It was standing room only with very few fishermen present. Most were pleasure craft owners.
They rolled out a new map showing how they would dredge the area for their equipment to access the areas they were going to work on.
One of the routes went right through Katrina (Catherine Pass). A number of folks complained that in the summer months they can’t get through Katrina as it’s filled in.
One suggestion (from the public) that I thought was valid, was to close off 5th cut that would keep the main channel sediments out of the bay areas. Seemed good to me more so because the maps they were using was showing how the sedimentation was flowing. They used aerial photos from high water events that had a TON of sediments.
Rylee Main answered that question about what would happen if we did nothing. Using the suspended loads they have record of, the Lake would be filled in in around 350 years.
These folks are good at answering pointed questions without giving an answer. OR I can’t ask the question correctly.
OK, they are planning on completing this project to keep the head of the lake from filling in with sediments. After the work is completed the sediments that would normally settle out at the head of the lake will be going further down stream (yes creating a problem down further).
What’s to stop the Corp from starting another project further up stream to accomplish similar results in this upstream area? Will the additional sediment load will end up in this project area and negate any improvements made?
Not going to happen?
Three years ago the WI DNR wanted to close off 3 cuts on Pool #3 because 60% of the sediment going into North Lake was coming from them. By closing them, that 80% (this number changes depending on whom your speaking with) would then be headed to the head of the lake to be filtered out. Luckily, the MN DNR wouldn’t sign off on the projects and it was abandoned.
Personally, I believe that all money and political resources should be spent working on the Minnesota River. Since the Corp, by law can only work in areas where there is a 9′ navigational channel, there isn’t any funding or legal means to tackle that elephant.
What this is all about…
Continuing Authorities Program: Beneficial Use of Dredged Material, Section 204, Upper Pool 4 – Lake Pepin
Posted 9/16/2016
Updated March 2018
Location/Description
The project area is located near the head of Lake Pepin in Upper Pool 4 of the Mississippi River. The proposed project area would be located between river mile 780 and 792 in the backwater complexes adjacent to the main channel.
Lake Pepin extends about 22 miles in length from the delta of the Chippewa River to approximately river mile 787, which is about 3 miles downstream of Red Wing, MN. Upper Lake Pepin consists of channel border islands and backwater lakes grading into an expansive, shallow open water area with little physical structure.
Sedimentation and sediment resuspension caused a loss in water depth diversity of the backwater lakes and isolated wetlands above Lake Pepin as well as a loss in aquatic vegetation. Concerns over habitat deficiencies in Upper Pool 4 include reduced habitat diversity and quality, lack of aquatic vegetation and invertebrates, and reduced abundance of fish and wildlife.
Status
The Lake Pepin Legacy Alliance requested a study in December 2015. In April 2016 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District received $50,000 to initiate a feasibility study. A federal interest determination was completed in June 2016 and was approved in August 2016. A feasibility study was initiated in fiscal year 2017 and will be completed in fiscal year 2019.
The project will utilize dredged material from Pool 4 to improve the ecosystem at the head of Lake Pepin. In this Section 204 project, the operations and maintenance program (100 percent federal) will pay up to the cost of typical dredged material disposal; remaining costs are funded through the Section 204 program. Potential alternatives may include the construction of new islands of various sizes, dredging and improving adjacent floodplain forest that would create a range of habitat types for fish and wildlife.
Authority
Section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992, as amended.
Fiscal
The federal interest determination and feasibility study will be prepared at full federal expense. If it is determined the project is feasible, the design and implementation phase of the project will be cost shared at 65 percent federal and 35 percent non-federal for the costs above the operations and maintenance program, with a total federal maximum contribution not to exceed $10 million.
Federal funds allocated to date: $300,000.
