a COMMERCIAL group with target species of buffalo (sp), 

catfish (sp), and freshwater drum. Units of measure should be the 

annual commercial catch poundage of each, stated as catch per geomorphic 

reach. 

*FORAGE target species must include emerald shiner and gizzard shad, and 

could include river shiner as well, or sunfish (sp) as more specific to 

backwaters where bluegill and orangespots can provide much of the 

forage. I have compared our electrofishing catches of emerald shiner 

and gizzard shad to our minnow seining catches for reaches 4 through 7 

(328 seine hauls and 90 hours electrofishing, 1998-2001) and feel that 

summer electrofishing could provide a reliable benchmark for emerald 

shiner and gizzard shad, which are apt to be collected in all river 

habitats. From our 1986-2001 database, I would suggest target numbers 

of 50 per hour emerald shiner and 100 per hour gizzard shad for all 

reaches, and 100 per hour small sunfish (4” or smaller bluegill, 

pumpkinseed, orangespotted, rock bass, warmouth, green sunfish) in 

backwater habitat of reaches 4 through 8. 

*EXOTIC species to be tracked are the grass carp, silver carp, bighead 

carp, and white perch. I do not know the most efficient method of 

collection of these species and would have to rely upon LTRM to provide 

that, as well as target numbers or other measures.

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

G-4
Plenary Report

The plenary comments are taken directly from the plenary report and only include 

discussion specifically related to the species and population measurements. The entire 

plenary report can be found in Appendix C. 

Species and Population Plenary Session:

– The two studies on small mammals are you including academic literature? 

Theiling – This is all that I am aware of. 

– There are some dredge site surveys. 

– Vole study on Stoddard Island that ate all of the trees. 

– There are a few on furbearers – Clark, Dahlgren. 

 – Lake Sturgeon - Protected 

– Should we add protected, T&E under reptiles and amphibians? 

– What we need is an ecological assessment by species of the Mississippi River by pool. 

Set 70 traps for reptiles, ... have an arbitrary line that values health. 

Theiling – Index for rapid Diversity works well in streams. None of them are tailored to 

a large river. 

– Hard part is deciding whether it is impaired or not. On the open the river 80% 

confidence is darn good – doesn’t shoot for 95% confidence. 

Theiling – Do that protocol in a good habitat and in a really degraded habitat to develop 

that range. 

– Are you looking pool wide? 

Soileau – We are looking for your guidance. 

– Habitat size and structure is good for an area dependent bird. Look for a reach or 

habitat within a good pool, do habitat survey rather than census data. To a certain extent 

we could approach that with grassland species as well. The Herps, because of low 

motility, I am reluctant to work on in a pool-scale even in habitat. Focusing on 

conservative species (habitat specialists) as an umbrella approach to be able to assess the 

more general species. 

– Again, you start put things into a box by saying “I am making this habitat for x 

species”. If you come in as a generalist then we are better. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

G-5
– I understand your point, but all habitat is not created equal. By capturing habitat for 

area sensitive species that are habitat specialists you will capture needs for more general 

species. 

– When you start putting a 3rd of your money away to expand the literature then you are 

only able to do a limited amount. Lots of times they study a wetland or lake to see what 

they did. In the end they didn’t change the habitat because they spent all of the money on 

research. There are all kinds of studies looking at finite habitat types, but they use up the 

money in research. 

– On grasslands and forest birds I feel there is enough literature out there to assess habitat 

and come up with estimates of population structure. 

– I THINK WE CAN DO BIRDS

– LTRM’s community sampling can help to correlate species and community and show 

changes/improvements as an indicator. 

Theiling – If money and time were no object would you want to do total population? 

– No, you have noise from every single factor. Your habitat may not suck; it may be 

some other factor. 

– You spend a fortune to make a figure and then the figure changes the next year. 

Theiling – If you rely on the habitat basis then other things won’t change. 

Soileau – It’s not important to build habitat for habitats sake, but we need to build them 

for species. So, what are those species and what targets do we want to try and achieve? 

– Controlling the deer population is a problem. If you don’t have a count on the deer it is 

very difficult to have the State help to reduce their numbers. We have been told that we 

have to have a count. 

– If you look at habitat, you can see how areas are effected by an over abundance of deer. 

However, for some people 1 deer is too much, in other areas a few deer are really nice. 

– Can use habitat effects such as eaten branches as an indicator of too high a population. 

Also can do a count in a square mile for making estimates. 

– For some nuisance species it is a good idea to have some more exact population 

measures. 

Theiling – The answer I take is to not count everything on the river but it is ok in specific 

areas or for specific purposes. 

– To do general assessment – IBA – pick some out and do in 2003. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

G-6
– We have been looking at entrainment. Do you think we need to know stock population 

counts to see how significant this entrainment is? 

– I think it is a percentage. 

Theiling – The original study was just percentage. If it is x now, and we increase by x 

barges, then there will be x more entrained. However now it is a more total effects study, 

so it becomes more important to know the entire thing. The original navigation study 

looked at the relative abundance, but the new scope makes absolute numbers more 

important. 

– The abundance is very tricky. Maybe we should focus on the relative abundance of fish 

(sport vs. forage). Focus on community structure rather than absolute numbers. 

– For natural community health, Natural History has been focusing on presence of exotic 

species as an indicator of health – this has a structural and food element in terrestrial 

areas. 

– In actuality we will probably use a whole handful of measurement techniques to assess 

our achievement of the objectives. Someone will have to use an array of these 

techniques. 

Working Group Report 

The following table was generated by a member of one of the working groups, as 

requested in the read-ahead materials, and presented at the workshop as part of the 

plenary discussion. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

G-7
Table G1. Species and Population Parameters 

Ecosystem Element/ Target Species 1 / Target Species 2 / Target Species 3 

Parameter Extent (Guild/Group) 

Units of Measurement / Target Range 

Units of Measurement / Target Range 

Units of Measurement / TaRange 

Plants and Animals Plants Forest 80% 

See UMRCC Forest Management Plan Hard Mast 7% Soft Mast 75% Other (cottonwood, ash, elm

Shrub 10% button bush 20% dogwood 10% 

grape 20% sand bar willow 30% false indigo 10% 

Grassland 10% Phlaris 40% prairie cord grass 10% warm season grass&forbs Wet Meadow 10% 

carex 15% phragmites 10% 

bidens 25% amoranthus 10% nettles 6% 

Marsh 20% 

3 square (?) 40% arrowhead 35% 

typha 7% sparganium 7% pickerelweed 

nymphaea 10% lotus 25% soft stem bullrush 12% 

Submersed 35% 

vallisneria 35% sago pondweed 20% coontail 20% 

elodea 10% water stargrass 10% pondweed 10% 

najas 2% potamogeton crispus 7% 

Algae 3% 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table G1. Species and Population Parameters 

Ecosystem Element/ Target Species 1 / Target Species 2 / Target Spe

Parameter Extent (Guild/Group) 

Units of Measurement / Target Range 

Units of Measurement / Target Range 

Units of MeasuremRange 

 Plants (cont) Moist soil management areas 

polygonum 40% bidens 20% ananthus 10% 

3 square barnyard grass 35% 

Invertebrates Benthic invertebrates mayflies 200/m2 fingernailclams 400/m2 

Epiphytic invertebrates Epilithic invertebrates caddisfly 700/m2 Necktonic invertbrates daphnia 600/l rotifer Freshwater mussels Higgin's eye 20 in 10 15 min. dives threeridge 50/m2 Flying invertebrates mosquito 1000/camper/24hr Arboreal invertebrates Grassland invertebrates grasshopper 10/sweep cricket 20/tree/night 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table G1. Species and Population Parameters 

Ecosystem Element/ Parameter Guild/Group Target Species Target Species Target Species Fish Protected lake sturgeon 2/yr 

crystal darter presence/absence western sand darter 

Sport 

walleye 60/hr during fall tailwater electrofishing 

largemouth bass 90/hr backwater electrofishing PSD 40 - 60 

bluegill 25/net night PSD = 25 

Commercial 

smallmouth buffalo >250,000 lbs/yr in Iowa waters 

channel catfish >400,000lbs/yr in Iowa waters 

freshwater drum >100,000lbsin Iowa waters 

Forage emerald shiner 1,200/seine haul river shiner gizzard shad Exotic Asian carp 0 

ruff 0 (or did Griff mean rough fish) white perch 0 

Reptiles Aquatic reptiles

snapping turtle >12,000lbs/yr in Iowa map turtle softshell turtle >2,000lbs/yr in 

Terrestrial reptiles black rat snake fox snake 

copper belly water snake Blanding's turtle 

Amphibians Aquatic amphibians leopard frog tiger salamander mudpuppy 

Terrestrial amphibians tree frog race runner wood frog (?) Arboreal amphibians 

Birds Waterbirds

great blue heron 200/colony colonies every 20 miles snipe, rails fall point count sandhill crane 3 nesting pair 

Forest birds redstar point count red shoulder hawk 4nests/pool prothonatary warbler point coGrassland birds upland sandpiper woodcock bobolink 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table G1. Species and Population Parameters 

Ecosystem Element/ Parameter Guild/Group Target Species Target Species Target Species Mammals Small mammals microtus 4/trap night lecopus squirrel 

Large mammals deer raccoon beaver 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table G1. Species and Population Parameters 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Appendix H. Conceptual Model Presentation 

The overall purpose of a conceptual model developed for the UMR-IWW Navigation 

Study is to identify the linkages and sequencing of identified objectives and associated 

management actions and facilitate a comprehensive assessment of the potential risks and 

impacts posed by improvements to the navigation infrastructure. The conceptual model 

can contribute to the overall purpose through the following: 

• Visually characterize a complex system to better understand and manage it 

• Identify the major drivers, stressors, and endpoints of the system 

• Define the functional relationships (i.e., linkages) between stressors and endpoints 

• Assist in decisions on impact assessment, restoration and management actions, 

and evaluation tools 

• Provide a framework for implementing adaptive management and restoration 

• Develop a structure for additional input from stakeholders 

The following slides were used at each of the workshops to present information on the 

current draft conceptual model. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

H-1
UMR-IWW Ecosystem 

Conceptual Models

• Background

– Conceptual models help to gain a better 

understanding of the linkages between:

• Environmental Objectives

• Management Actions

• State of the Ecosystem

• Task

– Discuss the utility of developing a UMRIWW ecosystem conceptual model

Purposes of a Conceptual 

Model for the UMR-IWW

• To visually present a complex system

• Creates a framework for additional input

• Provides a basis for decision making in 

relation to the achievement of objectives 

• Develops a structure for implementing 

adaptive management and restoration

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

H-2
Geomorphology Habitat Biota

Water Quality

and Sediment

Composition

Wildlife Unionid

Mussels

Submerged

Aquatic

Vegetation

Keystone

Species

Threatened

Endangered

Species

Fish Wetlands

& FP

Sed & Water

Quality

Backwater

Sediment 

Accum

Fish

Spawning 

Habitat

Land & Water Use

Altered 

Hydrology

Climate

Change Sediments Nutrients Contaminants Fragmentation

Invasive 

Species Harvesting Rec. Use Natural Disturb

Altern

Transport

Land and Water Use 

Emergent 

Vegetation

X% increase

0.5 m 

Drawdown

Habitat

Altered 

Hydrology

Larger scale stressor

Specific stressor

Management Action

General ecological effect

Specific effect

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

H-3
MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION

INFORMATION

ASSESSMENT PLANNING

ADAPTIVE

MANAGEMENT

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

H-4
Appendix I. Power Point Presentations 

This section contains the power point slides used to present background and introductory 

information throughout the workshops. They are given in the order they were presented 

on the agenda. 

The Power Point Presentations will be included in the final 

version of the printed workshop reports. You can download 

them by going to the following FTP site 

ftp://ftp.usace.army.mil/Incoming/MVR/NavStudy/.

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Moline, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

I-1
Appendix H. St. Louis Environmental Workshop Report 

The following report summarizes the results of the St. Louis Environmental Workshop 

that was held November 13-14, 2002. The report includes: 

1. a summary of the workshop and results, 

2. tables of identified UMR-IWW environmental objectives, 

3. a table of identified management actions, 

4. a narrative on UMR-IWW species and population parameters, 

5. working group reports, and 

6. the plenary session report. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops 

DRAFT REPORT

H-1
Upper Mississippi River – Illinois 

Waterway System Navigation 

Feasibility Study 

St. Louis Environmental Workshop 

November 13-14, 2002 

St. Louis, MO 

DRAFT REPORT 

 

United States Army Corps of Engineers 

 
UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

 Page

Executive Summary ................................................................................1

Introduction and Workshop Process ..................................................1 

Environmental Objectives.................................................................8

Management Actions.....................................................................10 

Species and Population Parameters...................................................11 

Conceptual Model........................................................................11 

 

Figures 

Figure 1. UMR-IWW Lock and Dams............................................................2 

Figure 2. Areas in red show the extent of selected landcover or landuse types on the 

UMR-IWW..............................................................................3 

Figure 3. UMR-IWW GIS Objective Tool and Database.....................................8 

Tables

Table 1. UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objective 

Workshops reports contents............................................................7 

Table 2. Number of site-specific environmental objectives identified for the Mississippi 

River.......................................................................................9 

Table 3. Example Management Action Table..................................................10 

Appendices

A. Workshop Invitation List, Participants, Participant Information...........A-1

 

B. Agenda....................................................................................B-1

C. Plenary Session Notes...................................................................C-1 

 

D. Answers to Introductory Questions.................................................D-1

 

E. Environmental Objectives.............................................................E-1

F. Management Actions...................................................................F-1 

G. Species and Population Parameters.................................................G-1 

H. Conceptual Models.....................................................................H-1

I. Power Point Presentations.............................................................I-1

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

iii
 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Introduction and Workshop Process 

The restructured Upper Mississippi River –Illinois Waterway (UMR-IWW) System 

Navigation Feasibility Study is focused on the authorized Federal navigation projects on 

the Upper Mississippi River System (UMRS; including the Illinois Waterway; Figure 1) 

and the ecological and floodplain resources that are affected by these navigation projects. 

The objectives of this restructured feasibility study are to relieve lock congestion, achieve 

an environmentally sustainable navigation system, and address ecosystem and floodplain 

management needs related to navigation in a holistic manner. The restructured 

navigation study will seek to ensure that the rivers and waterway system will continue to 

be an effective transportation system and a nationally treasured ecological resource. The 

restructured study will: (1) further identify the long-term economic and ecological needs, 

and potential measures to meet those needs, through collaboration with interested 

agencies, stakeholders and the public; (2) evaluate various alternative plans to address 

those needs; (3) present a plan consisting of a set of measures for implementation that 

will achieve the study objectives; and (4) identify and address issues related to the 

implementation of the recommended plan.

The study area comprises the entire Illinois Waterway and the Upper Mississippi River. 

The Illinois Waterway extends 327 miles from its confluence with the Mississippi River 

to Lake Michigan via the Illinois River, Des Plaines River, and a series of canals. The 

Upper Mississippi River extends 854 miles from the confluence with the Ohio River to 

Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota. The study area lies 

within portions of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin. The total Illinois 

Waterway and Mississippi River navigation system contains 1,200 miles of nine-foot 

deep channels, 37 lock and dam sites (43 locks) and thousands of channel training 

structures (Figure 1). 

Much of the UMRS lock and dam system was in place by the 1940s. Except as noted 

below, the locks are 600 feet long, although, modern tow configurations include 15 

barges and approach 1,200 feet long. As a result, most tows must lock through using a 

time-consuming two-step process in which the first three rows of barges (9 barges) are 

locked through first and the last two rows of barges (6 barges) and the tow boat are 

locked through second. The entire process may take 1.5 hours or longer depending on 

many variables. In contrast, Lock 19 has a 1,200-foot lock and Melvin Price Lock and 

Dam (Lock 26 replacement) and 27 have both a 1,200-foot and a 600-foot chamber at 

each site. The lockage process takes an average of 1.0 hours at Lock 19 and 0.6 hours at 

Locks 26 and 27. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

1
Lock & Dam 5A

Lock & Dam 2

Lock & Dam 1

Lock & Dam 6

Lock & Dam 5

Lock & Dam 8

Lock & Dam 11

Lock & Dam 12

Lock & Dam 13

Lock & Dam 15 Lock & Dam 14

Lock & Dam 16

Lock & Dam 17

Lock & Dam 18

Lock & Dam 19

Lock & Dam 21

Lock & Dam 22

Lock & Dam 24

Lock & Dam 25 Mel Price Lock & Dam

La Grange Lock & Dam

T.J. O'Brien Lock & Control Works

Lock & Dam 10

Lockport Lock & Dam

Brandon Road Lock & Dam

Dresden Island Lock & Dam

Marseilles Lock & Dam

Starved Rock Lock & Dam

Peoria Lock & Dam

ILLINOIS WATERWAY

MISSISSIPPI RIVER

Lock & Dam 9

Lock & Dam 7

Lock & Dam 4

Lock & Dam 3

Upper St Anthony Falls Lock & Dam

Lower St Anthony Falls Lock & Dam

Lock 27

Lock & Dam 20

OHIO RIVER

La Cr osse

Min neapol is

Du buq ue

PEORIA

ST. L OUIS

CAPE GIRA RDEA U

Roc k Isl and

ÊÚ

ÊÚ

ÊÚ

ÊÚ

ÊÚ

ÊÚ

ÊÚ

Figure1. UMR-IWW Locks and Dams. 

Eight locks on the Upper Mississippi River and 3 Illinois Waterway locks were among 20 

locks with the highest average delays in 1987 at the beginning of this study. This 

remains the case with UMR-IWW facilities highly ranked in the peak monthly delays at 

locks around the country in 1998. The UMRS had over half (19 of 36) of the most 

delayed lock sites in the country. Under current conditions, delays to tows are common 

at a number of locks on the UMRS. In general, delays are greatest at the most 

downstream 600-foot locks. For the 10-year period 1990-1999, delays per tow average 

3.4 hours at Locks 20-25; 2.2 hours at Locks 14-18; 0.9 hour at Locks 8-13; and 0.4 hour 

for Upper St. Anthony Lock to Lock 7. On the IWW over the same period, delays per 

tow average 1.8 hours at Peoria and La Grange and 1.1 hours for the other locks. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

2
Ecosystem 

The Upper Mississippi River ecosystem includes the river reaches described above, as 

well as the floodplain habitats that are critically important to large river floodplain 

systems. The total acreage of the river-floodplain system exceeds 2.6 million acres of 

aquatic, wetland, forest, grassland, and agricultural habitats. The Mississippi Flyway is 

used by more than 40% of the migratory waterfowl traversing the United States. These 

Trust Species and the threatened and endangered species in the region are the focus of 

considerable Federal wildlife management activities. In the middle and southern portions 

of the basin the habitat provided by the mainstem rivers represents the most important 

and abundant habitat in the region for many species.

Habitat types are disproportionately distributed throughout the river system, and their 

absolute abundance is dependent on the total area of the reach under consideration 

(Figure 2). The largest differences occur in the amount and distribution of agriculture 

and the proportion of open water in the floodplain. Agriculture dominates the wide 

floodplain south of Rock Island, Illinois and open water occupies a greater proportion of 

the floodplain north of Clinton, Iowa. Wetland classes are generally more abundant in 

northern river reaches, wet meadows are fairly evenly distributed, and grasslands are rare 

throughout the river system. Forest classes generally occupy between 10 to 20 percent of 

the floodplain in a narrow strip along the river banks throughout the system. 

Marsh Agriculture

Peoria

Cape Girardeau

Forest

Minneapolis

Dubuque

Rock Island

St. Louis

La Crosse

Minneapolis

Dubuque

Rock Island

Peoria

St. Louis

Cape Girardeau

La Crosse

Minneapolis

Dubuque

Rock Island

Peoria

St. Louis

Cape Girardeau

La Crosse

Levees

Minneapolis

Dubuque

Rock Island

Peoria

St. Louis

Cape Girardeau

La Crosse

Peoria

Cape Girardeau

Public Land

Minneapolis

Dubuque

Rock Island

St. Louis

La Crosse

Marsh Agriculture

Peoria

Cape Girardeau

Forest

Minneapolis

Dubuque

Rock Island

St. Louis

La Crosse

Minneapolis

Dubuque

Rock Island

Peoria

St. Louis

Cape Girardeau

La Crosse

Minneapolis

Dubuque

Rock Island

Peoria

St. Louis

Cape Girardeau

La Crosse

Levees

Minneapolis

Dubuque

Rock Island

Peoria

St. Louis

Cape Girardeau

La Crosse

Peoria

Cape Girardeau

Public Land

Minneapolis

Dubuque

Rock Island

St. Louis

La Crosse

Figure 2. Areas in red show the extent of selected landcover or landuse types on the 

UMR-IWW. 

Section 1103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (WRDA 86) recognized 

the Upper Mississippi River system as a unique, nationally significant ecosystem and a 

nationally significant commercial navigation system. The system provides: 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

3
1. A means for shippers to transport million of tons of commodities within the study 

area---130 million tons on the Mississippi River and 44 million tons on the Illinois 

Waterway in 2000, 

2. Food and habitat for at least 485 species of birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and 

fish (including 10 Federally endangered or threatened species and 100 state listed 

species), 

3. More than 226,650 acres of national wildlife and fish refuge, 

4. Water supply for 22 communities and many farmers, and industries, 

5. A multi-use recreational resource providing more than 11 million recreational visits 

each year, 

6. Cultural evidence of our Nation’s past. 

Establishing Goals for the System 

The original UMR-IWW Navigation Feasibility Study was narrowly focused on the 

problem of reducing commercial navigation traffic congestion on the system. 

Coordination was occurring between economic and environmental interests;, however, 

the work was being accomplished independently. With the new focus of the restructured 

study on sustainability, it became important for the stakeholders of the system to prepare 

a common vision for the future of the UMRS. In November 2001, the Economic 

Coordinating Committee (ECC) and the Navigation Environmental Coordinating 

Committee (NECC) met jointly to prepare this vision:

“To seek long-term sustainability of the economic uses and ecological integrity of the 

Upper Mississippi River System” 

The following definition of sustainability was collaboratively developed and agreed to by 

the group as well: 

“The balance of economic, ecological, and social conditions so as to meet the 

current, projected, and future needs of the Upper Mississippi River System without 

compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.” 

This definition will serve as the primary goal for integrated and adaptive management of 

the Upper Mississippi River System.

Planning for future navigation system infrastructure needs; navigation system operation 

and maintenance; habitat protection, enhancement, and restoration; river recreation; 

floodplain management; and water quality management should be conducted in the 

context of a set of clear goals and objectives for the desired condition of the UMRS. 

Setting these goals and objectives should be done collaboratively, with participation of 

the full community of river stakeholders. Development of a set of measurable objectives 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

4
for integrated and adaptive management of the UMRS will be challenging. It will require 

considerable collaborative effort, making use of conceptual models, predictive models, 

and visualization tools to comprehend the interconnections between system components 

and to enable the community of stakeholders to actively participate in planning for a 

sustainable multiple use river-floodplain system. Integrated planning will be an on-going 

effort to optimize the National benefits achieved from efficient and effective adaptive 

river management. 

Introduction to the Workshop 

Four two-day workshops were held during November 2002, to aid the process of 

establishing measurable environmental objectives for the Upper Mississippi River-Illinois 

Waterway System (UMR-IWW). Workshops were conducted in Peoria, Illinois, St. 

Louis, Missouri, La Crosse, Wisconsin and Moline, Illinois. 

The workshops were structured to achieve the following main objectives: 

1) Identification of UMR-IWW environmental objectives

Collaboratively review, refine, and add to a database of specific, quantitative, 

local to regional scale environmental objectives (for the workshop region) 

building on previous work from the EMP Habitat Needs Assessment, Pool Plans, 

USFWS Comprehensive Conservation Plans, and related study efforts. 

2) Identification of UMR-IWW management actions

Review and identify management actions that are most likely to contribute to 

achieving the established goals and objectives. 

3) Discuss and identify species and population parameters

Identify plant and animal species and appropriate units of measure that should be 

considered for future environmental objectives planning efforts. 

4) Present and discuss UMR-IWW ecosystem conceptual model

Present and discuss the utility of developing an UMR-IWW ecosystem conceptual 

model to gain a better understanding of the linkages between environmental 

objectives, management actions, and the state of the ecosystem. 

Participants were invited from a variety of organizations including the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, U.S. Department of Forestry, U.S. Department of Transportation – 

Maritime Administration, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, U.S. Geological Survey, Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Illinois 

DNR, Illinois Department of Water Resources, Illinois Natural History Survey, IL State 

water Survey, Minnesota DNR, Missouri Department of Conservation, Missouri DNR, 

Wisconsin DNR, Audubon Society, Environmental Defense, Iowa Farm Bureau, Izaak 

Walton League, MARC 2000, MRBA, Mississippi River Revival, Missouri Coalition for 

the Environment, Sierra Club, Southern Illinois University, The Nature Conservancy, 

University of Miami, UMIMRA, UMRCC, and Quincy Park District. There were a total 

of 142 people who participated in the interactive workshop process. This report presents 

the results of the enormous amount of effort and energy the participants contributed to the 

workshops. 

 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

5
Workshop Process 

The workshop was organized by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Rock 

Island District. A subset of the workshop participants helped review and edit this 

Workshop Report. Outside review by non-participants will not be part of the process. 

No content changes were made by the editors and the participants checked that accurate 

representations were made of the work they had done during the workshop. 

The St. Louis workshop was conducted 13 - 14 November, 2002 at the Spazio Westport 

Comfort Inn, St. Louis, Missouri. There were 41 participants, with most present the 

entire duration of the workshop. These participants, from more than 80 issued 

invitations, included state and federal wildlife agency personnel, non-governmental 

agency representatives, and public citizens. Participants and invitees are listed in 

Appendix A. 

The agenda for the workshop (Appendix B) was followed loosely, allowing extra time for 

questions and time in the workgroups as needed. A record of these plenary discussions is 

found in Appendix C, while workgroup reports can be found in the appendices related to 

their topic of discussion. 

Background on the General Workshop Structure 

The workshop process was designed to maximize the time and resources available at each 

of the meetings. The workshops utilized three components of meeting structure to meet 

the objectives of eliciting information, discussing key issues, and informing the 

participants of developing strategies. 

The first component was the standard meeting style wherein a few speakers provided 

information to the group as a whole allowing for questions and some discussion. 

The second component was key for eliciting information and involved breaking the group 

into working groups based on some criteria such as geography or content. Breaking a 

large meeting into working groups comprised of 10 or fewer individuals optimized the 

opportunity for participation of the greatest number of people and for timely discussion 

and progression on key issues. The number of working groups varied depending on the 

number of participants and geographic areas to be covered. 

The third component were the plenary sessions, which allowed all of the participants to 

hear a summary of what was accomplished in the other working groups and to have input 

into the entire set of results. It also allowed the facilitators to refine the GIS database as a 

coordinated team. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

6
Before getting started with the first task of this workshop, each participant was asked to 

introduce themselves and to write out and then read aloud answers to an introductory 

question. This process allowed for expression of individual perspectives without being 

immediately influenced by previous responses. This process indicated potential areas of 

common ground and provided a first insight into the diversity of perceived issues present 

in the group. Answers to the question can be found in Appendix D of this report. 

After the Workshops 

The workshops were an early step in a planning process to establish environmental 

alternatives that strive to secure the environmental sustainability of the UMR-IWW. 

Once the environmental objectives are well defined and management actions are 

identified to achieve them, the next step will be estimating the potential costs and 

outcomes (i.e., benefits) for the suggested actions. This information will be used to 

develop alternative plans (made up of multiple combinations of management actions) that 

seek to address the local, river reach, and system-wide needs of the UMR-IWW 

ecosystem. These environmental alternative plans will then be integrated with alternative 

plans for the UMR-IWW Navigation System. Tradeoff analysis will be conducted to 

identify and compare the environmental, economic, and social benefits of the integrated 

plans. The results of the alternative analysis, and further collaborative review and input 

from stakeholders, will be used to develop a recommended plan portrayed in the Final 

Feasibility Report scheduled for completion in late 2004. 

Formal Report 

Five reports will be produced as a result of the four, two-day workshops. The first four 

reports are Workshop Reports, which will be reviewed by the workshop participants. A 

final integrated report summarizing the results from the four workshops will be published 

as part of the Navigation Study’s formal documentation process. The final integrated 

report will contain a full accounting of the site-specific objectives in the form of an atlas 

as well as the tabulated system, reach, and pool wide objectives and management actions 

(Table 1). Workshop participants will have an opportunity to review and comment on the 

integrated Draft Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops Report before its 

completion in early 2003. 

Table 1. UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objective 

Workshops reports contents. 

• St. Louis Environmental Workshop Report

- Summary of St. Louis workshop and results 

- Tables of identified Upper Mississippi River pool-wide and site-specific 

objectives 

- Table of identified management actions 

- Narrative of species and population parameters 

- Working Group Reports 

- Plenary Session Report 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

7
• Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops Report 

- Summary of all four workshops 

- Tables of all identified UMR-IWW pool-wide and site-specific objectives 

- Atlas maps of all identified site-specific objectives 

- Table of all identified managements actions 

- Narrative of UMR-IWW species and population parameters 

Environmental Objectives 

The primary goal of the Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops was to have 

participants collaboratively review, refine, and add to a database of specific, quantitative, 

and local to regional scale UMR-IWW environmental objectives obtained from previous 

study efforts. The St. Louis Workshop was successful in reviewing and identifying both 

site-specific and pool-wide objectives for the Mississippi River (Pool 24 to the Ohio 

River) using a combination of working groups and plenary sessions. Objective atlas 

maps and worksheets were reviewed and filled out by working groups. A plenary session 

then followed where the information from each group was compiled into the objective 

database using GIS tools (Figure 3). 

Figure 3. UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study GIS Objective Tool and Database.

The environmental objective database used at the St. Louis Workshop included 185 sitespecific objectives obtained from the Upper Mississippi River System Habitat Needs 

Assessment (HNA) and Middle Mississippi River Side Channel Rehabilitation and 

Conservation Project. Two additional data sources were identified during the St. Louis 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

8
n additional 251 site-specific objectives were identified through the workshop process 

aintaining 

able 2. Number of site-specific env. objectives identified for the Mississippi River.

uantitative target ranges for objectives were usually not identified at specific locations. 

 of 1.5m, 

ls, 

gimes to occur on the river, 

7 miles. 

 more complete list of Mississippi River pool-wide objectives gathered at the St. Louis 

Workshop and later added to the objective database. They included objectives noted by 

the Middle Mississippi River Stone Dike Alteration Study and Habitat Rehabilitation and

Enhancement Project (HREP) documents. HREP objectives were noted only for projects 

described as ‘under general design’ or ‘future opportunities’. 

A

bringing the total to 436 environmental objectives for the Pool 24 to Ohio River reach of 

the Mississippi River (Table 2). Aquatic area and land cover/use were the most common 

type of objectives identified for this portion of the river. Pool 25 had the largest density 

of identified objectives with an average of over three per river mile. The 19 

environmental objectives identified as ‘Other’ included objectives related to m

gravel substrate, improving air quality, and reducing sediment input from tributaries. 

Appendix E provides additional detail on the objectives listed in Table 2. Maps of all 

site-specific objectives identified in the workshop will be distributed for review in the 

integrated Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops Draft Report (in January). 

T

Objective Pool 24 Pool 25 Pool 26 Lock 26 to 

Kaskaskia R.

Kaskaskia R. to 

Grand Tower

Grand Tower to 

Ohio R. Total

Water Clarity 10 19 16 1 1 3 50

Backwater Depth 14 21 18 1 1 3 58

Water Level 100000

Connectivity 9 13411612

Aquatic Areas 8 17 7 34 15 43 124

Terrestrial Areas 7 3 2103 5

Land Cover/Use 13 26 18 18 9 14 98

Fish 000010

Other 464401

Total 66 105 69 79 36 81 436

Mississippi River Reach

1

55

30

1

19

Q

Rather, they were noted with the pool-wide objectives. Some examples of the pool-wide 

environmental objectives identified by workshop participants include: 

• Restore and maintain riparian corridors (200 ft. wide), 

• Water clarity sufficient to support vegetation to a depth

• Maintain and increase floodplain connectivity by 40%, 

• Increase quantity of woody debris in side channel of poo

• 15% reduction of nutrient load, 

• Restore historic meanders, 

• Allow some disturbance re

• Allow some non-constrained stretches of the river, 

• Provide bird nesting areas every 20 miles and 

• Provide overwintering habitat for fish every 5-

A

Workshop is located in Appendix E. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

9
Management Actions 

The purpose of the Management Actions working groups and plenary session was to 

review and identify management actions that were most likely to contribute to achieving 

the established goals and objectives. This was accomplished by reviewing current tables 

of management actions (see the Interim Report for the Restructured Upper Mississippi 

River – Illinois Waterway system Navigation Feasibility Study pages 251-255), tailoring 

them to the ecosystem elements under consideration, and revising them where necessary. 

Management Actions are defined as specific actions, tools, techniques or combinations of 

actions, tools and techniques used to meet defined objectives. Management actions are 

implemented as specific projects whose reconnaissance and feasibility studies provide the 

detail required to assess and develop environmental analyses, funding, staffing, 

engineering and partnerships needed to implement the plan. Table 3 is an example of the 

Management Actions Tables where actions have been changed or added. All 

management actions can be found in Appendix F. 

Table 3. Example Management Action Table. 

Element/ 

Parameter Extent ID Management Action Comments 

Water Quality 

Water Clarity Main Channel 1Apply watershed BMPs (best 

management practices) 

 2Stabilize river banks 

 3Pool scale drawdown to consolidate soft 

sediments 

 4 Minimize dredge disturbance/frequency 

 5 Minimize dredge slurry return water 

 6 Minimize bankside dredged material 

placement 

 7Stabilize dredged material 

 8Tributary reservoirs 

 9Speed and wake restrictions - rec. 

boats (all watercraft) 

Comments/ 

Additions: 

Evaluate and modify mechanisms to 

deal with watershed influences to 

eliminate spiking hydrographic cycle 

(system wide) 

 

 Restore natural tributary areas through 

delta areas 

 Minimize open water dredged material 

placement 

 Sediment traps 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

10
Species and Population Parameters 

The purpose of this session was to identify plant and animal species and appropriate units 

of measure that should be considered for future environmental objectives planning 

efforts. Below is a summary of the discussion that took place during the plenary session. 

There is a long-term commercial fish catch database maintained by the Upper Mississippi 

River conservation Committee (UMRCC) that can be helpful in evaluating species 

populations on the UMRS. States maintain similar records individually. There is also an 

ongoing effort to establish a baseline demographic for fishes in the Middle Mississippi 

River reach. The Audubon Society has launched an initiative to establish and survey 

“Important Bird Areas” along the UMRS. They also conduct an annual Christmas Bird 

Count and Breeding Bird Surveys to track bird species presence and trends. These 

databases do not provide abundance estimates, but they have helped evaluate species 

distribution for many years. 

There was concern that focusing on a small set of species may not detect community 

level response, either beneficial or adverse. Habitat evaluation procedures like the 

Wildlife Habitat Appraisal Guide (WHAG) and Aquatic Habitat Appraisal Guide 

(AHAG) were proposed as habitat level models designed for such purposes. They were 

thought to be more robust than species specific Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) that 

may emphasize some habitat variable over others and frequently don’t incorporate all 

habitat variables. 

Some responded with the observation that AHAG results are poor indicators of actual 

project performance in terms of fish use of restored habitats. Some participants 

recommended that the fisheries management community work to complete an Index of 

Biotic Integrity (IBI) for large rivers. 

Some participants were puzzled why the Corps would venture into species level issues 

anyway. The Corps has authority for habitat management and other state and Federal 

agencies have responsibility for species. 

Invertebrates and less mobile species were proposed as the best indicators of restoration 

response because they would be most impacted by changes in local habitat conditions. 

Exotic, threatened, and endangered species could also be indicators of community level 

responses. A more detailed discussion can be found in Appendix G. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

11
Conceptual Model 

At the end of the workshop, participants were provided with a brief presentation on the 

ecosystem conceptual model being developed for the UMR-IWW Navigation Study. The 

purpose of the UMR-IWW conceptual model is to identify the linkages and sequencing 

of identified environmental objectives and associated management actions and facilitate a 

comprehensive assessment of the potential risks and impacts posed by improvements to 

the navigation infrastructure. The conceptual model can contribute to this overall 

purpose through the following: 

• Visually characterize a complex system to better understand and manage it 

• Identify the major drivers, stressors, and endpoints of the system 

• Define the functional relationships (i.e., linkages) between stressors and endpoints 

• Assist in decisions on impact assessment, restoration and management actions, 

and evaluation tools 

• Provide a framework for implementing adaptive management and restoration 

• Facilitate dialog and develop a structure for additional input from stakeholders 

The ecosystem conceptual model presentation can be found in Appendix H. All the 

PowerPoint slides used during the 2-day workshop are displayed in Appendix I. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

12
Appendix A. Invitation List with Participants Highlighted 

Name Affiliation Address Phone E-mail Reid Adams 

Souther IL Univ - Zoology 

Department of Zoology Southern Illinois University Carbondale, IL 62901 618.453.4113 adamsr@siu.edu

Barry Allen MO DOC 

7001 County Rd. 675 Dexter, MO 63841 AllenB@mdc.state.

Mike Anderson MO DOC 

2206 W. St. Joseph Perryville, MO 63775 AnderM@mdc.state

Mike Arduser MO DOC 

2360 HWY D St. Charles, MO 63304 ArdusM@mdc.state

Dwight Asselmeier UMIMRA 

Gateway FS, Inc. POBox 100, Red Bud, IL 62278 618.282.4000 

Butch Atwood ILDNR - Fisheries 

1000 Killarney Dr Greenville, IL 62246 eatwood@dnrmail.s

Valerie Barko MO DOC 

3815 E. Jackson Blvd. Jackson, MO 63755 BarkoV@mdc.state

Jamie Barton MO DOC 

2500 E. HYW VV East Prairie, MO 63845 BartoJ@mdc.state.

Mark Beorkrem Sierra Club/MRBA 

P.O. Box 370 Morrisonville, IL 62546 314.882.8425 beorkrem@ctitech.c

Mark Boone MO DOC 

2302 County Park Dr. Cape Girardeay, MO 63701 BooneM@mdc.stat

Neil Booth ILDNR - Wildlife 

Mississippi River Area Office Grafton, IL 62037 618.376.3303 nbooth@dnrmail.sta

David Berndt MARC 2000 

Holcim, Inc., 2942 US Hwy 61, Bloomsdale, MO 63627 636.933.8177 dave.berndt@holcim

Philip Bradshaw MARC 2000 

RR! Box 133 Griggsville, IL 62304 217.833.2446 llbpeb@pikenet.net

Chris Brescia MARC 2000 

906 Olive Street, Ste. 1010 St. Louis, MO 63101 314.436.7303 Bresh@aol.com

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Name Affiliation Address Phone E-mail

Danny Brown MO DOC 

2360 HWY D St. Charles, MO 63304 

636.441.4554 x241 BrownD2@mdc.state.m

Ed Brown MO DOC 

812 Progress Dr Farmmingon, MO 63640 BrownE@mdc.state.mo

Ken Brummett MO DOC 

653 Clinic Road Hannibal, MO 63401 573.248.2530 BrummK@mdc.state.mo

Scott Bunselmeyer UMIMRA 

Bunselmeyer Brothers, 1004 Little Levee Road, Rockwood, IL 62280 618.763.4726 

Dave Busse CEMVS-ED-HPW 

1222 Spruce Street St. Louis, MO 63103-2833 314.331.8349 David.R.Busse@mvs02

John Cannon CEMVS-CO-NM 

1222 Spruce Street St. Louis, MO 63103-2833 314.899.2600 John.Cannon@mvs02.u

Steve Chard Il Dept Agriculture Springfield IL 217.785.4233 Schard@arg.state.il.usGary Christoff MO DOC 

PO Box180 Jefferson City, MO 

573.751.4115 X-3357 chrisg@mdc.state.mo.u

Sean Cleary MO DOC - Wildlife 

PO Box 201 Elsberry, MO 63343 ClearS@mdc.state.mo.u

Joyce Collins USFWS Marion, IL 700.331.9340 Joyce_Collins@fws.govDean Corgiat ILDNR 

Route 106 West PO Box 477 Pittsfield, IL 62363 dcorgiat@dnrmail.state.

Mike Cox CEMVR-OD-T 

PO Box 2004 Clock Tower Building Rock Island, IL 61201 309-794.5558 Michael.D.Cox@mvr02.

Ken Dalrymple CEMVS-PM-EE 

1222 Spruce Street St. Louis, MO 63103-2833 314-331-8592 

Rob Davinroy CEMVS-ED-HP 

1222 Spruce Street St. Louis, MO 63103-2833 314-263-4714 Robert.D.Davinroy@mv

Robert DiStefano 

American Fisheries Society - MO 

PO Box 10267 Columbia, MO 65205 dister@mdc.state.mo.us

Kenneth.L.Dalrymple@m

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Name Affiliation Address Phone E-mail 

Charlie Duetsch CEMVS-CO-NM 

1222 Spruce Street St. Louis, MO 63103-2833 314.899.2600 Charlie.Deutsch@mvs

Jon Duyvejonck USFWS/UMRCC 

4469 48th Ave. Ct. Rock Island, IL 61201 309.793.5800 Jon_Duyvejonck@fws.g

Stan Ebersohl CEMVS-CO-N 

1222 Spruce Street St. Louis, MO 63103-2833 636.899.2600 

Dan Erickson CEMVS-CO-NR 

1222 Spruce Street St. Louis, MO 63103-2833 636-899-2600 Dan.Erickson@mvs02

Gordon Farabee 

7509 County Road 332 Palmyra, MO 63461 573.769.2620 sfarabee@nemonet.c

Christine Favilla Sierra Club 

223 Marked St Alton, IL 62002 618.462.6802 cfavilla@ezl.com

Jenny Frazier 

American Land Conservancy Cape Girardeau, MO jenny@alcnet.org

Lia Frey MO DOC 

2360 HWY D St. Charles, MO 63304 FreyL@mdc.state.mo

Dave Gates CEMVS-PM-F 

1222 Spruce Street St. Louis, MO 63103-2833 314.331.8478 david.r.gates@mvs02

Robert Goodwin 

US DOT Maritime Administration 

1222 Spruce St. Suite 2.202F St. Louis, MO 63103 314.539.6783 Robert.Goodwin@ma

Kristin Goodrich MO DOC 

653 Clinic Road Hannibal, MO 63401 GoodrK@mdc.state.m

Bill Graham CEMVR-OD-T 

PO Box 2004 Clock Tower Building Rock Island, IL 61201 309.794.5362 Willis.J.Graham@mvr

John Guthrie 

FWS Swan Lake Refuge 

Route 1 Box 29 A Sumner, MO 64681 660-856-3323 john_guthrie@fws.gov

Mark Haas MO DOC 

2302 County Park Dr. Cape Girardeay, MO 63701 HaasM@mdc.state.m

Heather HamptonKnodle UMIMRA 201 W. Fairground Ave, Hillsboro, IL 62049 217.532.5458 ink@cillnet.com

Stanley.F.Ebersohl@m

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Name Affiliation Address Phone E-mail 

Jon Handel ILDNR - Wildlife 

Pere Marquette State Park PO Box 158 Grafton, IL 62037 jhandel@dnrmail.sta

Ty Harris 

MO Coalition for the Environment 

6267 Delmar Blvd. Suite 2-E St. Louis, MO 63130 tharris@moenviron.

Ed Heisel 

MO Coalition for the Environment 

6267 Delmar Blvd. Suite 2-E St. Louis, MO 63130 314.727.0600 eheisel@moenviron

Dave Herzog MO DOC 

3815 E. Jackson Blvd. Jackson, MO 63755 HerzoD@mdc.state

Jeanne Heuser 

USGS Columbia Research Center 

4200 New Haven Rd, Columbia, MO 65201 573.876.1876 jeanne_heuser@us

Bob Hrabik 

MO DOC - Open River Field Station 

3815 E. Jackson Blvd. Jackson, MO 63755 573.243.2659x21 HrabiR@mdc.state.

Don Huffman MARC 2000 

MEMCO 16090 Swingley Ridge Road, Ste. 600, Chesterfield, MO 63017 636.530.2111 donh@memcobarge.c

Bob Hughey CEMVS-ED-D 

1222 Spruce Street St. Louis, MO 63103-2833 314.331.8300 

Brian Johnson CEMVS-PM-EA 

1222 Spruce Street St. Louis, MO 63103-2833 314-331-8146 Brian.L.Johnson@m

Tim Krumwiede ILDNR - Wildlife 

PO Box 477 Pittsfield, IL 62363 tkrumwiede@dnrma

Janeen Laatsch MO DOC 

2302 County Park Dr. Cape Girardeay, MO 63701 LaatsJ@mdc.state.m

Eric Laux CEMVS-PM-EA 

1222 Spruce Street St. Louis, MO 63103-2833 314.331.8148 eric.a.laux@mvs02.us

Tom Leifeld MO DOC 

2360 HWY D St. Charles, MO 63304 LeifiT@mdc.state.m

John Magera USFWS-MMNWR 

Middle Miss River NWR 8588 Route 148, Marion, IL 62959 618.997.3344.342

Bobby.R.Hughey@m

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Name Affiliation Address Phone E-mail 

Rob Maher IL DNR - Fisheries 

8450 Montclair Godfrey, IL 62035 618.466.3451 rmaher@dnrmail.sta

Deck Major ILDNR 

Region IV Office 4521 Alton Commerce Parkway Alton, IL 62002 dmajor@dnrmail.stat

Matt Matheney MO DOC 

2500 S. Halliburton Kirksville, MO 63501 MatheM@mdc.state

Catherine McCalvin 

The Nature Conservancy 

PO Box 305 Trempealeau, WI 54661-0305 608.534.6514 CMcCalvin@tnc.org

Dan McGuiness - Director 

Audubon, Upper Mississippi River Campaign 

26 East Exchange Street,Suite 110 St. Paul, MN 55101 dmcguiness@audub

Kevin Meneau MO DOC 

2360 HWY D St. Charles, MO 63304 MeneaK@mdc.state

T. Miller CEMVS-PM-EA 

1222 Spruce Street St. Louis, MO 63103-2833 314.331.8458 t.miller@mvs02.usac

Travis Moore MO DOC 

653 Clinic Road Hannibal, MO 63401 MooreT@mdc.state.

Lynn Muench MARC 2000 

American Waterway Operators, 319 N 4th St, Ste.650, St. Louis, MO 63102 314.436.7303 awo-midcontinent@m

Dave Ostendorf MO DOC 

3815 E. Jackson Blvd. Jackson, MO 63755 ostend@mdc.state.m

John Perrin UMIMRA 

BASF Corportation, POBox 817 Hannibal, MO 63401 573.769.8661 

Joel Porath MO DOC 

2360 HWY D St. Charles, MO 63304 PoratJ@mdc.state.m

Mike Reed UMIMRA 

Sny Island LDD, PO Box 169, New Canton, IL 62356 217.426.2521 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Name Affiliation Address Phone E-mail 

Lynn Schrader MO DOC 

2360 HWY D St. Charles, MO 63304 SchraL@mdc.state.m

Jeff Stamper CEMVS-ED-DA 

1222 Spruce Street St. Louis, MO 63103-2833 314.331.8226 

Dick Steinbach USFWS 217.224.8580 Dick_Steinbach@fwsJerry Stroud CEMVS-CO-NN-5 

10 Sandy Slough Road, Winfield, MO 63389 636.566.8120 Jerry.Stroud@mvs02.u

Scott Stuewe IL DNR 

One Natural Resources Way Springfield IL 62702-1271 Sstuewe@dnrmail.st

Art Suchland MO DOC 

2500 S. Halliburton Kirksville, MO 63501 SuchlA@mdc.state.m

Chuck Surprenant USFWS 

Carterville Fishery Resources office, 9053 Route 148, Suite A Marion, IL 62959 618.997.6869 chuck_surprenant@f

Darlene Swearingen MO DOC 

RR 1 Box 98 Baring, MO 63531 SwearD@mdc.state.

Gary Swenson CEMVR-OD-MN 

PO Box 2004 Clock Tower Building Rock Island, IL 61201 309.794.4489 Gary.V.Swenson@m

Andy Tappmeyer MO DOC 

2360 HWY D St. Charles, MO 63304 TappmA@mdc.state

John Tucker LTRMP - Pool 26 

8450 Montclair Brighton, IL 62012 618.466.9690 jktucker@inhs.uiuc.ed

Brian Todd MO DOC 

2500 S. Halliburton Kirksville, MO 63501 ToddB@mdc.state.m

John Vogel MO DOC 

2360 HWY D St. Charles, MO 63304 VogelJ@mdc.state.m

Karen Watwood CEMVS-CO-NR 

1222 Spruce Street St. Louis, MO 63103-2833 

636.899.2600 Ext 233 Karen.Watwood@mv

Jeffrey.L.Stamper@m

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Name Affiliation Address Phone E-mail 

Harriet Weger MO DOC 

2302 County Park Dr. Cape Girardeay, MO 63701 WegerH@mdc.state

Mike Wells MO DNR 

PO Box 176 Jefferson City, MO 65102.0176 373.751.2867 

Karen Westphall USFWS Refuge 

1704 North 24th St Quincy, IL 62301 Karen_Westphall@fw

Steve Widowski 

Shawnee National Forest 

Tom Wilson ILDNR - Forestry 

202 North 5th Street PO Box 170 Carrollton, IL 32016 217.942.3816 twil@dnrmail.state.il.

Dave Wissehr MO DOC 

RR 1 Box 186 Puxico, Mo 63960 WisseD@mdc.state.

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Appendix B. Agenda 

Day 1 

9:00 Opening 

Hank DeHaan and Chuck Theiling 

9:10 Introduction to the Workshop Process and Participant Introductions 

 Rebecca Soileau 

9:30 UMR-IWW Restructured Navigation Feasibility Study Overview and Schedule 

Ken Barr 

9:45 Vision, Goals, and Environmental Objectives 

 Chuck Theiling 

10:00 Working Definitions of Terminology for this Workshop 

Nicole McVay

10:10 Overview of GIS Database and Existing Objectives and Management Actions 

Hank DeHaan 

10:30 Working Groups (I): Identify and refine environmental objectives for the 

Illinois Waterway ecosystem. . 

12:00 Lunch 

1:00 Working Groups (I): Continued work and Report Preparation 

3:30 Plenary: Presentation of objectives identified by each working group and input 

into GIS 

5:30 Adjourn 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

B-1
DAY 2 

8:00 Plenary: Presentation and discussion of synthesis of results from previous 

days work 

 

9:00 Working Groups (II): Review and identify management actions that are 

most likely to contribute towards achieving the established goals and 

objectives 

10:30 Plenary: Group presentations of new and revised management actions. 

12:00 Lunch 

1:00 Plenary: Overview of regional evaluation data and tools for assessing the efficiency 

of management actions both initially and in an adaptive management framework. 

Discussion of species and population parameters. 

Chuck Theiling

2:30 Review of Regional Ecosystem Conceptual Models 

 

3:00 Workshop Closing

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

B-2
Appendix C. Plenary Session Notes 

Below are the plenary session notes that were captured by the facilitators during the twoday workshop. Participant names have been removed from all comments except those 

made by the facilitators. 

St. Louis Workshop November 13th – Day 1 

Chuck Theiling’s Intro (9:05 –9:13)

Chuck Theiling’s introduction briefly described what the workshop will accomplish as 

well as introduced Hank DeHaan, Nicole McVay, Rebecca Soileau and himself. 

Questions: 

 – The lower river is very different from the upper river. How can you standardize when 

the regions are so different? 

Theiling – We want the planning process to be standardized, not the management 

actions. 

 – Species level is fine but we should be looking at community level interactions. We 

need to be looking at things more holistically. 

Theiling – We found in Peoria that this whole species level idea is a can of worms. 

Participant Introductions (9:13 – 9:35)

See Section 6.

Ken Barr’s Talk (9:35- 9:57)

Ken Barr discussed the history of the Navigation Study – its original focus as well as 

some of the studies that originated from that process. He then went on to discuss the 

restructured navigation study, describing the vision as well as the new scope of the study. 

He showed how the two studies differed with respect to the ecological integrity (the 

original study focused on direct effects of construction or more tow boats on fish, 

sediment resuspension, mussels, etc; while the restructured study will consider the 

existing project impacts and establish objectives to have the environment reach a desired 

state). During his presentation he also displayed the six-step planning process and 

reminded all workshop participants that the Corps has to follow this process. He 

concluded the presentation by discussing how the environmental portion of the 

navigation study will be viewed in an adaptive management framework as well as 

showing the participants the schedule of the study. At the end of the presentation he told 

people that they were open to attend NECC/ECC meetings and that the meeting minutes 

could be found on the web. 

Questions (9:57- 10:18)

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-1
– How do we focus on the area impacted by Navigation Project? The entire floodplain is 

indirectly affected by navigation system through the maintenance of the levees, so the 

whole area affected is actually bluff-to-bluff. 

Barr – We are assuming that the navigation system is there. If some objectives are 2-3 

miles away near from the river and near the slope of the bluff we probably won’t be able 

to bite that off in this study. 

– What will be needed to restore the river is not solely related to navigation. Some needs 

are related to the watershed. Will the final report separate out those cause and effects and 

make recommendations regarding this? Congress may only want to fund $’s for 

restoration from navigation effects. What do we see as our final product? I want to see 

entire restoration, not just the navigation effects restoration. 

Barr – It’s not important to know that environmental loss is based on 93% watershed, 

7% navigation. What is important is to know what tools we have to change and help 

these circumstances. We are more interested in cause and effects to be able to look 

forward and know what we can do better. However, we have to understand that if we dig 

out an area, runoff may fill it up again in 5 years. We need to understand this. However, 

we will not be addressing uplands. This study will not make specific recommendations 

for watersheds. 

– This is a major shortcoming of this study. The Corps is the only organization that can 

do this. If you don’t do this no one else can. 

Barr – We aren’t planning for the entire basin. A whole bunch of folks are doing things 

in the area that we have chosen to bite off. 

– Similar to the navigation study, the UMR Comprehensive Plan won’t be looking at the 

whole universe. We are going to focus primarily on the floodplain area. We cannot 

make this study the big “CP” of integrated river management. Legislatively, this study 

has to tie-back to its primary purpose of flood damage reduction. However, this 

workshop is a first step toward a broader view of the river system. Nothing is stopping 

either of these studies from making recommendations to Congress for follow-up study 

investigations. 

– Sedimentation within the basin is consistent. We are not doing anything to address 

sedimentation within the basin, yet it is the greatest impact on navigation and habitat. 

Barr – We can do a better job to quantify that. Knox and Nakato were able to give some 

pretty good insights on how land practices have changed since the 50’s. We will not be 

seeking authority for major basin efforts with this study. We know that sediment is the 

problem. 

– You have to go for some new authority. Somehow we need to convert 3.5 million acres 

of cropland to trees to help slow erosion. If we don’t get it converted it won’t matter 

what we do. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-2
Barr – Some states have done that. 

– This is our opportunity to do this on the right scale. 

Barr – There are going to be things in the floodplain that will have to be cost shared. 

There will be regional stakeholder issues that will have to be tackled. 

Soileau – These concerns and issues should be noted in the small groups so we can carry 

them forward from this meeting. All of the info captured here can be utilized in other 

studies. 

Barr – The scope of this study has been developed and focused since Aug 2001. 

Theiling –Congress has recognized sedimentation through NRCS programs. IL River 

Ecosystem Program (IL 2020) will be a model to let a state work in stream channel. This 

can address the legacy sediment in the stream. 

– It is absolutely foolish to come up with recommendations for sustainability if this is not 

wrapped up as a complete project with no real focus. This is our opportunity to be like 

Florida. 

Barr – Tell this to the Federal taskforce. There is an opportunity to look at crosscut type 

of issues. 

– I thought that this was going to be a cross-agency program. 

– Is there any restriction to attaching an addendum to look at things outside the 

Navigation Effects? 

Barr – No, we can. We are told to look at EMP alternatives and possibly other 

authorities. 

– Then I recommend we do that. 

– Please don’t use acronyms. 

Barr – Sorry – EMP – Environmental Management Program. 

Chuck Theiling’s Talk (10:18-10:37)

Chuck began his talk by reviewing many of the reports that have been written concerning 

the environment of the UMR-IWW. He then went on to discuss how the Corps has 

structured this study and where in the study these workshops take place. Next he 

discussed the expert panel, their functions, the individuals who will make up the panel, as 

well as how they will fit into the entire process. Chuck then discussed goals, objectives 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-3
and management actions. He displayed the goals from Grumbine that were adopted by 

the Navigation Study in the interim report as well as the goals listed in the UMRCC 

report “A River that Works and a Working River.” Next he discussed objectives, 

described them and listed several example objectives. The following questions had to 

deal with objectives: 

Mid-Talk Questions (10:24 – 10:34)

– When you get to the end of the objectives, how will we know that this feeds into 

sustainability? The river process can be restored to get at sustainability – this isn’t a onepoint objective. 

Theiling –We want to look for big picture answer but we know we work from project to 

project. 

– We need to restore natural processes. 

Theiling – Management actions tomorrow will help us identify how to do this– 

drawdowns are a good example. Divert flow into backwater to clean them up. 

Soileau – The format for setting objectives is to start at the System then set the reach and 

pool scales. 

Barr – Joyce has a great question. We will be using conceptual models that look at 

processes. They will look at how these objectives will help to restore processes. The 

conceptual model is a tool to examine how the pattern of habitat can lead to 

sustainability. 

– We have not had a management authority ever, only a navigation authority. The 

solution that has to come out of the navigation study is an authority revision and adaptive 

management with monitoring of the system. 

 – Objectives need to be realistic. What about conflicts with maintenance and with the 

navigation system? 

Theiling – We don’t want our ideas to be constrained. We will look at costs and benefits 

later. There is more site specific planning to be done later. 

Chuck Theiling’s talk continued (10:34 – 10:42)

Chuck continued his presentation by giving an overview of the framework for setting 

objectives. He then continued by showing where the data to create the objectives 

database came from. He concluded the talk by reiterating exactly where the focus of the 

navigation study was as well as discussing how other agencies and authorities could use 

these overarching goals. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-4
Break 

Rebecca Soileau’s Talk (10:50 – 10:57)

Rebecca Soileau discussed the overall workshop process including a brief agenda. She 

then discussed the working agreement and had participants agree to abide by it. Finally 

she defined her role as a facilitator as well as the expected roles of the participants. She 

then presented the working definitions. 

Hank DeHaan’s Objectives (10:58)-(11:14)

Hank discussed the objective database, including where the information came from, and 

how the database is structured. This included a detailed discussion of the framework for 

setting objectives. He then gave a brief demonstration of the database in Arc View 3.2. 

Questions (11:14 – 11:27)

– Please discuss the Target Date Issue that we talked about in Peoria. 

DaHaan – Instead of identifying a specific date, list a decade. So 2010 means target for 

implementation within the next 10 years. 

– What will you consider to be the baseline year? 

Theiling – We don’t know when any project will be implemented. So if you say 2020 

we will interpret that to mean you want the objective met in 20 years. We will do the 

math once the Navigation Study is a go. 

– If we are “restoring” the ecosystem, what is the reference condition assumed? 

Theiling– Different parts of the river have different reference conditions. We proposed 

1940 for pooled river reaches of Miss. For IL River – post diversion. Middle Miss –

degradation occurred in 1800’s for steamboat impacts. Middle Miss is about as good as it 

has been in a long time. 

– 1800’s is the best time. 

Barr – We are not constrained with our baseline. (They are best used) only as insights 

(into desired conditions). 

– When do we discuss how to implement? One action may affect other objectives. Batch 

Town example. 

Theiling – We will look at management actions tomorrow. There are many examples of 

Management actions for Batch Town. However we don’t want to be site specific. 

– How is reference condition used in the planning process? What does this mean in terms 

of your planning process? 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-5
Theiling – We won’t be using it in the planning process. However, people have it in 

their minds. 

– How do we resolve this? 

Theiling – We don’t work it today. That is what the representatives will do in further 

meetings. 

– We have a lack of information. There is a discrepancy between Corps and agencies as 

to what the Middle Miss looked like in the 1800’s. We need to look at river processes 

that are similar to what will occur. 

Barr – We recognized that this is a heavily managed system. The environment will have 

to be highly managed. These baselines are not what will be used to set up further 

authorities. 

Soileau – We don’t have perfect knowledge. We bring you together to get the best 

working knowledge that we can. This is an Adaptive Management process as well. 

– Will monitoring be more intensive then with EMP? I want us to do more monitoring, 

we should front load this with science. 

Theiling – I hope so. We need to do cause and effect studies with the management 

actions as well.

Objectives Plenary Session (3:10):

The plenary began by asking each group to give a brief overview of what they did, as 

well as listing their reach and pool-wide objectives. 

Group 1 Summary 

Pools start at 24 

Overall Objectives – 

1) Increase acreage of bottomland hardwood forests in floodplain as social and economic 

factors allow. 

2) Restore and maintain riparian corridors (200 ft. wide). 

3) Increase wetland habitat behind levees. 

4) Maintain and increase floodplain connectivity, spillway, opportunistic flooding. 

5) Water level management – hinge point drawdown. This is an opportunity to move 

from hinge point to endpoint control. 

6) Fish Passage – Latitudinal and longitudinal connectivity. 

Group 2 Summary 

Our main thought is that a lot of this has been done 

Lower River Objectives– 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-6
1) Implement side channel plan. 

2) Implement stone dike objectives. 

3) Reduce air and water pollutions. 

4) Reconnect river with floodplain in selected locations. 

Pools Objectives 

More hard mast producing trees. 

Create more deep-water habitat. 

More dredging in pools and private boat docks to allow greater drawdowns. 

Group 3 Summary 

Open River 

Remove all of the levees, restore 100% connectivity, take river to pre-European 

settlement conditions. 

Partial flood plain restoration– 20-30% reconnectivity 

Restore historic meanders. 

Allow every 5-7 miles of over wintering for fish. 

Every 20 miles bird resting areas. 

Habitat connectivity in Main Channel. 

Founder effect 

Rob talking too fast see his computer notes. 

1950’s may be a good baseline – fisheries and shrimp 

Use old and existing quarries for deepwater habitat. 

Create new side channels 

– We went through side channel plan. Maybe you don’t want to clear them all out. 

– The final determination would be made later. 

– Reconnectivity might not be the best thing in all cases.

Group 4 Summary

Buy the Sny 

Deconstruct Batchtown 

Pool Objectives 

Return hydrograph to as natural as possible 

150 in an opportunistic basis acquire land of willing sellers to restore floodplain 

connectivity. 

Pool 26 – Restore 40% of floodplain to pre-historic conditions. Including agricultural 

programs. 

Problems with setting objectives for specific pools – we have a limited understanding of 

pool resources so it is hard to set objectives. What particular times do some species need 

access to backwaters? Bank stabilization is good, but limits habitats. SO when does it 

start to have an impact? 

Water Quality – DO, methyl Hg, nutrients, and fecal coliform reduction from tributaries. 

Water Clarity - sufficient to support vegetation to a depth of 1.5m. 

Increase quantity of woody debris in side channel of pools. 

Need to restore streams in the floodplain. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-7
Concerns about air quality. 

All islands into public ownership. 

Site Specific Objective Setting for St. Louis (3:30)

Once each group gave their report we then started at Pool 24 and moved down river, 

allowing all participants to provide input. 

Pool wide – Water control for aquatic areas. 

Pool 25 

– Should we add in mussel info? 

–Yes. 

– Mussel beds will be put in Natural Heritage database. So we will get our info from 

there, not put on this map. 

Pool 24 – 25 island plans? Talk to Ken Barr. EMP Fact Sheet 

Group 1 has detailed notes for most numbered objectives. We will not put the info in the 

database now; rather gather data from their notes later. 

Pool 26 

#62 – covered in island fact sheet 

Pool 26 – Kaskaskia 

RM –128-130 Reconnect wetlands on both side of the levee. 

Kaskaskia – Grand Tower 

RM 112 – There is an old side channel that needs to be reconnected. 

Crains Island Levee RM104 - talk about set back and levee raises. 

– Route 3 runs through Liberty Chute near Rockwood Islands RM 102 

– How will all of this shake out? 

Theiling – Once we are to the project level we will do reconnaissance do see if there is a 

federal interest. We will calculate Costs and Benefits with 65% engineering. This goes 

through for final funding. Then it will go through final engineering and construction. 

Grand Tower to Ohio River 

– Are you going to do anything in the ox bow area? 

RM 20 – 31 We are in the process of establishing riparian corridor and forest. 

- Regional Objective – Come up with and implement a plan to deal with exotics. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-8
St. Louis Workshop November 14th – Day 2 

Opening (9:06)

Managements Actions – Chuck Theiling (9:08 – 9:10) 

Chuck began this section by discussing why it is important for management actions to be 

identified, as well as defining what a management action is. Next he discussed how the 

current list of management actions was created. Finally he and Rebecca projected the 

management action worksheet and discussed how to work during the breakout sessions. 

Discussion Before Management Actions Working Groups: 

– “Reduce Algae” Isn’t this an objective? 

Theiling – Yes. 

Soileau – You can go ahead and convert these to management actions. 

 – If we don’t see a management action that is directly linked to an objective identified 

yesterday we can go ahead and add it on. 

Soileau – Yes, absolutely. 

 – Are we inserting an element of realism to the management actions or are we waiting 

for later? 

Soileau – You can clarify them, but don’t say “your off your rocker”. We are trying to 

capture all ideas. What may not be applicable now, may be later. 

Theiling – 5-8 years ago people would have thought environmental pool management 

was impossible. 

 – If we don’t like dredges we tend to get more rock in the river. So, if we cross off 

minimize dredge disturbance will that be interpreted to add more rock in the river? 

Soileau – We will have many actions to address any of these concerns, so there may be 

another way to meet those needs. Make sure you put any concerns in your notes.

Management Action Working Groups (9:20-11:05)

Management Action Plenary (11:10)

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-9
Group 1 Report (Pools) (Numbers in parentheses are the group the speaker belonged 

to.) 

People in our group wanted to do this in a site-specific manner. To implement them, you 

cannot do it over the entire reach; you have to be in a specific area to do a specific action. 

Pools

Water Quality (Main Channel) 

(1)Dissolved O2, Nitrates and Chemicals. 

(1) – For speed restrictions we discussed advisories. 

 (1)– Should we remove increase Channel depth because we didn’t think it would help 

water quality due to sediment characteristics? 

(4) – Many of these applied to other categories and were located there, but we included 

them here as well. Talked a lot about restoring natural hydrograph. Especially how 

induced drawdowns don’t follow the natural drawdowns. 

– Reconfigure tow facilities and scheduling to minimize sediment resuspensions 

Water Quality (Back Water) 

(1) All in report

(4) Re-emphasize drawdown 

Geomorphology (Back Water Depth) 

(1) All in report 

(4) All in report 

Water Level (Main Channel and BackWater) 

(1) All in report 

(4) All in report 

Connectivity (Floodplain) 

(1) - #35 was unclear as to what it was 

(4) – Year round pool management – Spring Flood – Summer Drawdown – Late Fall, 

winter rise again. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-10
(1) – How do you apply a natural hydrograph to a locked river? The locks have created a 

different environmental system so what values are you trying to achieve by introduction a 

pre-impoundment natural hydrograph to a locked river. 

 – We can’t do anything to the spring flood. We can simulate the rise and fall of the river 

with management of dam operations. We are trying to draw down in the summer but 

then let them come back up to pool levels in fall. However, the fall rise is the question 

mark; we may need to buy more real estate. 

– So you need to be careful using the word ‘natural’. This system was actually built to 

mitigate against this. 

– Not the amplitude of the natural hydrograph, the shape of it. 

– I understand, I think that we need to be careful of language. 

Theiling – There are functional aspects that we are trying recreate. Sediment 

consolidation: this can happen at almost any time. Holding waters high allows 

connectivity to off channel areas for fish over-wintering. Some things are time 

dependant, others aren’t. 

– Some people understand that these need to be acted within certain confines but the 

general public may not. 

– Would this be dependant upon natural conditions? 

– Yes, you don’t want it to be the same every year. River won’t allow you to do it every 

year, i.e. drought years. Chris is right we do have to be careful with the language we use. 

Connectivity (Secondary Channel ) 

(4) All in report 

(1) All in report 

Connectivity (Longitudinal) 

(4) All in report 

(1) All in report

Patterns of Habitat (Aquatic Areas) 

(1) All in report 

(4) All in report 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-11
Patterns of Habitat (Terrestrial) 

(4) All in report 

(1) All in report 

Patterns of Habitat (Land Cover/Use) 

(1) All in report 

Plants and Animals 

(1) All in report 

(4) All in report 

Open River

Water Quality – Water Clarity (Main Channel) 

 (2) – We made no judgments. All things were good and should be laid out before the 

site manager. 

(2) – Assuming #8 meant sediment traps and that it could be used in the middle river. 

(3) Our plan of attack was to go through the list and discuss and eliminate items. 

(3) Water clarity wasn’t as much an issue as stratification and anoxic conditions. Water is 

clearer than historic levels due to Missouri Dams. Better route to increase turbidity in 

some areas. #2 Feel that some banks are too stabilized, would like to restore some natural 

meander. 

Water Quality – Water Clarity (BW) 

 (2) – Number 17 brought about a bit of discussion based on feasibility. Additional 

management actions were Increasing licensing, and Rhodam (?) 

(3) Added side channels to the backwater category. 

– Dissolved Oxygen (DO) – side channels become isolated in the summer months, 

stratification occurs and anoxic conditions develop. Increasing connectivity and flow 

would help. Notching structures and dredging would help. 

Nutrients are also an issue. Being isolated in side channels leads to eutrophication and 

DO issues. Carbon inputs and woody structures could be debated – reforestation would 

be desirable. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-12
– BMP was also added here. 

(2) – How can destabilizing a riverbank improve the water clarity? 

(3)– Middle Miss was a very turbid river. Fish communities evolved and adapted to these 

kinds of situations. This changed when mainstem dams went in on the Missouri. There 

has been a shift in fish populations – non-sight fish populations are down. Return of 

these fish would be beneficial. Stabilizing the banks keeps turbidity and sediment out of 

the river. 

(2)– Seems counter intuitive 

(3)– We, a society, like to see clean flowing water. However the Middle Miss was not 

that kind of river. 

(2)– So, if we decrease BMPs and let the sediment flow into the river, would that be 

good? 

(3)- No, the sediment has to come from the right places (from the channel or the Missouri 

River). 

– Good to think outside of the box 

(2)– We are talking about different areas of the river. Sediment coming from upland 

impacts the entire system, but sediment from the river is better. 

– Stabilizing the bank does keep trees from falling in river, but it does eliminate flat 

scoured area habitat and structure from fallen trees. 

Geomorphology Page 2-3 

(2) Look at water level tables and water usage and see how that is affecting Main 

Channel water levels. 

(3) – Hydrograph in the Middle Miss is similar to historic, but more flashy. If you could 

implement set backs and notching you may be able to bring down the peak a little bit. 

(3) – Dig new channels for backwater depth and backwater areas 

(2) In floodplain – add structures into levees to allow water flow 

 (4)– Is there any problem with channel bed degradation (down cutting) in the main 

channel? 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-13
(3)– Don’t really know. 

Geomorphology Page 2-4 

(2) All in notes 

(3) There is a lock at Kaskaskia and maybe something could be done there. 

Pattern of Habitats – Aquatic Areas

(2) – From #54-55 – Could open areas to increase flows, which would expose gravel 

already there. #80 Thought that was more of an objective. Didn’t really know any 

management actions. Considered that we could put in nursery areas for small fish. Need 

a chance to develop techniques (selective notching and floodplain connectivity or using 

large stone to limit size of fish that can access side channels. 

(4) Question on connectivity and degradation. Down-cutting may have caused isolation 

of secondary channels and backwater. 

 – Some areas are degrading and some are aggrading 

(2) – There was degradation early after channelization, but is has stabilized. 

(3) Some areas that have been over-engineered can be looked at. 

(3) Didn’t really understand #80. 

Lunch – 12:15 – 1:05 

Pattern of Habitats – Terrestrial Areas

 (3) All in notes 

(2) Not clear on #81. 

Patterns of Habitats – Land Cover/Use

(3) - #103 don’t see many areas where that was possible except for wetlands and timber 

stand improvement 

(4)– What about the setting back floodplain trees for succession? 

(3)– We did mention timber stand improvement. 

(2)– To reestablish pine oak you need to have some type of reforesting 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-14
(3)– Yes, but you need to have a seed bank and we don’t seem to have one. 

#109 – Gated levees since the middle river doesn’t have dams. 

(2) All in notes 

Plants and Animals

Fish 

(2) All in notes 

(3) – Don’t have the same fisherman base. Actually need to improve angler access to get 

people on the river and that would change attitudes. 

Wildlife 

(2) All in notes 

(3) All in notes 

Exotics 

(2) All in notes 

(3) – Use some bacteria or something to control exotics 

(3) 121 took out antibiotic treatment. 

Threatened and Endangered 

 (3) Management currently seems to be population based. Should take a more holistic 

approach by managing for systems and goals. Outreach and education and outreach on 

the ecology of the river. 

(3) - #134 Utilized to “all USDA programs” 

 2) – All mussel recommendations should be implemented. 

Ken Dalrymple’s Presentation (1:22-1:40)

(We are) trying to solve symptoms that were caused elsewhere (Ken (Barr’s 

presentation) put us in a box limiting our (effective working) area). 

(I) looked at land use in the watershed being an issue, considered the first 4 goals of 

UMRCC, and came up with a thought process to address this. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-15
On the sides of most tributaries are levees. Take the floodplain levee and knock holes in 

it. Close the main outlet of the tributaries to the river. Make the tributaries flow through 

the floodplain. Maybe make it flow through the floodplain 10 miles downstream before it 

reaches on outlet to the river. Reconnected the floodplain without reconnecting them to 

the main river. (By routing the tributaries through more of the floodplain) all of the 

nutrients and sediment wouldn’t reach the main river. 

– Would you do a pilot channel or let it find it’s own course? 

Dalrymple – Let it find it’s own coarse. Hoping it would be a braided course. 

– In your opinion you would have to have the levee system in place. Could you do what 

you want without the levees in place? 

Dalrymple – Need the levees to help this. 

– Is there any value in a levee district in the reduction of sediments? 

Theiling – Not aware that anyone has quantified this, but it is a valid point. 

– This seems like a pretty large scale, can you do this on a smaller scale. 

Dalrymple – I am still trying to work in the box that has been defined. If we could work 

outside the box I would like to do this in the upland 

– You need to be concerned with the sediment budget of the river. You will have to 

somehow calculate what that will do to the river. You may have the same situations as 

you have downstream of the dam (head cutting/ down grading). 

– Other folks have put that idea forth. This has been brought out in EMP. This points 

out deficiencies. We can’t get a conversation going between NRCS and other folks on 

the other side of the levee. We have to get outside and over the levee and get them to the 

meetings. It’s the bureaucracy that is preventing us. If we want to define ecosystem 

sustainability we need to work with authorities in the watershed. 

Theiling – There is even infighting in the Natural Resource Agencies as to what to do – 

connect or keep isolated. 

– I would like the idea better if the levee was removed to allow access to the area. 

– What I am seeing is a filtering system. At what point does the filtering get choked and 

what do we do about that? 

Theiling – This would have to be maintained O&M. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-16
Evaluation Tools and Data & Species (1:40 2:22) Chuck Theiling

Chuck discussed some of the problems that were encountered when he was trying to set 

species target ranges for the objectives. He asked participants to offer suggestions as to 

the merit of doing this as well as for species and target ranges. 

– Report of harvest for commercial fish. This is relatively easy to measure. 

– Maximize natural species diversity. 

Theiling – We don’t have good records so it’s hard to determine a historic baseline. 

– Audubon has launched “Important Bird Areas”. They will be looking at the Mississippi 

River. Surveying State-by-State and identifying restoration areas and long term 

monitoring to determine if restoration works. 

Theiling – Christmas Bird Counts and Breeding Bird Surveys are other ideas. 

– Trying to establish a baseline of demographic for fish in the Middle Miss. We are 

looking at age structure and survival mortality to determine how system is doing. 

– How do you take the species and link them up to the functions you are trying to restore? 

How will you know if you have achieved your objectives? Keystone species – they are 

there because public wants them but may not have ecological importance. Will you pick 

a species and use that to monitor success? 

Theiling – That is the way we have done things. We are posing this question to you. The 

DNR has responsibility to their constituent. 

– Had difficulty achieving population estimates. 

– Illinois River Sauger examples. 

 - Link to WHAG or AHAG. Can’t do intensive biological surveys on every single site. 

Theiling– Like the idea of Good, Medium and Bad habitats. Doing it on closed systems 

is a good idea and on different habitats 

– Questions with AHAG. Only study on AHAG said there was no relation between 

reality and model outcomes. 

– What are the biologists doing to assess the restored areas in the Everglades? Do they 

have a monitoring methodology we can draw on? 

Theiling – It’s going to take more than 7 people on 300 miles of river to monitor whole 

populations. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-17
Theiling – Illinois River is a Natural Experiment. Clean Water Act and water treatment 

has really helped to improve the river. They don’t need assessments to tell if it works. 

They can tell if it works. If bass experts are coming then it is good enough for them for 

most biologists. 

– David Thompson hired commercial fisherman to do the sampling in the 1930’s-1950’s. 

Is that an option? 

– Are you implying that Sport species... are native species? 

– Yes. However, could use these techniques on exotics as well. 

– Why doesn’t relative abundance work? 

– Christmas tree effect. (If you put a Christmas tree in a farm pond. If you sample near it 

you will find a lot of individuals. There aren’t more individuals in the pond, only more 

structure, so they are concentrated there). 

– But you are looking for trends over several years with relative abundance. 

Theiling – In low water years get more catch per unit efforts because of concentration 

– Use mussels as indicators because they require host fish? They don’t move around as 

much as fish. 

– Puzzled why the Corps would venture into the species issue. Invertebrates would be a 

good indicator of system health. Mammals and Birds are getting into so many more 

factors that you would have more questions about your data. 

Theiling – But what about the Natural Resource Agencies at all? 

– That’s our job. But we still look at habitat. 

– What about IBI – Index of Biologic Integrity? What happened to Big River IBI? 

– Looked at Rock Island 404 -??? 

– Merging all of the datasets that are out there? 

– Open river is being analyzed but are a long ways away from specific information. 

Theiling – If money and time were no issue would you want to do total fish estimates. 

– Yes, that’s the only way to answer some of these questions. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-18
– Kill off large stretches to get biomass estimates but general public wouldn’t accept and 

would have to do it again and again to see changes in trends. 

– What about bioacoustics 

– This is the tool of the future, but right now you can’t differentiate species. However 

developing some kind of Matrix like the IBI is a really good idea. 

– Is this going to be put to the expert panel? 

Theiling – Yes 

– MO is going to try to do estimates on Shovel Nose Sturgeons. Maybe those results will 

help. Estimate of Flathead Cat. Most of the retrieval was in pool 22. So find something 

that doesn’t move much 

– Our Flatheads and Paddlefish are moving quit a bit. 

– We can’t neglect community level analysis (IBI) 

Conceptual Models Hank DeHaan (2:22 –2:27)

Hank provided participants with some background regarding the conceptual model, as 

well as an overview of the purposes for having a conceptual model. He then displayed 

the conceptual model in it’s current form as well as a more simplistic diagram that gave 

an example of how the model might be used to asses the effectiveness of a management 

action. 

Closing Comments from Participants

– 2nd lock at Mel Price gave us the EMP. However downriver absorbed the 

environmental impact while the funding has mostly gone upriver. In this reach of the 

river we need to be aware that a big part of the Navigation improvements will be focused 

downstream of Rock Island and it will be a big travesty if most of the money goes up 

river. Doubt that Pool 8 will see more than 1 barge if there is a change to Lock 25. 

Money shouldn’t be unequally distributed along the river. 

– Assumed FWS had a standardization to count T&E progress. If that were set up that 

would be a good way to count species. You have to look at whole system then all things 

should be standardized. FWS needs to take the lead on this since they know how to 

count. 

Theiling – Different critters are counted differently. 

– When we do status reports we look at all data. We don’t have a standardized way to 

count species. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-19
Appendix D. Participant Introductions 

All the participants were asked to write down an answer to the question printed on page 4 

of the workshop handout: “What do you hope this workshop will accomplish?” Then all 

participants introduced themselves to the group and read their answer to the question. 

The first list below contains the answers that were taken directly from the written forms 

that were turned in. Not everyone put their name on the form. Following the first list is 

the set of verbal responses that was captured as part of the meeting minutes. The verbal 

responses are included because they were substantially different than the written 

responses that had no identification. 

WRITTEN RESPONSES 

1. Hughey -- Consensus on approach on identifying the environmental alternatives. 

- Learn what actions are being proposed and how engineering can assist in 

implementation.

2. - Completion of all aspects of planning for UMR/IWW 

 - Completion of all aspects of flora/fauna planning 

 - Initiation of restoration actions per pool of mid-river 

3. - Clarify the needs for Pools 24, 25, 26, and the open river 

4. Favilla -- A planning process that continually encompasses the water quality indicators for 

species & river health and makes specific methods & implementation available to fulfill these 

goals. 

5. Christoff -- Get “All” working from the same sheet of music; this will require by-in-by 

those who say, “We’ve done this—the RTW-WR report, the Jeff-Jon Cost report, etc. 

Nothing else is needed.” To some extent this is true, but it doesn’t fit the COE 

humongous planning process. 

6. - Clarify system goals & objectives in a manner consistent with other NAV project 

planning efforts. 

7. - Put all uses of river resources into perspective and to begin honest dialogue on future 

conditions. Not really expecting anything less than that. 

8. - A plan for ecosystem (ecological) sustainability of the UMR with emphasis on 

restoration of habitat and natural river processes in Pools 24, 25, 26 & the open river. 

9. - Results in a functioning, sustainable ecosystem that can coexist with navigation. 

10. Brummett -- I hope the workshop gives resource managers who are not closely involved in 

planning and implementing restoration or enhancement measures a chance to provide in put in 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

D-1
this process. The more ideas, the better product. The outcome of this study is too important for 

just a few people to set its course. 

11. - First to understand the specific objectives & goals of this study. Will this plan 

accomplish these goals? What will be the effect on the navigation channel? How do we 

(navigation) collaborate with the environmental process? 

12. - Arrive at a consensus on natural resource goals & objectives for the UMRS. 

13. Westphall -- I hope the workshop will enable us to review existing work that’s been done on 

ecosystem objectives, fill in any gaps and to come to consensus on what needs to be done & how 

to get it approved & implemented. 

14. - Better define/refine environmental issues/needs along the river so that they become a 

public and politically supported component of the study. 

15. - Cooperation among different users of the river 

- Set of clear objectives on how to manage the resources. 

16. - Improve coordination between Corps & resource managers & set realistic expectations 

in the minds of each for ecosystem enhancement. 

17. - Exchange information, discuss conceptual ideas about ecosystem function, agree about 

what the river should look like and how it may function, and lay framework for implementing and 

evaluating conceptual ideas. 

18. - For everybody to become familiar with the planning process as related to environmental 

“mitigation” projects on the UMR, especially the open river. 

19. Corgiat -- To bring more attention to the management wants & needs of the middle upper 

Mississippi River. 

20. Major -- Establish measurable and obtainable management goals for Pools 24, 25, & 

26, as well as the open river that allow for the best ecosystem goals integrated with 

commercial river navigation. 

21. Krumwiede -- The development of an “action plan” which is accepted by all participants 

which will allow the COE and other interested parties to begin restoration and improved 

management of the middle Mississippi River with limited red tape. 

22. Widowski -- Listen and assist in setting direction for improvement of ecological conditions in 

the river and its floodplain in partnership with many of the interested river stakeholders. 

23. - Defining goals and objectives for restoring the Mississippi River, much like what has 

already been accomplished through various UMRCC documents. 

24. Collins -- Develop a plan to restore natural functions of Mississippi & Illinois Rivers and 

their floodplains, including management plan focusing on restoration/preservation of native 

species diversity. 

 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

D-2
25. - Have input to the planning process 

26. - Clearly identify and quantify environmental goals for the river and begin to formulate 

practical alternatives. 

27. - I hope that this workshop will clearly define a rational plan that will provide 

environmental sustainability on the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Waterways. This plan must be 

economically justified on a cost/benefit basis. It must also be integrated into the infrastructure 

modernization that will emanate from the NAV Study. 

28. Atwood -- Would be nice to hope that this effort will end all future efforts in this regard. 

29. - That this step will continue a process that started over 3 decades ago in the St. Louis 

District. The Environmental River Engineering Program has proven that government agencies 

can work together to cooperatively plan and implement projects that will continue to improve the 

riverine environment. Lastly, I hope we concentrate on doing things that will improve the 

environment and not just talk about what is wrong. 

30. Barr -- Shared understanding of environmental objectives. Learn from all of you. 

31. - To determine compatibility of UMR-IWW sustainability objectives effort with 

ongoing UMRCP needs for the same. 

32. Gates -- To explore extent to which UMR-IWW treatment of measures might also 

address UMRCP plans development needs. 

33. Cox -- Hope it gives me a better understanding of this portion of the UMR, hope to 

focus on striving for greater consistency but showing need for differences in different 

parts of the river. 

34. - I hope to learn how we can all work together—transportation, recreation, ag 

issue, etc. 

35. - The compilation of a complete and comprehensive listing of all the 

environmental concerns in the reaches of the river system to be discussed here. 

36. Bunselmeyer, Farmer & UMIMRA Director -- 

- A balanced approach to river management 

- Fair treatment of stakeholders 

- Realization that navigation interests create jobs and opportunities that are far 

reaching in the country’s economy 

- Recognizing that foreign countries are speeding ahead with navigation interests 

because they see the tremendous potential present 

- Realizing that both sides of the issue cannot have exactly what they want. 

I realize these goals may not be what will be accomplished today, but thought must be 

given to these goals, before environmental goals can be reached. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

D-3
ADDITIONAL VERBAL RESPONSES 

37. Graham -- Here to learn. 

38. Bradshaw – Here to learn. 

39. Goodwin – Here to learn more about environments. 

40. Wells? – Practical alternatives. 

41. Wilson? - Told to be here. 

42. Maher – to represent fish. 

43. Busse – To get something accomplished. 

44. Johnson – Need for pools and open river. 

45. Stroud – Let’s start doing something instead of talking. 

46. Davinroy – Make sure Butch won’t do anything too crazy. Want to tell the biologists 

that “If you dream it we can build it”. 

47. Berndt – Learn. 

48. Erickson – It is past time to get this thing moving. Tired of talk and accusations. 

49. Laux – If they build it, they will come. 

50. Duyvejonck –Time to put G&O down on paper and start doing. 

51. Magera – Meetings about expectations. Afterward it’s living up to expectations. 

52. Adams – See what people have to say about what to do on Lower River. 

53. Brown – Monitor Butch. 

54. Hrabik – Hope we call can agree what the river should look like. Agree on how it 

should function. Lay the framework for evaluating what we lay out here. 

55. Ellis – Step in the process that will have public and private support. 

56. Hughey – Worried about Nav Channel. Collaboration is the by word. Room for 

environmental and economic objectives. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

D-4
Appendix E. Environmental Objectives 

Purpose:

To have participants collaboratively review, refine, and add to a database of specific, 

quantitative, and local to regional scale UMR-IWW environmental objectives obtained 

from previous study efforts.

Background:

Objectives are incremental steps taken toward achieving a goal and thus may be goal 

specific. They are a concise statement of what we want to achieve, how much we want to 

achieve, when and where we want to achieve it. Objectives provide the basis for 

determining management actions, monitoring accomplishments and evaluating the 

success of management actions. There may be multiple objectives for a goal. 

Participants were asked to review, revise if necessary, and supplement the Environmental 

Objectives taken from previous work (HNA, Pool Plans, etc.) to achieve the Navigation 

Environmental Coordination Committee (NECC)/Economics Coordinating Committee 

(ECC) UMR-IWW Navigation System Vision: 

“To seek long term sustainability of the economic uses and ecological integrity of the 

Upper Mississippi River System.” 

The working groups were specifically tasked to apply the widely known SMART criteria 

to each objective making them: specific, measurable, achievable, results –oriented, timespecific. 

The participants were asked, for the purposes of this workshop, to utilize the following 

two sets of goals as a framework for setting objectives. 

Ecosystem Goals (from Interim Report) 

During planning for the 1994 Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee 

(UMRCC) Ecosystem Management Initiative, resource managers agreed to adopt 

Grumbine’s (1994) ecosystem management goals (Grumbine, R. Edward. 1994. What is 

ecosystem management? Conservation Biology 8(1): 27-38.): 

Goal 1: Maintain viable populations of native species in situ. 

Goal 2: Represent all native ecosystem types across their natural range of variation. 

Goal 3: Restore and maintain evolutionary and ecological processes (i.e., disturbance 

regimes, hydrological processes, nutrient cycles, etc.). 

Goal 4: Manage over periods long enough to maintain the evolutionary potential of 

species and ecosystems. 

Goal 5: Integrate human use and occupancy within these constraints. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-1
The UMRCC expanded their list of goals in the A River That Works and a Working River

(2000) document. These goals are: 

1. Improve water quality for all uses, 

2. Reduce erosion and sediment impacts, 

3. Restore natural floodplain, 

4. Restore natural hydrology, 

5. Increase backwater connectivity with main channel, 

6. Increase side channel, island, shoal, and sand bar habitat,

7. Minimize or eliminate dredging impacts, 

8. Sever pathways for exotic species introductions/dispersal,

9. Improve native fish passage at dams. 

Working Group Process 

The process began with participants dividing into four groups based in part on their 

expertise within two segments of the UMR. The two geographic regions were: the pool 

areas from Pool 24 to Pool 26 and the open river to the confluence of the Ohio River. 

Group 1 worked on the Pools starting upstream at Pool 24, Group 4 also covered the 

pools but started downstream at Pool 26 and worked up. Group 2 covered the open river 

from the upstream end down and Group 3 covered the open river working upstream from 

the downstream end. Working groups were tasked with first setting reach and pool-wide 

objectives and then reviewing and setting site-specific objectives within their section of 

the river. If groups finished their section and had time remaining they could extend into 

the adjacent areas. 

When setting site-specific objectives, participants were asked to use the data structure 

outlined in the Framework for Setting Objectives (Figure E1). This hierarchical structure 

categorizes environmental objectives into four primary ecosystem elements and then 

breaks these down into more specific parameters, extents, and target ranges. In addition 

to this information, participants were also asked to consider and note (if possible) the 

seasonality, frequency of occurrence, target date, and any other comments associated 

with the objectives they identified. This data framework provided a means to capture and 

merge objectives from previous study efforts, and those identified by workshop 

participants, into one standardized database. Additional objectives not found in the 

framework were also identified and added to the database using the established data 

structure (e.g., Invertebrates was added under Plants and Animals

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-2
Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent TR Target Range 

Water Quality Water Clarity Main Channel 1 Secchi disk transparency 0.3 m 

 Backwater Areas 2 Secchi disk transparency 0.7 m 

 3 Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m 

 4 Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m 

 5 Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m 

Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 1 100% of area <1 m 

 2 50% of area 1 - 2 m 

 3 50% of area 2 - 3 m 

 4 50% of area >3 m 

 

 Water Level Main Channel 1 0.3 m below project pool at dam 

 Backwater Areas 2 0.6 m below project pool at dam 

 3 1.0 m below project pool at dam 

 4 >1 m below project pool at dam 

 

 Connectivity Floodplain 1 0% floodplain area inundated during 10 year flood 

 2 20% floodplain area inundated during 10 year flood 

 3 40% floodplain area inundated during 10 year flood 

 4 80% floodplain area inundated during 10 year flood 

 5 100% floodplain area inundated during 10 year flood

 

 Secondary Channel 1 <20% of year 

 2 20-40% of year 

 3 40-60% of year 

 4 60-80% of year 

 5 >80% of year 

 

 Longitudinal 1 0% chance of fish passage 

 2 20% chance of fish passage 

 3 40% chance of fish passage 

 4 80% chance of fish passage 

 5 100% chance of fish passage 

Figure E1. Framework for Setting Objectives for Condition of the UMR-IWW Ecosystem. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-3
Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent TR Target Range 

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 1 <10% of area 

 Secondary Channel 2 10-20% of area 

 Tertiary Channel 3 20-40% of area 

 Impounded Area 4 40-60% of area 

 Contiguous Backwater 5 >60% of area 

 Isolated Backwater 

 

 Terrestrial Areas Contiguous Floodplain 1 <10% of area 

 Isolated Floodplain 2 10-20% of area 

 Island 3 20-40% of area 

 4 40-60% of area 

 5 >60% of area 

 

 Land Cover/Use Open Water 1 <10% of area 

 Submersed Aquatics 2 10-20% of area 

 Emergent Aquatics 3 20-40% of area 

 Grassland 4 40-60% of area 

 Shrub 5 >60% of area 

 Forest 

 Agriculture 

 Developed 

Plants and Animals Plants Emergent Aquatics 1 <10 plants/m2 

 Submersed Aquatics 2 10 - 20 plants/m2 

 3 20 - 50 plants/m2 

 4 50 - 100 plants/m2 

 5 >100 plants/m2 

 

 Fish Protected Fish Species CPUE, Length distribution, or kg/ha 

 Sport Fish Species 

 Commercial Fish Species 

 Forage Fish Species 

 Exotic Fish Species 

 

 Birds Dabbling Ducks 1 0 - 1,000 use days/yr 

 Diving Ducks 2 1,000 - 10,000 use days/yr 

 3 10,000 - 100,000 use days/yr 

 4 >100,000 use days/yr 

Figure E1. Framework for Setting Objectives for Condition of the UMR-IWW Ecosystem, continued.

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-4
Results:

The environmental objective information gathered and reviewed at the St. Louis 

Workshop has been organized into the following four sections. They include a pool-wide 

objectives table, site-specific objectives table, plenary report, and working group reports. 

Pool-wide objectives identified by workshop participants were compiled from comments 

recorded in the plenary sessions, working group reports, group worksheets, and atlas map 

notations (Table E1). In cases where management actions were recorded, an objective 

was created and the management action was listed in the comments section, denoted by 

“MA”. 

Site-specific objectives and supporting information identified and reviewed by workshop 

participants are listed by pool (Table E2) and organized to follow the Framework for 

Setting Objectives format (Figure E1). These objectives were compiled from previous 

study efforts, participant comments during the plenary session (with GIS tools), working 

group reports, group worksheets, atlas map notations. The objectives identified in the 

workshop were recorded exactly as written. For the final integrated report, site-specific 

objectives will be standardized, new parameter icons may be created and similar 

comments will be assimilated into one comment. 

The plenary comments are taken directly from the plenary report and only include 

discussion specifically related to environmental objectives. The entire plenary report can 

be found in Appendix C. 

The working group reports were prepared by the recorder in each group as a record of the 

discussion. They contain a subset of the pool-wide and site-specific objective 

information generated by the groups. The group reports are not inclusive of all the 

objective descriptions because much of the groups’ data generation was also recorded on 

master worksheets and maps. 

 Examples of objectives at various scales were given as guidelines, they included: 

• System – Restore X acres of secondary channel habitat system wide, 

• Reach – Increase the amount of marsh habitat by X acres in the Open River Reach 

of the Mississippi River, 

• Pool – Return Pool 13 to a more natural hydrologic regime by having a 90 day 

low water stage X feet below maximum pool elevation during late summer every 

three years, 

• Local – Increase the average depth of backwater area X to six feet. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-5
Table E1. Pool-wide Environmental Objectives (Pool 24 – Ohio River Reach). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent 

TR/ Target Range Season 

Frequency of Occurrence 

Target Date Comments 

Water Quality Geomorphology 

Water Level Main Channel 

Hinge point opportunity control. 

Connectivity Floodplain 

Maintain anconnectivityfor opportun

Longitudinal 

Fish Passaglongitudinal 

Pattern of Habitats 

Emergent Aquatics 

Increase welevees 

Land Cover / Use Forest 

Increase achardwood fosocial and eRestore and corridors (20

Plants and Animals Other UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E1. Pool-wide Environmental Objectives (Pool 24 – Pool 26 Reach). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent 

TR/ Target Range Season

Frequency of Occurrence 

Target Date Comments

Water Quality 

Water Clarity 

Sufficient to sdepth of 1.5m

Other 

DO, Methyl Mfecal coliform tributaries. 

Geomorphology 

Water Level Main Channel 

Greater Drawdredging in podocks to allow Return hydrogpossible. Seasonal drayears. 

Backwater Areas Create more d

Connectivity Floodplain 

On an opportland from willfloodplain con

Connectivity p

Maintain and connectivity bmodifications) 

Longitudinal 100% 

Passage of nanavigation da

Pattern of Habitats 

Aquatic Areas Secondary Channels 

Increase quanside channel 

Terrestrial Areas Island 

All islands intincrease fores

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E1. Pool-wide Environmental Objectives (Pool 24 – Pool 26 Reach cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent 

TR/ Target Range Season 

Frequency of Occurrence 

Target Date Comments 

Pattern of Habitats (cont) 

Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 2 All 10

Increase wet existing mars

Increase amowetland habit

Forest 2 or 3 All 10 2050 More hard ma

Increase foresforest. Restore-mainprovide a broa

Other 

Increase nestbirds. 

Plants and Animals Other Need to resto

Concerns aboharbor areas. 

Table E1. Pool-wide Environmental Objectives (Dam 26 to Ohio River Reach). Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent 

TR/ Target Range Season

Frequency of Occurrence 

Target Date Comments

Water Quality Water Clarity Reduce air 

Water Clarity 

Minimize claincreased trfleeting area

Other 15% reduct

Maintain DO 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E1. Pool-wide Environmental Objectives (Dam 26 to Ohio River Reach cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent 

TR/ Target Range Season

Frequency of Occurrence 

Target Date Comments

Geomorphology 

Water Level Connectivity Floodplain 

Reconnect selected locin levee thaus to manag

100% 

Remove all 100% conneEuropean s

20-30% 

Partial flood 30% reconnReconnect tto trap some 

Other 

Restore histsome disturon the river. constrained 

Habitat con

Address locinclude deltachannelizatRestore oxbgeomorphic tributaries. 

Implement s

Pattern of Habitats 

Allow every wintering fo

Aquatic Areas Main Channel 

Utilize old obackwater h

Secondary Channel 12-18 feet deep Implement s

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E1. Pool-wide Environmental Objectives (Dam 26 to Ohio River Reach cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent TR/ Target Range Season 

Frequency of Occurrence 

Target Date Comment

Pattern of Habitats (cont) Aquatic Areas (cont) Create new 

Restore smother tertiathe main cUtilize exisriver featufloodplain aquatic an

Terrestrial Areas 

Preserve ahabitat for 

Land Cover/Use 1000 acres per site Every 20 m

Restore ripfloodplain, forests and Preserve acomplexes 

Other 

Maintain adiversity; igravels, co

Plants and Animals 

Fish 

Restore rivenvironme

Other 

Create or side channMississipp

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E1. Pool-wide Environmental Objectives (Pool 24). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent 

TR/ Target Range Season 

Frequency of Occurrence 

Target Date Comments 

Water Quality Geomorphology 

Connectivity Connectivity Backwater Depth Water Level 

Pattern of Habitats 

Land Cover/ Use Forrest 3(20-40%) 

Currently 18settlement. 

Plants and Animals Other Table E1. Pool-wide Environmental Objectives (Pool 25). Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent 

TR/ Target Range Season 

Frequency of Occurrence 

Target Date Comments 

Water Quality 

Clarity Main Channel 4Clarity Back Water 4

Geomorphology 

Backwater Depth 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E1. Pool-wide Environmental Objectives (Pool 25 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent 

TR/ Target Range Season

Frequency of Occurrence 

Target Date Comments

Geomorphology (cont.) 

Water Level Main Channel 3

Should do epossible (wo

Water Level Back Water 3

Should do epossible (wo

Connectivity Longitudinal 5

Pattern of Habitats 

Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

More Woodchannels 

Plants and Animals 

Plants 

Other 

Increase air exhaust 

All 

Acquire land Environmen

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E1. Pool-wide Environmental Objectives (Pool 26). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent 

TR/ Target Range Season 

Frequency of Occurrence 

Target Date Comments 

Water Quality 

Clarity Main Channel 4Clarity Back Water 4

Geomorphology 

Backwater Depth Water Level Main Channel 3

Should do epossible (wo

Water Level Back Water 3

Should do epossible (wo

Connectivity Longitudinal 5

Pattern of Habitats 

Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

More Woodchannels 

Plants and Animals 

Plants 

Other 

Increase air exhaust 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E1. Reach-wide Environmental Objectives (Dam 26 to Kaskaskia River). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent 

TR/ Target Range Season

Frequency of Occurrence 

Target Date Comments

Water Quality Geomorphology Pattern of Habitats 

Aquatic Areas Main Channel 

Implement ddikes for a mmiles. 

Secondary Channel Implement s

Plants and Animals Other Table E1. Reach-wide Environmental Objectives (Kaskaskia to Grand Tower). Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent 

TR/ Target Range Season

Frequency of Occurrence 

Target Date Comments

Water Quality Geomorphology Pattern of Habitats Plants and Animals UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E1. Reach-wide Environmental Objectives (Grand Tower to Ohio River). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent 

TR/ Target Range Season 

Frequency of Occurrence 

Target Date Comments 

Water Quality Geomorphology Pattern of Habitats Plants and Animals Other UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 24).

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date ComWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 2 - 3 mGeomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 2 - 3 mGeomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 2 - 3 m

Deepconn

Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 2 - 3 m

Deepconn

Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 2 - 3 m

Incresedim

Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 2 - 3 m All Year 10 SecoGeomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Do pGeomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 

Clarkimple

Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas ImpleGeomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas See Geomorphology Water Level Main Channel PoolGeomorphology Connectivity Floodplain UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 24 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date ComGeomorphology Connectivity Floodplain 

Increarea 

Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain LeveGeomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel See Geomorphology Connectivity Longitudinal

100% chance of fish passage 

Geomorphology Connectivity Other ConnGeomorphology Connectivity Other ConnGeomorphology Connectivity Other ConnGeomorphology Connectivity Other 10

Backisola

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel NotcPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary ChannelPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel >60% of area Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel >60% of area NotcPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel

Notcislan

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel IncrePattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel MainPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel See Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other Delta Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other DeltaPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other DeltaPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other MainPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increaqua

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 24 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date ComPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increaqua

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increaqua

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increaqua

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increaqua

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increaqua

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increaqua

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increaqua

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increaqua

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increaqua

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest 

Increhard

Pattern of Habitats Other ImplePattern of Habitats Other 

RecomeadBotto

Pattern of Habitats Other 

Implearea

Plants and Animals Other 

Mussreint

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 25). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Target Date CWater Quality Water Clarity Main Channel Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Frequency

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas 

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 2 - 3 m Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 2 - 3 m Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 2 - 3 m Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 2 - 3 m Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 2 - 3 m Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 2 - 3 m UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 25 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date CGeomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 2 - 3 m 

Db

Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 2 - 3 m 

R2

Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 2 - 3 m RGeomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas MGeomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas ImGeomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas ImGeomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas DGeomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 

Rd

Geomorphology Backwater Depth Other 

Cfes

Geomorphology Backwater Depth Other 

Cfes

Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain 

Fs

Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain 

Wb

Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain RGeomorphology Connectivity Floodplain LGeomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel 

RH

Geomorphology Connectivity Longitudinal

100% chance of fish passage Spring 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 25 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date CGeomorphology Connectivity Other CGeomorphology Connectivity Other 

Ra

Geomorphology Connectivity Other 

Ra

Geomorphology Connectivity Other 

Ra

Geomorphology Other MGeomorphology Other RGeomorphology Other 

MS

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel MPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 

Ra

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 

Nim

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

Ad

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel CPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

Dhs

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

Dh

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel NPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel NPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel ImPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel SUMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 25 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date CPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

Sre

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

Sre

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Tertiary Channel 20-40% of area Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Contiguous Backwater SPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 2010 MPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Dd

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

DH

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Eo

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Ins

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Ins

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Ins

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Ins

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Ins

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 25 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date CPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Ins

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Ins

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Ins

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Ins

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Ins

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Ins

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Ins

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Ins

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Ins

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Ins

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 25 cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date CPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Ins

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Ins

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Ins

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Ins

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest 

RP

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest InPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest 

Inm

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest 

Efo

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest RPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest MPattern of Habitats Other 

A

fo

Pattern of Habitats Other 

Cim

Other Other 

AC

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 26). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date CommeWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Frequency

Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 26 cont.). Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Target Date CommeGeomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Restore Geomorphology Backwater Depth Other Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary ChannelGeomorphology Connectivity Longitudinal

100% chance of fish passage 

Geomorphology Connectivity Other ReconneGeomorphology Other Restore Geomorphology Other habitat in 

Restore 

Other 

Reduce Dardenn

Geomorphology Other 

Reduce Plasa Cr

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary ChannelPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary ChannelPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary ChannelPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary ChannelPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary ChannelPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary ChannelPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary ChannelPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increaseaquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increaseaquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increaseaquatics 

Geomorphology UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Season

Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Pool 26 cont.).Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Frequency Target Date CommePattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increaseaquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increaseaquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increaseaquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increaseaquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increaseaquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increaseaquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increaseaquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increaseaquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increaseaquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increaseaquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increaseaquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increaseaquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increaseaquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Restore Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Restore Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other Create sUMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Lock 26 to Kaskaskia River). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date CommWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain Levee Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain Levee Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain ReconGeomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel Geomorphology Connectivity Longitudinal

100% chance of fish passage 

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 

Dike mhabitaDike AReach

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 

Dike mhabitaDike AReach

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Comm

Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Lock 26 to Kaskaskia River cont.). Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target DatePattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 

Dike mhabitaAlteraReach

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 

Dike mhabitaAlteraReach

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 

Dike mhabitaAltera

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 

Dike mhabitaAlteraReach

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Hard pPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Hard pPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Hard pPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Hard pPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Hard pPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Hard pPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Hard pUMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Lock 26 to Kaskaskia River cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date CommPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

RestochannStone Reach

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

RestochannStone Kimm

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

RestochannStone Hercu

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

RestochannDike ACalico

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

RestochannStone Calico

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

RestochannStone Lake 

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

RestochannStone Chart

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Lock 26 to Kaskaskia River cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date CommPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

RestochannStone Chart

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

RestochannStone Genev

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Contiguous Floodplain Ridge Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Contiguous Floodplain Ridge Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Contiguous Floodplain Ridge Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Contiguous Floodplain Ridge Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Contiguous Floodplain Ridge Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Contiguous Floodplain Ridge Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Reest130-1

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Isolate165 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics WetlaPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increaaquat

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Lock 26 to Kaskaskia River cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date CommPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest ReforePattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest ReforePattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest 

Restoincrea

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other Sand Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other Sand Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other Sand Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other Sand Pattern of Habitats Other ProtecPattern of Habitats Other 

Protecdevelo

Other Other MonitoOther Other 

Restoprope

Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Kaskaskia to Grand Tower). Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date ComWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain LeveGeomorphology Connectivity Floodplain LeveGeomorphology Connectivity Floodplain LeveGeomorphology Connectivity Floodplain LeveGeomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel RecrUMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Kaskaskia to Grand Tower cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date ComPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 

Dike aquaStonRock 

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 

Dike aquaStonRock 

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 

RestchanStonRock 

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Hard Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Hard Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Hard Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

Creachan

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

RestchanStonReac

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

RestchanSton100 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Kaskaskia to Grand Tower cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date ComPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

RestchanSton100 

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

RestchanDike Islan

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

RestchanSton100 

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Contiguous Floodplain RidgPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island 

RaisTern 

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

SandHabi

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics RestPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Rest122 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

RestIslan

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Incresubmwide 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest 

Restfores

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest 

Restfores

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other Sand Plants and Animals Fish Other 

Encoform

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Grand Tower to Ohio River). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date CommWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 

Restore habitat

Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 

Restore end, re

Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain ReconnGeomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel MaintaGeomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel 

Reconnflows 

Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel ReopeGeomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel Restore Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel Open uGeomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel 

Open bfor ove

Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel 

ReestaChute 

Geomorphology Connectivity Other 

ReestaAngelo 

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Grand Tower to Ohio River cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date CommPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 

Dike mhabitatAlterati

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 

Dike mhabitatAlterati

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 

Dike mhabitatAlteratiScheni

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 

Dike mhabitatAlteratiScheni

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 

Dike mhabitatAlterati

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 

Dike mhabitatAlterati

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 

Dike mhabitatAlterati

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 

Dike mhabitatAlterati

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 

Dike mhabitatAlterati

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Grand Tower to Ohio River cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date CommPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 

Dike mhabitatAlterati

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 

Dike mhabitatAlterati

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 

Dike mhabitatAlterati

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 

Dike mhabitatAlterati

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Hard pPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Hard pPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Hard pPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Hard pPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Hard pPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel IncreasPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

Removchute 

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

Restore channeDike AReach) 

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

Restore channeDike AReach) 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Grand Tower to Ohio River cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date CommPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

Restore channeDike AReach) 

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

Restore channeDike AScheni

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

Restore channeDike AScheni

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

Restore channeDike A

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

Restore channeDike A

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

Restore channeDike A

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

Restore channeDike A

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

Restore channeDike A

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

Restore channeDike AReach) 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Grand Tower to Ohio River cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date CommPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

Restore channeDike AReach) 

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

Restore channeDike AReach) 

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

Restore channeDike AReach) 

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

Restore channeDike A

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

Restore channeDike A

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Contiguous Floodplain Ridge sPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Isolate Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

SandbaTern H

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other ReestaPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Reestaconnec

Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increas

Pattern of Habitats aquaticUMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Grand Tower to Ohio River cont.). 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date CommPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increasaquatic

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increasaquatic

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest RemovPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other Sand bPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other Sand bPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other Sand bPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other Sand bPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other Strip isPattern of Habitats Other MaintaUMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Plenary Report 

 

The plenary comments are taken directly from the plenary report and only include 

discussion specifically related to environmental objectives. The entire plenary report can 

be found in Appendix C. 

Nov 13th, Objectives Plenary Session:

The plenary began by asking each group to give a brief overview of what they did, as 

well as listing their reach and pool-wide objectives. 

Group 1 Summary 

Pools start at 24 

Overall Objectives – 

1) Increase acreage of bottomland hardwood forests in floodplain as social and economic 

factors allow. 

2) Restore and maintain riparian corridors (200 ft. wide). 

3) Increase wetland habitat behind levees. 

4) Maintain and increase floodplain connectivity, spillway, opportunistic flooding. 

5) Water level management – hinge point drawdown. This is an opportunity to move 

from hinge point to endpoint control. 

6) Fish Passage – Latitudinal and longitudinal connectivity. 

Group 2 Summary 

Our main thought is that a lot of this has been done 

Lower River Objectives– 

1) Implement side channel plan. 

2) Implement stone dike objectives. 

3) Reduce air and water pollutions. 

4) Reconnect river with floodplain in selected locations. 

Pools Objectives 

More hard mast producing trees. 

Create more deep-water habitat. 

More dredging in pools and private boat docks to allow greater drawdowns. 

Group 3 Summary 

Open River 

Remove all of the levees, restore 100% connectivity, take river to pre-European 

settlement conditions. 

Partial flood plain restoration– 20-30% reconnectivity 

Restore historic meanders. 

Allow every 5-7 miles of over wintering for fish. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-41
Every 20 miles bird resting areas. 

Habitat connectivity in Main Channel. 

Founder effect 

Rob talking too fast see his computer notes. 

1950’s may be a good baseline – fisheries and shrimp 

Use old and existing quarries for deepwater habitat. 

Create new side channels 

– We went through side channel plan. Maybe you don’t want to clear them all out. 

– The final determination would be made later.

– Reconnectivity might not be the best thing in all cases.

Group 4 Summary

Buy the Sny 

Deconstruct Batchtown 

Pool Objectives 

Return hydrograph to as natural as possible 

150 in an opportunistic basis acquire land of willing sellers to restore floodplain 

connectivity. 

Pool 26 – Restore 40% of floodplain to pre-historic conditions. Including agricultural 

programs. 

Problems with setting objectives for specific pools – we have a limited understanding of 

pool resources so it is hard to set objectives. What particular times do some species need 

access to backwaters? Bank stabilization is good, but limits habitats. SO when does it 

start to have an impact? 

Water Quality – DO, methyl Hg, Nutrients, and fecal coliform reduction from tributaries. 

Water Clarity - sufficient to support vegetation to a depth of 1.5m. 

Increase quantity of woody debris in side channel of pools. 

Need to restore streams in the floodplain. 

Concerns about air quality. 

All islands into public ownership. 

Site Specific Objective Setting for St. Louis (3:30)

Once each group gave their report we then started at Pool 24 and moved down river, 

allowing all participants to provide input. 

Pool wide – Water control for aquatic areas. 

Pool 25 

– Should we add in mussel info? 

–Yes. 

– Mussel beds will be put in Natural Heritage database. So we will get our info from 

there, not put on this map. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-42
RM 112 – There is an old side channel that needs to be reconnected. 

Pool 24 – 25 island plans? Talk to Ken Barr. EMP Fact Sheet 

Group 1 has detailed notes for most numbered objectives. We will not put the info in the 

database now; rather gather data from their notes later. 

Pool 26 

#62 – covered in island fact sheet 

Pool 26 – Kaskaskia 

RM –128-130 Reconnect wetlands on both side of the levee. 

Kaskaskia – Grand Tower 

Crains Island Levee RM104 - talk about set back and levee raises. 

– Route 3 runs through Liberty Chute near Rockwood Islands RM 102 

– How will all of this shake out? 

Theiling – Once we are to the project level we will do reconnaissance do see if there is a 

federal interest. We will calculate Costs and Benefits with 65% engineering. This goes 

through for final funding. Then it will go through final engineering and construction. 

Grand Tower to Ohio River 

– Are you going to do anything in the ox bow area? 

RM 20 – 31 We are in the process of establishing riparian corridor and forest. 

- Regional Objective – Come up with and implement a plan to deal with exotics. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-43
Working Group Reports 

The working group reports were prepared by the recorder in each group as a record of the 

discussion. They contain a subset of the pool-wide and site-specific objective 

information generated by the groups. The group reports are not inclusive of all the 

objective descriptions because much of the groups’ data generation was also recorded on 

master worksheets and maps. 

GROUP 1

Participants List: Mike Cox, Willis Graham, Ken Barr (MVR); Scott Bunselmeyer 

(UMIMRA); Phil Bradshaw (IL Soybean Board); Dave Gates (MVS); Dave Ellis 

(USFWS); Ken Brummett (MODOC); Tim Krumwiede (IDNR); Tom Wilson (IDNR); 

Chris Brescia (MARC 2000)

Ken = facilitator 

Tim = timekeeper (flip chart) 

Mike = recorder 

Willis = reporter 

Working on Pools starting at the upper end 

Discussed how to do what when 

Pool wide objectives 

Lower pools have been slighted as far as pooled areas go 

1. Need large blocks of BHF in floodplain in large blocks for neo-tropical migrants. 

Therefore if lower portion of pools have larger portions of BHF, then we need to 

concentrate on upper ends of pools. 

 How much detail do we need here? 

 How much percentage of increase? 

 How much priority on gov land vs. private land? 

 Going into too much detail for pool wide goals and objectives... 

 Need to get private incentives for habitat enhancement 

 This is for migrants plus heron rookeries and such 

If we now have 13% forest in the pools how much do we want to increase (i.e., double 

the size, up to 26%). Chris asked if we knew how much social impact this land change 

would have on society (land acquisition) and did we know if this would achieve our 

objectives and is enough marginal ground available for this effort? We are prepared to 

do this later in the process. 

2. Restore-maintain riparian corridor to provide a broad base range of benefits. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-44
 We need to identify that we would be focusing on marginal ground, and identify 

what is marginal ground (i.e., much of “marginal” would be left idle anyhow if some 

government incentives would be eliminated (some farmers use some cropland just 

because of the incentives). 

 This corridor is really thin/ absent in many places (levee is right to the rivers edge 

– what about adding some corridor along land-side of levee (wherever, minimum 200’ 

width). 

 Need mature corridor and mixed group of trees for bird migration 

 What type of success has been seen? MODOC said that they have seen/done this 

type of plantings on both sides of the levees 

 Scott has seen failures due to high water...group said that site selection is very 

important, and also site modification (raising or making ridges) can be done. Find 

acceptable ways to retire cropland of farm ground. Ken said that MVR has determined 

that BHF is very monotypic, but that minor raising can help 

 How much wetland marshes and other habitat are there in Pools and do we want 

to maintain what is there or increase the percentage? 

 What is a wet marsh and what is its value? 

3. Increase amount of acres of floodplain wetland habitats in levee districts. 

 Ken showed pie charts of percentage of marsh habitat along river system, and 

showed that LU/LC has changed a lot (but we don’t need to alter all the land) 

 

4. Maintain and Increase floodplain connectivity by 40%. (before modifications). This is 

too broad a statement, having too many plusses and minuses. 

Need to identify what connectivity is... (water contact with the river at normal 

river flows) 

 IDNR questioning land use survey maps for accuracy. 

 

 Many of us are concerned that there is too much focus on breaching levees, with 

much loss to crop land. 

On the IWW there are many pumping processes for levee management, but in the 

MMR there is much more gravity flow for drainage, and when the levee districts (LD) 

hold drainage water until the river is the right level for drainage, the LD opens the gates 

and many fish swim up the flow into the LD. Ken B. pointed out that timing is 

everything and most times this is not as much of a positive effect as appears. 

 Other connectivity options include setback levees and WL management and fish 

passages at the dams. 

Chris B. asked that if we set an objective to not breach any levees, how could we 

still increase connectivity. Ken B. explained that there are areas already within the 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-45
Going to site specific objectives, and we can go back to the pool wide stuff later: we are 

reviewing each icon (through expertise by Ken Brummett) and seeing if we need to 

add/change anything. 

RM 291.8, take out/ notch structures (NOTE: modeling needed to ensure that there are 

no adverse impacts to the nav channel or the secondary channel 

floodplain that could be better connected (i.e., during low flows for spawning in 

backwaters). 

5. Water level management including seasonal drawdowns (every 5 or 10 years). And 

fish passages. 

# 1& 3 Cotter Island maintain slough on island and increase depth of side channel at least 

6’ (10’?) for over wintering habitat. 

 How deep should a side channel be? It must (further discussion) 

 Add connectivity to slough 100% 

 Notch wing dams in area within secondary channel. 

#2 restore rip corridor along right bank RM 299.5 to 300.2 

NOTE: need to consider removing structure altogether to increase flow and get the river 

to self-scour back water areas instead of paying to mechanically manage the area. This is 

a good idea but there may be adverse impacts and modeling may help to identify this. 

#4 creek delta work to deepen areas 

#7 is ok as is. Chris is wondering how it has been self-maintaining, and could we use this 

method for future projects. All agree. 

#8 shallow side channel – increase flow and depth 

#9 back water depth 

NOTE: how are determinations made to make or not make a project? It depends on the 

area, the hydrography and the potential for success. 

RM 293, need to add rip corridor around the wet area behind the levee on the Illinois 

side. 

#10 island – 

NOTE: notch dikes as necessary to increase flow and scour 

bank (increased flow 

may increase erosion).

#12 secondary channel, needs no work as it is in great shape (maintain) 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-46
NOTE: we should be adding existing projects (e.g., HREP at Ted Shanks) to this list (F 

icon added for this area

#13 HREP, implement fact sheet 

Salt River Bottoms new icon – IDNR is working to acquire this and implement wet 

Meadow restoration. 

#14 secondary channel implement HREP Ted Shanks (see EMP fact sheet) 

#15 trib delta, maintain mussel bed. 

#17, RM 280, Crieghter (sic) Island, need to deepen channel. And increase connectivity 

in area 

New icon RM 280: implement CCP strategy at Delair Division (Mark Twain refuges) 

#18 Cashe Island (same as #17) 

#19 notch dike 

#20 Fars Island, continue to maintain project (incl. Monitoring) 

#21 reference pool plan #1 (increase BHF larger blocks) behind levee 

#22 deepen increase depth and reduce sedimentation 

#23 Need to implement HREP project in vicinity (see EMP fact sheet) 

Dundee harbor, good backwater that needs maintaining 

New icon at dam (fish passage) 

POOL wide objectives for Pool 24 – what benefits are there for the environment if we 

were to stop navigation for 1-2 months? There are benefits to trees and some veg but 

disadvantages to submergent vegetation. 

 Perhaps changing Pool24 to dam point instead of hinge point would help (but 

there are drawbacks to that as well) 

 Talk about drawdowns stopping lotuses but some are coming back now in 

backwater areas. 

Pool 25: 

Pool wide objectives – see reach wide objectives and include in this pool 

18% is timbered now (35% pre-settlement) so therefore place at 20-40% TR. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-47
New icon – RM 273 Clarksville – maintain gravel bar for mussels behind guide wall. 

New icon – RM 271 increase BHF (there may be local opposition, we need to institute 

local incentives for implementation. 

NOTE: do we need to improve HQ? The feeling was yes, but anywhere below LD15 it 

is difficult to maintain good HQ...and increase would increase aquatic vegetation. How 

much degradation has been seen in recent years? It has improved in the backwaters 

somewhat. 

NOTE: exotics are a problem but some have improved (zebra mussels are gone right 

now) 

#25 secondary channel add groins (stub dikes) in back channel to increase diversity. 

#26, 27, 28 are covered, need backwater and side channel restoration include habitat on 

the islands. 

RM 263-265 existing IDNR project to deepen and add backwater lakes and add habitat 

(Rust Land Trust. Need to maintain 

New icon NOTE RM 269-264 on Missouri side, need habitat restoration 

New icon RM 267-263, opportunities for enhancement for all secondary channels 

(eliminate one structure, add groins for scour). 

New icon RM 263 Clarence Cannon Refuge, maintain HREP project. (see EMP fact 

sheet) 

#31 OK 

#32 maintain existing HREP project (no fact sheet made yet) deepen and reconnect (see 

EMP fact sheet 

#33 

#34-35 deepen and connect ( MO state property) 

#36, notch or remove structures (model before removal) 

#37 maintain existing HREP project 

Note: running out of time, we decide to stop working with the existing numbers, and 

look at rest if pool to see if any gaps remain (accept existing numbers) 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-48
Pools 25-26 HREPs implement 

#38 deepen and reconnect 

#41 Norton Woods, increase backwater depth (MO DOC owns this land) 

NOTE see multiple hard points at RM 250-251 on nav chart (maintain) 

#43 Stag Island, main channel island creation (using dredged material) 

#44 maintain existing wetland areas behind levee 

#45 implement and maintain Batchtown HREP (see DPR report) 

#46 backwater depth Jim Crow island (deepen and reconnect) 

#47 channel behind Jim Crow island 

#48 find incentives for local enhancement 

#50, 51- 52 Batchtown 

 

GROUP 2

Participants List: 

Tyler Harris – Missouri Coalition for the environment 

Mike Wells – Missouri DNR 

Bob Goodwin – MARAD 

Steve Widowski – Shawnee National Forest 

John Magera – USFWS Middle Mississippi River NWR 

Ken Dalrymple – Corps of Engineers 

Don Erickson – Corps 

Dave Busse – Corps 

Dave Busse will be reporter 

John Magela is keeping master sheet 

Tyler Harris is recording notes 

Lock 26 – Kaskaskia Reach 

Side channel document covers every side channel 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-49
Need to bring members of group up to speed on other studies – side channel and dike 

alteration plans, etc. 

Focus on things we can do and will provide real environmental benefits 

If we address all of this we will achieve beyond goals 

Most of current issues on reach are aquatic areas 

Aquatic diversity and increased depth of side channel 

Side channel plan is in GIS database 

Note highest priorities for side channel plan restoration 

Herculaneum reach and dike alteration plan – high priority room for additions to dike 

alteration in this reach – how to incorporate dike alteration specifically in plan 

Dike alteration will in some cases achieve goals 

How do we determine specific location of dike alteration? 

Every mile, ten miles, etc. 

Lots of planning of dike alteration – already have conditions now – gravel bar survey in 

progress 

Accomplish side channel plan and dike alteration plan we have aquatic habitat addressed 

in reach 

Add to Objectives map: 

Implement side channel plan 

Implement dike alteration plan 

Alter dikes for a mile stretch every ten miles – without holistic view different projects 

can counteract environmental gains 

Get best bang for buck and 

Specify amount of public land for reach 

What can we achieve? 

Work together to develop consolidated vision 

States, NGOs fed agencies 

What can be done to improve environment in realistic fashion 

MO River fish and wildlife mitigation project going forward 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-50
Associate objectives with actions 

Miss issues caught in planning morass 

Started program of notching dikes in 1970s – created islands and side channels 

Now trying to get safe and manageable nav channel that is environmentally sustainable 

IMPLEMENT SIDE CHANNEL AND STONE DIKE ALTERATION PLANS – ADD 

DATA FROM THESE PLANS TO GIS DATABASE FOR NAV STUDY 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS 

Side channel project\t document does not have standing – frustrating but also useful 

aspect NGO’s and state of IL have been using document for their own planning and 

trying to implement aspects 

No significant opposition has been noted 

Levee degradation, controlled floodways difficult to implement 

Create island situations 

Backwater with sinuosity 

Depends on location of notch and flows 

Create vegetated island can be done 

Creating sandbar is more difficult 

For this process – give objectives like 10 % of dike alterations create sandbars, 30 percent 

create vegetated islands 60 % backwater creation 

Dike alteration is already in database 

USFWS supports acquiring 200,000 acres of bottomland hardwood forest but will not 

specify locations 

Nav study does not cover Kaskaskia River 

IL is moving toward management for Kaskaskia similar to Illinois 2020 

Water quality should in clued nutrient concentration issues in whole river reach. 

Lower nutrient load by 20-25% would help, 50% would be great, and realistic will be 10-

15% 

Maintain DO levels on Middle miss 

Set goal as 15% reduction of nutrient load 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-51
River needs to be reconnected to floodplain – need to consider taking levees down 

Reconnecting floodplain is possible in some areas – controlled floodways, gates possible, 

levee setbacks 

Reforestation with cottonwood, sycamore and green ash to stabilize banks Thompson 

Bend 

Put structure in levee that is large enough to allow us to manage connectivity 

Already have large enough gates in some areas to make this system work 

Horseshoe Lake and Kaskaskia Island 

Kaskaskia Island would make a good example 

Corps is currently working on Miller city controlled floodway 

Reconnect floodplain and get various benefits – bald cypress, bottomland oaks 

East Cape Girardeau already has some restoration work in progress 

Good location fro mainline levee setback 

Landowners retain right to harvest timber, hunting rights, - have corps buy permanent 

easement 

Implement deal that easements or setbacks must be implemented to upgrade levees 

Currently will not jeopardize one levee system with another 

80 % floodplain connectivity in St. Charles floodplain and Columbia Bottoms 

Protect Mosenthine and Choteau Islands from development pressure 

Side channel 

Air quality issues – minimize impacts of additional traffic 

Water clarity impacts in main channel and fleeting areas due to increased traffic – 

minimize clarity impacts 

Reconnect tributaries with floodplains to trap some of the nutrients. 

Manage river to maximize native biodiversity 

Management of ecosystem in open river is really dependent on ownership. Want to have 

ecosystem management equal in priority to management of river for navigation. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-52
Restoration plan for MMR must include all habitats 

Understand some of the structural or physical systems that were lost or modified – 

physical features and microhabitats. 

Historical record of Mid MS – project died on vine 

Initial findings considered invalid by management 

Good story never got completed 

Put together project historical geomorphic mapping of MMR 

Address through the context of Biological opinion 

Example – reach formerly with 8 Islands that endured from 1840 –1950 now have 2 

Islands combining several, easy to restore since river naturally created Islands 

Better to spend money in areas where Islands were self-sustaining 

GLO mapping starts in 1817 to current 

Previous effort based on travel journals 

Maps from French surveying – descriptions sometimes do not coincide with drawing 

Water level effects morphology of map – Islands, etc. 

Surveying that includes water level gives good indication of real river appearance 

This is valuable exercise for restoration efforts 

Problems with MMR include hard headed members of Congress JoAnn Emerson 

Supports side channel effort if does not take land from non-willing sellers 

Likes American Land Trust method of land swapping 

Is it possible to allow river to meander 

Nav might require only 60% of water – if you have ability to set back levee you can 

divert 40% of water to natural meandering process 

Politically impossible to remove levees protecting productive farmland 

Better land in MMR area likely reduced participation in buyouts after 93 flood 

GROUP 3

Participants: Rob Davinroy, Mark Beorkrem, Jerry Stroud, Brian Johnson, Dave 

Benrmdt, Dan Erickson, Joyce Collins, Eric Laux, Ken Brummett, Gary Christoff, Bob 

Hrabik 

Baseline Condition For Pools 1940--(Just after LD implementation) 

Baseline Condition Middle Mississippi River---debatable 

Priority Concern. Although sustainability is focused from bluff to bluff, we need an 

appendix in final report that describes sedimentation issues occurring throughout the 

basin and how they effect ecosystem sustainability. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-53
Preserve and enhance sand bar habitat for aquatics and waterfowl. 

Starting at Mile 0.0. 

Reach Objectives.. 

Remove all the levees, restore 100 percent floodplain conductivity, bluff to bluff, take 

river to prior European settlement condition. 

As an interim basis, partial floodplain restoration, restore 20 to 30 percent of floodplain 

conductivity, bluff. 

Restore some measure of historic meandering tendencies of river. Allow some 

disturbance regimes to occur on the river. Allow some non-constraint stretches of the 

river. 

Allow every 5 to 7 miles of over-wintering fish habitat. Depths would be 12 to 18 feet. 

 

Allow every 20 miles for waterfowl resting habitat. Target 1000 acres minimum per site. 

Restore aquatic habitat conductivity within the main channel. Founder effect, 

bathymetric diversity, aquatic habitat connection. More natural bathymetry, more aquatic 

connection. In the channel crossings, establish more connectivity. Regional objective to 

achieve this would be to possibly increase dredging with dike removal. 

Restore river aquatic fisheries environment prior to 1950. Under this baseline condition, 

reach objective would be to possibly replace rock structures with wood structures or other 

similar measures to regain fisheries diversity and abundance. Investigate historical water 

quality effects. 

Restore riparian corridor within floodplain, including re-establishing forests and prairies. 

Restore small rivulets, oxbows, and other tertiary channels adjacent to the main channel. 

Create or engineer new islands and side channels within Middle Mississippi River. 

Maintain and create substrate type diversity, i.e. diversity of sands, gravels, cobbles, etc. 

Address local tributary effects, include deltaic sedimentation, channelization and 

headcutting. Restore oxbows and other important geomorphic features of the tributaries. 

Utilize existing meander scars and river features located in the floodplain for the creation 

of new aquatic and waterfowl habitats. 

 

Preserve and create wetland complexes in adjacent floodplain. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-54
Utilize old or existing quaries for backwater habitat. 

GROUP 4

Participant List: Bob Hughey, Butch Atwood, Don Huffman, Karen Westphall-chart 

recorder, Reid Adams, Rob Maher, Dean Corgiat, Danny Brown, Deck Major, Christine 

Favilla, Jon Duyvejonck - recorder 

Pool 26 

Pool-wide objectives for Pool 26

There are no pool plans for 26 now. There seems to be agreement that goals and 

objectives identified in existing documents (HNA, UMRCC) are appropriate for Pool 26 

Restoring natural hydrograph (water level regulation) is uppermost priority for 

management actions. How much should this drawdown be? Probably no more than 1 

meter. It would be beneficial to drawdown every year, if conditions permitted. This must 

be linked with increased floodplain connectivity to be effective; objective of 40% of predevelopment floodplain acreage over the next 100(?) years. Fish must have more access 

to floodplain, but biologists are unsure how much is needed for sustainable populations. 

This is a long term objective that should be achieved as opportunity presents. Secondary 

channels restoration objectives is a problem because we don’t know what historical 

conditions were. Need to increase opportunities for agricultural programs (wrp, crp) as 

part of this objective; these objectives will need to be achieved opportunistically. 

Want 100% passage of native fishes through navigation dams. 

Understanding of natural resources status is minimal. This lack of information with 

respect to the status of fish and wildlife resources presents a problem for specifying sitespecific objectives. 

Information need: When do fish species need access to BWs? 

Bank stabilization? Want to stop erosion, but also want habitat diversity. Too much bank 

stabilization decreases diversity.

Water quality objectives in addition to just increasing water clarity are needed (i.e. more 

D.O. in specific locations, reduce methyl mercury contamination in sediment, reduce 

nutrient input from tribs, reduce fecal coliform from treatment plant outfalls). Want 

clarity sufficient to support aquatic veg in BW down to 1.5m in depth (TR 3-4). How 

will this affect navigation channel? 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-55
Don’t know where mussel beds are, and their status. Therefore it is difficult to establish 

specific objectives for mussels 

Increase quantity of woody debris in side-channels throughout pool 

Pool-wide there needs to be increased focus on floodplain tributaries and stream 

restoration objectives as well. 

Air quality needs improvement (emissions from waiting tows) What is the alternative to 

this? 

Facilitate necessary changes in land use to achieve objectives 

All islands in river should be in public ownership and cabins should be eliminated 

Increase bottomland hardwood acreage in all pools. 

Specific Locations

76. Backwater depth - At a minimum, wish to maintain existing conditions. Existing 

connectivity is OK. Maintain no more than 25%of area >3m. Too much depth is counterproductive. 

RM 222- Upstream of MO-Miss. confluence is an important natural resource area that 

needs management attention. 

53. Across from this location is a BW that needs reconnection with main channel. 

78. Create deep water habitat for paddlefish, sturgeon, blue catfish 

65. 

74. OK agree 

Piasa Creek – watershed needs improvement 

Pool 25 

General pool wide objectives (restore floodplain connectivity) are the same as Pool 26. 

Batchtown – 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-56
Appendix F. Management Actions 

Purpose:

To review and identify management actions that are most likely to contribute towards 

achieving the established goals and objectives. 

Background:

For the purposes of these workshops, Management Actions are: regulatory, operational or 

structural tools or activities that can be implemented to positively address environmental 

objectives (e.g. hydraulically dredge a backwater area). Participants reviewed a list of 

management actions that had been compiled from previous planning to assess their ability 

to meet the objectives that were discussed the previous day Time was given to ensure all 

the groups were able to review all of the actions. The reports from each group were 

presented in a plenary session to provide other participants the opportunity to ask for and 

receive clarification. 

Results:

What follows is the management information gathered and reviewed at the St. Louis 

Workshop. It is organized into three sections: management action tables, plenary report, 

and working group reports. 

Each working group prepared a master worksheet to record the group’s changes, 

additions, and deletions to the list of management actions. The changes from all the 

groups were compiled in the following worksheets (Table F1). There were three 

ecosystem elements or parameters, 36 new management actions, and 54 comments added. 

The whole group modified four existing management actions and deleted seven of the 

actions listed. The groups covering the Open River, or Middle Mississippi River reach 

deleted 20 actions or determined they were not applicable in that river reach. 

 These results will be merged with those from other workshops, and the entire 

management actions database published in the UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility 

Study Interim Report will be updated. 

The plenary comments are taken directly from the plenary report and only include 

discussion specifically related to management. The entire plenary report can be found in 

Appendix C. 

The Working Group reports below were prepared by the recorder in each group as a 

record of the discussion. Working group reports are not inclusive of all of the work that 

was produced for Management Actions. Much of the groups’ data generation was done 

on master worksheets and maps and compiled for production in a formal report for the 

Upper Mississippi River – Illinois Waterway Navigation Feasibility Study. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

F-1
Table F1. Management Actions. 

Element / Parameter Extent ID Management Action 

Water Quality Water Clarity Main Channel 1 Apply watershed BMPs (best management practices) General comment: sedimentation and clarity historically 2 Stabilize river banks 

3 Pool scale drawdown to consolidate soft sediments 4 Minimize dredge disturbance/frequency 5 Minimize dredge slurry return water (SEMO port) 6 Minimize bankside dredged material placement 7 Stabilize dredged material 8 Tributary reservoirs (sediment trap) 9 Speed and wake restrictions - rec. boats and tow boats 

Dissolved oxygen Increase connection, duration, flow to reduce D.O. sags 

 
Table F1. Management Actions (cont.). 

Element / Parameter Extent ID Management Action 

Water Quality cont. Side channel closing structures - dredging Nutrients Carbon inputs Reforestation, BMPs Woody Comments/ Additions: 

Control dissolved oxygen Conrol nitrates/chemicals Minimize open water placement of dredged material Increase channel depth Use retention areas for dredged material 

Backwaters/side channels 10 Pool scale drawdown to consolidate soft sediments 

11 Drawdown management units 12 Drawdown isolated backwaters 13 Isolate and drawdown contiguous backwaters 14 Temporarily isolate and drawdown contiguous backwaters 15 Construct wind breaks 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table F1. Management Actions (cont.). 

Element / Parameter Extent ID Management Action Water Quality cont. 16 Construct Wave breaks 

17 Remove bottom feeding fishes (carp) 18 Increase plant density 19 Increase plant distribution 20 Reduce algae production by water level management and connectivity 

Comments/ Additions: 

Control dissolved oxygen Conrol nitrates/chemicals Plantings to stabilize banks Sediment traps Create forested riparian corridor Land acquisition 

Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 21 Hydraulic dredging 

22 Mechanical dredging 23 Consolidate sediment 24 Divert flow to increase backwater scour 

Comments/ Additions: Explosives 

Control sediment by BMPs Structures additions or modifications 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table F1. Management Actions (cont.). 

Element / Parameter Extent ID Management Action 

Geomorphology (cont) Side Channels Hydraulic dredging 

Mechanical dredging Divert flow to increase backwater scour Make new side channels Channel bed degradation, side channel development 

Water Level Main Channel 25 Pool scale drawdown Comments/ Additions: Pool scale increase 

Study water table changes 

Backwater Areas 26 Pool scale drawdown / increase 

27 Drawdown management units 28 Drawdown isolated backwaters 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table F1. Management Actions (cont.). 

Element / Parameter Extent ID Management Action  Geomorphology (cont) 29 Isolate and drawdown contiguous backwaters 

30 Temporarily isolate and drawdown contiguous backwaters 

Comments/ Additions: Connectivity Floodplain 31 Acquire real estate rights, restore water to leveed floodplain areas 

32 Reconfigure, restore flow to secondary remnant channels 33 Restore flow to isolated backwater areas 34 Create habitat corridors for floodplain terrestrial wildlife 35 Restore natural tributary channels through delta areas 36 Notch levees 37 Set back levees 38 Increase water levels39 Increase terrestrial area

Comments/ Additions: Remove levees 

Controlled floodways Remove bank stabilization structures Gated levees - controled flow into hydrograph 

Secondary Channels 40 Notch closures 

41 Divert flow from main channel 42 Increase water flows levels 43 Dredge secondary channels 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table F1. Management Actions (cont.). 

Element / Parameter Extent ID Management Action 

 Geomorphology (cont) 44 Remove levees Comments/ Additions: Set back levee 

Controlled floodway 

Longitudinal 45 Build fishways 

46 Modify gate operations 47 Modify lock operations 

48 Remove tributary dams 

Comments/ Additions: Pattern of Habitats Aquatic areas 49 Introduce flow to isolated backwater areas 

50 Restore flow to secondary channels 51 Restore flow to floodplain areas isolated by levees 52 Restore natural tributary channels through delta areas/floodplain 53 Divert more tributary delta flow into open impounded areas 54 Create or protect rock, cobble, and gravel substrate areas 55 Create or protect shallow rock, cobble, and gravel riffle areas 

56 Incorporate woody debris into bank protection 

57 Incorporate woody debris into 2° and small channels 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table F1. Management Actions (cont.). 

Element / Parameter Extent ID Management Action  Pattern of Habitats (cont.) 58 Restore flow and geometry of secondary channels 

59 Modify flow distribution from dam gates - tailwater habitat 

60 Grading, vegetation planting 61 Rock groins, hard points

62 Anchored woody debris 

63 Off-shore rock revetments 

64 Submerged rock vanes 65 Notch wing dams to create hydraulic, depth diversity 66 Notch closing dams to increase side channel flow 67 Construct temporary structures to divert flow 68 Use larger rock, make bank revetments irregular 69 Incorporate woody debris into channel structures 70 Construct hard points, groins for shoreline stabilization 71 Construct off-shore revetments 72 Construct seed islands 73 Construct bendway weirs 74 Construct chevrons 75 Modify flow splits between main and off-channel areas 76 Dredge backwater areas, increase depth 77 Dredging to restore and create secondary channels 78 Shore pipe, boosters to reach target sites 79 Use small dredges to expand placement options 80 Bend width reductions where possible 

 Aquatic areas (cont) 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table F1. Management Actions (cont.). 

Element/ Parameter Extent ID Management Action Comments  Pattern of Habitats (cont.)Comments/ Additions: Buy land/interest 

Restore meanders to tribs 

Terrestrial 81 Place dredged material to create wetland areas 

82 Placement on existing, construct new beaches 

83 Semi-confined channel placement (chevrons) 

84 Unconfined placement in floodplain (for mast trees)

85 Unconfined placement in floodplain See 84 

86 Beaches Not applicable 87 Island construction 88 On floodplain to raise areas for mast-producing trees See 84 

89 Confined placement of dredged material in floodplain 90 Construct hard point in floodplain 

91 Construct islands in impounded areas and backwaters Not applicable 92 Seed islands Not applicable 

93 Chevron islands 

94 Rock islands See 87 

95 Islands with varied top elevation, fine material 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table F1. Management Actions (cont.). 

Element/ Parameter Extent ID Management Action CommentPattern of Habitats (cont)  Terrestrial (cont) 96 Low islands - mud flats and sand bars Comments/ Additions: Buy interest Land Cover/Use 97 Modify and manage habitats on refuges (see habitat below) 

98 Manage vegetation cover 99 Manage water levels 

100 Modify habitat structure in floodplain and backwaters 101 Plant vegetation on dredged material deposits 102 Plant floodplain trees 103 Harvest floodplain trees TSI - wetla104 Plant floodplain prairie 105 Burn floodplain prairie 106 Control invasive exotic species Plants too 107 Place dredged material to create wetland areas 108 Unconfined dredged material placement in floodplain (for mast trees) 109 Growing season drawdowns gated leve

Comments/ Additions: Add items 31 - 44 also 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table F1. Management Actions (cont.). 

Element/ Parameter Extent ID Management Action 

Plants and Animals Fish 110 Adjust angling, commercial fishing regulations as needed 

111 Modify angler attitudes about expoitation 112 Enforce fishing regulations 113 Stock fish 

Comments/ Additions: Close sturgeon fishing season 

Improve angler access 

Wildlife 114 Conduct biomanipulation of fish and wildlife community (various actions) 

115 Adjust hunting and trapping regulations as needed 116 Modify hunter attitudes about expoitation117 Enforce hunting regulations 118 Reintroduce native species 

Comments/ Additions: Environmental education/outreach programs Exotics 119 Control/eliminate invasive exotic species 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table F1. Management Actions (cont.). 

Element/ Parameter Extent ID Management Action  Plants and Animals (cont.) 120 Construct, operate, maintain barrier on Illinois River 

121 Require antibiotic treatment of Great Lakes freighter ballast water 122 Regulate use of exotic species for fishing bait 123 Regulate biota transfer by fishing boats 124 Apply species-specific toxicants 125 Kill zebra mussels on vessels in lock chambers 126 Restrict and enforce use of exotic species in aquaculture 

Comments/ Additions: Start catch-and-DON'T-release programs 

Sever Great Lakes connections Kill Reeds canary grass and purple loosestrife 

T&E 127 Protect, increase populations of threatened, endangered species 

Protect, increase habitat of threatened, endangered species 

Comments/ Additions: Emphasize mgmt of communities, not populations 

Continue to implement UMR Biological Opinion Implement recovery plans 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table F1. Management Actions (cont.). 

Element/ Parameter Extent ID Management Action  Best Management Practices All Modify habitat (see below) 

128 BMPs 129 Conservation tillage 130 Contour farming, terraces 131 Grassed waterways 132 Establish perennial cover, crops 133 Stabilize eroding ravines 134 Conservation Reserve Program land set-aside 135 Erosion control structures along intermittent streams 136 Construct, maintain small impoundments 137 Restore drained lakes, wetland areas 138 Riparian buffer strips 139 Restore stream channels, floodplain areas 140 Urban stormwater management practices 141 Construction site erosion prevention practices 142 Increase pervious surface in developed areas 

Comments/ Additions: 

Educational outreach - neotropicals, ecology of river, many things 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Plenary Report

The plenary comments are taken directly from the plenary report and only include 

discussion specifically related to management actions. The entire plenary report can be 

found in Appendix C. 

Nov 14th, Management Actions Plenary Session:

The plenary began by asking each group to give a brief overview of what they did, as 

well as listing their modifications to the list of Management Actions. The Tables of 

Management Actions were visited section by section with all four groups having an 

opportunity to give their input on each section before moving to the next. 

Managements Actions – Chuck Theiling (9:08 – 9:10) 

Chuck began this section by discussing why it is important for management actions to be 

identified, as well as defining what a management action is. Next he discussed how the 

current list of management actions was created. Finally he and Rebecca projected the 

management action worksheet and discussed how to work during the breakout sessions. 

Discussion Before Management Actions Working Groups: 

– “Reduce Algae” Isn’t this an objective? 

Theiling – Yes. 

Soileau – You can go ahead and convert these to management actions. 

 – If we don’t see a management action that is directly linked to an objective identified 

yesterday we can go ahead and add it on. 

Soileau – Yes, absolutely. 

 – Are we inserting an element of realism to the management actions or are we waiting 

for later? 

Soileau – You can clarify them, but don’t say “your off your rocker”. We are trying to 

capture all ideas. What may not be applicable now, may be later. 

Theiling – 5-8 years ago people would have thought environmental pool management 

was impossible. 

 – If we don’t like dredges we tend to get more rock in the river. So, if we cross off 

minimize dredge disturbance will that be interpreted to add more rock in the river? 

Soileau – We will have many actions to address any of these concerns, so there may be 

another way to meet those needs. Make sure you put any concerns in your notes.

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

F-14
Management Action Working Groups (9:20-11:05)

Management Action Plenary (11:10)

Group 1 Report (Pools) (Numbers in parentheses are the group the speaker belonged 

to.) 

People in our group wanted to do this in a site-specific manner. To implement them, you 

cannot do it over the entire reach; you have to be in a specific area to do a specific action. 

Pools

Water Quality (Main Channel) 

(1)Dissolved O2, Nitrates and Chemicals. 

(1) – For speed restrictions we discussed advisories. 

 (1)– Should we remove increase Channel depth because we didn’t think it would help 

water quality due to sediment characteristics? 

(4) – Many of these applied to other categories and were located there, but we included 

them here as well. Talked a lot about restoring natural hydrograph. Especially how 

induced drawdowns don’t follow the natural drawdowns. 

– Reconfigure tow facilities and scheduling to minimize sediment resuspensions 

Water Quality (Back Water) 

(1) All in report

(4) Re-emphasize drawdown 

Geomorphology (Back Water Depth) 

(1) All in report 

(4) All in report 

Water Level (Main Channel and BackWater) 

(1) All in report 

(4) All in report 

Connectivity (Floodplain) 

(1) - #35 was unclear as to what it was 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

F-15
(4) All in report 

(4) – Year round pool management – Spring Flood – Summer Drawdown – Late Fall, 

winter rise again. 

(1) – How do you apply a natural hydrograph to a locked river? The locks have created a 

different environmental system so what values are you trying to achieve by introduction a 

pre-impoundment natural hydrograph to a locked river. 

 – We can’t do anything to the spring flood. We can simulate the rise and fall of the river 

with management of dam operations. We are trying to draw down in the summer but 

then let them come back up to pool levels in fall. However, the fall rise is the question 

mark; we may need to buy more real estate. 

– So you need to be careful using the word ‘natural’. This system was actually built to 

mitigate against this. 

– Not the amplitude of the natural hydrograph, the shape of it. 

– I understand, I think that we need to be careful of language. 

Theiling – There are functional aspects that we are trying recreate. Sediment 

consolidation: this can happen at almost any time. Holding waters high allows 

connectivity to off channel areas for fish over-wintering. Some things are time dependant, 

others aren’t. 

– Some people understand that these need to be acted within certain confines but the 

general public may not. 

– Would this be dependant upon natural conditions? 

– Yes, you don’t want it to be the same every year. River won’t allow you to do it every 

year, i.e. drought years. Chris is right we do have to be careful with the language we use. 

Connectivity (Secondary Channel ) 

(1) All in report 

Connectivity (Longitudinal) 

(4) All in report 

(1) All in report

Patterns of Habitat (Aquatic Areas) 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

F-16
Patterns of Habitat (Land Cover/Use) 

(1) All in report 

(4) All in report 

Patterns of Habitat (Terrestrial) 

(4) All in report 

(1) All in report 

(1) All in report 

Plants and Animals 

(1) All in report 

(4) All in report 

Open River

Water Quality – Water Clarity (Main Channel) 

 (2) – We made no judgments. All things were good and should be laid out before the 

site manager. 

(2) – Assuming #8 meant sediment traps and that it could be used in the middle river. 

(3) Our plan of attack was to go through the list and discuss and eliminate items. 

(3) Water clarity wasn’t as much an issue as stratification and anoxic conditions. Water is 

clearer than historic levels due to Missouri Dams. Better route to increase turbidity in 

some areas. #2 Feel that some banks are too stabilized, would like to restore some natural 

meander. 

Water Quality – Water Clarity (BW) 

 (2) – Number 17 brought about a bit of discussion based on feasibility. Additional 

management actions were Increasing licensing, and Rhodam (?) 

(3) Added side channels to the backwater category. 

– Dissolved Oxygen (DO) – side channels become isolated in the summer months, 

stratification occurs and anoxic conditions develop. Increasing connectivity and flow 

would help. Notching structures and dredging would help. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

F-17
Nutrients are also an issue. Being isolated in side channels leads to eutrophication and 

DO issues. Carbon inputs and woody structures could be debated – reforestation would 

be desirable. 

– BMP was also added here. 

(2) – How can destabilizing a riverbank improve the water clarity? 

(3)– Middle Miss was a very turbid river. Fish communities evolved and adapted to these 

kinds of situations. This changed when mainstem dams went in on the Missouri. There 

has been a shift in fish populations – non-sight fish populations are down. Return of 

these fish would be beneficial. Stabilizing the banks keeps turbidity and sediment out of 

the river. 

(2)– Seems counter intuitive 

(3)– We, a society, like to see clean flowing water. However the Middle Miss was not 

that kind of river. 

(2)– So, if we decrease BMPs and let the sediment flow into the river, would that be 

good? 

(3)- No, the sediment has to come from the right places (from the channel or the Missouri 

River). 

– Good to think outside of the box 

(2)– We are talking about different areas of the river. Sediment coming from upland 

impacts the entire system, but sediment from the river is better. 

– Stabilizing the bank does keep trees from falling in river, but it does eliminate flat 

scoured area habitat and structure from fallen trees. 

Geomorphology Page 2-3 

(2) Look at water level tables and water usage and see how that is affecting Main 

Channel water levels. 

(3) – Hydrograph in the Middle Miss is similar to historic, but more flashy. If you could 

implement set backs and notching you may be able to bring down the peak a little bit. 

(3) – Dig new channels for backwater depth and backwater areas 

(2) In floodplain – add structures into levees to allow water flow 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

F-18
 (4)– Is there any problem with channel bed degradation (down cutting) in the main 

channel? 

(3)– Don’t really know. 

Geomorphology Page 2-4 

(2) All in notes 

(3) There is a lock at Kaskaskia and maybe something could be done there. 

Pattern of Habitats – Aquatic Areas

(2) – From #54-55 – Could open areas to increase flows which would expose gravel 

already there. #80 Thought that was more of an objective. Didn’t really know any 

management actions. Considered that we could put in nursery areas for small fish. Need a 

chance to develop techniques (selective notching and floodplain connectivity or using 

large stone to limit size of fish that can access side channels. 

 (4) Question on connectivity and degradation. Down-cutting may have caused isolation 

of secondary channels and backwater. 

 – Some areas are degrading and some are aggrading 

(2) – There was degradation early after channelization, but is has stabilized. 

(3) Some areas that have been over-engineered can be looked at. 

(3) Didn’t really understand #80. 

Lunch – 12:15 – 1:05 

Pattern of Habitats – Terrestrial Areas

 (3) All in notes 

(2) Not clear on #81. 

Patterns of Habitats – Land Cover/Use

 (3) - #103 don’t see many areas where that was possible except for wetlands and timber 

stand improvement 

(4)– What about the setting back floodplain trees for succession? 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

F-19
(3)– We did mention timber stand improvement. 

(2)– To reestablish pine oak you need to have some type of reforesting 

(3)– Yes, but you need to have a seed bank and we don’t seem to have one. 

#109 – Gated levees since the middle river doesn’t have dams. 

(2) All in notes 

Plants and Animals

Fish 

(2) All in notes 

(3) – Don’t have the same fisherman base. Actually need to improve angler access to get 

people on the river and that would change attitudes. 

Wildlife 

(2) All in notes 

(3) All in notes 

Exotics 

(2) All in notes 

(3) – Use some bacteria or something to control exotics 

(3) 121 took out antibiotic treatment. 

Threatened and Endangered 

 (3) Management currently seems to be population based. Should take a more holistic 

approach by managing for systems and goals. Outreach and education and outreach on 

the ecology of the river. 

(3) - #134 Utilized to “all USDA programs” 

 2) – All mussel recommendations should be implemented. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

F-20
Working Group Reports 

The Working Group reports below were prepared by the recorder in each group as a 

record of the discussion. Working group reports are not inclusive of all of the work 

produced concerning management actions. Much of the groups’ data generation was 

done on master worksheets and maps and compiled for production in a formal report for 

the Upper Mississippi River – Illinois Waterway Navigation Feasibility Study. 

GROUP 1

Participants List: Mike Cox, Willis Graham, Ken Barr (MVR); Scott Bunselmeyer 

(UMIMRA); Phil Bradshaw (IL Soybean Board); Dave Gates (MVS); Ken Brummett 

(MODOC); Tim Krumwiede (IDNR); Tom Wilson (IDNR); Chris Brescia (MARC 2000) 

Water Quality (HQ)

Ken would like to see alternatives to rock for bank placement (MVS has been 

using this for about 15 years. The advantage to using woody structures is an increase of 

carbon matter. There was some small discussion about large stone vs. small stone and 

how MVR is hesitant to use the larger stone (because of increased cost and structural 

integrity of the structure). 

 Drawdowns are OK as long as navigation is not impacted. 

 Dredging should not impact water quality, but the placement (especially open 

water placement) could impact HQ). The question is placement and MVS should be 

looking toward placing material upland instead of open water. Investigate upland 

placement. MVP and MVR have beneficial use stockpile sites and MVS should be doing 

this. 

 UMIMRA asked about contaminants and would the levee district be responsible 

for the contaminants. The bedload sand is clean and there are no problems. 

 Many of the management actions under HQ may better fit under geomorphology. 

However, lower dredging depth may help to reduce the HQ impacts. 

 Minimize slurry and bank placement would be place the material upland. 

 Tributary reservoirs would help, we should work on local incentives and CAP 

authorities. What about TMDL that some have heard about? Ken spoke about how some 

states have made new guidelines to reduce nutrient loading to help the hypoxia situation 

in the Gulf. Discussion about local farm testing and state requirements showed that this 

is ongoing. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

F-21
 Add towboats to the rec. speed and wake restrictions. How should tows change 

their way of transporting? Notices of sensitive areas could be broadcast so tows could 

avoid these areas (i.e., issue resource alerts to the industry). 

 How do we get the rec areas to understand and comply with the resource alerts 

(advertising, no wake buoys?). How can you identify whether it’s the towing or the rec 

causing the problem? 

Backwaters HQ

Discussion of meaning of some of the listed actions (what is isolation of contiguous 

backwaters?(damming up connection to allow isolated pumping down of backwater)). 

Use alternatives to rock for wave breaks, as possible. 

Question of removing bottom feeding fish (they can increase turbidity while feeding and 

reduce vegetation. But the management action is unrealistic as written. Maybe keep it 

for isolated areas. 

Algae is not a HQ problem in this area, only sometimes in backwaters. Change wording 

to “introduce flow in isolated backwaters to reduce algae production.” Still water 

promoted growth. Discussion about West Nile virus and stagnant water problems. 

Geomorphology, backwater depth, backwater areas.

Add explosives to dredging methods (case by case basis of course) 

Diversion of flow can cause more problems that it benefits, so add modeling to determine 

which methods would work in certain areas. 

Sediment reduction is very important and should be initiated wherever possible. 

Water Level Management Main Channel and Backwater Areas

Discussion of benefits of this technology (adds veg in lower portion of pools). 

Discussion of dam vs. hinge point drawdowns, plusses and minuses. 

Add “Increase pool levels during winter to assist over wintering habitat for backwaters”. 

 This is being done in some areas successfully 

Connectivity

We do not condone 100% floodplain reconnection (this should be considered on a siteby-site basis) 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

F-22
Concerns about riparian corridor along the leveed land...would this create crop damage 

and would additional moisture be required (yea and no, but most levee districts would be 

less opposed to riparian corridors rather than aquatic habitats placed along the levee). 

Interest in adding incentives or voluntary actions to modify levee districts (notching or 

setting back). 

Why do environmental projects use existing levees, when the levee districts get no 

benefits from the system already (e.g., Oakwood Bottoms – if it was flooded in 1993, 

there was already a plan in place to build new levees to protect the 5,000 acres of oak 

forest, but the existing levee is doing that now). Ken B. spoke about controlled flooding 

as opposed to controlled flood reduction. The controlled flooding would allow nutrient 

transfer of carbon and such back to the river, plus add fish habitat. 

GROUP 2

Participants List: 

Tyler Harris – Missouri Coalition for the environment 

Mike Wells – Missouri DNR 

Bob Goodwin – MARAD 

Steve Widowski – Shawnee National Forest 

John Magera – USFWS Middle Mississippi River NWR 

Ken Dalrymple – Corps of Engineers 

Don Erickson – Corps 

Dave Busse - Corps 

Dave Busse – facilitator/keeping master list 

Tyler Harris – typing 

Pg. W2-7 

113A – limit or ban sturgeon fishing – sturgeon got hammered the last two years during 

commercial season - FWS says “close the season” – include paddle fish – paddle fish 

removed from closed season 

Water Clarity – not that much of a problem in open river main channel 

1- what are BMPs and who decides what they are and who implements – nutrient 

loading involved in clarity – some think it is meaningless – river manages its own 

sediment load – decided it is an objective 

2- could be good or bad – leave it on the list but note including vegetative 

stabilization 

3- not applicable to open river 

4- OK 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

F-23
20- objective 

5- Reduce amount of water – will not work for dustpan or cutter head – Caterpillar 

working on new system for IL river that addresses this – leave it in as option 

6- Minimize impacts of bank side dredged material on water quality is an objective – 

how is it done? Do not place in wetlands – want to use dredged material to create 

sandbar or Island. Find a way to filter out fine sediment. Use retention areas for 

bank-side placement of dredged material 

7- Combine 6 and 7 – scratch 6 and accept seven – contain dredge material, plant 

grasses on top of material to stabilize 

8- Sediment traps – clarify this as sediment trap 

9- How can this be enforced? Is it appropriate? Rec. boats create more wave action 

on side channel – take it out – unenforceable 

Backwaters 

10- not applicable 

11- includes make a management unit and draw it down 

12- ok 

13- ok 

14- ok 

15- ok 

16- ok 

17- focus heavily on this – this is an action that will be difficult to employ – will 

encounter much resistance from some fisherman – carp more of a problem than 

catfish – possibly issue additional commercial licenses restricted to exotic bottom 

fish 

18- this is an objective – plant to help stabilize banks and during low water times 

plant on caving banks and areas of high erosion –this is an objective 

19- objective 

ADD 

– plantings to stabilize banks 

 - in cooperation with NRCS put in sediment 

Create forested riparian corridor – 

Land acquisition and easement interest in ag. lands adjacent to river 

What impact does flooding inundation of ag. lands have on water clarity – if riparian 

zone is forested there is little impact, if farmed right to banks it causes major problem – 

acquire fee title or long term restrictive easement on lands farmed right up to banks – 

work with land owners 

Millions of tons of sediment pass daily – accretion of islands inconsequential 

BACKWATER DEPTH 

 Backwater areas 

21- ok 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

F-24
ADD 

26- na 

39- N/A 

22- ok 

23- objective – not clear on meaning of this 

24- increase flow during high water 

- structure additions or modifications or removal 

water level 

whole section does not apply 

if channel has incised in open river is that addressed here – affects water table 

which affects wetlands – studies show channel is incised – is there a trend toward 

further incision – middle miss is not continuing to incise – problem on lower miss 

– study showing historic stream elevation – Dr. Pinter shows stage elevation 

lowered as time goes on – mid bank flow has shown no change – high flow shows 

increasing stage – lower river loss of sinuosity causing continued incision – no 

shortening of MMR – gained length since mid 1800’s – no cutoffs in MMR – it is 

not meandering – bottom of river lower than 100 years ago but not continuously 

degrading – has impact on isolating backwaters and wetlands/water table – 

monitor water table – lots of irrigation lowering the water table due to shallow 

wells – how do we separate this from 

ADD 

- study water table changes 

25- na 

27- ok 

28- ok 

29- ok 

30- ok 

ADD 

- study water table changes 

CONNECTIVITY 

 Floodplain 

31- OK acquire real estate rights 

32- OK 

33- OK 

34- OK 

35- OK 

36- OK 

37- OK 

38- N/A 

ADD 

- remove levees 

- controlled floodways 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

F-25
61- Ok 

- remove bank stabilization structures to allow natural meandering and 

reestablish ridge and swale system 

Secondary Channels 

40- OK 

41- Divert main channel flow into secondary channels 

42- N/A 

43- OK 

44- OK 

ADD 

- setback levees 

- controlled floodways 

- see #31 

Pinched area at Chester – is this a candidate for controlled floodway? – could 

be done but landowners will probably prefer setback to protect remaining land 

45- N/A 

46- N/A 

47- N/A 

48- N/A 

AQUATIC AREAS 

49- ok 

50- OK 

51- Ok 

52- Ok 

53- N/A – pool 

54- Objective? Action = add rock and cobble 

55- Objective? Action = add rock and cobble 

River bed is made of gravel and cobble with sand on top, after high flow sand 

accumulates 

56- ok 

57- ok 

58- objective introduced flow might produce straight flow – use round points and 

varied notches to manage geometry and sinuosity in side channel – can use woody 

structures or varied wood dikes at wide spacing – Corps is using woody debris 

already 

59- N/A 

60- Ok 

62- Ok 

63- Ok 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

F-26
82- dangerous to public recreation – only appropriate in backwater areas at best 

91- N/A 

64- Ok 

65- Ok 

66- Ok 

67- Ok 

68- Ok – provides special habitat for catfish and greater surface for bugs 

69- ok 

70- Dupe of 61 

71- Dupe of 63 

72- Ok 

73- Ok bendway weir carves a little off bank and moves it downstream 

74- Ok 

75- Ok 

76- Ok 

77- Ok 

78- Ok will not work with dustpan dredging 

79- Ok 

80- Want them bigger if possible – real problem with navigation – this is an objective 

ADD 

- create areas connected with MS – backwater areas – restricted access for 

large bottom feeding fish – use fence or grating – to increase aquatic 

vegetation need to restrict large bottom feeding fish since they stir up 

bottom – want larval fish to access for nursery – works until major flood – 

large fish will invade with flood waters screen/grate/rock restriction on 

fish size – small fish have access to river

- see #31 – buy land

TERRESTRIAL 

81- how will this work? Leave it in but unsure 

83- ok 

84- OK ridge and swale come back in naturally when river is connected to floodplain 

85- Not without a specific purpose – see 84 

86- N/A in MMR 

87- Ok – are there areas that will give immediate benefit for least terns – better to 

create sandbar habitat behind a chevron 

88- Dupe of 84 

89- Ok 

90- Would create a scour hole behind it – create a blue hole – will add ponding areas 

– uses rivers energy 

92- Used by St. Paul – creating small Island that will grow – need protection in MMR 

for Island to stay – N/A See 87 

93- See 87 

94- See 87 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

F-27
All OK 

WILDLIFE 

95- See 87 

96- See 87 

ADD 

- #31 

- All of items under connectivity floodplain 

Setback levees will allow natural ridge and swale to redevelop – will create terrestrial 

habitat desired 

Succession of bottomland hardwood forest is dependent on river meandering behavior – 

need to allow the river to meander to create natural disturbance cycle that governs 

floodplain forest habitat 

LAND COVER USE 

FISH 

110- OK 

111 – change to: initiate environmental education program 

112 – OK 

113- include pallid sturgeon 

114- OK 

115- OK 

116- N/a 

117- OK 

118- OK 

- Add 111 

- 

119- Objective 

120- Ok 

121- Ok 

122- Ok 

123- Ok 

124- Ok 

125- Ok 

126- Ok 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

F-28
Reference Pool recommendations concerning mussels and mussel bed surveys. 

ADD 

- KILL REEDS canary grass or purple loosetrife 

Useless to discuss fish and wildlife issues when all we have control over is habitat – 

being forced to create habitat for endangered species when knowledge of habitat is not 

available 

NURSERY IDEA IS INTERESTING – NEEDS FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF 

TECHNIQUES 

Need to increased the number of bendway weirs in open river 

Remove all bendway weirs in open river 

Looked at this as an expert system – manager would have objective or action that he 

would refer to this system for options. 

We made no value judgment on the management options (except for beaches in main 

channel – too dangerous) 

GROUP 3

Participant List: Dave Berndt, Mark Beorkrem, Jerry Stroud, Dan McGuiness, Gary 

Christoff, Eric Laux, Joyce Collins, Brian Johnson, Lynn Muench, Bob Hrabik 

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS: 

Water Quality: 

Water Clarity is less of a concern in lower Upper Miss than in pooled portions of the 

river due to the decrease in sediment movement from Mo River system. 

Stabilization is a two edged sword for Open River portion of the river. Ecosystem needs 

more sediment in this reach to DECREASE water quality to facilitate biological needs of 

aquatic species. Systemic and site specific management of banks to facilitate erosion is 

preferred to bank armoring. This is in conflict with current program of bank stabilization. 

Eliminate Pool Scale Drawdown from Open river management actions. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

F-29
Remove dredge spoils from floodplain with the caveat that system needs sediment 

Dissolved Oxygen add as a Water Quality Parameter 

DO Management Actions: 

 Restore riparian corridors 

Break up stratification in side channels and backwaters through increase of 

flows/connectivity particularly low water periods 

 Notch, move, install or remove dikes or closing structures 

 Dredge openings 

Nutrients – dissolved or solid 

 BMP’s on upland areas 

 See DO Management actions through moving nutrients through the system 

Carbon Input: 

 

 Increase woody debris and proper mix of carbon inputs 

Water Clarity - BACKWATERS: 

 Remove pool scale drawdowns 

Geomorphology – Backwater Depth: 

 

 Eliminate Consolidate sediment 

 Dredging is one tenth the cost of rock structure for achieving backwater depth 

even factoring in re-dredging required every ten-twenty years and returns biological 

response very quickly. 

Physical Excavation to create more water areas ie: side-channels, backwaters 

 Water Level remove Pool Scale Drawdown as a management action 

 Levee setbacks, notches, pumping, log control structures etc. add as a 

management action that can affect water levels 

 BMP practices for stormwater management 

 Reforestation of floodplains 

Geomorphology -Connectivity – placement of water level control structures to manage 

flows 

 Remove #39 Increase Terrestrial areas 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

F-30
Pattern of Habitats – Aquatic Areas 

Eliminate #53 & #59 as a management action 

#52 add floodplain after delta areas 

 forest cover, land cover 

add Restore meanders to tributary 

 #84/85 specific as dredge material 

 Terrestrial – eliminate #86 Beaches 

Pattern of habitats: Land Cover Use 

 #103 change to Timber Stand Management to create wetlands, expand diversity of 

 #106 clarify as plant material 

 Gated isolated habitat drawdowns 

Plants and Animals: Fish 

 Add Improve angler access and angling opportunities 

 #119 control and eliminate invasive exotic species 

#113 add “native fish” to the sentence 

 Add Conduct bio-manipulation and bioengineering of fish 

Plants and Animals: Wildlife 

 #114 add bioengineering 

Plants and animals: Exotics 

 #121 Change to Regulate Great lakes ballast water 

 #125 change to Kill Zebra Mussels (no lock chambers on open river) 

 Add Utilize Bio-controls 

 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

F-31
 Supplemental stockings of desired species 

Plants and Animals: T&E 

 Add Require Implementation of recovery plans 

 Continue to implement UMR biological opinion 

 Take a community approach to management of threatened or endangered species 

Plants and Animals: All 

Add Increase education about the importance of the river corridors for neotropical migratory birds and other purposed 

 

Add Increase education on the importance of riverine corridors for plant and 

animal species 

GROUP 4

Participants List: Bob Hughey, Butch Atwood, Don Huffman, Karen Westphall-chart 

recorder, Reid Adams, Rob Maher, Dean Corgiat, Danny Brown, Deck Major, Christine 

Favilla, Jon Duyvejonck - recorder 

Management actions: 

Water Quality 

1. Watershed BMP- amend to include restoration of tributary mouths. Channelized tribs 

on floodplain could be restored to allow sediment deposition on floodplain before it 

empties into the main river. 

2. Stabilizing River Banks – Need to consider all methods of bank stabilization (i.e. biotechnical, including no stabilization in some locations). Need to experiment with 

different methods to determine best for a given locations. 

Add: restoring a natural hydrograph through pool drawdown would help achieve this. 

However some drawdowns are poorly timed and do not coincide with natural 

hydrograph. 

4. Minimize dredging- Is it preferable to build regulating works to dredging? Consider 

beneficial uses where possible. Placing material in farm fields. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

F-32
17. remove exotic carp, not all bottom feeding fish 

8. tributary reservoirs should be considered under BMPs. Traditional large reservoirs in 

uplands are not desirable in some states. Concern for fish passage through these is a 

concern. 

Add: Modify barge loading/fleeting actions/scheduling to minimize sediment 

resuspension from tows. 

Add: Increase mussel populations to help water clarity 

Reiterate importance of natural hydrograph to help BW clarity 

Geomorphology

Water Level – 

BMP practices in watershed would affect level in river 

Apply to all parameters under Geomorphology: Year-round environmental pool level 

management is needed; not just spring/summer draw-downs. This includes winter drawdowns/raises. This applies to both main channel and backwaters, floodplains, 

42. Increase water levels seasonally 

40. In addition to notching, include removal of structures 

44. remove levees or notch 

45. Consider natural fish passage-ways (i.e. at LD 25) to promote fish passage 

Add: Barging/transporting fish around dams 

Pattern of Habitats

61. include rock gabions 

add: Consider application of bendway weirs in pooled section of river 

Terrestrial 

Increase transition zones (succession, habitat gradations) from aquatic to terrestrial to 

uplands. Create vegetation gradients from the floodplain to uplands. Need travel 

corridors from aquatic/wetland habitats to upland habitats. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

F-33
Promote forest succession 

Plants and Animals

Fish 

Continue fish monitoring 

Add: encourage commercial markets for Asian carp species 

Mussels 

Regulate commercial mussel harvest. Reintroduce native species. Raise public awareness 

of mussel values. Collect baseline mussel data. 

Exotics 

Change item 126 by striking words “in aquaculture”. 

Add item Reintroduce T&E species. 

T&E 

143. Reconfigure loading/fleeting to improve air quality. 

144. Increase mooring facilities near locks and at other locations (near river mouths) to reduce tow 

generated air emissions 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

F-34
Results: 

Appendix G. Species and Population Parameters 

Purpose: To identify plant and animal species and appropriate units of measure that 

should be considered for future environmental objectives planning efforts. 

Background: Recent environmental planning efforts for the Environmental 

Management Program and other Upper Mississippi River System restoration and 

maintenance programs have focused on habitats and the impacts of Corps activities on 

habitats. It has been recognized that planning needs to be expanded to include additional 

functional and structural ecosystem elements. 

During the planning stages of this workshop, organizers were considering objectives for 

plant and animal species and quickly encountered difficulty in selecting guilds, species, 

or units of measure for plants and animals. Emergent and submersed aquatic plants, 

diving ducks, and dabbling ducks were eventually selected based on the perception that 

knowledgeable resource managers could interpret the units of measure selected. It was 

determined that stem density was a relatively standard unit of measure for aquatic plants 

and that use-days during migration periods were relatively standard measures of 

waterfowl abundance. 

Specific objectives for fish were desired, but the selection of guilds, or species, or units of 

measure quickly complicated the issue. It was decided therefore to back-off on the 

specifics for fish objectives and only indicate that there is an objective for several general 

categories of fish determined during earlier phases of the Navigation Study: protected, 

sport, commercial, forage, and exotic fishes in channel and backwater habitats. The unit 

of measure became particularly complicated because of our desire to establish 

quantitative objectives, but our general inability or lack of commitment to fish 

community stock assessments. Discussion of the unit of measure is particularly 

important because of our need for measurable objectives and our selection of evaluation 

tools. 

These issues were discussed during a plenary session at the workshop, with the results to 

be forwarded to an expert panel. A focus group of workshop participants will continue 

work with the expert panel to refine fisheries objectives. The larger list of species such 

as reptiles, amphibians, other birds, and mammals will be considered during future 

phases of the adaptive management and assessment process recommended in the 

Navigation Study Interim Report. 

One workshop participant reminded the group that there is a long-term commercial fish 

catch database maintained by the Upper Mississippi River conservation Committee 

(UMRCC) that can be helpful in evaluation species populations on the UMRS. States 

also maintain similar records individually. While not providing absolute abundance 

estimates, the database is a good barometer of change over time in the commercial 

fishery. These databases have been very helpful in tracking exotic species. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

G-1
Another workshop participant informed the group that there is an ongoing effort to 

establish a baseline demographic for fishes in the Middle Mississippi River reach. 

The group was informed that the Audubon Society has launched an initiative to establish 

and survey “Important Bird Areas” along the UMRS. Audubon will be surveying stateby-state to identify restoration areas and to conduct long term monitoring. It was added 

that Audubon’s Christmas Bird Count and Breeding Bird Surveys were also valuable 

tools to track bird species presence and trends. These databases also do not provide 

abundance estimates, but they have helped evaluate species distribution for many years. 

It was asked how species would be linked to the habitat variables that are typically 

modified as part of river restoration projects. The thought was that this was important to 

be able to evaluate whether project objectives had been achieved. There was concern that 

focusing on a small set of species may not detect community level response, either 

beneficial or adverse. Habitat evaluation procedures like the Wildlife Habitat Appraisal 

Guide (WHAG) and Aquatic Habitat Appraisal Guide (AHAG) developed by the Corps 

were proposed as community level evaluation tools. Species specific Habitat Evaluation 

Procedures (HEP) are of limited value because they sometimes emphasize some habitat 

variable over others and frequently don’t incorporate all habitat variables. 

Some responded to the HEP discussion with the real-world observation that AHAG 

results are poor indicators of actual project performance in terms of fish use of restored 

habitats. Previous AHAG model results showed poor agreement with sampling results 

from restored areas. It was recommended that the fisheries management community 

work to complete an Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) for large rivers. Development of an 

IBI would require significant validation to ensure its utility throughout the UMRS. 

Refuge managers were puzzled why the Corps would venture into species level issues 

anyway. The Corps, they said, has authority for habitat management and other state and 

Federal agencies have responsibility for species. 

Invertebrates and less mobile species were recommended as the best indicators of 

restoration response because they would be most impacted by changes in local habitat 

conditions. Mammals and birds with large ranges are typically impacted by conditions 

over large special areas and do not necessarily respond only to changes in local habitat 

conditions. 

As occurred at other workshops, participants recommended tracking exotic, threatened, 

and endangered species as indicators of community level responses. One participant 

thought freshwater mussels may be good indicators because they reflect local water 

quality conditions and, potentially, could be used as indicators of fish species presence. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

G-2
Plenary Report

The plenary comments are taken directly from the plenary report and only include 

discussion specifically related to the species and population measurements. The entire 

plenary report can be found in Appendix C. 

Species and Population Plenary Session:

Theiling – Christmas Bird Counts and Breeding Bird Surveys are other ideas. 

– Had difficulty achieving population estimates. 

– What are the biologists doing to assess the restored areas in the Everglades? Do they 

have a monitoring methodology we can draw on? 

– Report of harvest for commercial fish. This is relatively easy to measure. 

– Maximize natural species diversity. 

Theiling – We don’t have good records so it’s hard to determine a historic baseline. 

– Audubon has launched “Important Bird Areas”. They will be looking at the Mississippi 

River. Surveying State-by-State and identifying restoration areas and long term 

monitoring to determine if restoration works. 

– Trying to establish a baseline of demographic for fish in the Middle Miss. We are 

looking at age structure and survival mortality to determine how system is doing. 

– How do you take the species and link them up to the functions you are trying to restore? 

How will you know if you have achieved your objectives? Keystone species – they are 

there because public wants them but may not have ecological importance. Will you pick 

a species and use that to monitor success? 

Theiling – That is the way we have done things. We are posing this question to you. 

The DNR has responsibility to their constituent. 

– Illinois River Sauger examples. 

 - Link to WHAG or AHAG. Can’t do intensive biological surveys on every single site. 

Theiling– Like the idea of Good, Medium and Bad habitats. Doing it on closed systems 

is a good idea and on different habitats 

– Questions with AHAG. Only study on AHAG said there was no relation between 

reality and model outcomes. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

G-3
– What about IBI – Index of Biologic Integrity? What happened to Big River IBI? 

Theiling – It’s going to take more than 7 people on 300 miles of river to monitor whole 

populations. 

Theiling – Illinois River is a Natural Experiment. Clean Water Act and water treatment 

has really helped to improve the river. They don’t need assessments to tell if it works. 

They can tell if it works. If bass experts are coming then it is good enough for them for 

most biologists. 

– David Thompson hired commercial fisherman to do the sampling in the 1930’s-1950’s. 

Is that an option? 

– Are you implying that Sport species... are native species? 

– Yes. However, could use these techniques on exotics as well. 

– Why doesn’t relative abundance work? 

– Christmas tree effect. (If you put a Christmas tree in a farm pond. If you sample near it 

you will find a lot of individuals. There aren’t more individuals in the pond, only more 

structure, so they are concentrated there). 

– But you are looking for trends over several years with relative abundance. 

Theiling – In low water years get more catch per unit efforts because of concentration 

– Use mussels as indicators because they require host fish? They don’t move around as 

much as fish. 

– Puzzled why the Corps would venture into the species issue. Invertebrates would be a 

good indicator of system health. Mammals and Birds are getting into so many more 

factors that you would have more questions about your data. 

Theiling – But what about the Natural Resource Agencies at all? 

– That’s our job. But we still look at habitat. 

– Looked at Rock Island 404 -??? 

– Merging all of the datasets that are out there? 

– Open river is being analyzed but are a long ways away from specific information. 

Theiling – If money and time were no issue would you want to do total fish estimates. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

G-4
– Is this going to be put to the expert panel? 

– Yes, that’s the only way to answer some of these questions. 

– Kill off large stretches to get biomass estimates but general public wouldn’t accept and 

would have to do it again and again to see changes in trends. 

– What about bioacoustics 

– This is the tool of the future, but right now you can’t differentiate species. However 

developing some kind of Matrix like the IBI is a really good idea. 

Theiling – Yes 

– MO is going to try to do estimates on Shovel Nose Sturgeons. Maybe those results will 

help. Estimate of Flathead Cat. Most of the retrieval was in pool 22. So find something 

that doesn’t move much 

– Our Flatheads and Paddlefish are moving quit a bit. 

– We can’t neglect community level analysis (IBI) 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

G-5
• Provide a framework for implementing adaptive management and restoration 

Appendix H. Conceptual Model Presentation 

The overall purpose of a conceptual model developed for the UMR-IWW Navigation 

Study is to identify the linkages and sequencing of identified objectives and associated 

management actions and facilitate a comprehensive assessment of the potential risks and 

impacts posed by improvements to the navigation infrastructure. The conceptual model 

can contribute to the overall purpose through the following: 

• Visually characterize a complex system to better understand and manage it 

• Identify the major drivers, stressors, and endpoints of the system 

• Define the functional relationships (i.e., linkages) between stressors and endpoints 

• Assist in decisions on impact assessment, restoration and management actions, 

and evaluation tools 

• Develop a structure for additional input from stakeholders 

The following slides were used at each of the workshops to present information on the 

current draft conceptual model. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

H-1
UMR-IWW Ecosystem 

Conceptual Models

• Background

– Conceptual models help to gain a better 

understanding of the linkages between:

• Environmental Objectives

• Management Actions

• State of the Ecosystem

• Task

– Discuss the utility of developing a UMRIWW ecosystem conceptual model

Purposes of a Conceptual 

Model for the UMR-IWW

• To visually present a complex system

• Creates a framework for additional input

• Provides a basis for decision making in 

relation to the achievement of objectives 

• Develops a structure for implementing 

adaptive management and restoration

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

H-2
Geomorphology Habitat Biota

Water Quality

and Sediment

Composition

Wildlife Unionid

Mussels

Submerged

Aquatic

Vegetation

Keystone

Species

Threatened

Endangered

Species

Fish Wetlands

& FP

Sed & Water

Quality

Backwater

Sediment 

Accum

Fish

Spawning 

Habitat

Land & Water Use

Altered 

Hydrology

Climate

Change Sediments Nutrients Contaminants Fragmentation

Invasive 

Species Harvesting Rec. Use Natural Disturb

Altern

Transport

Land and Water Use 

Emergent 

Vegetation

X% increase

0.5 m 

Drawdown

Habitat

Altered 

Hydrology

Larger scale stressor

Specific stressor

Management Action

General ecological effect

Specific effect

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

H-3
MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION

INFORMATION

ASSESSMENT PLANNING

ADAPTIVE

MANAGEMENT

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

H-4
Appendix I. Power Point Presentations 

This section contains the power point slides used to present background and introductory 

information throughout the workshops. They are given in the order they were presented 

on the agenda. 

The Power Point Presentations will be included in the final 

version of the printed workshop reports. You can download 

them by going to the following FTP site 

ftp://ftp.usace.army.mil/Incoming/MVR/NavStudy/.

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

St. Louis, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

I-1
Appendix I. Peoria Environmental Workshop Report 

The following report summarizes the results of the Peoria Environmental Workshop that 

was held November 6-7, 2002. The report includes: 

1. a summary of the workshop and results, 

2. tables of identified UMR-IWW environmental objectives, 

3. a table of identified management actions, 

4. a narrative on UMR-IWW species and population parameters, 

5. working group reports, and 

6. the plenary session report. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops 

DRAFT REPORT

I-1
Upper Mississippi River – Illinois 

Waterway System Navigation 

Feasibility Study 

Peoria Environmental Workshop 

November 6-7, 2002 

Peoria, IL 

DRAFT REPORT 

 

United States Army Corps of Engineers 

 
UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

 Page

Executive Summary ................................................................................1

Introduction and Workshop Process...................................................1 

Environmental Objectives.................................................................8

Management Actions.....................................................................10 

Species and Population Parameters...................................................11 

Conceptual Model........................................................................12 

 

Figures 

Figure 1. UMR-IWW Lock and Dams............................................................2 

Figure 2. Areas in red show the extent of selected landcover or landuse types on the 

UMR-IWW..............................................................................3 

Figure 3. UMR-IWW GIS Objective Tool and Database......................................8 

Tables

Table 1. UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objective 

Workshops reports contents............................................................7 

Table 2. Number of site-specific environmental objectives identified for the Illinois 

River.......................................................................................9 

Table 3. Example Management Action Table..................................................10 

Appendices

A. Workshop Invitation List, Participants, Participant Information...........A-1

 

B. Agenda....................................................................................B-1

C. Plenary Session Notes...................................................................C-1 

 

D. Answers to Introductory Questions.................................................D-1

 

E. Environmental Objectives.............................................................E-1

F. Management Actions...................................................................F-1 

G. Species and Population Parameters.................................................G-1 

H. Conceptual Models.....................................................................H-1

I. Power Point Presentations.............................................................I-1

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

iii
 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Introduction and Workshop Process 

The restructured Upper Mississippi River –Illinois Waterway (UMR-IWW) System 

Navigation Feasibility Study is focused on the authorized Federal navigation projects on 

the Upper Mississippi River System (UMRS; including the Illinois Waterway; Figure 1) 

and the ecological and floodplain resources that are affected by these navigation projects. 

The objectives of this restructured feasibility study are to relieve lock congestion, achieve 

an environmentally sustainable navigation system, and address ecosystem and floodplain 

management needs related to navigation in a holistic manner. The restructured 

navigation study will seek to ensure that the rivers and waterway system will continue to 

be an effective transportation system and a nationally treasured ecological resource. The 

restructured study will: (1) further identify the long-term economic and ecological needs, 

and potential measures to meet those needs, through collaboration with interested 

agencies, stakeholders and the public; (2) evaluate various alternative plans to address 

those needs; (3) present a plan consisting of a set of measures for implementation that 

will achieve the study objectives; and (4) identify and address issues related to the 

implementation of the recommended plan.

The study area comprises the entire Illinois Waterway and the Upper Mississippi River. 

The Illinois Waterway extends 327 miles from its confluence with the Mississippi River 

to Lake Michigan via the Illinois River, Des Plaines River, and a series of canals. The 

Upper Mississippi River extends 854 miles from the confluence with the Ohio River to 

Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota. The study area lies 

within portions of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin. The total Illinois 

Waterway and Mississippi River navigation system contains 1,200 miles of nine-foot 

deep channels, 37 lock and dam sites (43 locks) and thousands of channel training 

structures (Figure 1). 

Much of the UMRS lock and dam system was in place by the 1940s. Except as noted 

below, the locks are 600 feet long, although, modern tow configurations include 15 

barges and approach 1,200 feet long. As a result, most tows must lock through using a 

time-consuming two-step process in which the first three rows of barges (9 barges) are 

locked through first and the last two rows of barges (6 barges) and the tow boat are 

locked through second. The entire process may take 1.5 hours or longer depending on 

many variables. In contrast, Lock 19 has a 1,200-foot lock and Melvin Price Lock and 

Dam (Lock 26 replacement) and 27 have both a 1,200-foot and a 600-foot chamber at 

each site. The lockage process takes an average of 1.0 hours at Lock 19 and 0.6 hours at 

Locks 26 and 27. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 1

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Lock & Dam 5A

Lock & Dam 2

Lock & Dam 1

Lock & Dam 6

Lock & Dam 5

Lock & Dam 8

Lock & Dam 11

Lock & Dam 12

Lock & Dam 13

Lock & Dam 15 Lock & Dam 14

Lock & Dam 16

Lock & Dam 17

Lock & Dam 18

Lock & Dam 19

Lock & Dam 21

Lock & Dam 22

Lock & Dam 24

Lock & Dam 25 Mel Price Lock & Dam

La Grange Lock & Dam

T.J. O'Brien Lock & Control Works

Lock & Dam 10

Lockport Lock & Dam

Brandon Road Lock & Dam

Dresden Island Lock & Dam

Marseilles Lock & Dam

Starved Rock Lock & Dam

Peoria Lock & Dam

ILLINOIS WATERWAY

MISSISSIPPI RIVER

Lock & Dam 9

Lock & Dam 7

Lock & Dam 4

Lock & Dam 3

Upper St Anthony Falls Lock & Dam

Lower St Anthony Falls Lock & Dam

Lock 27

Lock & Dam 20

OHIO RIVER

La Cr osse

Min neapol is

Du buq ue

PEORIA

ST. L OUIS

CAPE GIRA RDEA U

Roc k Isl and

ÊÚ

ÊÚ

ÊÚ

ÊÚ

ÊÚ

ÊÚ

ÊÚ

Figure1. UMR-IWW Locks and Dams. 

Eight locks on the Upper Mississippi River and 3 Illinois Waterway locks were among 20 

locks with the highest average delays in 1987 at the beginning of this study. This 

remains the case with UMR-IWW facilities highly ranked in the peak monthly delays at 

locks around the country in 1998. The UMRS had over half (19 of 36) of the most 

delayed lock sites in the country. Under current conditions, delays to tows are common 

at a number of locks on the UMRS. In general, delays are greatest at the most 

downstream 600-foot locks. For the 10-year period 1990-1999, delays per tow average 

3.4 hours at Locks 20-25; 2.2 hours at Locks 14-18; 0.9 hour at Locks 8-13; and 0.4 hour 

for Upper St. Anthony Lock to Lock 7. On the IWW over the same period, delays per 

tow average 1.8 hours at Peoria and La Grange and 1.1 hours for the other locks. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 2

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Ecosystem 

The Upper Mississippi River ecosystem includes the river reaches described above, as 

well as the floodplain habitats that are critically important to large river floodplain 

systems. The total acreage of the river-floodplain system exceeds 2.6 million acres of 

aquatic, wetland, forest, grassland, and agricultural habitats. The Mississippi Flyway is 

used by more than 40% of the migratory waterfowl traversing the United States. These 

Trust Species and the threatened and endangered species in the region are the focus of 

considerable Federal wildlife management activities. In the middle and southern portions 

of the basin the habitat provided by the mainstem rivers represents the most important 

and abundant habitat in the region for many species.

Habitat types are disproportionately distributed throughout the river system, and their 

absolute abundance is dependent on the total area of the reach under consideration 

(Figure 2). The largest differences occur in the amount and distribution of agriculture 

and the proportion of open water in the floodplain. Agriculture dominates the wide 

floodplain south of Rock Island, Illinois and open water occupies a greater proportion of 

the floodplain north of Clinton, Iowa. Wetland classes are generally more abundant in 

northern river reaches, wet meadows are fairly evenly distributed, and grasslands are rare 

throughout the river system. Forest classes generally occupy between 10 to 20 percent of 

the floodplain in a narrow strip along the river banks throughout the system. 

Marsh Agriculture

Peoria

Cape Girardeau

Forest

Minneapolis

Dubuque

Rock Island

St. Louis

La Crosse

Minneapolis

Dubuque

Rock Island

Peoria

St. Louis

Cape Girardeau

La Crosse

Minneapolis

Dubuque

Rock Island

Peoria

St. Louis

Cape Girardeau

La Crosse

Levees

Minneapolis

Dubuque

Rock Island

Peoria

St. Louis

Cape Girardeau

La Crosse

Peoria

Cape Girardeau

Public Land

Minneapolis

Dubuque

Rock Island

St. Louis

La Crosse

Marsh Agriculture

Peoria

Cape Girardeau

Forest

Minneapolis

Dubuque

Rock Island

St. Louis

La Crosse

Minneapolis

Dubuque

Rock Island

Peoria

St. Louis

Cape Girardeau

La Crosse

Minneapolis

Dubuque

Rock Island

Peoria

St. Louis

Cape Girardeau

La Crosse

Levees

Minneapolis

Dubuque

Rock Island

Peoria

St. Louis

Cape Girardeau

La Crosse

Peoria

Cape Girardeau

Public Land

Minneapolis

Dubuque

Rock Island

St. Louis

La Crosse

Figure 2. Areas in red show the extent of selected landcover or landuse types on the 

UMR-IWW. 

Section 1103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (WRDA 86) recognized 

the Upper Mississippi River system as a unique, nationally significant ecosystem and a 

nationally significant commercial navigation system. The system provides: 

1. A means for shippers to transport million of tons of commodities within the study 

area---130 million tons on the Mississippi River and 44 million tons on the Illinois 

Waterway in 2000, 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 3

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
2. Food and habitat for at least 485 species of birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and 

fish (including 10 Federally endangered or threatened species and 100 state listed 

species), 

3. More than 226,650 acres of national wildlife and fish refuge, 

4. Water supply for 22 communities and many farmers, and industries, 

5. A multi-use recreational resource providing more than 11 million recreational visits 

each year, 

6. Cultural evidence of our Nation’s past. 

Establishing Goals for the System 

The original feasibility study was narrowly focused on the problem of reducing 

commercial navigation traffic congestion on the system. Coordination was occurring 

between economic and environmental interests, however, the work was being 

accomplished independently. With the new focus of the restructured study on 

sustainability, it became important for the stakeholders of the system to prepare a 

common vision for the future of the UMRS. In November 2001, the Economic 

Coordinating Committee (ECC) and the Navigation Environmental Coordinating 

Committee (NECC) met jointly to prepare this vision:

“To seek long-term sustainability of the economic uses and ecological integrity of the 

Upper Mississippi River System” 

The following definition of sustainability was collaboratively developed and agreed to by 

the group as well: 

“The balance of economic, ecological, and social conditions so as to meet the 

current, projected, and future needs of the Upper Mississippi River System without 

compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.” 

This definition will serve as the primary goal for integrated and adaptive management of 

the Upper Mississippi River System.

Planning for future navigation system infrastructure needs; navigation system operation 

and maintenance; habitat protection, enhancement, and restoration; river recreation; 

floodplain management; and water quality management should be conducted in the 

context of a set of clear goals and objectives for condition of the UMRS. Setting these 

goals and objectives should be done collaboratively, with participation of the full 

community of river stakeholders. Development of a set of measurable objectives for 

integrated and adaptive management of the UMRS will be challenging. It will require 

considerable collaborative effort, making use of conceptual models, predictive models, 

and visualization tools to comprehend the interconnections between system components 

and to enable the community of stakeholders to actively participate in planning for a 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 4

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
sustainable multiple use river-floodplain system. Integrated planning will be an on-going 

effort to optimize the National benefits achieved from efficient and effective adaptive 

river management. 

Introduction to the Workshop 

Four two-day workshops were held during November, 2002, to aid the process of 

establishing measurable environmental objectives for the Upper Mississippi River-Illinois 

Waterway System (UMR-IWW). Workshops were conducted in Peoria, Illinois, St. 

Louis, Missouri, La Crosse, Wisconsin and Moline, Illinois. 

The workshops were structured to achieve the following main objectives: 

1) Identification of UMR-IWW environmental objectives

Collaboratively review, refine, and add to a database of specific, quantitative, 

local to regional scale environmental objectives (for the workshop region) 

building on previous work from the EMP Habitat Needs Assessment, Pool Plans, 

USFWS Comprehensive Conservation Plans, and related study efforts. 

2) Identification of UMR-IWW management actions

Review and identify management actions that are most likely to contribute to 

achieving the established goals and objectives. 

3) Discuss and identify species and population parameters

Identify plant and animal species and appropriate units of measure that should be 

considered for future environmental objectives planning efforts. 

4) Present and discuss UMR-IWW ecosystem conceptual model

Present and discuss the utility of developing an UMR-IWW ecosystem conceptual 

model to gain a better understanding of the linkages between environmental 

objectives, management actions, and the state of the ecosystem. 

Participants at the Peoria Workshop were invited from a variety of organizations 

including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Department of Transportation – 

Maritime Administration, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, 

Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Illinois Department of Water Resources, 

Illinois Natural History Survey, MARC 2000, MRBA, UMIMRA. There were 31 people 

who participated in this 2-day interactive process. This report presents the results of the 

enormous amount of effort and energy the participants contributed to the workshops. 

Workshop Process 

The workshop was organized by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Rock 

Island District. A subset of the workshop participants helped review and edit this 

Workshop Report. Outside review by non-participants will not be part of the process. 

No content changes were made by the editors and the participants checked that accurate 

representations were made of the work they had done during the workshop. 

The Illinois River workshop was conducted 6 - 7 November 2002 at the Tri-County 

Regional Planning Commission, Peoria, Illinois. There were 31 participants, with most 

present the entire duration of the workshop. These participants, from more than 50 issued 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 5

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
invitations, included state and federal wildlife agency personnel, non-governmental 

agency representatives, and public citizens. Participants and invitees are listed in 

Appendix A. 

The agenda for the workshop (Appendix B) was followed loosely, allowing extra time for 

questions and time in the workgroups as needed. A record of these plenary discussions is 

found in Appendix C, while workgroup reports can be found in the appendices related to 

their topic of discussion. 

Background on the General Workshop Structure 

The workshop process was designed to maximize the time and resources available at each 

of the meetings. The workshops utilized three components of meeting structure to meet 

the objectives of eliciting information, discussing key issues, and informing the 

participants of developing strategies. 

The first component was the standard meeting style wherein a few speakers provide 

information to the group as a whole allowing for questions and some discussion. 

The second component was key for eliciting information and involved breaking the group 

into working groups based on some criteria such as geography or content. Breaking a 

large meeting into working groups comprised of 10 or fewer individuals optimized the 

opportunity for participation of the greatest number of people and for timely discussion 

and progression on key issues. The number of working groups varied depending on the 

number of participants and geographic areas to be covered. 

The third component were the plenary sessions, which allowed all of the participants to 

hear a summary of what was accomplished in the other working groups and to have input 

into the entire set of results. It also allowed us to refine the GIS database as a 

coordinated team. 

Before getting started with the first task of this workshop, each participant was asked to 

introduce themselves and to write out and then read aloud answers to an introductory 

question. This process allowed for expression of individual perspectives without being 

immediately influenced by previous responses. This process indicated potential areas of 

common ground and provided a first insight into the diversity of perceived issues present 

in the group. Answers to the question can be found in Appendix D of this report. 

After the Workshops 

The workshops are an early step in a planning process to establish environmental 

alternatives that strive to secure the environmental sustainability of the UMR-IWW. 

Once the environmental objectives are well defined and management actions are 

identified to achieve them, the next step will be estimating the potential costs and 

outcomes (i.e., benefits) for the suggested actions. This information will be used to 

develop alternative plans (made up of multiple combinations of management actions) that 

seek to address the local, river reach, and system-wide needs of the UMR-IWW 

ecosystem. These environmental alternative plans will then be integrated with alternative 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 6

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
plans for the UMR-IWW Navigation System. Tradeoff analysis will be conducted to 

identify and compare the environmental, economic, and social benefits of the integrated 

plans. The results of the alternative analysis, and further collaborative review and input 

from stakeholders, will be used to develop a recommended plan portrayed in the Final 

Feasibility Report scheduled for completion in late 2004. 

Formal Report 

Five reports will be produced as a result of the four, two-day workshops. The first four 

reports are Workshop Reports, which will be reviewed by the workshop participants. A 

final integrated report summarizing the results from the four workshops will be published 

as part of the Navigation Study’s formal documentation process. The final integrated 

report will contain a full accounting of the site-specific objectives in the form of an atlas 

as well as the tabulated system, reach, and pool wide objectives and management actions 

(Table 1). Workshop participants will have an opportunity to review and comment on the 

integrated Draft Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops Report before its 

completion in early 2003. 

Table1. UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objective 

Workshops reports contents. 

• Peoria Environmental Workshop Report

- Summary of Illinois River workshop and results 

- Tables of identified Illinois River pool-wide and site-specific objectives 

- Table of identified management actions 

- Narrative of species and population parameters 

- Working Group Reports 

- Plenary Session Report 

• Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops Report 

- Summary of all four workshops 

- Tables of all identified UMR-IWW pool-wide and site-specific objectives 

- Atlas maps of all identified site-specific objectives 

- Table of all identified managements actions 

- Narrative of UMR-IWW species and population parameters 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 7

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Environmental Objectives 

The primary goal of the Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops was to have 

participants collaboratively review, refine, and add to a database of specific, quantitative, 

and local to regional scale UMR-IWW environmental objectives obtained from previous 

study efforts. The Peoria Workshop was successful in reviewing and identifying both 

site-specific and pool-wide objectives for the Illinois River using a combination of 

working groups and plenary sessions. Objective atlas maps and worksheets were 

reviewed and filled out by breakout groups. A plenary session then followed where the 

information from each group was compiled into the objective database using GIS tools 

(Figure 3). 

Figure 3. UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study GIS Objective Tool and Database.

The environmental objective database used at the Peoria Workshop included 115 sitespecific objectives obtained from the Upper Mississippi River System Habitat Needs 

Assessment (HNA) and Illinois River Ecosystem Restoration – Alton Pool Draft Fact 

Sheet. Two additional data sources were identified during the Peoria Workshop and later 

added to the objective database. They included objectives noted by the Fish and Wildlife 

Interagency Committee (FWIC) Restoration Priorities and Habitat Rehabilitation and 

Enhancement Project (HREP) documents. HREP objectives were noted only for projects 

described as ‘under general design’ or ‘future opportunities’. 

An additional 227 site-specific objectives were identified through the workshop process 

bringing the total to 342 environmental objectives for the Illinois River (Table 2). Over 

80% of the objectives were located in the lower three pools of system with land cover/use 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 8

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
51

56

27

43

54

78

1

2

1

and backwater depth being the most common types identified. The 29 Illinois River 

objectives identified as ‘Other’ included objectives related to mussel beds, restoring 

natural tributary meanders, and reduction of contaminated sediment. Appendix E 

provides additional detail on the objectives listed in Table 2. Maps of all site-specific 

objectives identified in the workshops will be distributed for review in the integrated 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops Draft Report (in January). 

Table 2. Number of site-specific environmental objectives identified for the Illinois River.

Objective Lockport Brandon Dresden Marseilles Starved Rock Peoria La Grange Alton Total

Water Clarity 0 0 1 4 314 22 7

Backwater Depth 0 0 1 4 315 25 8

Connectivity 0 0 1 2 1 313 7

Aquatic Areas 0 1 2 2 3 912 14

Terrestrial Areas 0 0 0 3 223323

Land Cover/Use 0 0 1 5 417 29 22

Plants 00000100

Fish 20000000

Birds 00000100

Other 0 1 3 1 4112 7

Total 2 2 9 21 20 94 106 88 342

Illinois River Pool

29

Quantitative target ranges for objectives were usually not identified at specific locations. 

Rather, they were noted with the pool-wide objectives. Some examples of the pool-wide 

environmental objectives identified by workshop participants include: 

• Maintain 50% of currently isolated backwaters for exclusion of exotics and 

protection of high quality habitat. 

• Increase connectivity to 25% of currently isolated backwaters. 

• Protect, maintain, and enhance threatened and endangered species habitat and 

other natural areas. 

• Recreate the natural hydrograph. 

• Reduce incidence of summer water level “bumps” to less than 1 year in 3. 

• Restore aquatic vegetation in backwater areas. 

• Reduce sedimentation throughout each pool. 

• Control all exotic species. 

• Increase bottomland hardwood forest acreage by 10% and improve diversity. 

A more complete list of Illinois River pool-wide objectives gathered at the Peoria 

Workshop is located in the Environmental Objectives Appendix E. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 9

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Management Actions 

The purpose of the Management Actions breakout groups and plenary session was to 

review and identify management actions that were most likely to contribute to achieving 

the established goals and objectives. This will be accomplished by reviewing current 

tables of management actions (see the Interim Report for the Restructured Upper 

Mississippi River – Illinois Waterway system Navigation Feasibility Study pages 251-

255), tailoring them to the ecosystem elements under consideration, and revising them 

where necessary. Management Actions are defined as specific actions, tools, techniques 

or combinations of actions, tools and techniques used to meet defined objectives. 

Management actions are implemented as specific projects whose reconnaissance and 

feasibility studies provide the detail required to assess and develop environmental 

analyses, funding, staffing, engineering and partnerships needed to implement the plan. 

Table 3 is an example of the Management Actions Tables where actions have been 

changed or added. All management actions can be found in Appendix F. 

Table 3. Example Management Action Table. 

Element/ 

Parameter Extent ID Management Action Comments 

Water Quality 

Water Clarity Main Channel 1Apply watershed BMPs (best 

management practices) 

 2Stabilize river banks 

 3Pool scale drawdown to consolidate soft 

sediments 

 4 Minimize dredge disturbance/frequency 

 5 Minimize dredge slurry return water 

 6 Minimize bankside dredged material 

placement 

 7Stabilize dredged material 

 8Tributary reservoirs 

 9Speed and wake restrictions - rec. 

boats (all watercraft) 

Comments/ 

Additions: 

Evaluate and modify mechanisms to 

deal with watershed influences to 

eliminate spiking hydrographic cycle 

(system wide) 

 

 Restore natural tributary areas through 

delta areas 

 Minimize open water dredged material 

placement 

 Sediment traps 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 10

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Species and Population Parameters 

Workshop facilitators posed the question of whether it was necessary to estimate the total 

abundance of fish, wildlife, or plants in the Illinois River. The simple answer was no 

because total population abundance estimates require a very considerable amount of 

sampling effort and estimates have considerable error associated with them. A better 

method to measure population response to environmental change is to sample relative 

abundance in various habitats to detect population change in response to environmental 

change. Another indicator of ecological improvements in the Illinois River is the vigor of 

the fishing tournaments and public use. It was also suggested that fish condition is 

another characteristic that might be measured to view of the condition of the river fishery. 

The question of why we need precise population estimates was raised. The response was 

that USACE Division and Headquarters reviewers look for quantitative estimates of the 

benefits of restoration projects. The thought is that firm quantitative estimates of 

population changes may provide justification for restoration measures. A more detailed 

discussion can be found in Appendix G. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 11

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Conceptual Model 

At the end of the workshop, participants were provided with a brief presentation on the 

ecosystem conceptual model being developed for the UMR-IWW Navigation Study. The 

purpose of the UMR-IWW conceptual model is to identify the linkages and sequencing 

of identified environmental objectives and associated management actions and facilitate a 

comprehensive assessment of the potential risks and impacts posed by improvements to 

the navigation infrastructure. The conceptual model can contribute to this overall 

purpose through the following: 

• Visually characterize a complex system to better understand and manage it 

• Identify the major drivers, stressors, and endpoints of the system 

• Define the functional relationships (i.e., linkages) between stressors and endpoints 

• Assist in decisions on impact assessment, restoration and management actions, 

and evaluation tools 

• Provide a framework for implementing adaptive management and restoration 

• Facilitate dialog and develop a structure for additional input from stakeholders 

The ecosystem conceptual model presentation can be found in Appendix H. All the 

PowerPoint slides used during the 2-day workshop are displayed in Appendix I. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 12

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Appendix A. Invitation List with Participants Highlighted 

Name Affiliation Address Phone E-mail Ross Adams 

USFWS IL River Nat. Wildlife and Fish Refuges 

19031 East County Road 2110N Havana, IL 62644 309.535.2290 Ross_adams@fws.go

David Ahrens Marc 2000 

11826 N Riverview Rd. Chillicothe, IL 61523 309.579.2990 doahrens@bitwisesys

Butch Atwood ILDNR - Fisheries 

1000 Killarney Dr Greenville, IL 62246 batwood@dnrmail.sta

Tom Beisell ILDNR-Wildlife 

2612 Locust St Sterling, IL 61081 815.625.2968 Tbeissel@dnrmail.sta

Mark Beorkrem Sierra Club/MRBA 

P.O. Box 370 Morrisonville, IL 62546 314.882.8425 beorkrem@ctitech.co

Todd Bitner Heritage Doug Blodgett 

The Nature Conservancy 

220 W. Main St Havana, IL 62644 309.543.6502 dblodgett@tnc.org

Nani Bhowmik IL State Water Survey 

2204 Griffith Dr. Champaign, IL 61820-7495 

217.244.5459 

nbhowmik@uiuc.edu

Neil Booth ILDNR - Wildlife 

Mississippi River Area Office Grafton, IL 62037 618.376.3303 nbooth@dnrmail.state

Chris Brescia MARC 2000 

906 Olive Street, Ste. 1010 St. Louis, MO 63101 314.436.7303 Bresh@aol.com

Charlene Carmack CEMVR-PM-A 

PO Box 2004 Clock Tower Building Rock Island, IL 61201 309.794.5570 charlene.carmack@m

John Chick LTRM - Pool 26 

8450 Montclair Brighton, IL 61012 618.466.9690 chick@inhs.uiuc.edu

Bob Clevenstine USFWS 

4469 48th Ave. Ct. Rock Island, IL 61201 309.793.5800 Robert_Clevenstine@

Mike Cochran ILDNR - Fisheries 

Division of Fisheries 700 South 10th Street Havana,, IL 62644 mcochran@dnrmail.s

Dean Corgiat Pike Co. Heritage 

Rt 106 West PO BOX 477 Pittsfield, IL 62363 217.285.2221 Dcorgiat@dnrmail.sta

Mike Cox CEMVR-OD-T 

PO Box 2004 Clock Tower Building Rock Island, IL 61201 309.794.5558 Michael.D.Cox@mvr0

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Name Affiliation Address Phone E-mail

Julianna Cruz 

U.S. DOT Maritime Admin. 

2860 S. River Rd. Suite 185 Des Plaines, IL 60018 947.298.4535 Julianna.Cruz@mara

Rob Davinroy CEMVS-ED-HP 

1222 Spruce Street St. Louis, MO 63103-2833 314-263-4714 Robert.D.Davinroy@m

Mike Demissie IL State Water Survey 

2204 Griffith Dr. Champaign, IL 61820-7495 217.333.4753 demissie@uiuc.edu

Stan Ebersohl CEMVS-CO-N 

1222 Spruce Street St. Louis, MO 63103-2833 636.899.2600 Stanley.F.Ebersohl@

Willis Grahm CEMVR-OD-T 

PO Box 2004 Clock Tower Building Rock Island, IL 61201 309.794.5362 Willis.J.Graham@mv

Greg Guenther MARC 2000 

2435 Falcon Land Belleville, IL, 62221 

Steve Havera ILNHS - Forbes Lab 

PO BOX 590 Havana, IL 62644 309.543.3950 Shavera@mail.inhs.u

Wayne Herndon ILDNR - Fisheries 

215 North 5th Street, Suite D PO Box 633 Pekin, IL 61554 wherndon@dnrmail.s

John Kaufeld USFWS Tim Kelley 

ILDNR - Dist. Heritage Biol. 309.543.3262 Tkelley@dnrmail.stat

Michael Klingner UMIMRA 

Klingner and Associates 616 N. 24th St Quincy, IL 62301 217.223.3670 

Tim Krumwiede ILDNR - Wildlife 

PO Box 477 Pittsfield, IL 62363 217.285.2221 tkrumwiede@dnrmail

Eric Laux CEMVS-PM-EA 

1222 Spruce Street St. Louis, MO 63103-2833 314.331.8148 eric.a.laux@mvs02.u

Rob Maher IL DNR - Fisheries 

8450 Montclair Godfrey, IL 62035 618.466.3451 rmaher@dnrmail.stat

Deck Major ILDNR 

Region IV Office 4521 Alton Commerce Parkway Alton, IL 62002 618.462.1181 dmajor@dnrmail.state

John Marlin ILDNR Dan McGuiness - Director 

Audubon, UMR Campaign 

26 East Exchange Street,Suite 110 St. Paul, MN 55101 651.290.1695 dmcguiness@audubo

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Name Affiliation Address Phone E-mail 

Jim Mentesti UMIMRA 

Great River Economic Dev.Foundation 300 Civic Center Plaza Quincy, IL 62301 217.223.4313

Jim Mick ILDNR 

700 South 10th Street Havana, IL 62644 309.543.3316 jmick@dnrmail.state.

T. Miller CEMVS-PM-EA 

1222 Spruce Street St. Louis, MO 63103-2833 314-331-8458 t.miller@mvs02.usace

Rick Moore Isaac Walton League 

1619 Dayton Ave., Suite 202 St Paul, MN 55104-6206 651.649.1446 rxmoore@iwla.org

Matt Ohera LTRM – Havana 

704 N Schrader Ave., Havana, IL 62644 309.543.6000 tohara@staff.uiuc.edu

Bryon Paulsen ILNDR - Wildlife 

215 North 5th Street, Suite D PO Box 633 Pekin, IL 61554 309.347.5119 bpaulsen@dnrmail.st

Mark Pegg LTRM - Havana 

704 N Schrader Ave Havana, IL 62644 309.543.6000 markpegg@staff.uiuc

Tom Pincher 

Dept of Water Resources

Don Roseboom USGS 

8709 W Johnson Farm Rd Peoria, IL 61607 309.697.5736 roseboom@mtco.com 

Kevin Rund UMIMRA 

IL Farm Bureau 1701 N. Towanda Ave. Bloomington, IL 62702 309.557.3274

Dan Sallee Fisheries Mike Schwar CEMVR-ED-HH 

PO Box 2004 Clock Tower Building Rock Island, IL 61201 309.794.5410 Michael.T.Schwar@m

Bob Schanzel IL DNR 

Illinois D. Natural Resources One Natural Resource Way Springfield, IL 62702 217.785.5500 BSCHANZLE@dnrma

Michelle Simone ILDNR - Heritage 

215 North 5th Street, Suite D PO Box 633 Pekin, IL 61554 msimone@dnrmail.st

Jim Slowikowski IL State Water Survey 

2204 Griffith Dr Champaign, IL 61820-7495 217.244.3820 slow@uiuc.edu

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Name Affiliation Address Phone E-mail 

Ted Staker UMIMRA 

2700 Queenwood Rd., Morton, IL 61550 309.263.7383 tsta@dtnspeed.net

Jeff Stamper CEMVS-ED-DA 

1222 Spruce Street St. Louis, MO 63103-2833 314.331.8226 Jeffrey.L.Stamper@m

Jim Stoeckel Univ of Illinois (LTRM) stoeckel@staff.uiuc.eScott Stuewe IL DNR 

One Natural Resources Way Springfield IL 62702-1271 217.785.8263 Sstuewe@dnrmail.sta

Brad Thompson CEMVR-PM-M 

PO Box 2004 Clock Tower Building Rock Island, IL 61201 309.794.5256 

Randy Timmons ILDNR - Foresty 

AVCC E. Campus Bldy 11 815 N Orlando Smith Avenue Oglesby, IL 61348 rtimmons@dnrmail.st

John Tucker LTRMP - Pool 26 

8450 Montclair Brighton, IL 62012 618.466.9690 jktucker@inhs.uiuc.ed

Dave Varner CEMVR-OD-IV 

Illinois WaterWay Project Office, Foot of Grant Street, Peoria, IL 309.676.4601 David.M.Varner@mv

Mike Wefer ILDNR - Wildlife 

215 North 5th Street, Suite D PO Box 633 Pekin, IL 61554 309.347.5119 mwefer@dnrmail.stat

Clair Wilson UMIMRA 

Wilson Farms 132 Hillview Rd. Winchester, IL 62694 217.742.3918 

Mike Zerbonia CEMVR-OD-IM 

Illinois WaterWay Project Office, Foot of Grant Street, Peoria, IL 309.676.4601 Michael.P.Zerbonia@

Bradley.A.Thompson

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Appendix B. Agenda 

Day 1 

9:00 Opening 

Hank DeHaan and Chuck Theiling 

9:10 Introduction to the Workshop Process and Participant Introductions 

 Rebecca Soileau 

9:30 UMR-IWW Restructured Navigation Feasibility Study Overview and Schedule 

Ken Barr 

9:45 Vision, Goals, and Environmental Objectives 

 Chuck Theiling 

10:00 Working Definitions of Terminology for this Workshop 

Nicole McVay

10:10 Overview of GIS Database and Existing Objectives and Management Actions 

Hank DeHaan 

10:30 Working Groups (I): Identify and refine environmental objectives for the 

Illinois Waterway ecosystem. . 

12:00 Lunch 

1:00 Working Groups (I): Continued work and Report Preparation 

3:30 Plenary: Presentation of objectives identified by each working group and input 

into GIS 

5:30 Adjourn 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

B-1
DAY 2 

8:00 Plenary: Presentation and discussion of synthesis of results from previous 

days work 

 

9:00 Working Groups (II): Review and identify management actions that are 

most likely to contribute towards achieving the established goals and 

objectives 

10:30 Plenary: Group presentations of new and revised management actions. 

12:00 Lunch 

1:00 Plenary: Overview of regional evaluation data and tools for assessing the efficiency 

of management actions both initially and in an adaptive management framework. 

Discussion of species and population parameters. 

Chuck Theiling

2:30 Review of Regional Ecosystem Conceptual Models 

 

3:00 Workshop Closing

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

B-2
Appendix C. Plenary Session Notes 

Peoria Workshop November 6th – Day 1 

ChuckTheiling’s Intro (9:10 –9:15)

Chuck Theiling’s introduction briefly described what the workshop will accomplish as 

well as introduced Hank DeHaan, Nicole McVay, Rebecca Soileau and himself. 

Participant Introductions (9:15 – 9:37)

See Section 6. 

Ken Barr’s Talk (9:37)- (9:53)

Ken Barr discussed the history of the Navigation Study – its original focus as well as 

some of the studies that originated from that process. He then went on to discuss the 

restructured navigation study, describing the vision as well as the new scope of the study. 

He showed how the two studies differed with respect to the ecological integrity (the 

original study focused on direct effects of construction or more tow boats on fish, 

sediment resuspension, mussels, etc; while the restructured study will consider the 

existing project impacts and establish objectives to have the environment reach a desired 

state). During his presentation he also displayed the six-step planning process and 

reminded all workshop participants that the Corps has to follow this process. He 

concluded the presentation by discussing how the environmental portion of the 

navigation study will be viewed in an adaptive management framework as well as 

showing the participants the schedule of the study. At the end of the presentation he told 

people that they were open to attend NECC/ECC meetings and that the meeting minutes 

could be found on the web. 

Questions:

Where we are focused in the Environment? Or define the ecosystem with respect to the 

navigation system (implies no watershed context). 

Barr – We are looking to the Navigation system itself. Objectives are focused on the 

floodplain (toe-of-bluff to toe-of bluff). Management actions will be implemented in 

regards to this study within the navigation system. It is being debated as to where 

navigation effects stop. 

Does the term sustainability imply self-sustaining or will it include some input to 

maintain? 

Barr - Sustainability cannot be thought of, on this highly maintained system, as selfsustaining. Operations and management will be part of this. Monitoring and performance 

evaluation will help determine the maintenance needs and influence new construction. 

How does this effort mesh with efforts to modify authorities? 

Barr – We might modify the navigation authority for dual purpose. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-1
How does the Navigation Feasibility study mesh with CMP, CCP, and 519 efforts on the 

UMR-IWW.

Barr – We need to set objectives in the floodplain today. These objectives will be 

available for the other studies. However, they still will be different than what objectives 

are being looked at in the Illinois River 2020 and Comp plans. 

Theiling – The navigation study gives us an opportunity to plan for EMP and other 

restoration efforts that for which we weren’t previously able to do large scale planning. 

Partners didn’t want us to spend scarce resources on planning, so they did it on their own 

through the Pool Plans. 

Chuck Theiling’s Talk (10:00-10:20)

Chuck began his talk by reviewing many of the reports that have been written concerning 

the environment of the UMR-IWW. He then went on to discuss how the Corps has 

structured this study and where in the study these workshops take place. Next he 

discussed the expert panel, their functions, the individuals who will make up the panel, as 

well as how they will fit into the entire process. Chuck then discussed goals, objectives 

and management actions. He displayed the goals from Grumbine that were adopted by 

the Navigation Study in the interim report as well as the goals listed in the UMRCC 

report “A River that Works and a Working River.” Next he discussed objectives, 

described them and listed several example objectives. The following questions had to 

deal with objectives: 

Mid-talk Questions – 10:12-10:16

Looking at Chuck’s example objectives, are these sustainable? Are we setting objectives 

that are desirable or that are sustainable? 

Theiling – Not without a lot of work. 

We need to put sideboards on what is desirable vs. what is sustainable. 

Treat this as the same thing as the Navigation system. 

Theiling – Today get what is desirable and let later analysis determine what is 

achievable. 

So focus today on what is desirable? 

If we come to consensus, will it be funded? Or should funding be considered? 

RESPONSE: Not today. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-2
Barr - The objectives stay out there. We will keep chipping away at them. We will 

work at cost effective ways to achieve them. Will we ever complete the list? Probably 

not, but we will keep trying. 

If biologists turn in what they want and the engineers build it, it may be more than a 

dollar per dollar cost for environmental measures than navigation. 

Why are there Pelican’s on IL River? 

Chuck Theiling’s talk continued (10:16 – 10:20)

Chuck continued his presentation by giving an overview of the framework for setting 

objectives. He then continued by showing where the data to create the objectives 

database came from. He concluded the talk by reiterating exactly where the focus of the 

navigation study was as well as discussing how other agencies and authorities could use 

these overarching goals. 

Break 

Rebecca Soileau’s Talk (10:40 – 10:53)

Rebecca Soileau discussed the overall workshop process including a brief agenda. She 

then discussed the working agreement and had participants agree to abide by it. Finally 

she defined her role as a facilitator as well as the expected roles of the participants. After 

that, Nicole McVay presented the working definitions. 

Questions:

What is the nature of the “Report” from the workgroups? 

Soileau – This is a record or minutes rather than a consensus report. 

How do we deal with gaps in data? 

Theiling -We can write down comments about gaps in plenary sessions. Others can fill 

in later. 

Barr – Please let us know if there are other reports and documents that we are unaware 

of. 

Hank DeHaan’s Objectives Talk (10:55)-(11:32)

Hank discussed the objective database, including where the information came from, and 

how the database is structured. This included a detailed discussion of the framework for 

setting objectives. He then gave a brief demonstration of the database in Arc View 3.2. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-3
Questions:

Is the target date related to the implementation schedule or a range of time for the 

objective to be accomplished? We need a systematic way to use target dates so that the 

data from this workshop meshes with that from the other workshops. 

 

Is setting target dates a form of prioritization (ranking)? 

RESPONSE: It might be seen that way but we are not attempting to prioritize today. 

DeHaan – Please go with 10-year increments. 

Theiling – Some objectives will apply to a whole pool/reach so that will be a good point 

to have a range. From today, when would you like to see this objective achieved? We 

need to be realistic. What is achievable in the process? This is to give us an idea of 

expectations. We can do calculation from implementation date later. 

Final Decision Baseline will be 2000, so 2020 means in the next 20 years. 

Theiling – This is not a final answer, not a final cut. We can tweak this after the 

workshop and make it better. We can sort through your input from the comments. We 

aren’t bean counters, but it is a part of our system. 

What do we do about moist soil plants? 

DeHaan – Put it in “other”. 

How do you define the area of an objective? 

DeHaan - In the comments field. 

What about conflicting ideas, can we capture both? 

All – YES 

Soileau and Theiling – For pool wide objectives write them down today and they will be 

captured in a second database. 

Are current conditions in the database? 

Theiling – Photos and other information such as the first iteration Natural Resources 

Inventory are available 

1991 for IL river (FWIC HREP Database) needs to be added in. Existing Conditions. 

Theiling – Those are supposed to be wrapped into the Pool Plans. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-4
Lot of existing knowledge. I was hoping that this would be in the database. 

Don’t remember about the Illinois. 

Steve, Wayne and Dan were involved in this process. I think Jodi Millar was involved. 

Gail Carmody was the project manager for the first Natural Resources inventory. 

Is the Endangered Species database included in the base data? Biological Conservation 

Database 

Theiling –It is not in here because we can’t bring it out to public meetings because it is 

privileged information. Can only use it when there are people who are privy to that info. 

Objectives Plenary Session:

The plenary began by asking each group to give a brief overview of what they did, as 

well as listing their reach and pool-wide objectives. 

Group 1 Summary (Alton and LaGrange) – We focused on Pool wide objectives. We 

tried to figure what we are trying to restore to. We decided that 1910 would be the 

reference condition because it is post diversion but before pollutants caused significant 

problems. 

Alton Pool-wide Objectives 

Recreate Natural Hydrograph 

Decrease flooding to limit catastrophic costs and help with connectivity 

Reduce sediment input from the watershed 

Restore submersed vegetation 

We Added icons to the map. We did some data-mining and created a new icon in 

Geomorphology E (erosion). We noted that there is gap for wetland complex or habitat 

from Godar-Diamond Island to Meredosia. There was a joint venture staff in Vicksburg 

– they recommended a bird resting area every 25 miles. So we located 2 areas for that. 

We identified more icons for connectivity (drainage ditches). We did not get into 

LaGrange Pool; we decided that the icons on map were good enough. We didn’t want to 

mess with what has already been done. One suggestion is to move icons off of map to 

ease up clutter. We did have some questions as to where data came from. 

Group 2 Summary (LaGrange to Peoria Pool)

LaGrange and Peoria Pools Reach Objectives 

10% additional flood plain 

Maintain depths in existing areas. 5m depth in backwater (5%) by 2020 

Maintain habitat-protecting levees until ready for reconnection 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-5
Summer water level bump less than `1 in 3 years 

Reduce sedimentation 

Fleeting areas 

Dredged material for Mast Trees 

Moist soil in BW 

Habitat for T&E 

Backwater Diversity 

Create island, windbreaks 

We added data to existing database and added new information 

Group 3 Summary (Lockport To LaGrange Pools)

Entire River Objectives 

Protect, manage and enhance habitat for T&E 

Regulate and develop environmentally friendly fleeting areas 

Foresters should evaluate for Mast Tree and floodplain forest in each area. 

Lockport Pool-wide Objectives 

Aquatic Barriers for Exotic Species 

25% reduction of nutrient loading 

Secondary standards 

Improve water clarity 

Database WRDGC should be referenced 

SWS study by Tom Butts (1990) Water quality 

Systemic removal of sediment 

Removal of sunken barges if not serving habitat purpose 

Brandon Road Pool-wide Objectives 

25% reduction of nutrient loading 

Secondary use 

No net loss at mouth of Des Plaines RM290-291 

Fish by-pass 

Dresden Pool-wide Objectives 

Removing abandoned barges 

Fish passage 

Maintain and protect aquatic plant beds 

Marseilles Pool-wide Objectives 

Protected and maintain floodplain forest. Increase by 20% in 20 years 

Increase diversity of floodplain forest. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-6
Starved Rock Pool-wide Objectives 

Reach Objective Marseilles and Starved Rock Pools - Threaten and endangered river red 

horse. 

Peoria Pool-wide Objectives 

Control exotic species (Purple Loosestrife) 

Protect and enhance T&E (bald eagle, river red horse, Decurrent False Aster) 

Site Specific Objective Setting for IWW

Once each group gave their report we then started at the upper end of Lockport Pool and 

moved down river, allowing all participants to provide input. 

Discussion of Lockport Pool 

There are concerns about the Exotic Barrier. We need something more permanent like an 

earthen dam. 

Brandon Road Pool 

Confluence of Des Plains from RM 290-291. There is a backwater complex that is good. 

We want to protect existing pool riffle complex. Wetland habitat is good too. Protect! 

Discussion of Runoff: There is nothing that this project can to within the floodplain. 

There is nothing to do to address suspended sediment. 

Look at bank stabilization and tow resuspension. 

River wide – Reduction in sediment loads from all tributaries. 

Dresden Pool 

Statewide water quality standards differ above and below bridge at RM 278. Improve 

water quality so it is all general use. 

Barrier vs. Fish Passage: If you try to impede exotic fish then you limit native species. 

DuPage River Bay (RM277)– Peter Hall had a scheme. 

Discussion of TARP – I have heard something about using gravel pits for regulating 

reservoirs? TARP acts to capture as much combined sewer overflow (CSO) as possible. 

All of the flows captured by the TARP are eventually treated. The new reservoirs are 

designed to first prevent basement flooding, but will also capture other CSO flows as 

well, depending on how they are operate. 

Marseilles Pool 

RM 271 – Mussel bed found behind Dresden Island. Hasn’t been reported. Heidi Dunn 

did the work. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-7
Starved Rock Pool 

RM 232-235 – Possibly high content of PCB’s 

Peoria Pool 

RM 224.5 Huse Lake is a Superfund site

Clark Island is a very interesting area. During certain hydrographs the main flow goes 

from MC to back channel and scours it out, while sometime it silts in. This is a very 

interesting area, self-sustaining. However, it does need to be monitored. 

Can we get CRP and CREP system wide? 

They have some GIS databases. 

USGS is supposed to keep records, but doesn’t. 

The Corps will gather database info from T&E. However, we will need to mask T&E 

data before show data to non-privy people. 

Islands in 190-195 are good site to put Mast Trees. 

RM 182 – There are small embayments that have very small watersheds. This would be 

a good place for fisheries. 

RM177 – Put low-level impoundment to create moist soil units. Already pumping water 

in that area. 

Comment from reviewer: Need fisheries areas every 10 miles and waterbird areas every 

25 miles.

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-8
Peoria Workshop November 7th – Day 2 

Opening Discussion (8:12 – 10:00)

Ken Barr said materials regarding the objective setting workshops would be sent out by 

the next NECC meeting Dec 10th. 

Discussion about what is going to be handed out to all participants: rollup charts, all 

atlases, and minutes. 

Discussion about what is going to be done for Nav Study. 

In the final report I thought all engineering and associated costs would be included for 

each specific objective. 

I thought there was going to be a fact sheet for each one. 

Discussion focused on how costs would be determined without significant engineering 

planning being done for each site-specific objective. 

Theiling -- I’m not speaking as part of the management team; however, here’s what I 

think real world answer will be: locks cost this much so environment will get the same. 

For every dollar you spend on navigation you need to spend a dollar on environmental 

improvements. Never thought they would spend $8 billion on the Everglades 

Theiling -- Instead of looking at Swan Lake or Chautauqua (infrastructure) we need to 

look at large scale drawdowns. 

Yesterday was just a wish list; this didn’t get us any closer to defining what needs to be 

done. 

Yes it did, this wish list isn’t what anyone expects to happen. We will already have 

conceptual fact sheets, prioritization, we will be able to justify to Congress what we will 

do with the money. 

I was disenchanted –I wanted to get into more detail. But when I thought about it and 

realized that we don’t have a pool plan for the IL River I thought what we are doing is 

OK. 

IL River Ecosystem Program is considering the entire basin rather than main stem (Like 

the pool plans are). IL 2020 will be done by mid-Dec. 

How did UMRCC come up with the $45 billion? Was there any engineering done? 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-9
Theiling -- They figured that “Islands cost about this much” and they spoke with St. 

Paul to find out how much a drawdown costs. 

We are dealing with a project authorized for Navigation. We need to have an authority 

for environmental stewardship. Need to have that language in the final Navigation Study 

report. 

Theiling -- There are a whole bunch of authorities being shaken up. Talk with your 

representatives. 

You are right, this is only a navigation study, we are fortunate to be able to add the 

environment. In 2004-2005 this will be a mixture of navigation and environment 

authorities discussed. This process today is critical for NGO’s to understand your wish 

list so they will know how to negotiate and bargain. The final process will be trade-offs 

and bargaining. This will all start to play out in 2004. 

You need the O&M to follow up. Don’t create areas if you aren’t going to take care of it. 

If you create areas to post 1930’s it took 50 years for them to fill in, so you won’t have to 

maintain every year. But they will fill in. 

Theiling -- Many things are routine. We could dredge out offshore revetments as 

needed. We need to have a cyclical O&M program established. Work downstream then 

start back up. 

Return to Objective Setting

LaGrange Pool 

Whole floodplain from Peoria to Bartonville needs to be maintained, protected and 

enhanced. (Pool-wide) 

Does anyone have a general concept as to how much sediment input needs to be reduced 

before we can remove protective levees? 

Some small management levees are there to maintain water levels for moist soil plants. 

Until Carp populations are controlled we need to keep the selected large agricultural 

levees in place for the marshland habitats. We need a method to control invasive species 

to protect habitat. 

How does this benefit fisheries? 

It would be preferable to have this open, but in order to protect this habitat we cannot. 

These leveed-off agricultural areas are 100-year-old time capsules. Would like to 

develop them so as to be able to reconnect these. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-10
Comment added from report review: Management levees generally are low-level berms 

and most are effective only below flood stage. Only the one at Chautauqua 2-3 ft above 

flood stage in the south pool for moist-soil plant management and higher in the north 

pool for fishery and stable water management. Both were flooded in 2002 and the south 

pool is flooded every year. Waterfowl management areas are inundated every year and 

usually more than cone. Banner Marsh is behind a 50-year ag levee and like Spunky 

Bottoms and Hennepin has both fishing and water bird habitat. So, there is a major 

difference in elevation between ag levees (most have never been overtopped) and lowlevel management levees. A lot of people think management levees or berms are all ag 

levees. That’s not the case. Consequently, most of the 183,000 acres not leveed for 

agriculture in the floodplain flood most years and are surface. 

So, in the next 50 years how can we manage these for clear water – aquatic habitats and 

work with wildlife, fisheries and spawning areas? 

We need to work with areas that are still connected to the river. Maintain, protect and 

enhance these. This is the most important concept we need to hold onto (keep time 

capsules until ready.) Pekin Lake is an area that we are developing for fisheries. 

Comment added from report review : We can have connectivity through surface and 

subsurface means. Elimination of pumping within levees allows clear water to 

accumulate in the district through subsurface connectivity and rainfall. 

We need to keep fisheries in mind for IL 2020 and other programs. This is an area that 

NGO’s are curious about. Amount of acreage that needs to be reconnected for IL 2020 

(other environmental plans). 

Spunky Bottom. We will find out soon if this will happen. TNC has models as to how 

much sedimentation would go in. Emiquon, ISWS. TNC is going through steps to 

reconnect to the main channel. 

SWS has sediment budgets. Big point 1/3 behind levees, 1/3 connected floodplains, 1/3 

backwater. We don’t need to be building more leveed areas or reconnecting other areas 

until we have a better handle on things. Keep areas as they are and continue to improve 

them as they stand. 

Are we worried that the silver, big head or European carp will up root plants? 

European carp is hard on plants, but the other two you wouldn’t think would have that 

big effect on vegetation. However, I spoke with people in Europe and theses fish have 

virtually destroyed other species. 

So, what de we do about this? 

Theiling -- We manage for conditions that favor native fish rather than invaders. 

We could develop some kind of bug to kill off invaders but not native species. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-11
System-wide Objective – Control of exotic species: Manage fisheries to reduce 

populations of destructive exotic and invasive species. 

Great lakes are introducing more invasives, the South is stocking everything and we are 

limiting habitat. We are shooting ourselves in our foot. 

These Exotic species are an impediment to management of the river 

50% of currently isolated backwaters for the exclusion of exotic and maintenance of 

quality habitat. Increase connectivity to 25% of currently isolated backwaters and 

improve them. Need fisheries over winter areas every 10 miles just like we need bird 

resting every 25 miles. 

Look at the whole river and designate which areas have highest priorities for different 

guilds. 

I reject the idea that fisheries are bad for birds, and bird areas are bad for fish. 

Connected vs. disconnected. Need to look at current and historic areas to see areas that 

were connected and no longer are. 

Theiling -- I want to reiterate that we need to look at river systemically. 

Do you think we should reconnect backwaters now or after the health of the river is 

restored? 

Now. Areas where there is a marginal levee that have routine breaks can be reconnected. 

At RM 137.5 we have a delta area. This is Copperas Creek Delta. A lot of sedimentation. 

Gave overview of Rice Lake EMP. 

I want to dredge out Big Lake for fisheries (Paddlefish). 

Low height of levee, won’t prevent annual spring flood, but will help to disconnect 

during mid-summer bump. 

Need to include EMP planning database into this information. 

Management action for this area. Take dredged material and place it on the island before 

planting mast trees. 

Some tributaries have watershed plans. We need be examine plans to see what locals 

want in these areas. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-12
Mantanzas Bay is one of our deepest backwater areas. It might be a good area for over 

wintering fish. 

Moscow Lake is a good candidate for over wintering fish RM 111. 

Sangamon River – Restore meander (in general) on both North and South. Would be in 

Corps interest because of sedimentation problems at the mouth of the river. 

The extra length of the proposed lock and dam at LaGrange would cut into the existing 

wetlands. 

Originally considering 2 new locks, one at Peoria and LaGrange, but nothing with the 

dams. However there has been some talk about moving from wickets to more permanent 

dams. Would it benefit water level management? 

It might be nice to be able to manage more than a foot and a half. 

Would this help up at the upper half of the pool? 

No there is not a big effect in upper pool. 

Barge industry won’t like the dams because they can pass over wickets. 

At low flows there is a dramatic water level fluctuation. 

Comment from Reviewer: Additional tainter gates would likely not provide the level of 

water level control required to eliminate the “bumps” discussed here. 

 

At low flows there is a possibility to improve management conditions. You could put in 

another tainter gates, but the flow and watershed effect are more significant. 

Theiling -- These things are being looked at carefully in the Illinois River Study. 

Alton Pool 

Pool wide – Investigate opportunities to improve leveed areas. 

Mention levee setbacks to allow for floodplain habitat and increase flood conveyance 

From Meridosia to Beardstown – They did some commercial musseling and found 20 

beds. Rob Maher and Dean ? did the work. 

1-2 foot contour maps will help determine levee setbacks. 

Theiling -- Have Woermann and earlier but not modern contour maps. 

Comment from Reviewer: We have 2 ft contour COE maps from ~1980. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-13
10:00 Break 

10:14 – 10:30 Chuck Theiling’s Managements Actions Talk

Chuck began this section by discussing why it is important for management actions to be 

identified, as well as defining what a management action is. Next he discussed how the 

current list of management actions was created. Finally he and Rebecca projected the 

management action worksheet and discussed how to work during the breakout sessions. 

Discussion During Management actions Breakouts: 

Should additional backwaters be isolated? 

Some people want to increase connectivity others decrease connectivity. What do we do? 

Theiling - These are a list of potential management actions. They will be determined 

more in feasibility phase of the study. 

I would like to see no-net loss of contiguous backwaters. 

This is a really contentious issue; it will have to be determined site by site. 

12:00 Break for lunch 

1:00 Hank DeHaan’s Discussion on how data collected will be evaluated throughout 

the Nav Study Process.

 Identify Objectives, then Identify Management Actions (MA). Cost estimates 

will come when putting MA on the ground and see how well it addresses the objectives in 

the pool. Identifying MA, estimating Cost for MA, and evaluating how well it addresses 

the objectives in that area. 

Anticipating 2000-3000 specific objectives. Expecting to do specific costs for all of these 

in a year is unreasonable. 

Management Actions Plenary Session (1:05-1:45)

Water Quality MC 

Management action in addressing water quality regulations (3) 

Water Quality BW 

#13 needs to be cleared up. How much isolation? This is something that needs a Target 

range. (each group spent about 30 min on this). Group 2 – No net loss of existing 

contiguous backwater. For #20, needs a target range or remove. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-14
There is a concern that temporary isolation would lead to permanent isolation. Duck 

hunters would prefer to keep the “temporary” levees in place. 

Geomorphology BWD, BWA 

Slight discussion of consolidated sediments. Consolidation is the result. Management 

Action is a draw down. Need to qualify “for consolidation of sediments” 

Geomorph, Connect, Floodplain 

Want clarification of #38, #42. Almost have to raise pool to raise floodplains. Then you 

might raise ground water levels. Maybe increase depth. Really more of an objective than 

an action. 

Patterns of Habitats Landcover/use 

#107, #108 Use material (e.g. Dredged material). This way you aren’t limiting to only 

dredged material. 

1:47-1:57 Chuck Theiling’s Intro to Species

Chuck discussed some of the problems that were encountered when he was trying to set 

species target ranges for the objectives. He asked participants to offer suggestions as to 

the merit of doing this as well as for species and target ranges. 

Species Plenary Session (2:00 –2:45)

Look at survival strategy. If you tie this back to an ecologically sustainable system it is 

important to look at survival strategies of animals. Species of Fish on large river system 

– part of their strategy when it floods is to migrate out into the temporary expansion of 

habitat. Fish exploit expansion of habitat and turn that into a peak of production. For 

species that can do this they have a significant increase in biomass the next year. By 

levying off the floodplain we have limited that process. Another example with mammal 

(swamp rabbit) – Historically flood plain animal. They are gone now because when it 

floods the little bit of habitat they have gets flood because inward side of levee is bare 

and because of agriculture and they have no escape habitat so they have been eliminated. 

We need to consider allowing animals to move in and out of floodplain. None of these 

measurements really allow us to address this. 

Theiling – I appreciate these comments, but how do we measure this? 

You cannot sample large river systems with the precision necessary to answer the 

questions you are asking. You need to sample habitat types in a pool with the same 

proportional effort as you have habitat types. Get a relative change from year to year. 

This is still subjective due to staff and equipment. You can get stuff on a relative basis, 

but not any precision. “The river is continually improving”. Fishing tournaments on the 

Illinois are becoming world class. The only reason they are here is because the fish are 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-15
here. (Who studied)? Spring Valley to Starved Rock Lock and Dam estimated 1mill 

fish. Confidence limits were really high. 

Theiling -If money and equipment weren’t an issue would a full survey of the 

populations be worth doing? 

No 

Saugers Example – Originally stocked fish were 75%-85% of tournament young of the 

year. Now they are 1% of tournament. 

Theiling – Stoddard Bay – Jeff Janvrin – Catch per unit effort of Blue gill was 

phenomenal. Is it important to differentiate between river-wide vs. habitat restoration? 

Depends on where – Backwater area – hard to quantify success. It is hard to determine 

cause and effect. However, go to hunting area (where ingress and egress are limited) and 

data from .5 ft – 6ft. may be valuable. So where there is no or limited connectivity this 

type of data may be valuable. 

Theiling –So, in an open system – it doesn’t matter how you sample because results are 

foggy and in a closed system doesn’t matter how as long as it is sampled some before and 

after. In an open system you can get general trends. 

 

Lots have to do with general conditions in any year, time and place. 

Diversity – Not applicable to the large river system. 

LTRM can give some year class strength. This might be another indices. 

You need to look carefully at species you select. Consider well-being (proportion of 

length vs. weight) of the fish, year class strength. OR Get good trend information by 

looking at YCS (year class strength) by looking at well being (mass/length) by YC and 

by species. Give good idea of health of population over river. 

Theiling – Is there any usefulness in having different measurements for different guilds? 

Right now we use only one set because there isn’t anything else. 

Is it possible, instead of trying to come up with pool/reach number, to make targets for 

specific projects? Can you use local indices of improvement to evaluate management 

actions rather than extrapolation to the whole river? 

Why do we need precise numbers? 

For benefit/cost analysis. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-16
We can’t do this 

Theiling – Washington has asked us to do that. How many bass will be grown in Swan 

lake, how many will be caught and how does that relate to the number of minnows and 

licenses bought for fishing. 

Discreet measurements of habitat that are updated yearly. Combine with relative 

abundance survey to get long-term trends. Take series of transects to measure habitat 

values that could go back to year after year to see how management affects habitat, 

abundance, diversity, biomass. 

Theiling – The problems is response times. What Mike talked about with Suagers came 

at the costs of Billions of dollars in waste treatment facilities. You have to “take it on 

faith”. The cost of measuring a decrease in sediment load will be very high yet the 

changes will be very slow. Need to wait to see benefits. 

Do you want to spend lots of money to document this or just take it on faith? 

When we create a borrow hole can you make estimates of how many fish use it? If create 

a habitat asset can you give an estimate of how many fish it can support? EG – How 

many more fish could over winter in the reconnected backwater? 

Yes 

Creel Surveys- Daytime is very difficult. Night fisherman is hard. 

Ask people, do survey of fishermen. If we do this, ask where will you be staying, and 

how long. In this way you could get a very intensive Creel survey. 

A very intensive Creel survey was done on ILWW. 

The units need to be run past a biologist and an ecologist. They have different views to 

look at things. 

For forage fish, maybe use birds as an index. 

Rock Island District used larger rocks this year at an additional $4/ton. Now we are 

requiring a fishery biologist to say how many more fish are in the larger crevices and will 

it be cost effective. Concrete cost/benefit. We have to remember to focus on trend 

analysis and not get caught up on statistical sampling. Agree to make a whole bunch of 

assumptions, put a $ on it and move on. 

That is what we are continuously doing on EMP. Most recently Habitat Units (HU) 

(relationship between quality and quantity). 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-17
Diesel engine example. New engine was being created when there was a low demand for 

it. But then once it was created the demand was there. OR Bean counters want to see 

you go through some process to arrive at your numbers. In a few years the assumptions 

will change. You’ve got to figure out a way that is reasonable and logical. You may not 

use it, but when conditions are right you may use it. 

As long as you have the narrative, even if it isn’t statistically sound. 

Just go through the process. 

Theiling – People are looking for the navigation study to break new ground to put dollars 

on this. 

You can have your numbers but they will have to be based on subjective data. Otherwise 

you will study yourself to death. 

Hank DeHaan’s – Conceptual Model Talk 2:47-2:51

Hank provided participants with some background regarding the conceptual model, as 

well as an overview of the purposes for having a conceptual model. He then displayed 

the conceptual model in it’s current form as well as a more simplistic diagram that gave 

an example of how the model might be used to asses the effectiveness of a management 

action. 

Closed at 2:51

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

C-18
Appendix D. Participant Introductions 

All the participants were asked to write down an answer to the question printed on page 4 

of the workshop handout: “What do you hope this workshop will accomplish?” Then all 

participants introduced themselves to the group and read their answer to the question. 

Below is an attempt to capture some of those verbal answers. Answers that are 

underlined are taken directly from the written forms. 

1. Havera – I would like to see reasonable multidisciplinary objectives for all animals. 

2. Schwar – I hope this workshop will define a clear and comprehensive picture of the 

desired environmental state of the IL River and set the stage for developing objective and 

measurable criteria for defining progress toward that goal.

3. Davinroy – I hope we can all leave here holding hands and singing Cum By Yah. 

4. Marlin- I hope we can restore habitat and figure out a way to maintain it. 

5. Carmack – As the sole UMRCP Corps team representative present, I hope that this 

workshop will do such a thorough job of establishing goals and objectives, if not 

management actions. For the bank-to –bluff floodplain that we won’t all have to go 

through a duplication of these exercises specifically for the UMRCP. Follow-up contact, 

conference calls, etc. will probably still be required, however.

6. Simone – I am here to provide input about the natural community. 

7. Bitner – I represent Threatened & Endangered concerns and other natural resource 

concerns. 

8. Graham – Positive solutions for all the questions/problems being posed here, and to 

move forward with implementation of these suggestions in a timely manner

9. Zerbonia – I would like to see environmental actions that will complement lock 

extensions. 

10. Barr – I am here to answer question, and increase my understanding of actions. 

11. Slowikowski – How will we get there? How will this mesh with ILL 519. 

12. Cruz – I want to ensure that this process uses sound science and statistics, as well as 

good, measurable criteria. 

13. Beorkrem – I would like to see goals and procedures developed for the environment 

as well as a balance between Navigation and the Environment. 

14. Sallee – I have been through this process several times. I am looking for a baseline 

we can all agree with. 

15. Herndon - I have concerns about fish species in my district. 

16. Wefer – I would like to see restoration needs of wetland communities and floodplain 

forest quantified better. 

17. Ahrens –I am a farmer and own a house on the IL River. 

18. Timmons – I want to ensure that trees are included in the overall project. I want to 

see an increase in bottomland forest. They can compliment other site-specific projects. 

19. Laux – I want to see the Ecological and Navigation systems coexist. 

20. Kelly – Provide a generalized picture of where river management will head over the 

next 5-10 years, thereby providing my discipline with an idea of where opportunities for 

projects will present themselves in the future.

21. O’Hara – I will provide input where I can. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

D-1
22. Cochran – I am hoping can survive another meeting. I am hoping to be a part of it. 

23. Mick – I want to see how Navigation work and Restoration work will coexist. 

24. Kaufeld – I want to make sure this is an ecologically sustainable project 

25. Help improve navigation on the Illinois in an environmentally friendly way.

26. Give a better understanding of the direction we seem to be heading and the area to 

focus on (How much detail of what?)

27. Conclude objective setting and begin implementation of adaptive management. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

D-2
Appendix E. Environmental Objectives 

Purpose:

To have participants collaboratively review, refine, and add to a database of specific, 

quantitative, and local to regional scale UMR-IWW environmental objectives obtained 

from previous study efforts.

Background:

Objectives are incremental steps taken toward achieving a goal and thus may be goal 

specific. They are a concise statement of what we want to achieve, how much we want to 

achieve, when and where we want to achieve it. Objectives provide the basis for 

determining management actions, monitoring accomplishments and evaluating the 

success of management actions. There may be multiple objectives for a goal. 

Participants were asked to review, revise if necessary, and supplement the Environmental 

Objectives taken from previous work (HNA, Pool Plans, etc.) to achieve the Navigation 

Environmental Coordination Committee (NECC)/Economics Coordinating Committee 

(ECC) UMR-IWW Navigation System Vision: 

“To seek long term sustainability of the economic uses and ecological integrity of the 

Upper Mississippi River System.” 

The working groups were specifically tasked to apply the widely known SMART criteria 

to each objective making them: specific, measurable, achievable, results –oriented, timespecific. 

The participants were asked, for the purposes of this workshop, to utilize the following 

two sets of goals as a framework for setting objectives. 

Ecosystem Goals (from Interim Report) 

During planning for the 1994 Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee 

(UMRCC) Ecosystem Management Initiative, resource managers agreed to adopt 

Grumbine’s (1994) ecosystem management goals (Grumbine, R. Edward. 1994. What is 

ecosystem management? Conservation Biology 8(1): 27-38.): 

Goal 1: Maintain viable populations of native species in situ. 

Goal 2: Represent all native ecosystem types across their natural range of variation. 

Goal 3: Restore and maintain evolutionary and ecological processes (i.e., disturbance 

regimes, hydrological processes, nutrient cycles, etc.). 

Goal 4: Manage over periods long enough to maintain the evolutionary potential of 

species and ecosystems. 

Goal 5: Integrate human use and occupancy within these constraints. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-1
The UMRCC expanded their list of goals in the A River That Works and a Working River

(2000) document. These goals are: 

1. Improve water quality for all uses, 

2. Reduce erosion and sediment impacts, 

3. Restore natural floodplain, 

4. Restore natural hydrology, 

5. Increase backwater connectivity with main channel, 

6. Increase side channel, island, shoal, and sand bar habitat,

7. Minimize or eliminate dredging impacts, 

8. Sever pathways for exotic species introductions/dispersal,

9. Improve native fish passage at dams. 

Working Group Process 

The process began with participants dividing into three groups based in part on their 

expertise within the three segments of the IWW. The three geographic regions were: 

Alton Pool, La Grange and Peoria Pool, and Lockport Pool to Starved Rock Pool. 

Working groups were tasked with first setting reach and pool-wide objectives and then 

reviewing and setting site-specific objectives within their section of the river. If groups 

finished their section and had time remaining they could extend into the adjacent areas. 

When setting site-specific objectives, participants were asked to use the data structure 

outlined in the Framework for Setting Objectives (Figure E1). This hierarchical structure 

categorizes environmental objectives into four primary ecosystem elements and then 

breaks these down into more specific parameters, extents, and target ranges. In addition 

to this information, participants were also asked to consider and note (if possible) the 

seasonality, frequency of occurrence, target date, and any other comments associated 

with the objectives they identified. This data framework provided a means to capture and 

merge objectives from previous study efforts, and those identified by workshop 

participants, into one standardized database. Additional objectives not found in the 

framework were also identified and added to the database using the established data 

structure (e.g., Invertebrates was added under Plants and Animals

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-2
Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent TR Target Range 

Water Quality Water Clarity Main Channel 1 Secchi disk transparency 0.3 m 

 Backwater Areas 2 Secchi disk transparency 0.7 m 

 3 Secchi disk transparency 1.0 m 

 4 Secchi disk transparency 1.5 m 

 5 Secchi disk transparency >2.0 m 

Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 1 100% of area <1 m 

 2 50% of area 1 - 2 m 

 3 50% of area 2 - 3 m 

 4 50% of area >3 m 

 

 Water Level Main Channel 1 0.3 m below project pool at dam 

 Backwater Areas 2 0.6 m below project pool at dam 

 3 1.0 m below project pool at dam 

 4 >1 m below project pool at dam 

 

 Connectivity Floodplain 1 0% floodplain area inundated during 10 year flood 

 2 20% floodplain area inundated during 10 year flood 

 3 40% floodplain area inundated during 10 year flood 

 4 80% floodplain area inundated during 10 year flood 

 5 100% floodplain area inundated during 10 year flood

 

 Secondary Channel 1 <20% of year 

 2 20-40% of year 

 3 40-60% of year 

 4 60-80% of year 

 5 >80% of year 

 

 Longitudinal 1 0% chance of fish passage 

 2 20% chance of fish passage 

 3 40% chance of fish passage 

 4 80% chance of fish passage 

 5 100% chance of fish passage 

Figure E1. Framework for Setting Objectives for Condition of the UMR-IWW Ecosystem 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-3
Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent TR Target Range 

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel 1 <10% of area 

 Secondary Channel 2 10-20% of area 

 Tertiary Channel 3 20-40% of area 

 Impounded Area 4 40-60% of area 

 Contiguous Backwater 5 >60% of area 

 Isolated Backwater 

 

 Terrestrial Areas Contiguous Floodplain 1 <10% of area 

 Isolated Floodplain 2 10-20% of area 

 Island 3 20-40% of area 

 4 40-60% of area 

 5 >60% of area 

 

 Land Cover/Use Open Water 1 <10% of area 

 Submersed Aquatics 2 10-20% of area 

 Emergent Aquatics 3 20-40% of area 

 Grassland 4 40-60% of area 

 Shrub 5 >60% of area 

 Forest 

 Agriculture 

 Developed 

Plants and Animals Plants Emergent Aquatics 1 <10 plants/m2 

 Submersed Aquatics 2 10 - 20 plants/m2 

 3 20 - 50 plants/m2 

 4 50 - 100 plants/m2 

 5 >100 plants/m2 

 

 Fish Protected Fish Species CPUE, Length distribution, or kg/ha 

 Sport Fish Species 

 Commercial Fish Species 

 Forage Fish Species 

 Exotic Fish Species 

 

 Birds Dabbling Ducks 1 0 - 1,000 use days/yr 

 Diving Ducks 2 1,000 - 10,000 use days/yr 

 3 10,000 - 100,000 use days/yr 

 4 >100,000 use days/yr 

Figure E1. Continued

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-4
Results:

The environmental objective information gathered and reviewed at the Peoria Workshop 

has been organized into the following four sections. They include a pool-wide objectives 

table, site-specific objectives table, plenary report, and the working group reports. 

Pool-wide objectives identified by workshop participants were compiled from comments 

recorded in the plenary sessions, working group reports, group worksheets, and atlas map 

notations (Table E1). In cases where management actions were recorded, an objective 

was created and the management action was listed in the comments section, denoted by 

“MA”. 

Site-specific objectives and supporting information identified and reviewed by workshop 

participants are listed by pool (Table E2) and organized to follow the Framework for 

Setting Objectives format (Figure E1). These objectives were compiled from previous 

study efforts, participant comments during the plenary session (with GIS tools), working 

group reports, group worksheets, atlas map notations. The objectives identified in the 

workshop were recorded exactly as written. For the integrated final site-specific 

objectives will standardized, new parameter icons may be created, and similar comments 

will be assimilated into one comment. 

The plenary comments are taken directly from the plenary report and only include 

discussion specifically related to environmental objectives. The entire plenary report can 

be found in Appendix C. 

The working group reports were prepared by the recorder in each group as a record of the 

discussion. They contain a subset of the pool-wide and site-specific objective 

information generated by the groups. The group reports are not inclusive of all the 

objective descriptions because much of the groups’ data generation was also recorded on 

master worksheets and maps. 

 Examples of objectives at various scales were given as guidelines, they included: 

• System – Restore X acres of secondary channel habitat system wide, 

• Reach – Increase the amount of marsh habitat by X acres in the Open River Reach 

of the Mississippi River, 

• Pool – Return Pool 13 to a more natural hydrologic regime by having a 90 day 

low water stage three feet below maximum pool elevation during late summer 

every three years, 

• Local – Increase the average depth of backwater area X to six feet. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-5
Table E1. Pool-wide Environmental Objectives (System-wide) 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent 

TR/ Target Range Season Frequency

Target Date Comments

Water Quality Geomorphology 

Connectivity Isolated Backwaters 50% of current all 

Maintain 50% exclusion of ehabitat 

Connectivity Isolated Backwaters 25% of current 

Increase conbackwaters 

Pattern of Habitats 

Land Cover / Use Forest 

Determine fosongbirds. MRiver reach fforest needs habitat needs increasing ac

Land Cover / Use Other 

Protection, mnatural areas 

Aquatic Areas Main Channel 

Regulate and fleeting opera

Plants and Animals 

Fish Exotic Fish Species 

Manage fishedestructive e

Other All 

T&E species management

Other Exotic/ Invasive Species

Control or elispecies 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E1. Pool-wide Environmental Objectives (Lockport Pool) 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent 

TR/ Target Range Season Frequency

Target Date Comments 

Water Quality 

Water Clarity Improve SeccWater Clarity 

Water Clarity by barges thro

Other 25% reductioOther 

Elimination of reach; adhere 

Other Systematic re

Geomorphology 

Water Level Other 

Limit water leaffected subs10ft per incide

Pattern of Habitats Plants and Animals 

Other Establish aqu

Other 

Other 

Removal of sserving habita

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E1. Pool-wide Environmental Objectives (Brandon Road Pool) 

Ecosystem Element Parameter 

TR/ Target Range Season Frequency

Target Date Comments 

Water Quality 

Other 25% reductOther 

Elimination reach; adhe

Geomorphology 

Extent 

Plants and Animals 

Fish 

Fish screen fleeting ope

Other 

Other 

Removal of serving hab

Pattern of Habitats UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E1. Pool-wide Environmental Objectives (Dresden Pool) 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent 

TR/ Target Range Season Frequency

Target Date Comments 

Water Quality Geomorphology Pattern of Habitats 

Land Use/Cover Submersed Aquatics 

Maintain/protecpool-wide 

Plants and Animals Other 

Other 

Removal of suserving habitat 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E1. Pool-wide Environmental Objectives (Marseilles Pool) 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent 

TR/ Target Range Season Frequency

Target Date Comments 

Water Quality 

Other 

Systematic remsediments 

Geomorphology 

Water Depth Improve water Water Level 

Water Level flucontrolled 

Pattern of Habitats 

Land use/cover Forest increase 10% 

10% increase forest acreage

Plants and Animals 

Fish Protected 

Threatened anredhorse 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E1. Pool-wide Environmental Objectives (Starved Rock Pool) 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent 

TR/ Target Range Season Frequency

Target Date Comments 

Water Quality Geomorphology Pattern of Habitats Plants and Animals 

Fish Protected Threatened an

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E1. Pool-wide Environmental Objectives (Peoria Pool) 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent 

TR/ Target Range Season Frequency

Target Date Comments 

Water Quality Geomorphology 

Backwater Depth 

Prevent Peoria soil unit at WooLake to Henry appropriate. 

Water Level Backwater Areas 

5% 3m+, 10% 2-3 M 25% 1-2 m, 60% < 1 m Winter 2020

Maintain deptharea available backwaters by m, 60% less th

Water Level Other Summer 7

Reduce incide1 year in 3 

Connectivity Floodplain 

Maintain habita/Hopper) until rreconnection 

Connectivity Other 50% 

Maintain 50% oexotic species Hennepin /Hop

Connectivity Other 25% 

Reconnect 25% and historical bmiles). 

Other Reduce sedim

Pattern of Habitats 

Aquatic Areas Main Channel All 

Avoid conflicts potential or exi

Aquatic Areas 

Impounded Areas/Backwaters 

Enhance habitwindbreaks an

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E1. Pool-wide Environmental Objectives (Peoria Pool cont.) 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent 

TR/ Target Range Season Frequency

Target Date Comments 

Pattern of Habitats (cont) 

Terrestrial Area Contiguous Floodplain 

Restore additioto floodplain, tesignificant cont

100 ac forests, 

Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Promote moist Other 

Protect and enendangered sp

Plants and Animals 

Plants Other 

Provide area foelevations and possible use e

Plants Other Protect and maFish Exotic Fish species 

Manage fisher(destructive) fis

Birds Other

Red-shouldereenhance. 

Other Increase mussOther Control all exo

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E1. Pool-wide Environmental Objectives (La Grange Pool) 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent 

TR/ Target Range Season Frequency

Target Date Comments 

Water Quality Geomorphology 

Water Level Back Water Area 

5% 3m+, 10% 2-3 M 25% 1-2 m, 60% < 1 m Winter 2020

Maintain deptharea available backwaters by m, 60% less th

Water Level Other Summer 7

Reduce incideless than 1 yea

Connectivity Floodplain 

Maintain habitauntil river cond

Connectivity Other 50% 

Maintain 50% oexotic species 

Connectivity Other 25% 

Reconnect 25% and historical bmiles). 

Other Reduce sedim

Pattern of Habitats 

Aquatic Areas Main Channel All 

Avoid conflicts potential or exi

Terrestrial Area Contiguous Floodplain 

Restore additiofloodplain (blufhabitats - with (min. 10 ac for 

Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Promote moist 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E1. Pool-wide Environmental Objectives (La Grange Pool cont.) 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent 

TR/ Target Range Season Frequency

Target Date Comments 

Plants and Animals 

Plants Other 

Provide area foelevations and possible use e

Fish Exotic Fish species 

Manage fisher(destructive) fis

Other Increase mussOther 

Protect and enendangered sp

Table E1. Pool-wide Environmental Objectives (Alton Pool) Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent 

TR/ Target Range Season Frequency

Target Date Comments 

Water Quality Geomorphology 

Connectivity Floodplain & Secondary

Restore off chMeredosia to target for conof floodplain nat least 2-3 dmentioned seReduce scoufloodplain durlots of sandbamake more slevees. Flood 

Connectivity Investigate op

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E1. Pool-wide Environmental Objectives (Alton Pool cont.) 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent 

TR/ Target Range Season Frequency

Target Date Comments 

Connectivity Other 

Need to redudeltas due to increased treplaces where tributaries, crsoil units at orestore depth

Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 

Restore backthroughout ba

Water Level Other 

Improve emesediments. Mopportunities 

Other Recreate hyd

Pattern of Habitats 

Terrestrial areas Isolated Floodplain Investigate opTerrestrial areas Contiguous Floodplain 

There is a ne

the gap betwa wide floodp

Nutwood and and available 

levee districts water conditiothose levee dconstruction. 

Land Cover/ Use Emergent Aquatics 

Re-establish the levees, Msubsurface wnatural seed return. HennBottoms are e

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E1. Pool-wide Environmental Objectives (Alton Pool cont.) 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent 

TR/ Target Range Season Frequency

Target Date Comments 

Pattern of Habitats (Cont) 

Land Cover/ Use Other 

Agree on a reprobably the 1920's before the system. 

Plants and Animals 

Plants Aquatics 

For example for aquatic velandowners inestablishmenest. on maps 

Plants Submersed aquatics 

Restore submconnectivity t

Plants Aquatics Restore aqua

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Lockport Pool)

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date Comments Plants and Animals Fish Exotic Fish Species Electronic Barrier, or better Plants and Animals Fish Other Fish barrier to reduce entraTable E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Brandon Road Pool) Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date Comments Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

RM 290-291, Maintain ahabitat 

Pattern of Habitats Other Maintain existing habitatTable E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Dresden Pool) Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date Comments Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See pool-wide objecWater Quality Other 

Improve water qualitRM 278 to Lake Mich

Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel >80% of year All Year Reconnect side chanPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Improve habitat qualPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Improve aquatic habPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increased emergent (see pool-wide objec

Other Other 

Removal of contaminrestore and protect s

Other Other Remove sunk barges UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Marseilles) 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date Comments Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See pool-wide objWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See pool-wide objWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See pool-wide objWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See pool-wide objGeomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Connectivity Longitudinal

100% chance of fish passage 

Exotic concerns a(Kankakee River) 

Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel Reconnect side chPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

Maintain and restodepth habitat 

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

Protect and mainthabitats 

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Protect and maintPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other Delta Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Maintain and protedelta area 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Restore and mainHeron rookery 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increased emergeaquatics (see poo

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increased emergeaquatics (see poo

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increased emergeaquatics (see poo

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increased emergeaquatics (see poo

Plants and Animals Other Mussel bed exists UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Starved Rock Pool) 

Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date Comments Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See pool-wide Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See pool-wide Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See pool-wide Water Quality Other Riffle helps impGeomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Other 25% of area >Geomorphology Connectivity Longitudinal

100% chance of fish passage All Year Fish passage a

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

Protect and machannel habitat endangered spconcern 

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Impounded Area 

Reduce erosion 231-233, build recreational bothis reach 

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other Delta Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Delta, reduce sformation 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Restore wetlanbetween RR tra

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increased emeaquatics (see p

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increased emeaquatics (see p

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increased emeaquatics (see p

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Starved Rock Pool cont.) 

Plants and Animals Other 

Remove exotic loosestrife), RM 

Other Other 

Remove contamRM 232-235 

Other Other 

Protection of Inbank RM 231.5

Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Peoria Pool) Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date Comments Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See pool-wide obWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See pool-wide obWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See pool-wide obWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See pool-wide obWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See pool-wide obWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See pool-wide obWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See pool-wide obWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See pool-wide obWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See pool-wide obWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See pool-wide obWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See pool-wide obWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See pool-wide obWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See pool-wide obWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See pool-wide obGeomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Peoria Pool cont.) 

Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Deepwater embaGeomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Pool wide objectGeomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Peoria pool-wide Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel 

Scours out during periodically, requ

Geomorphology Connectivity Longitudinal

100% chance of fish passage 

Geomorphology Connectivity Other Disconnect cut Geomorphology Other 

Maintain levee to management untbe assessed 

Geomorphology Other Manage tributary Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Increase depth Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Isolated Backwater 

Protect and enhahabitats, contam

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Impounded Area Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Impounded Area Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Impounded Area Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Impounded Area Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other Protect aquatic hPattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other 

Increase and mapool-wide objecti

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Protect the island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Island ConstructiPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Island constructioPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Peoria pool islanUMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
TableE2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Peoria Pool cont.) 

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other Manage and enhPattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Delta, reduce sedformation 

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Delta, reduce sedformation 

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Delta, reduce sedformation 

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Delta, reduce sedformation 

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Delta, reduce sedformation 

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Delta, reduce sedformation 

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Delta, reduce sedformation 

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Delta, reduce sedformation 

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Delta, reduce sedformation 

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Delta, reduce sedformation 

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Delta, reduce sedformation 

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Delta, reduce sedformation 

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Delta, reduce sedformation 

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Delta, reduce sedformation 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Peoria Pool cont.)

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Delta, reduce sedformation 

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Delta, reduce sedformation 

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Delta, reduce sedformation 

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Delta, reduce sedformation 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Submersed Aquatics Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Create moist soil Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increased emergaquatics (see po

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increased emergaquatics (see po

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increased emergaquatics (see po

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increased emergaquatics (see po

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increased emergaquatics (see po

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increased emergaquatics (see po

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increased emergaquatics (see po

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increased emergaquatics (see po

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increased emergaquatics (see po

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increased emergaquatics (see po

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Peoria Pool cont.)

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increased emergaquatics (see po

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increased emergaquatics (see po

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increased emergaquatics (see po

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Other Increase habitat Plants and Animals Plants Other TE species (BoltoPlants and Animals Birds Other 

TE species protePlum and Leopo

Plants and Animals Other 

Protect and enha(i.e., birds) 

Other Other Abandoned bargOther Other Contaminated seOther Other 

HTRW site, Contup 

Other Other 

WRP land, consifeasibility 

Other Other Investigate for reOther Other 

Protect and enha(Boltonia) 

Other Other Protect and enhaTable E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (La Grange Pool)Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date CommeWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See pooWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See pooWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See pooWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See pooWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See pooWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See pooWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See pooUMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (La Grange Pool cont.)

Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See pooWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See pooWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See pooWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See pooWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See pooWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See pooWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See pooWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See pooWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See pooWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See pooWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See pooWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See pooWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See pooWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See pooWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See pooGeomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas See pooGeomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 

See poomanage

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (La Grange Pool)

Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 

Pool-widMoscow 

Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 

Pool-widStewart 

Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 

Restore using poobjectiv

Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 

Restore meande

Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 

Restore meande

Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 2 - 3 m All Year 10 2020 See 202Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area >3 m 

Restore 121-122 

Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area >3 m 2020

Rice LaRM 132

Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 2 - 3 m All Year 10

Maintain backwa

Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 50% of area 2 - 3 m All Year 10 2020Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain Restore Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain MuscooGeomorphology Connectivity Floodplain 

Maintain 

main ch

Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain ConnecGeomorphology Connectivity Floodplain Winter 

Matanzaoverwin

Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain

100% floodplain area inundated during 10 year flood 2020 Clear La

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (La Grange Pool)

Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain

100% floodplain area inundated during 10 year flood All Year 10 2020 Connec

Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain

0% floodplain area inundated during 10 year flood All Year 10 2020

Habitat appropr

Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel Restore Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel >80% of year All Year 10 2020

Maintain habitat 

Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel >80% of year All Year 10 2020 Maintain Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel >80% of year All Year 10 2020 Restore Geomorphology Connectivity Secondary Channel >80% of year All Year 10 2020 RM 135Geomorphology Other Restore Geomorphology Other Restore Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel 

Deepen channe

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Restore Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Other 

Restore depth 

Pattern of Habitats 

Terrestrial Areas Other Delta, C

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Delta, redelta fo

Pattern of Habitats UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (La Grange Pool)

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Delta, redelta fo

Land Cover/Use Submersed Aquatics >60% of area 2020

Restore aquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Submersed Aquatics >60% of area 2020

Restore aquatics 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Submersed Aquatics >60% of area 2020

Restore aquaticsLake Bowetland Maintain 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Restore Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics Restore 

Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Restore habitats 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

RM 121maintain 

Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increasesubmerwide ob

Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increasesubmerwide ob

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increasesubmerwide ob

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increasesubmerwide ob

Pattern of Habitats Pattern of Habitats Pattern of Habitats Pattern of Habitats UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (La Grange Pool)

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increasesubmerwide ob

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increasesubmerwide ob

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increasesubmerwide ob

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increasesubmerwide ob

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increasesubmerwide ob

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increasesubmerwide ob

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increasesubmerwide ob

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increasesubmerwide ob

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increasesubmerwide ob

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increasesubmerwide ob

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (La Grange Pool)

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increasesubmerwide ob

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increasesubmerwide ob

Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increasesubmerwide ob

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increasesubmerwide ob

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increasesubmerwide ob

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increasesubmerwide ob

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Restore Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other Promote Pattern of Habitats Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Alton Pool)Ecosystem Element Parameter Extent Target Range Season Frequency Target Date Comments Water Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See pool-wide objecWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See pool-wide objecWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See pool-wide objecWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See pool-wide objecWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See pool-wide objecWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See pool-wide objecWater Quality Water Clarity Backwater Areas See pool-wide objecGeomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Alton Pool cont.)

Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Geomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas Maintain and deepen Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain All Year 20 Gravity structures Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain All Year 20 Gravity structures Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain All Year 20 Gravity structures Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain All Year 20 Gravity structures Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain All Year 20 Gravity structures Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain All Year 20 Gravity structures Geomorphology Connectivity Floodplain All Year 20 Gravity structures Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Main Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Pattern of Habitats Aquatic Areas Secondary Channel Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Island Protection Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Island Protection Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Island Protection UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Alton Pool cont.)

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Island Protection Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Island Protection Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Island Protection Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Island Protection Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Island Protection Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Island Protection Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Island Protection Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Island Protection Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Island Protection Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Island Protection Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Island Protection Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Island Island Protection Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Delta, reduce sedimeformation 

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Delta, reduce sedimeformation 

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Delta, reduce sedimeformation 

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Delta, reduce sedimeformation 

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Delta, reduce sedimeformation 

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Delta, reduce sedimeformation 

Pattern of Habitats Terrestrial Areas Other 

Delta, reduce sedimeformation 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Large contiguous webirds (1000+ acres) 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Large contiguous webirds (1000+ acres) 

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Restore wetland habobjectives) 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table E2. Site-specific Environmental Objectives (Alton Pool cont.)

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increased emergent (see pool-wide objec

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increased emergent (see pool-wide objec

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increased emergent (see pool-wide objec

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increased emergent (see pool-wide objec

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increased emergent (see pool-wide objec

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increased emergent (see pool-wide objec

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Emergent Aquatics 

Increased emergent (see pool-wide objec

Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Forest Pattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other Restore habitat as poPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other Restore habitat as poPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other Restore habitat as poPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other Restore habitat as poPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other Restore habitat as poPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other Restore habitat as poPattern of Habitats Land Cover/Use Other Restore habitat as poPlants and Animals Other Mussels Plants and Animals Other Mussels Plants and Animals Other Mussels Plants and Animals Other Mussels Plants and Animals Other Mussels Plants and Animals Other Mussels Plants and Animals Other Mussel bed, RM 50-5UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Plenary Report 

 

The plenary comments are taken directly from the plenary report and only include 

discussion specifically related to environmental objectives. The entire plenary report can 

be found in Appendix C. 

Nov 6th, Objectives Plenary Session:

The plenary began by asking each group to give a brief overview of what they did, as 

well as listing their reach and pool-wide objectives. 

Group 1 Summary (Alton and LaGrange) – We focused on Pool wide objectives. We 

tried to figure what we are trying to restore to. We decided that 1910 would be the 

reference condition because it is post diversion but before pollutants caused significant 

problems. 

Alton Pool-wide Objectives 

Recreate Natural Hydrograph 

Decrease flooding to limit catastrophic costs and help with connectivity 

Reduce sediment input from the watershed 

Restore submersed vegetation 

We added icons to the map. We did some data-mining and created a new icon in 

Geomorphology E (erosion). We noted that there is gap for wetland complex or habitat 

from Godar-Diamond Island to Meredosia. There was a joint venture staff in Vicksburg 

– they recommended a bird resting area every 25 miles. So we located 2 areas for that. 

We identified more icons for connectivity (drainage ditches). We did not get into 

LaGrange Pool; we decided that the icons on map were good enough. We didn’t want to 

mess with what has already been done. One suggestion is to move icons off of map to 

ease up clutter. We did have some questions as to where data came from. 

Group 2 Summary (LaGrange to Peoria Pool)

LaGrange and Peoria Pools Reach Objectives 

10% additional flood plain 

Maintain depths in existing areas. 5m depth in backwater (5%) by 2020 

Maintain habitat-protecting levees until ready for reconnection 

Summer water level bump less than `1 in 3 years 

Reduce sedimentation 

Fleeting areas 

Dredged material for Mast Trees 

Moist soil in BW 

Habitat for T&E 

Backwater Diversity 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-35
Create island, windbreaks 

We added data to existing database and added new information 

Group 3 Summary (Lockport To LaGrange Pools)

Entire River Objectives 

Protect, manage and enhance habitat for T&E 

Regulate and develop environmentally friendly fleeting areas 

Foresters should evaluate for Mast Tree and floodplain forest in each area. 

Lockport Pool-wide Objectives 

Aquatic Barriers for Exotic Species 

25% reduction of nutrient loading 

Secondary standards 

Improve water clarity 

Database WRDGC should be referenced 

SWS study by Tom Butts (1990) Water quality 

Systemic removal of sediment 

Removal of sunken barges if not serving habitat purpose 

Brandon Road Pool-wide Objectives 

25% reduction of nutrient loading 

Secondary use 

No net loss at mouth of Des Plaines RM290-291 

Fish by-pass 

Dresden Pool-wide Objectives 

Removing abandoned barges 

Fish passage 

Maintain and protect aquatic plant beds 

Marseilles Pool-wide Objectives 

Protected and maintain floodplain forest. Increase by 20% in 20 years 

Increase diversity of floodplain forest. 

Starved Rock Pool-wide Objectives 

Reach Objective Marseilles and Starved Rock Pools - Threaten and endangered river red 

horse. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-36
Peoria Pool-wide Objectives 

Control exotic species (Purple Loosestrife) 

Protect and enhance T&E (bald eagle, river red horse, Decurrent False Aster) 

Site Specific Objective Setting for IWW

Once each group gave their report we then started at the upper end of Lockport Pool and 

moved down river, allowing all participants to provide input. 

Discussion of Lockport Pool 

There are concerns about the Exotic Barrier. We need something more permanent like an 

earthen dam. 

Brandon Road Pool 

Confluence of Des Plains from RM 290-291. There is a backwater complex that is good. 

We want to protect existing pool riffle complex. Wetland habitat is good too. Protect! 

Discussion of Runoff: There is nothing that this project can to within the floodplain. 

There is nothing to do to address suspended sediment. 

Look at bank stabilization and tow resuspension. 

River wide – Reduction in sediment loads from all tributaries. 

Dresden Pool 

Statewide water quality standards differ above and below bridge at RM 278. Improve 

water quality so it is all general use. 

Barrier vs. Fish Passage: If you try to impede exotic fish then you limit native species. 

Du Page River Bay (RM277)– Peter Hall had a scheme. 

Discussion of TARP – I have heard something about using gravel pits for regulating 

reservoirs? TARP acts to capture as much combined sewer overflow (CSO) as possible. 

All of the flows captured by the TARP are eventually treated. The new reservoirs are 

designed to first prevent basement flooding, but will also capture other CSO flows as 

well, depending on how they are operate. 

Marseilles Pool 

RM 271 – Mussel bed found behind Dresden Island. Hasn’t been reported. Heidi Dunn 

did the work. 

Starved Rock Pool 

RM 232-235 – Possibly high content of PCB’s 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-37
Peoria Pool 

RM 224.5 Huse Lake is a Superfund site. Endangered Boltonia in RM225 (South of 

Vermillion River West of Hwy 39) 

Clark Island is a very interesting area. During certain hydrographs the main flow goes 

from MC to back channel and scours it out, while sometime it silts in. This is a very 

interesting area, self-sustaining. However, it does need to be monitored. 

Can we get CRP and CREP system wide? 

They have some GIS databases. 

USGS is supposed to keep records, but doesn’t. 

The Corps will gather database info from T&E. However, we will need to mask T&E 

data before show data to non-privy people. 

Islands in 190-195 are good site to put Mast Trees. 

RM 182 – There are small embayments that have very small watersheds. This would be 

a good place for fisheries. 

RM177 – Put low-level impoundment to create moist soil units. Already pumping water 

in that area. 

Comment from reviewer: Need fisheries areas every 10 miles and waterbird areas every 

25 miles. 

Nov 7th, Objectives Plenary Session:

LaGrange Pool 

Whole floodplain from Peoria to Bartonville needs to be maintained, protected and 

enhanced. (Pool-wide) 

Does anyone have a general concept as to how much sediment input needs to be reduced 

before we can remove protective levees? 

Some small management levees are there to maintain water levels for moist soil plants. 

Until Carp populations are controlled we need to keep the selected large agricultural 

levees in place for the marshland habitats. We need a method to control invasive species 

to protect habitat. 

How does this benefit fisheries? 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-38
It would be preferable to have this open, but in order to protect this habitat we cannot. 

These leveed-off agricultural areas are 100-year-old time capsules. Would like to 

develop them so as to be able to reconnect these. 

Comment added from report review: Management levees generally are low-level berms 

and most are effective only below flood stage. Only the one at Chautauqua 2-3 ft above 

flood stage in the south pool for moist-soil plant management and higher in the north 

pool for fishery and stable water management. Both were flooded in 2002 and the south 

pool is flooded every year. Waterfowl management areas are inundated every year and 

usually more than cone. Banner Marsh is behind a 50-year ag levee and like Spunky 

Bottoms and Hennepin has both fishing and water bird habitat. So, there is a major 

difference in elevation between ag levees (most have never been overtopped) and lowlevel management levees. A lot of people think management levees or berms are all ag 

levees. That’s not the case. Consequently, most of the 183,000 acres not leveed for 

agriculture in the floodplain flood most years and are surface. 

So, in the next 50 years how can we manage these for clear water – aquatic habitats and 

work with wildlife, fisheries and spawning areas? 

We need to work with areas that are still connected to the river. Maintain, protect and 

enhance these. This is the most important concept we need to hold onto (keep time 

capsules until ready.) Pekin Lake is an area that we are developing for fisheries. 

Comment added from report review : We can have connectivity through surface and 

subsurface means. Elimination of pumping within levees allows clear water to 

accumulate in the district through subsurface connectivity and rainfall. 

We need to keep fisheries in mind for IL 2020 and other programs. This is an area that 

NGO’s are curious about. Amount of acreage that needs to be reconnected for IL 2020 

(other environmental plans). 

Spunky Bottom. We will find out soon if this will happen. TNC has models as to how 

much sedimentation would go in. Emiquon, ISWS. TNC is going through steps to 

reconnect to the main channel. 

SWS has sediment budgets. Big point 1/3 behind levees, 1/3 connected floodplains, 1/3 

backwater. We don’t need to be building more leveed areas or reconnecting other areas 

until we have a better handle on things. Keep areas as they are and continue to improve 

them as they stand. 

Are we worried that the silver, big head or European carp will up root plants? 

European carp is hard on plants, but the other two you wouldn’t think would have that 

big effect on vegetation. However, I spoke with people in Europe and theses fish have 

virtually destroyed other species. 

So, what de we do about this? 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-39
Theiling -- We manage for conditions that favor native fish rather than invaders. 

We could develop some kind of bug to kill off invaders but not native species. 

System-wide Objective – Control of exotic species: Manage fisheries to reduce 

populations of destructive exotic and invasive species. 

Great lakes are introducing more invasives, the South is stocking everything and we are 

limiting habitat. We are shooting ourselves in our foot. 

These Exotic species are an impediment to management of the river 

50% of currently isolated backwaters for the exclusion of exotic and maintenance of 

quality habitat. Increase connectivity to 25% of currently isolated backwaters and 

improve them. Need fisheries over winter areas every 10 miles just like we need bird 

resting every 25 miles. 

Look at the whole river and designate which areas have highest priorities for different 

guilds. 

I reject the idea that fisheries are bad for birds, and bird areas are bad for fish. 

Connected vs. disconnected. Need to look at current and historic areas to see areas that 

were connected and no longer are. 

Theiling -- I want to reiterate that we need to look at river systemically. 

Do you think we should reconnect backwaters now or after the health of the river is 

restored? 

Now. Areas where there is a marginal levee that have routine breaks can be reconnected. 

At RM 137.5 we have a delta area. This is Copperas Creek Delta. A lot of sedimentation. 

Gave overview of Rice Lake EMP. 

I want to dredge out Big Lake for fisheries (Paddlefish). 

Low height of levee, won’t prevent annual spring flood, but will help to disconnect 

during mid-summer bump. 

Need to include EMP planning database into this information. 

Management action for this area. Take dredged material and place it on the island before 

planting mast trees. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-40
Some tributaries have watershed plans. We need be examine plans to see what locals 

want in these areas. 

Mantanzas Bay is one of our deepest backwater areas. It might be a good area for over 

wintering fish. 

Moscow Lake is a good candidate for over wintering fish RM 111. 

Sangamon River – Restore meander (in general) on both North and South. Would be in 

Corps interest because of sedimentation problems at the mouth of the river. 

The extra length of the proposed lock and dam at LaGrange would cut into the existing 

wetlands. 

Originally considering 2 new locks, one at Peoria and LaGrange, but nothing with the 

dams. However there has been some talk about moving from wickets to more permanent 

dams. Would it benefit water level management? 

It might be nice to be able to manage more than a foot and a half. 

Would this help up at the upper half of the pool? 

No there is not a big effect in upper pool. 

Barge industry won’t like the dams because they can pass over wickets. 

At low flows there is a dramatic water level fluctuation. 

Comment from Reviewer: Additional tainter gates would likely not provide the level of 

water level control required to eliminate the “bumps” discussed here. 

 

At low flows there is a possibility to improve management conditions. You could put in 

another tainter gates, but the flow and watershed effect are more significant. 

Theiling -- These things are being looked at carefully in the Illinois River Study. 

Alton Pool 

Pool wide – Investigate opportunities to improve leveed areas. 

Mention levee setbacks to allow for floodplain habitat and increase flood conveyance 

From Meridosia to Beardstown – They did some commercial musseling and found 20 

beds. Rob Maher and Dean ? did the work. 

1-2 foot contour maps will help determine levee setbacks. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-41
Theiling -- Have Woermann and earlier but not modern contour maps. 

Comment from Reviewer: We have 2 ft contour COE maps from ~1980. 

Working Group Reports 

The working group reports were prepared by the recorder in each group as a record of the 

discussion. They contain a subset of the pool-wide and site-specific objective 

information generated by the groups. The group reports are not inclusive of all the 

objective descriptions because much of the groups’ data generation was also recorded on 

master worksheets and maps

GROUP 1

Bottom end of Illinois River, Alton Pool – Pool 26

Participants --- Ross Adams, Steve Havera, Michael Cochran, Rob Davinroy, Eric Laux, 

Mike Cox , Bob Clevenstine, Stan Ebersohl, Tim Kelley, Jon Kauffeld - Recorder 

Pool-Wide Objectives 

Gap from Two Rivers to Meredosia, need for additional floodplain habitat, wide 

floodplain, levee protects lots of floodplain, Nutwood and Hartwood Districts may be 

marginal and available for acquisition and habitat. At low water conditions can 

reconnect, levee districts lower than the pool. Money paid to those levee districts from 

flooding during pool construction. 

Example – pool 20, put an icon on Lima Lake for aquatic vegetation establishment, now 

have landowners interested in doing aquatic re-establishment. If we have ideas where we 

know low spots are, we should put aquatic vegetation reestablishment on the maps. 

Restore submersed vegetation and off channel connectivity to all pool, Meredosia to 

Eldrid are key drainage districts to target for connectivity. No consensus on amounts of 

floodplain needing to be restored to habitat, but at least 2-3 districts, Nutwood and 

Hartwell mentioned several times. 

All the tributaries have a delta on them from sediment coming from hills. Have increased 

tremendously since 1976. All tribs have erosion off ag ground, Need to reduce sediment 

accumulation. There may be places where delta is preventing fish migration into 

tributaries, creating islands in the delta, or moist soil units at or near mouths of 

tributaries, and restore depths and connectivity of tributaries. 

Restore backwater depths, aquatic vegetation, throughout backwaters on pool. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-42
Eldred Drainage District – Similar potential to Nutwood and Hartwell 

During flood fighting, lots of sandbagging now occurs, it probably would make more 

sense to have designed spillways in levees. If they could be flooded in a controlled 

manner to reduce scouring it would benefit river flood control efforts and allow nutrient 

input on farmland. 

Pattern of habitat on pool wide reach – would be nice to agree on a reference condition, 

on the Illinois River probably best habitat condition was in the 1910-1920’s. Habitat 

declining at the time dams were put in. Chuck Theiling suggests 1900-1905. Wetlands 

still had submergent and emergent plants. Wastewater in the 30’s degraded system. 

Illinois Natural History survey data exists, plant surveys, fish sampling, etc. back to turn 

of the century. 

Water level management – drawdowns to improve emergent plant communities, stabilize 

sediments should be done. There is an increase of interest among landowners to manage 

floodplain lands for waterfowl hunting. Rice was a common plant in Nutwood and 

Eldred years ago. Discussion on whether or not is was wild rice or domestic rice. 

(Review comment from ILNHS states, “It was natural.”) 

Some aquaculture opportunities on some areas has limited potential. Harvested lots of 

commercial fish in early parts of the century, Upper or Lower Smith, near Meredosia. In 

last several years has been some commercial interest in recent years. 

Marsh habitat is missing in the Illinois River, by maintaining the levees, turning the 

pumps off, can subsurface water infiltrating into the areas behind the levee. Natural seed 

base exists and these plants will return. Hennepin Drainage District, Spunky Bottoms are 

examples of where this has occurred. 

Specific Locations within the Alton Pool 

River mile 5 – 10 , Swan Lake, want backwater depth, need to monitor, constructed and 

operational now. Lower pool for fish, middle pool fish and migratory birds, upper 

portion migratory birds. 

Discussion is that most of what has been identified as objectives is within the levees, and 

there is not a lot of additional information the group can provide to the database. 

Expanding the database with habitat depth, secchi disk targets, etc is beyond knowledge 

of this group. Region 4 Illinois DNR folks would be some of the best contacts to add this 

knowledge. Landowner participation is necessary as well. 

Nutwood and Harwell Drainage Districts – Setback levee or put holes through levee to 

get fish habitat restored in older channels, lateral connectivity. Also have opportunities 

to establish marsh habitat through keeping levees in place, turning off pumps, allowing 

aquatic vegetation to reestablish. Opportunities to restore bottomland hardwood habitat as 

well in floodplain, and wet prairie also. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-43
Keach, South Quincy Drainage District (on the Mississippi, not the Illinois, but it’s a 

good example) – Nearly all of these are soybeans and corn now. Nearly all are pumped 

now to provide drainage so that they can be farmed. Some, like the Quincy district have 

enough water that the DNR now puts fish in some waters. In the 1950’s about 13 

drainage districts were selected on the Illinois River, about 50,000 acres identified that 

had high potential to restore back to wetland habitat. Thompson Lake was included. 

Jenkins and Walraven were the engineers that put that report together. All of these sites 

should be included in the environmental sustainability habitat objectives. 

Could use a waterfowl feeding/resting area/shorebird habitat halfway between Meredosia 

and Swan Lake. Group had some difficulty targeting the best drainage districts that had 

the greatest potential. Nutwood and Hartwell Drainage District probably have the best 

potential. 

Add an “other icon” at each delta to either set back the flank levee so that the tributary 

delta becomes more natural, allowing meanders, islands, etc. Alternatively, could leave 

the levees in place, and dredge to expand islands, and fish connectivity to tributaries. 

Other districts which have potential are: Mile 30 - Eldred and Spanky, Hillview- Mile 49, 

Big Swan – 50-56, Scott County Drainage District around mile 60 

Group wanted to make sure that some river habitat, deepwater habitat and island habitat 

improvements are done to insure that sufficient habitat is available to maintain areas for 

population dispersal, overwintering, and movement of individuals and species is 

preserved. A listing of spots to concentrate efforts or at least to look at are: 

Upper end of swan Lake – river mile 13, Twelve mile island – deepen side channel – 

deep water habitat needed, River mile 19 – Morton Island – deepwater habitat 

River mile – 39 – Fisher Island – erosion of island , McKeevers island – erosion – Mile 

49, Blue island, backwater habitat, 

The above listing and the listing on the environmental objective map were essentially 

copied from a previous report entitled “ Draft Fact Sheet – Lower Illinois River – Alton 

Pool, Illinois River Ecosystem Restoration, August 2001” done by Mike Cochran and T. 

Miller. 

 

GROUP 2

Participants --- David Ahrens, Wayne Herndon, John Marlin, Matt O’Hara, Mike Schwar, 

Michelle Simone, Randy Timmons, Mike Wefer, Mike Zerbonia, (w/Ross Adams) 

??? Historical land covers as targets for restoration 

Starting Point – RM 119, Icon 52, Havana 

Pool-wide objectives: 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-44
• Restore additional 10% of Upper La Grange floodplain (bluff to bluff) to 

floodplain, terrestrial habitats – with a goal of significant contiguous areas (min. 

10 ac for wetlands, 100 ac forests, etc.) 

• Maintain depths of existing backwaters and increase area available for 

overwintering fish (3m+) in backwaters by 5% by 2020 and 10% 2-3m, 25% 1-2 

m, 60% less than 1m 

• Maintain 50% of existing backwaters for exclusion of exotic species and 

reconnect 25% of currently isolated backwater areas and historical backwater 

lakes (Fish areas every 10 miles) 

• Maintain habitat-protecting levees (e.g. Emiquon) until river conditions adequate 

to allow reconnection 

• Reduce incidence of summer water level “bumps” to less than 1 year in 3 

• Reduce sedimentation throughout pool 

• Avoid conflicts between habitat enhancements and potential or existing fleeting 

areas 

• As much as possible, use environmental dredge material to provide area for mast 

tree plantings (appropriate elevations and soil composition) 

• Promote marsh and moist soil habitat development in backwater areas 

• Manage fisheries to reduce populations of exotic (destructive) fish species 

• Increase mussel diversity 

• Protect and enhance habitat for threatened and endangered species 

Site-Specific Objectives: 

52 – Spoon River – potential meander restoration upstream of mouth (reconnection) 

51 – Thompson Lake - ??? 

50 – Quiver Lake – restore depth, aquatic vegetation 

Restore side channel behind Quiver Island, RM 121-122 

Restore depth at Liverpool Lake, Liverpool side channel, riprap Meyers Ditch 

Restore backwater habitat and maintain levees at Thompson Lake, Flag Lake – RM 

128.5-132 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-45
Controlled disconnection of Clear Lake for moist soil or keep connected RM 130-133? 

Windbreaks in Clear and Chautauqua Lake? 

RM 132-137 – Rice Lake – reopen Senate Island side channel (1-2 m) (RM 135) – 

multiple habitat enhancements throughout lake complex – expand EMP project – dredge 

lakes to various depths, place material onto Duck Island, pile up to create mast tree 

planting areas, control structure for moist soil unit 

RM 136.5 – Copperas Creek lock structure – OK as is 

RM 134-148 Spring Lake Bottoms – restore as per Hennepin/Hopper – very valuable 

large contiguous area 

RM 141 - 143 Coon Hollow Island, Banner Marsh etc. – restore channel depths behind 

islands 

Enhancements to Banner Marsh? RM 138-144 – levee maintenance most critical – habitat 

improvement as appropriate 

RM 148 – restore Turkey Island side channel depth 

Pekin Lake – typical backwater requirements 

38 – Isolated backwaters ? 

Peoria Pool 

Pool-wide objectives: 

• Restore additional 20% of Peoria Pool floodplain (bluff to bluff) to floodplain, 

terrestrial habitats – with a goal of significant contiguous areas (min. 10 ac for 

wetlands, 100 ac forests, etc.) 

• Maintain depths of existing backwaters and increase area available for 

overwintering fish (3m+) in backwaters by 5% by 2020 and 10% 2-3m, 25% 1-2 

m, 60% less than 1m 

• Maintain 50% of existing backwaters for exclusion of exotic species (e.g. 

Hennepin/Hopper) and reconnect 25% of currently isolated backwater areas and 

historical backwater lakes (Fish areas every 10 miles) 

• Maintain habitat-protecting levees (i.e. Hennepin/Hopper) until river conditions 

adequate to allow reconnection 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-46
• Create islands, windbreaks and wavebreaks to enhance habitat in lake and 

backwaters 

• Reduce incidence of summer water level “bumps” to less than 1 year in 3 

• Reduce sedimentation throughout pool 

• Avoid conflicts between habitat enhancements and potential or existing fleeting 

areas 

• As much as possible, use environmental dredge material to provide area for mast 

tree plantings (appropriate elevations and soil composition) 

• Promote moist soil and marsh plant development in backwater areas 

• Manage fisheries to reduce populations of exotic (destructive) fish species 

• Increase mussel diversity 

• Protect and enhance habitat for threatened and endangered species 

How to keep Peoria Pool from sedimenting in? 

Moist soil unit at Woodford State Wildlife Unit 

Peoria Lake to Henry – backwaters, islands, moist soil as appropriate 

REFERENCE – Mid-Peoria Pool 2020 Plan for project IDs (M. Cochran, J. Mick) 

GROUP 3

Participants --- Ken Barr, Dan Sallee, Mark Beorkrem, Bill Graham, Charlene Carmack, 

Julianna Cruz, Jim Slowikowski, Todd Bitner. 

Entire River:

**Revisit natural resources inventory (note to Ken Barr) ** The original Natural 

Resources Inventory was incorporated into the new one. 

endangered and threatened species and natural areas protection, management and 

enhancement 

Forester should examine entire IL River reach for mast tree needs and floodplain forest 

needs from diversity and depth of forest and habitat needs for migratory songbirds, need 

for increasing acreage, utilize CREP/IL 2020 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-47
Regulate and develop environmentally friendly fleeting operations 

Control or elimination of exotic and invasive species 

Manage fisheries to reduce populations of exotic/invasive species 

Maintain 50% of currently isolated backwaters for exclusion of exotics and protection of 

high quality habitat, increase connectivity of 25% of currently isolated backwaters 

Lockport Pool:

Lockport Pool has virtually no natural channel, all canal 

Goal – Establish Aquatic barriers for exotic species 

25 % reduction in nutrient loading 

Water Clarity affected by resuspension of sediments by barges through navigation season 

Elimination of secondary use standards for this reach 

Improve Secchi Level (water clarity) 

Tom Butts State Water Survey (Dana Shackleford 2nd author) Water Quality work done 

in 1990-1991 should be referenced 

MWRD data base should be referenced 

Water levels affected substantially by MWRD actions up to 10 feet per incidence. 

Systematic removal of contaminated sediments 

Removal of sunken and abandoned barges ( if not serving habitat purpose) and related 

materials 

Brandon Pool:

25 % reduction in nutrient loading 

Elimination of secondary use standards for this reach 

No Net Loss of wetlands at mouth of Des Plaines River 

Maintain existing aquatic and terrestrial areas in reach miles 290-291 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-48
Fish screen for water intakes (power plant) and fleeting operations 

Removal of abandoned barges and cables 

Dresden Pool:

#1 Maintain and protect Treats Island side channel 

#1 removal of contaminated sediments from Treats island side channel 

Elimination of secondary use standards for reach above mile 278 

Removal of abandoned barges and cabling, particularly at Mile 281 

# 3 two islands (Moose and 1 unnamed) River Mile 276 restore backwater depth and 

flow 

Maintain/protect existing aquatic plant bed acreage pool-wide 

Fish Passage through Dam 

Marseilles Pool:

Maintain/restore side channel depths at Big and Little Dresden Island mile 271 

Note: Mussel bed present here not previously documented 

#3 protect and maintain Aux Sable Creek Delta area mile 268 

#4 protect and maintain Sugar Island side channel mile 262 

#4 update GIS data on Material Services gravel pit which extends much further than 

shown, miles 262.5 – 258 investigate obtaining Material Services property for 

recreational area 

#5 (Moody) or McNeels Bayou, reconnect to river mile 257 ~ 

#6 contaminated sediments, improve water depth 

#6 Johnson Island protect and maintain mile 249.6 

10% increase in bottomland hardwood forest acreage, improve diversity 

Ballards Island- dredge for overwintering habitat mile 247.5+ , and restore brown 

bullhead habitat, 25% over 6 foot depth 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-49
Water level fluctuations need to be controlled 

#7 protect and maintain, restore if necessary depth Marseilles Canal 

fish passage at tailrace of mile 246-7 utilize old power house/paper plant 

Starved Rock Pool:

fish passage at tailrace of mile 246-7 utilize old power house/paper plant 

Rapids and Tailwater Endangered Species fishery (redhorse) mile 244.2 

#8 Bulls Island Bend restore overwintering habitat in side channel, 

 Mayo Islands & Hitt islands Mile 237-239 increase backwater channel depth 

Contaminated sediments remove from river mile 232-235 

Restore wetlands north bank, above Buffalo Rock along rr tracks and Dee Bennett Rd, 

river miles lock and marina river mile 231-235 

Remove exotic species at lock land (Corps land) river mile 231 -235 

#12 Investigate islands above dam for stability and restore water depth, 

Increased bank erosion in sensitive resource areas due to dam operations, rare plant 

communities (terrestrial) south shore mile 231-233, sandstone erosion 

Control recreational boat access in miles south side 231-233 due to impact on sensitive 

area 

Fish passage 

Peoria Pool:

Abandoned barge removal at Plum Island 

#13 improve water depth throughout behind Plum Island 

Leopold Island mile 230.7 armor erosion, prevent erosion, important fish habitat, 

maintain trees for eagle roosting and fishing 

Pool wide, protect and enhance Bald Eagle roosting habitat 

Pool wide, red-shouldered hawk, brown creeper protect and enhance 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-50
Pool Wide boltonia decurrens protect and manage habitat 

Huse Slough(upper end) mile 224 quality wetland habitat backwater lake protect and 

enhance, needs contaminate cleanup, owned by City of LaSalle 

Vermillion River & Little Vermillion protect and enhance delta areas for fishery and 

terrestrial habitat 

 Lake DePue contaminated sediment removal 

Remove contaminated sediment at mile 218.5-219 north bank 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

E-51
Appendix F. Management Actions 

Purpose:

To review and identify management actions that are most likely to contribute towards 

achieving the established goals and objectives. 

Background:

For the purposes of these workshops, Management Actions are: regulatory, operational or 

structural tools or activities that can be implemented to positively address environmental 

objectives (e.g. hydraulically dredge a backwater area). Participants reviewed a list of 

management actions that had been compiled from previous planning to assess their ability 

to meet the objectives that were discussed the previous day Time was given to ensure all 

the groups were able to review all of the actions. The reports from each group were 

presented in a plenary session to provide other participants the opportunity to ask for and 

receive clarification. 

Results:

What follows is the management information gathered and reviewed at the Peoria 

Workshop. It is organized into three sections: management action tables, plenary report, 

and working group reports. 

Each working group prepared a master worksheet to record the group’s changes, 

additions, and deletions to the list of management actions. The changes from all the 

groups were compiled in the following worksheets (Table B1). There were 41 

management actions added, 8 actions were modified, and 23 additional comments were 

added. These results will be merged with those from other workshops, and the entire 

management actions database published in the UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility 

Study Interim Report will be updated. 

The plenary comments are taken directly from the plenary report and only include 

discussion specifically related to management. The entire plenary report can be found in 

Appendix E. 

The Working Group reports below were prepared by the recorder in each group as a 

record of the discussion. Working group reports are not inclusive of all of the work. 

Much of the groups’ data generation was done on master worksheets and maps and 

compiled for production in a formal report for the Upper Mississippi River – Illinois 

Waterway Navigation Feasibility Study. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, DRAFT REPORT, November 2002 

F-1
Table F1. Management Actions 

Element/ Parameter Extent ID Management Action CommWater Quality Water Clarity Main Channel 1Apply watershed BMPs (best management practices) 

2Stabilize river banks 3Pool scale drawdown to consolidate soft sediments 4 Minimize dredge disturbance/frequency 5 Minimize dredge slurry return water 6 Minimize bankside dredged material placement 7Stabilize dredged material 8Tributary reservoirs 9Speed and wake restrictions - rec. boats (all watercraft) 

Comments/ Additions: 

Evaluate and modify mechanisms to deal with watershed influences to eliminate spiking hydrographic cycle (system wide) 

52 Restore natural tributary areas through delta areas 

Minimize open water dredged material placement Sediment traps Increase depth in main channel (reduce resuspension) Highly Require upper waterway to meet EPA general use standards 

Pollutiobetter dEntire sgeneraInclude parameguidan

 
Table F1. Management Actions (cont.) 

Element/ Parameter Extent ID Management Action Comm

Water Quality cont. 

Backwaters 10Pool scale drawdown to consolidate soft sediments 

11 Drawdown management units 12 Drawdown isolated backwaters 13 Isolate and drawdown contiguous backwaters No net 

14Temporarily isolate and drawdown contiguous backwaters 

Concerpermanwant to 

15 Construct wind breaks 16 Construct Wave breaks 17 Remove bottom feeding fishes (carp)

Replacspecies 

18 Increase plant density 19 Increase plant distribution and diversity of native species 20 Reduce algae production

Comments/ Additions: Increase depth of backwaters 

No net loss of backwaters Speed, wake, and motor restrictions 

Pollutiobetter dEntire sgeneraInclude parameguidan

Pollution control of all phases (i.e., solids, liquids, gases 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table F1. Management Actions (cont.) 

Element/ Parameter Area ID Management Action CommGeomorphology Backwater Depth Backwater Areas 21 Hydraulic dredging 

22 Mechanical dredging 23 Consolidate sediment Drawdowns to consolidate sediment goal or 24 Divert Improve flow to increase backwater scour 

Comments/ Additions: 

Increase meander scour through placement of hard structures - for low flow depth diversity (modify geometry) 

Water Level Main Channel 25Pool scale drawdown Comments/ Additions: Hydrographic smoothing (system wide) by dam operation 

Backwater Areas 26Pool scale drawdown 

27 Drawdown management units 28 Drawdown isolated backwaters 29 Isolate and drawdown contiguous backwaters 30Temporarily isolate and drawdown contiguous backwaters 

Disagretemporperman

Comments/ Additions: Smooth hydrograph by regulatory Connectivity Floodplain 31

Acquire real estate rights, restore water to leveed floodplain areas via surface and subsurface connectivity 

32 Reconfigure, restore flow to secondary channels 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table F1. Management Actions (cont.) 

Element/ Parameter Area ID Management Action Comm

Geomorphology (cont)  Connectivity (cont.) 33 Restore flow to isolated backwater areas 

Needs connecapprop

34 Create habitat corridors for floodplain terrestrial wildlife 35 Restore natural tributary channels through delta areas 36 Notch levees or maintain levees 37Set back levees 38 Increase water levels Help w39 Increase terrestrial area 

Comments/ Additions: Island protection Main Channel Protect Islands, especially in main channel Geomorphology (cont) Secondary Channels 40 Notch closures Connectivity (cont) 41 Divert or improve flow 

42 Increase water levels depth Help w43 Dredge secondary channels 44 Modify, maintain, or remove levees 

Comments/ Additions: Maintain current and historic backwater mouths 

Longitudinal 45Build fishways 

Only doat this t

46 Modify gate operations 47 Modify lock operations Cycle lo48 Remove tributary dams 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table F1. Management Actions (cont.) 

Element/ Parameter Area ID Management Action Comm

Pattern of Habitats Aquatic areas 49

Introduce flow to isolated backwater areas (dissolved oxygen, 

temperature) Connec

50 Restore flow to secondary channels 51

Restore surface and subsurface flow to floodplain areas isolated by levees 

52 Restore natural tributary channels through delta areas Add to 53 Divert more tributary delta flow into open impounded areas 54 Create rock and gravel substrate areas 55 Create shallow rock and gravel riffle areas 56 Incorporate woody debris into bank protection Water c57 Incorporate woody debris into 2° and small channels 58

Restore flow and geometry of secondary channels (dissolved oxygen, temperature) 

59 Modify flow distribution from dam gates - tailwater habitat 60Grading, vegetation planting 61 Rock groins, hard points 62Anchored woody debris 63Off-shore rock revetments 64Submerged rock vanes 65 Notch wing dams to create hydraulic, depth diversity 66

Notch closing dams to increase side channel flow (dissolved oxygen, temperature) 

67

Construct temporary structures to divert flow (dissolved oxygen, temperature) 

68 Use larger rock, make bank revetments irregular 69 Incorporate woody debris into channel structures 70 Construct hard points, groins for shoreline stabilization 71 Construct off-shore revetments 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table F1. Management Actions (cont.) 

Element/ Parameter Area ID Management Action Comm

Pattern of Habitats  Aquatic areas cont. 72 Construct seed islands 

73 Construct bendway weirs 74 Construct chevrons 75 Modify flow splits between main and off-channel areas 76 Dredge backwater areas, increase depth 77 Dredging to restore and create secondary channels 78Shore pipe, boosters to reach target sites 79 Use small dredges to expand placement options 80Bend width reductions where possible 

Comments/ Additions: Upland dredged material placement for beneficial use 

Behind levee dredged material placement Maintain selected agricultural levees for wetland management Protect and restore, mussel beds and increase diversity Restore native submersed and emergent communities 

Terrestrial 81Place dredged material to create wetland areas 

82

Placement on existing, construct new beaches for shore and wading birds 

83Semi-confined channel placement (chevrons) 84 Unconfined placement in floodplain (for mast trees) 

85 Unconfined placement in floodplain 

86 Maintain beaches 87 Island construction 88 On floodplain to raise areas for mast-producing trees 89 Confined placement in floodplain 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table F1. Management Actions (cont.) 

90 Construct hard point in floodplain for ephemeral pools Propos

Element/ Parameter Area ID Management Action CommPattern of Habitats 91 Construct islands in impounded areas and backwaters Terrestrial cont. 92 Seed islands 

93 Chevron islands 94 Rock islands 95 Islands with varied top elevation, fine material 96 Low islands - mud flats and sand bars 

Comments/ Additions: Behind levee dredged material placement for crop fields 

Behind levee dredged material placement for beneficial use Stabilize eroding ravines UMR-wide BMP practices that apply Control selected native and exotic species Promote diverse moist soil vegetation 

Land Cover/Use 97 Modify and manage habitats on refuges (see habitat below) 

98 Manage vegetation cover 99 Manage water levels 

100 Modify habitat structure in floodplain and backwaters 101Plant vegetation on dredged material deposits 102Plant floodplain trees (mast trees) 103 Harvest floodplain trees TSI/TS104Plant floodplain prairie 105Burn floodplain prairie 106 Control invasive exotic species 107Place dredged material to create wetland areas 108

Unconfined dredged material placement in Raise floodplain 

elevation (for mast trees) 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table F1. Management Actions (cont.) 

109Growing season drawdowns 

Element/ Parameter Area ID Management Action CommPlants and Animals Fish 110Adjust angling, commercial fishing regulations as needed 

111 Modify angler attitudes about exploitation 112Enforce fishing regulations 113Stock fish 

Comments/ Additions: 

Conduct biomanipulation of fish and wildlife community (various actions) Reintroduce/maintain native fish species stocks Modify dredging activities for invertebrate habitat Reconnect fish species to habitat to restore life cycles Control exotic species Promote commercial utilization of appropriate species 

114

Conduct biomanipulation of fish and wildlife community (various actions) 

115Adjust hunting and trapping regulations as needed 116 Modify hunter attitudes about exploitation 117Enforce hunting regulations 118 Reintroduce native species 

Comments/ Additions: 

Promote habitat for water bird species and other wetland wildlife 

Wildlife 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table F1. Management Actions (cont.) 

Element/ Parameter Area ID Management Action CommPlants and Animals Exotics 119Formulate control of invasive exotic species 

120 Construct, operate, maintain barrier on Illinois River 121

 Require antibiotic treatment of Great Lakes freighter ballast water 

122 Regulate use of exotic species for fishing bait 123 Regulate biota transfer by fishing boats 124 Apply species-specific toxicants and biological controls 125 Kill zebra mussels on vessels in lock chambers Is this r126 Restrict and enforce use of exotic species in aquaculture 

Comments/ Additions: Barge cleaning stations (hulls for zebra mussels) 

Public awareness for catch and DO NOT release program 

Plants and Animals 127

Protect, increase populations of threatened, endangered species 

T&E

Increase, restore, and maintain suitable habitat for T&E species 

Comments/ Additions: Reintroductions based on historic records 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Table F1. Management Actions (cont.) 

Element/ Parameter Area ID Management Action CommBest Management Practices All Modify habitat (see below) 

128BMPs 129 Conservation tillage 130 Contour farming, terraces 131 Grassed waterways 132 Establish perennial cover, crops 133 Stabilize eroding ravines 134 Conservation Reserve Program land set-aside 135 Erosion control structures along intermittent streams 136 Construct, maintain small impoundments 137 Restore drained lakes, wetland areas 138 Riparian buffer strips 139 Restore stream channels, floodplain areas 140 Urban stormwater management practices 141 Construction site erosion prevention practices 142 Increase pervious surface in developed areas 

Comments/ Additions: 

Employ USDA and IDA set-aside programs such as CREP, WRP, etc Land acquisitions or easements Watershed groups Livestock management  Promote more diverse crop rotations 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 
Plenary Report

The plenary comments are taken directly from the plenary report and only include 

discussion specifically related to management. The entire plenary report can be found in 

Appendix E. 

Water Quality MC 

Management action in addressing water quality regulations (3) 

Water Quality BW 

#13 needs to be cleared up. How much isolation? This is something that needs a Target 

range. (each group spent about 30 min on this). Group 2 – No net loss of existing 

contiguous backwater. For #20, needs a target range or remove. 

There is a concern that temporary isolation would lead to permanent isolation. Duck 

hunters would prefer to keep the low-level “temporary” levees in place like they are now. 

Also there’s concern that current temporary may NOT lead to permanent LOW LEVEL 

isolation. 

Geomorphology BWD, BWA 

Slight discussion of consolidated sediments. Consolidation is the result. Management 

Action is a draw down. Need to qualify “for consolidation of sediments” 

Geomorph, Connect, Floodplain 

Want clarification of #38, #42. Almost have to raise pool to raise floodplains. Then you 

might raise ground water levels. Maybe increase depth. Really more of an objective than 

an action. 

Patterns of Habitats Landcover/use 

#107, #108 Use material (e.g. Dredged material). This way you aren’t limiting to only 

dredged material. 

Working Group Reports 

The Working Group reports below were prepared by the recorder in each group as a 

record of the discussion. Working group reports are not inclusive of all of the work. 

Much of the groups’ data generation was done on master worksheets and maps and 

compiled for production in a formal report for the Upper Mississippi River – Illinois 

Waterway Navigation Feasibility Study. 

GROUP 1

Participants --- Ross Adams, Steve Havera, Michael Cochran, Rob Davinroy, Eric Laux, 

Mike Cox , Bob Clevenstine, Stan Ebersohl, Tim Kelley, Jon Kauffeld – Recorder 

Bottom end of Illinois River, Alton Pool – Pool 26

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

F-12
Pool Wide objective on lower river to target agricultural levees to improve floodplain 

surface and subsurface connectivity to river. In nearly all of the drainage district areas 

that we would recommend restoration, there are potentials to setback levees, remove 

levees to allow floodplain and channel connectivity, and to keep portions of levees in 

place to maintain high quality wetland habitat. Nearly all of these restorations will be 

governed by existing land topography and floodplain elevation in relation to river 

elevation and 10 year flood elevations. We would recommend 1 foot or less contours be 

mapped for each restoration project and analyzed before detailed restoration plans are 

designed. 

The dramatic fluctuations of river flows on the Illinois River (spikes in the hydrograph) is 

a unique problem to this river. Most of this problem is probably attributable to the City 

of Chicago and the addition of 40% of river flows coming from Lake Michigan. Special 

and unique management actions need to be taken to address this issue. Possible solutions 

are off-stream regulation reservoirs, greater dam control, or other regulatory controls on 

the City of Chicago Metropolitan Water Reclamation District. 

Some discussion on temporary and or/permanent isolation and drawdown of contiguous 

backwaters. Concern from fishery habitat people that this management action potentially 

reduces fish habitat availability. Perhaps some cumulative analysis of all these actions 

occurring in the system should be made so that from a system wide perspective 

significant fish migration, spawning, or population productivity is not impacted. Some 

target range of the % of the system, or some minimum level of connectivity on the 

system that is not compromised would be worth developing. 

Fish passage, only below Kankakee confluence to not compromise exotic species 

management objectives. 

Reintroduce and maintain native fish 

Assist commercial fishery by helping to establish/develop market uses or markets for big 

head, silver, Asian carp that currently do not exist or need help jump starting. 

Consider other mussels, invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles and war-blooded vertebrates 

dependent on floodplain and wetland habitats. in system wide habitat management. 

Trash removal is a management action that can be added 

Fish species to target management for: 

Sturgeon 

Smallmouth bass 

Carps 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

F-13
Important Ecological Concepts – Many of the fish species on the Mississippi and Illinois 

Rivers have a survival strategy of being able to harvest increased energy levels as a result 

of flooding. This increase of energy and area is turned into increased productivity in 

terms of greater production, greater growth. The use of this increase results in a long 

term population survival strategy. We have disrupted this by leveeing off the floodplain. 

The Illinois River is a mojor migration corridor for may waterbird and neotropical 

migrants in both spring and fall. Quality wetland habitats for feeding, resting and 

mesting are necessary throughout the floodplain to satisfy their life cycle requirements. 

Perhaps transects which would measure shallow backwater habitats, river channel 

acreage, deep backwater habitats, emergents, grassland, forests, etc in the floodplain 

along with a sampling of relative abundance of fish, amphibian species, avifauna and 

other wil is the best that can be measured on a system wide basis. 

GROUP 2

Participants --- David Ahrens, Wayne Herndon, John Marlin, Matt O’Hara, Mike Schwar, 

Randy Timmons, Mike Zerbonia, (w/Ross Adams), Byron Paulsen, Dan Sallee 

Some patterns of habitat (backwater scour, seed islands, chevrons, rock islands) more 

applicable to Mississippi than Illinois 

Sediment traps from tributary areas important WQ need 

Increase channel depth to reduce resuspension – esp important during low water – debate 

priority 

Reduce resuspended sediment in barge fleeting areas, speed and wake restrictions for all 

watercraft? 

Do we want to isolate any more contiguous IL River backwater areas, even for habitat 

improvements? – some may see it as an effective way to restore habitat but others feel 

that more than enough of the floodplain has already been isolated (no net loss of 

contiguous backwaters)– dredging may be preferred to isolation 

Question whether temporary isolation would really be temporary – maintaining 

connectivity important in all seasons. 

Debate relative benefits of isolation vs. maintaining connectivities 

Increasing depth often more effective for WQ than drawdown (drawdowns - unsuccessful 

drawdowns, nutrient release, water heated, DO?) 

Reducing algal production not a major issue in IL River backwaters 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

F-14
Limited management alternatives for water level except drawdown 

Include maintenance of selected agricultural levees for habitat purposes 

Mussel beds likely to be affected by many of these management actions 

Do not want to focus on dredge placement as only means to manage these areas – other 

ways to raise ground level, create wetlands 

Where does easement acquisition etc. fit in? 

GROUP 3

Participants --- Mark Beorkrem, Julianna Cruz, JimSlowikiwski, Bill Graham, Charlene 

Carmack, Todd Bitner, Brad Thompson

Water Quality: (Main Ch.) 

Require entire river (IL and other reaches) to meet general use WQ standards 

Add water quality as a separate parameter, not just water clarity 

Define all parameters of WQ standards (ER 1110-2-8154) 

Speed and wake restrictions on all tow boats 

Pollution control of all phases (e.g. solids, liquids and gases) 

(Backwaters) 

Add water quality as a separate parameter, not just water clarity 

Define all parameters of WQ standards (ER 1110-2-8154) 

Pollution control of all phases (e.g. solids, liquids and gases) 

#13: Some feel this should be removed and some do not 

#20: Eliminate this action (not known to be a problem on Il reach) 

Geomorphology: Backwater Depth (Backwaters) 

#23: Unclear whether this is a goal or outcome rather than an action 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

F-15
(Longitudinal)

#24: Change “divert” to “improve” 

Add action: Island Protection – Protect islands, especially in main channel 

Water Level: (Backwaters)

#29: There is disagreement amongst the group of what constitutes temporary vs. 

permanent. 

Connectivity: (Floodplain)

(Secondary Channel)

#41: Reword to “Divert and/or Improve Flows” 

#47: Reword to “Cycle lock operations for fish passage”. 

Pattern of Habitats: (Terrestrial)

#86: Change to “Maintain beaches”. 

#96: Reword to “Low islands and sand bars” 

(Land Cover/Use)

#103: Change to “Timber stand management”. 

Plants and Animals (Fish)

#111: Sp. “Exploitation” 

(Exotics)

#119: Reword to “Formulate controls of invasive exotic species”. 

#125: Comment – is this really practical without any other adverse impacts to the 

ecosystem 

Add action: Public awareness for a ‘catch and do not release’ program for invasive 

exotics 

(TE)

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

F-16
Add action: Increase habitat specific for TE species 

#128: Reword to “BMPs- Control livestock access to waterways” 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

F-17
Appendix G. Species and Population Parameters 

Purpose: 

 To identify plant and animal species and appropriate units of measure that should be 

considered for future environmental objectives planning efforts. 

Background: 

Recent environmental planning efforts for the Environmental Management Program and 

other Upper Mississippi River System restoration and maintenance programs have 

focused on habitats and the impacts of Corps activities on habitats. It has been 

recognized that planning needs to be expanded to include additional functional and 

structural ecosystem elements. 

During the planning stages of this workshop, organizers were considering objectives for 

plant and animal species and quickly encountered difficulty in selecting guilds, species, 

or units of measure for plants and animals. Emergent and submersed aquatic plants, 

diving ducks, and dabbling ducks were eventually selected based on the perception that 

knowledgeable resource managers could interpret the units of measure selected. It was 

determined that stem density was a relatively standard unit of measure for aquatic plants 

and that use-days during migration periods were relatively standard measures of 

waterfowl abundance. 

Specific objectives for fish were desired, but the selection of guilds, or species, or units of 

measure quickly complicated the issue. It was decided therefore to back-off on the 

specifics for fish objectives and only indicate that there is an objective for several general 

categories of fish determined during earlier phases of the Navigation Study: protected, 

sport, commercial, forage, and exotic fishes in channel and backwater habitats. The unit 

of measure became particularly complicated because of our desire to establish 

quantitative objectives, but our general inability, or lack of commitment, to conduct fish 

community stock assessments. Discussion of the unit of measure is particularly 

important because of our need for measurable objectives and our selection of evaluation 

tools. 

These issues were discussed during a plenary session at the workshop, with the results to 

be forwarded to an expert panel. A focus group of workshop participants will continue 

work with the expert panel to refine fisheries objectives. The larger list of species such 

as reptiles, amphibians, other birds, and mammals will be considered during future 

phases of the adaptive management and assessment process recommended in the 

Navigation Study Interim Report. 

Results: 

 A participant from the Illinois DNR responded to the question of whether it was 

necessary to estimate the total abundance of fish in the Illinois River. The simple answer 

was no, but it was explained in more detail several reasons why such efforts are not 

practical. First, total population abundance estimates require a very considerable amount 

of sampling effort and, for some rare species, total population size may be impossible to 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

G-1
estimate. Even when population estimates are made the margin of error may be so wide 

that the estimate is nearly meaningless. 

A better method to measure population response to environmental change is to sample 

specific habitats with the same proportional effort year after year (i.e., trend sampling) to 

detect population change in response to environmental change. The Long Term 

Electrofishing Surveys on the Illinois River have demonstrated the effectiveness of this 

approach to detect change. Another indicator of ecological improvements is the vigor of 

the fishing tournaments. Fishing tournaments did not occur during the period that the 

Illinois River fishery was degraded, but they have become much more popular recently 

since the fishery has improved. Bassmasters tournaments have been held in Peoria and 

Alton pools and local tournaments are becoming more common nearly everywhere. The 

catch of walleye and sauger exceeds that of Lake Erie which is widely renowned as one 

of the best fisheries. 

Another problem encountered in estimating river fish populations is their mobility among 

habitats. Fish may concentrate in certain places during different parts of the day or year. 

During daytime, fish may be sheltered in structure along channel borders. During 

nighttime, however, the same fish may move out into open water areas. Sampling one 

habitat during one part of the day only will miss some fish. Sampling both habitats 

during different times of day may double count the fish. These factors are other reasons 

total population estimates are difficult to make with confidence. 

Another IL DNR employee suggested that fish condition is another characteristic that 

might be measured. He explained how the fitness of fish has changed in response to 

environmental conditions. The combination of fitness and year class size together could 

provide another view of the condition of the river fishery. 

Another participant suggested that local population estimates over many river reaches 

could serve as surrogates for river-wide estimates. Results from specific channel reaches, 

backwaters, or project areas could be extrapolated. 

A US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) participant asked why we need precise 

population estimates. Theiling responded that USACE Division and Headquarters 

reviewers are looking for quantitative estimates of the benefits of restoration projects. 

Various habitat evaluation methodologies that estimate habitat units have traditionally 

been used. The thought is that firm quantitative estimates of population changes may 

provide stronger justification for restoration measures. Another participant suggested the 

annual discreet measurements of relative abundance may be suitable. Theiling suggested 

that quantitative measures of abundance may provide a better demonstration and 

valuation of restoration project responses. A second person from USACE indicated that 

the operations branch of the Corps is looking for justification to spend more money on 

large rock preferred as fish habitat by biologists. It was thought that an increased number 

of fish using large rock crevices would provide that justification. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

G-2
A participant suggested that creel surveys may be a valuable tool because they would 

evaluate the users response to restoration. While recognized as a viable tool, creel 

surveys are very expensive and would likely miss many of the nighttime fishers, which 

may in fact be a large portion of the recreational fishers. 

Someone from the US Fish and Wildlife Service was asked his opinion as a wildlife 

biologist, he thought bird use of specific areas may be used to estimate forage fish 

resources. 

Plenary Report

The plenary comments are taken directly from the plenary report and only include 

discussion specifically related to management. The entire plenary report can be found in 

Appendix E. 

Species Plenary Session (2:00 –2:45)

Look at survival strategy. If you tie this back to an ecologically sustainable system it is 

important to look at survival strategies of animals. Species of Fish on large river system 

– part of their strategy when it floods is to migrate out into the temporary expansion of 

habitat. Fish exploit expansion of habitat and turn that into a peak of production. For 

species that can do this they have a significant increase in biomass the next year. By 

levying off the floodplain we have limited that process. Another example with mammal 

(swamp rabbit) – Historically flood plain animal. They are gone now because when it 

floods the little bit of habitat they have gets flood because inward side of levee is bare 

and because of agriculture and they have no escape habitat so they have been eliminated. 

We need to consider allowing animals to move in and out of floodplain. None of these 

measurements really allow us to address this. 

Theiling – I appreciate these comments, but how do we measure this? 

You cannot sample large river systems with the precision necessary to answer the 

questions you are asking. You need to sample habitat types in a pool with the same 

proportional effort as you have habitat types. Get a relative change from year to year. 

This is still subjective due to staff and equipment. You can get stuff on a relative basis, 

but not any precision. “The river is continually improving”. Fishing tournaments on the 

Illinois are becoming world class. The only reason they are here is because the fish are 

here. (who studied)Spring Valley to Starved Rock Lock and Dam estimated 1mill fish. 

Confidence limits were really high. 

Theiling -If money and equipment weren’t an issue would a full survey of the 

populations be worth doing? 

No 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

G-3
Saugers Example – Originally stocked fish were 75%-85% of tournament young of the 

year. Now they are 1% of tournament. 

Theiling – Stoddard Bay – Jeff Janvrin – Catch per unit effort of Blue gill was 

phenomenal. Is it important to differentiate between river wide vs. habitat restoration? 

Depends on where – Backwater area – hard to quantify success. It is hard to determine 

cause and effect. However, go to hunting area (where ingress and egress are limited) and 

data from .5 ft – 6ft. may be valuable. So where there is no or limited connectivity this 

type of data may be valuable. 

Theiling –So, in an open system – it doesn’t matter how you sample because results are 

foggy and in a closed system doesn’t matter how as long as it is sampled some before and 

after. In an open system you can get general trends. 

Lots have to do with general conditions in any year, time, and place. 

Diversity – Not applicable to the large river system. 

LTRM can give some year class strength. This might be another indices. 

You need to look carefully at species you select. Consider well-being (proportion of 

length vs. weight) of the fish, year class strength. OR Get good trend information by 

looking at YCS (year class strength) by looking at well being (mass/length) by YC and 

by species. Give good idea of health of population over river. 

Theiling – Is there any usefulness in having different measurements for different guilds? 

Right now we use only one set because there isn’t anything else. 

Is it possible, instead of trying to come up with pool/reach number, to make targets for 

specific projects? Can you use local indices of improvement to evaluate management 

actions rather than extrapolation to the whole river? 

Why do we need precise numbers? 

For benefit/cost analysis. 

We can’t do this 

Theiling – Washington has asked us to do that. How many bass will be grown in Swan 

lake, how many will be caught and how does that relate to the number of minnows and 

licenses bought for fishing. 

Discreet measurements of habitat that are updated yearly. Combine with relative 

abundance survey to get long-term trends. Take series of transects to measure habitat 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

G-4
values that could go back to year after year to see how management affects habitat, 

abundance, diversity, biomass. 

Theiling – The problems is response times. What Mike talked about with Suagers came 

at the costs of Billions of dollars in waste treatment facilities. You have to “take it on 

faith”. The cost of measuring a decrease in sediment load will be very high yet the 

changes will be very slow. Need to wait to see benefits. 

Do you want to spend lots of money to document this or just take it on faith? 

When we create a borrow hole can you make estimates of how many fish use it? If create 

a habitat asset can you give an estimate of how many fish it can support? EG – How 

many more fish could over winter in the reconnected backwater? 

Yes 

Creel Surveys- Daytime is very difficult. Night fisherman is hard. 

Ask people, do survey of fishermen. If we do this, ask where will you be staying, and 

how long. In this way you could get a very intensive Creel survey. 

A very intensive Creel survey was done on ILWW. 

The units need to be run past a biologist and an ecologist. They have different views to 

look at things. 

For forage fish, maybe use birds as an index. 

Rock Island District used larger rocks this year at an additional $4/ton. Now we are 

requiring a fishery biologist to say how many more fish are in the larger crevices and will 

it be cost effective. Concrete cost/benefit. We have to remember to focus on trend 

analysis and not get caught up on statistical sampling. Agree to make a whole bunch of 

assumptions, put a $ on it and move on. 

That is what we are continuously doing on EMP. Most recently Habitat Units (HU) 

(relationship between quality and quantity). 

Diesel engine example. New engine was being created when there was a low demand for 

it. But then once it was created the demand was there. OR Bean counters want to see 

you go through some process to arrive at your numbers. In a few years the assumptions 

will change. You’ve got to figure out a way that is reasonable and logical. You may not 

use it, but when conditions are right you may use it. 

As long as you have the narrative, even if it isn’t statistically sound. 

Just go through the process. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

G-5
Theiling – People are looking for the navigation study to break new ground to put dollars 

on this. 

You can have your numbers but they will have to be based on subjective data. Otherwise 

you will study yourself to death. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

G-6
Appendix H. Conceptual Model Presentation 

The overall purpose of a conceptual model developed for the UMR-IWW Navigation 

Study is to identify the linkages and sequencing of identified objectives and associated 

management actions and facilitate a comprehensive assessment of the potential risks and 

impacts posed by improvements to the navigation infrastructure. The conceptual model 

can contribute to the overall purpose through the following: 

• Visually characterize a complex system to better understand and manage it 

• Identify the major drivers, stressors, and endpoints of the system 

• Define the functional relationships (i.e., linkages) between stressors and endpoints 

• Assist in decisions on impact assessment, restoration and management actions, 

and evaluation tools 

• Provide a framework for implementing adaptive management and restoration 

• Develop a structure for additional input from stakeholders 

The following slides were used at each of the workshops to present information on the 

current draft conceptual model. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

H-1
UMR-IWW Ecosystem 

Conceptual Models

• Background

– Conceptual models help to gain a better 

understanding of the linkages between:

• Environmental Objectives

• Management Actions

• State of the Ecosystem

• Task

– Discuss the utility of developing a UMRIWW ecosystem conceptual model

Purposes of a Conceptual 

Model for the UMR-IWW

• To visually present a complex system

• Creates a framework for additional input

• Provides a basis for decision making in 

relation to the achievement of objectives 

• Develops a structure for implementing 

adaptive management and restoration

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

H-2
Geomorphology Habitat Biota

Water Quality

and Sediment

Composition

Wildlife Unionid

Mussels

Submerged

Aquatic

Vegetation

Keystone

Species

Threatened

Endangered

Species

Fish Wetlands

& FP

Sed & Water

Quality

Backwater

Sediment 

Accum

Fish

Spawning 

Habitat

Land & Water Use

Altered 

Hydrology

Climate

Change Sediments Nutrients Contaminants Fragmentation

Invasive 

Species Harvesting Rec. Use Natural Disturb

Altern

Transport

Land and Water Use 

Emergent 

Vegetation

X% increase

0.5 m 

Drawdown

Habitat

Altered 

Hydrology

Larger scale stressor

Specific stressor

Management Action

General ecological effect

Specific effect

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

H-3
MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION

INFORMATION

ASSESSMENT PLANNING

ADAPTIVE

MANAGEMENT

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

H-4
Appendix I. Power Point Presentations 

This section contains the power point slides used to present background and introductory 

information throughout the workshops. They are given in the order they were presented 

on the agenda. 

The Power Point Presentations will be included in the final 

version of the printed workshop reports. You can download 

them by going to the following FTP site 

ftp://ftp.usace.army.mil/Incoming/MVR/NavStudy/.

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshop 

Peoria, November 2002, DRAFT REPORT 

I-1
Appendix J. Acronyms 

AHAG Aquatic Habitat Appraisal Guide 

CAP Continuing Authorities Programs 

CBSG Conservation Breeding Specialist Group 

CCP Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CERC Columbia Environmental Research Center 

CRP Conservation Reserve Program 

DNR Department of Natural Resources 

ECC Economic Coordinating Committee 

EMP Environmental Management Program 

ERDC Engineer Research and Development Center 

FWIC Fish and Wildlife Interagency Committee 

GIS Geographic Information System 

GLC Governors’ Liaison Committee 

HEP Habitat Evaluation Procedures 

HNA Habitat Needs Assessment 

HREP Habitat Rehabilitation and Enhancement Project 

IADNR Iowa Department of Natural Resources 

IBI Index of Biotic Integrity 

IDWR Illinois Department of Water Resources 

ILDNR Illinois Department of Natural Resources 

INHS Illinois Natural History Survey 

ISWS Illinois State Water Survey 

IWL Izzac Walton League 

IWW Illinois Waterway System 

LTRMP Long Term Resource Monitoring Program 

MARC Midwest Area Rivers Coalition 

MNDNR Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 

MODNR Missouri Department of Natural Resources 

MODOC Missouri Department of Conservation 

MRBA Mississippi River Basin Alliance 

MVR Rock Island District 

NECC Navigation Environmental Coordination Committee 

NGO Non-Governmental Organization 

O&M Operation and Maintenance 

SIU Southern Illinois University 

SMART Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Results-oriented, and Time-specific 

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load 

TNC The Nature Conservancy 

UMESC Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center 

UMIMRA Upper Mississippi, Illinois and Missouri Rivers Association 

UMR Upper Mississippi River 

UMRCC Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee 

UMR-IWW Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway System 

UMRS Upper Mississippi River System 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops 

DRAFT REPORT

J-1
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation 

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

WHAG Wildlife Habitat Appraisal Guide 

WIDNR Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 

WRDA Water Resources Development Act 

WRP Wetland Reserve Program 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops 

DRAFT REPORT

J-2
Appendix K. Workshop Glossary 

Adaptive Management – A process that seeks to use management intervention and 

assessment as tools to strategically manipulate and understand the functioning of an 

ecosystem to better manage it. 

Conceptual Model – Identifies components of interest in a complex system and defines 

functional interrelations among the components based on current knowledge and 

understanding of the system. 

Ecosystem Attributes – The structural and functional elements of an ecosystem (e.g. 

plants, animals, soil, sediment, water quality, etc...). 

Elements – Large-scale components of an ecosystem. 

Endpoints – A measurable desired state or condition: the acceptable condition. 

Environmental Objectives – Component specific, quantitative, local to regional scale (e.g. 

increase average depth of a backwater to 3 feet). 

Evaluation Tools – Conceptual or predictive models or field methods used to evaluate 

how well management actions address environmental objectives. 

Functional Ecosystem Elements – Physical and chemical processes that form the 

structural template or influence the occurrence or rate of biological functions. 

Goals – A desired future state (broad/ non specific). A broad description of some desired 

future state or condition (e.g. naturalize hydrologic regime). 

Management Actions – Regulatory, operational or structural tools or activities that can be 

implemented to positively address the environmental objectives (e.g. hydraulically 

dredged backwater area). 

Objective Standardization – Collecting and organizing objectives in a uniform and 

hierarchically structured system-wide database.

Predictive model – Assembles existing data of a complex system and determines possible 

outputs based upon specific inputs and verified interrelations among the components.

Standardization – Collecting and organizing objectives into a uniform format by 

recognizing commonalities (e.g. text description, GIS database). 

Structural Ecosystem Elements – Composition, distribution and relative abundance of 

habitat, plants and animals. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops 

DRAFT REPORT

K-1
Sustainable Alternative Plans – Combinations of management measures or actions that 

balance economic, ecological, and social conditions so as to meet the current, projected, 

and future needs of the UMR-IWW without compromising the ability of future 

generations to meet their needs.

Vision – The statement: “To seek long-term sustainability of the economic uses and 

ecological integrity of the Upper Mississippi River System” was developed by members 

of the NECC and ECC. 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study 

Environmental Objectives Planning Workshops 

DRAFT REPORT

K-2