great lakes fishery commission 2008 project completion ... · the great lakes is a major problem....

GREAT LAKES FISHERY COMMISSION

2008 Project Completion Report1

PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY OF ECOLOGICAL

SEPARATION OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND THE

GREAT LAKES TO PREVENT THE TRANSFER OF

AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES

by:

Joel Brammeier

2, Irwin Polls

3, Scudder Mackey

4

November 2008

1 Project completion reports of Commission-sponsored research are made available to the Commission’s Cooperators in the interest of rapid dissemination of information that may be useful in Great Lakes fishery management, research, or administration. The reader should be aware that project completion reports have not been through a peer-review process and that sponsorship of the project by the Commission does not necessarily imply that the findings or conclusions are endorsed by the Commission. Do not cite findings without permission of the author. 2 Alliance for the Great Lakes, 17 N. State Street, Chicago, IL 60602 3 Ecological Monitoring and Assessment, 3206 Mapleleaf Drive, Glenview, IL 60026 4 Habitat Solutions, 37045 N. Ganster Road, Beach Park, IL 60087

i

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements

Executive Summary

Introduction

Chapter 1: Chicago Area Waterway System Summary

Study Area

History Uses

Ownership Physical Habitat Hydrology Water Quality Biological Communities Navigation

Chapter 2: Stakeholder Input

Chapter 3: Separation Technologies

Chapter 4: Separation Scenarios

Chapter 5: Implementation

Chapter 6: Recommendations

Literature Cited

i

ii

1

3

3 7 12 12 13 17 30 40 50

62

74

83

93

98

101

i

Acknowledgements

The team is indebted to many people who provided hydrology, physical habitat, water

quality, benthic invertebrate, and fish data for this report: James Casey, Sam Dennison, Jim

Dunker, Dan Injerd, Dale McDonald, Sergio Serafino, Mike Sopcak, Tzuoh-Ying Su, and

Jennifer Wasik. We are extremely grateful to Dick Lanyon for informal discussions on the

Chicago and Calumet Waterways. Special thanks to Rich Anderson, Susanne Davis, Steve Davis,

Alex DaSilva, and Scott Morlock for helping the team understand the direction of flow in the

Grand Calumet and Little Calumet Rivers in Indiana. Many thanks to Greg Seegert for assisting

with selecting the fish metrics.

Thank you to all who were willing to take several hours out of your busy day to

participate in an interview for this project and provide content. We appreciate comments on drafts

of parts of this work from Cameron Davis, Marc Gaden, Dan Injerd, Phil Moy, Dick Lanyon and

Lindsay Chadderton.

Significant portions of this work were completed under contract by Matt Cochran of

HDR Inc./FishPro, Thomas Daggett of Dagget Law Firm and Frank Lupi, Ph.D. Thank you to

Mike Poulakos for helping draft the figures and for graphic assistance.

This work was supported by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission and the Great Lakes

Fishery Trust. We are grateful for their financial support.

Finally, we particularly would like to recognize the many dedicated scientists and

managers in local and state environmental agencies who over the years have spent countless

hours in the field, in the laboratory and in the office working to monitor and protect the ecological

integrity of the Chicago and Calumet Waterways, the Mississippi River and the Great Lakes.

ii

Executive Summary

There is broad consensus that continuing introduction of new aquatic invasive species (AIS) into

the Great Lakes is a major problem. Leading scientists suggest that future invasions put the Great

Lakes at risk of “ecosystem breakdown” while prevention of new invasions is a top priority of the

2005 Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy. Canals connecting the Great Lakes basin to

other watersheds have served as an important pathway for these AIS introductions, second only to

ballast water discharges from ocean going ships. The Chicago Waterway System (CWS) has

already allowed several damaging AIS to move between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi

River Basin, including the zebra mussel and round goby.

The imminent threat of Asian carp reaching the Great Lakes and knowledge of the impacts of past

invasions creates a strong incentive to permanently protect both the Great Lakes and Mississippi

Basins from new invasive species. State and federal governments have invested wisely for the

short term by developing electric barriers that are effective against current invaders. But even if

the barriers operate as designed, they will not last forever, nor will they ever achieve guaranteed

100 percent effectiveness. With the passage of time – through human error, an accident, or a

natural disaster – the effectiveness of the barriers will be compromised.

The long-term approach to achieving protection is “ecological separation.” A true ecological

separation is defined as no inter-basin transfer of aquatic organisms via the Chicago Waterway

System at any time – 100% effectiveness. Ecological separation prohibits the movement or inter-

basin transfer of aquatic organisms between the Mississippi and Great Lakes basins via the CWS.

Once established, the impacts of invasive species on ecosystem health are permanent and

irreversible. Preventing the transfer and introduction of invasive species between the Mississippi

River and Great Lakes basins is the only long-term solution that will eliminate the risk of

irreversible ecosystem damage.

The CWS is a highly engineered and complex combination of natural rivers and artificial canals.

Much of the system has been channelized to facilitate its primary purpose as a treated wastewater

and stormwater conduit downstream from the city of Chicago. As a result of this and other human

activity, ecological values of the CWS such as habitat quality have been compromised. However,

the system functions as a thriving recreational network and maintains steady, if not growing,

traffic in commodity movements. Until recently, many users and stakeholders have assumed that

iii

the availability of regular connectivity and an accompanying threat of AIS movement between

the CWS and Lake Michigan was a foregone conclusion given twin demands for wastewater

management and navigation. A close look at system flows, navigation patterns and short- and

medium-term regulatory imperatives suggests otherwise. The need for direct diversions of Lake

Michigan water into the CWS is diminishing and navigation is confined in bulk to specific

portions of the system.

Stakeholders, with a few exceptions, are hospitable to the idea of ecological separation. Most

stakeholders have a firm understanding of the benefits provided to the city of Chicago and state of

Illinois by the CWS and understand the tremendous quality of life enhancements offered by the

system as it currently exists. Despite this, some view the permanent connection of the Mississippi

River and Great Lakes as a mistake with unforeseeable consequences that needs to be rectified.

Fortunately, existing planning and modeling resources will shorten the timeframe for and reduce

the cost of analysis that needs to occur prior to project implementation.

Strategies for separation can be pursued at Lockport/Romeoville, the south branch of the Chicago

River, the Chicago Lock to Lake Michigan, and the Calumet, Grand Calumet and Little Calumet

Rivers. Ecological separation at several of these points will require new infrastructure that is

almost certain to impact commercial and recreational navigation. Traffic flows in the CWS

suggest that these impacts can be minimized; the flow of goods, vessels and passengers could

even be enhanced if ecological separation was addressed as part of a revitalized Chicago-area

navigation infrastructure. Impacts to movement of stormwater and wastewater are highly

dependent on whether separation is located in the upper or lower part of the system, with impacts

growing extreme if any separation occurs lower in the CWS.

Achievement of ecological separation can be hastened by:

� Prioritization of an outcome of ecological separation by a federal authority such as

Congress or an administration via an executive order;

� Clarifying and authorizing project implementation responsibility;

� Completing detailed studies on changes to hydrology, recreation and commodity logistics

that would result from any infrastructure alterations; and

� Establishing a stable, multi-year source of funding for federal studies and project

implementation.

iv

Short of immediate ecological separation, protection from species movement can be partially

achieved by:

� Completing and activating the electrical barrier system in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship

Canal.

� Hydrologically separating Indiana Harbor and Burns Ditch from the Grand Calumet and

Little Calumet Rivers, respectively, to eliminate opportunity for species movement.

� Acquiring state and federal administrative approvals for a rapid response plan for the

CWS and educate local stakeholders on the potential impacts of rapid response activities.

� Immediately beginning a federal feasibility study on separation of the two systems under

existing federal authority via the Corps.

While the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers is viewed as the natural lead on a separation project, an

apparent leadership vacuum makes envisioning ecological separation difficult. Engineering and

siting concerns should not be limiting factors in ecological separation, but a commitment to act

from high level decision makers combined with a stable federal funding source are both required.

Invasive species prevention is the rare ecological problem where opportunity and consensus tend

to arrive in tandem. Presented in the CWS is the opportunity to prevent damage to two great

watersheds combined with consensus that some drastic action is likely necessary to achieve that

prevention. Lack of information is no hurdle to meeting this challenge, but successful prevention

will demand leadership and will to get the job done. We encourage the Great Lakes and

Mississippi River regions to act on this opportunity as quickly as possible.

1

Introduction

There is broad consensus that continuing introduction of new aquatic invasive species (AIS) into

the Great Lakes is a major problem. Leading scientists suggest that future invasions put the Great

Lakes at risk of “ecosystem breakdown” (Bails et al 2005) while prevention of new invasions is a

top priority of the 2005 Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy (Great Lakes Interagency

Task Force 2005).

Canals connecting the Great Lakes basin to other watersheds have served as an important

pathway for these AIS introductions, second only to ballast water discharges from ocean going

ships. The Chicago Waterway System (CWS) has already allowed several damaging AIS to move

between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River Basin, including the zebra mussel and round

goby (Rasmussen 2002). The CWS presents an imminent threat of introducing a particularly

destructive AIS into the Great Lakes: bighead and silver carp, or “Asian carp.” Increasing

concern over AIS in the Great Lakes, and the open pathway for AIS through the CWS led to an

“Aquatic Invasive Species Summit” in Chicago in 2003. Bringing together agencies and

researchers from all levels of government, the group explored the shared responsibility for the

CWS and recommended a long term solution of ecological separation of the two basins by 2013,

and a short term solution of adding technological barriers to discourage fish from moving

between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River basins (City of Chicago 2005).

The threat of Asian carp reaching the Great Lakes and knowledge of past invasions creates a

strong incentive to act now to permanently protect both the Great Lakes and Mississippi Basins

from new invasive species. State and federal governments have invested wisely for the short term

by developing electric barriers that are effective against current invaders. But even if the barriers

operate as designed, they will not last forever, nor will they ever achieve guaranteed 100 percent

effectiveness. With the passage of time – through human error, an accident, or a natural disaster –

the effectiveness of the barriers will be compromised.

The long-term approach to achieving protection is “ecological separation.” A true ecological

separation is defined as no inter-basin transfer of aquatic organisms via the Chicago Waterway

System at any time – 100% effectiveness. Ecological separation prohibits the movement or inter-

basin transfer of aquatic organisms between the Mississippi and Great Lakes basins via the CWS.

2

Once established, the impacts of invasive species on ecosystem health are permanent and

irreversible. Preventing the transfer and introduction of invasive species between the Mississippi

River and Great Lakes basins is the only long-term solution to eliminate the risk of irreversible

ecosystem damage. The CWS provides an opportunity where the spread of aquatic invasive

species between two great watersheds can be halted. Taking advantage of this opportunity relies

on four key pieces of information:

• Knowledge of the CWS’s functions of chemical, biological and physical integrity, hydrology

and flows, and commercial and recreational navigation;

• An understanding of stakeholder views and opinions about the CWS, the threat of invasive

species and the relevance of ecological separation;

• An assessment of available options for stopping all species of concern from moving between

the Mississippi River and the Great Lakes; and

• Analysis of which authorities and responsibilities can enable action to achieve prevention,

and how this can be achieved in a political context.

Based on this information, there are a number of near-term actions that will lead to long-term

management of the Mississippi River and Great Lakes systems as ecologically separate,

including:

• Prioritization of an outcome of ecological separation by a federal authority such as Congress

or an administration via an executive order;

• Clarify and authorize project implementation responsibility;

• Complete detailed studies on changes to hydrology, recreation and commodity logistics that

would result from any infrastructure alterations; and

• Establish a stable, multi-year source of funding for federal studies and project

implementation.

Invasive species prevention is the rare ecological problem where opportunity and consensus tend

to arrive in tandem. Presented in the CWS is the opportunity to prevent damage to two great

watersheds combined with consensus that some drastic action is likely necessary to achieve that

prevention. Lack of information is no hurdle to meeting this challenge, but successful prevention

will demand leadership and will to get the job done. We encourage the Great Lakes and

Mississippi River regions to act on this opportunity as quickly as possible.

3

Chapter 1 – Chicago Waterway System Summary

Study Area

While the Chicago Waterway System and the Chicago and Calumet Waterways are highly visible

and used by a broad range of stakeholders, the structure and function of the systems are generally

poorly understood outside of a small community of scientific and navigation professionals. A

summary of the functions of chemical, biological and physical integrity, hydrology, ownership

and commercial and recreational navigation is the critical foundation to decision-making

regarding the system’s future.

The Chicago and Calumet Waterways (CCW) are located in northeastern Illinois and northwest

Indiana (Figure 1) and include the Chicago Waterway System (CWS). The CWS is a subset of the

less commonly known CCW. Chapter 1 refers to the CCW with the exception of the section on

navigation, which defines and refers to the reaches of the CWS. Subsequent chapters refer to the

more commonly known CWS.

The CCW include seven modified rivers (North Branch of the Chicago River, Chicago River,

South Branch of the Chicago River, South Fork of the South Branch of the Chicago River,

Calumet River, Grand Calumet River, and the Little Calumet River) and three artificial or man-

made channels and canal (Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, North Shore Channel, and the

Calumet-Sag Channel).

The approximately 740 square mile watershed contains the Great Lakes region’s largest city,

Chicago. The eastern boundary of the watershed is Lake Michigan, and the southern boundary is

defined by the junction of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal and the Des Plaines River in

Joliet, Illinois. Located within Cook, Lake, and Will County, Illinois and Lake County, Indiana,

the Cook County portion of the watershed is approximately 35 miles long and 20 miles wide at its

widest point. The CCW are dominated by an urban landscape. However, concentrations of non-

developed land (principally forest preserves) are found throughout the watershed and in particular

border the waterways.

5

Abiotic factors affecting the CCW include ownership, waterway uses, physical habitat,

hydrology, and chemical water quality. Biotic characteristics include the benthic invertebrate and

fish communities. The information contained in this report is a compilation of data collected from

Federal, State, and local environmental agencies.

Chicago Waterways

The Chicago waterways includes the West Fork of the North Branch of the Chicago

River, Middle Fork of the North Branch of the Chicago River, East Fork (Skokie River), North

Branch of the Chicago River (North Branch), North Shore Channel, Chicago River, South Branch

of the Chicago River (South Branch), South Fork of the South Branch of the Chicago River

(South Fork), and the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal (Figure 1).

The West, Middle, and East Forks of the North Branch of the Chicago River arise in central Lake

County, Illinois. The three shallow, wadeable tributaries flow southeast, parallel to each other.

The Skokie River eventually turns west and joins with the Middle Fork in Glenview, Illinois. The

West Fork and Middle Fork meet in Morton Grove, Illinois and become the North Branch of the

Chicago River. The North Branch continues to flow south and east and eventually joins with the

man-made North Shore Channel in the north side of Chicago. The North Shore Channel

originates in Wilmette, Illinois and flows in a southerly direction. The channel is straight

throughout its length except for four bends.

Below the junction of the North Shore Channel and the North Branch of the Chicago River, the

North Branch widens and deepens flowing south and east through the city of Chicago. The lower

reach of the river from Belmont Avenue to the junction with the Chicago River follows its

original course. The North Branch of the Chicago merges with the Chicago River in downtown

Chicago.

Historically before the reversal of the CCW, waters from the North Branch of the Chicago River

flowed into the Chicago River. Subsequently, the Chicago River flowed east and south into Lake

Michigan. In the present day, the Chicago River flows west away from Lake Michigan joining the

North Branch of the Chicago River at Wolf Point (Figure 1). The alignment of the Chicago River

is generally straight with three bends near Michigan Avenue, State and Orleans Streets.

6

Before the construction of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, the South Branch of the Chicago

River flowed north merging with the North Branch of the Chicago River. Following the reversal

of the waterways, the South Branch flowed south and west through the city of Chicago. The

South Branch generally follows its original course and has several bends.

A small tributary, the South Fork, joins the South Branch of the Chicago River before the river

merges with the man-made Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. The man-made Chicago Sanitary

and Ship Canal flows southwest eventually joining the Des Plaines River in Joliet, Illinois. Except

for four bends near Harlem Avenue, LaGrange and Romeoville Roads, and in Lockport, the

alignment of the canal is straight throughout its length.

Calumet Waterways

The Calumet Waterways include the Calumet River, Lake Calumet, Grand Calumet River, Little

Calumet River, and the Calumet-Sag Channel (Figure 1). Before the reversal of the Calumet

Waterways, the Calumet River flowed east into Lake Michigan. Following construction of the

Calumet-Sag Channel, the flow in the Calumet River was reversed, and water flowed southwest

away from Lake Michigan.

The Grand Calumet River, a shallow tributary flowing northwest from the state of Indiana,

eventually joins the Calumet River just below the O’Brien Lock (Figure 1). A drainage divide or

hydrologic summit occurs on the Grand Calumet River just east of the Illinois-Indiana state line

(Figure 1). The drainage divide is a relatively flat area which allows for water to stand and to

flow in one of two directions. On one side of the divide, the water in the Grand Calumet River

flows west into Illinois. On the other side, the water flows east towards Lake Michigan. The exact

location of the summit is highly variable and is influenced by storm events and the water level in

Lake Michigan (Davis, personal communication). The flow summit on the Grand Calumet River

is thought to be generally located between the effluent outfalls of the Hammond and East Chicago

wastewater treatment plants. During dry weather when water levels in the lake are low, water in

the Grand Calumet River east of the divide flows into Lake Michigan through the Indiana Harbor

Canal. However, water in the Grand Calumet River on the east side of the divide can also flow

west into Illinois during storms and high lake levels (Duncker, personal communication).

The Calumet River and the Grand Calumet River join to form the deep draft Little Calumet River

North (referred to in this report as the Little Calumet River). Before the construction of the

7

Calumet-Sag Channel, the direction of flow in the Little Calumet River was east towards Lake

Michigan. Following the reversal of the Calumet Waterways, the Little Calumet River flowed

west merging with the shallow, Little Calumet River South. Over the years, the Little Calumet

River has been widened and deepened. The Little Calumet River South originates in northern

Indiana. In the case of the Little Calumet River South, a drainage divide occurs east of the

confluence with Harts Ditch in northwestern Indiana (Figure 1). It is assumed that during dry

weather, all of the water in the Little Calumet River South west of the divide flows in a westerly

direction into Illinois. On the other side of the drainage divide, the water in the Little Calumet

River South flows east into Burns Ditch and eventually into Lake Michigan. As is the case with

the Grand Calumet River, water in the Little Calumet River South on the east side of the divide

can also flow west towards Illinois during wet weather events (Davis, personal communication).

The Little Calumet River South flows northwest merging with the Little Calumet River.

The man-made Calumet-Sag Channel begins below the junction of the Little Calumet River and

the Little Calumet River South. Several small, shallow, natural streams tributary to the Calumet-

Sag Channel include Midlothian Creek, Tinley Creek, and Stony Creek. The Calumet-Sag

Channel continues to flow west merging with the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal in Lemont,

Illinois. The alignment of the channel is generally straight with three bends near Western,

Ridgeland, and Crawford Avenues.

History

The CCW have significantly changed since the time of the Native American tribes and European

settlement. Perhaps no other waterways in an urban environment have been so completely

transformed and modified.

During the period when First Nations peoples lived in the Chicago region, the area was not only

flat but decidedly swampy. In the 1700s, the tributaries to the Chicago River would have been

shallow and very sluggish in flow; it was unusual for the waterways in the Chicago area to have

anything more than a slight current. Both woodlands and tall grass prairies occurred along the

banks of the tributaries. In the upper reaches of the watershed, the tributaries flowed through

catchments with greater slope. The additional elevation provided for development of riffles and

deeper pools (Hill, 2000). Pre-settlement aquatic communities in the CCW included warm and

cool-water assemblages adapted to the low gradient waterways (Arnold and others 1998). The

8

varied land use characteristics of the watershed most likely sustained physical habitats that

supported diverse communities of insects, shellfish, and fish. Because of its connection to Lake

Michigan, fish came up the Chicago River to spawn. Lake sturgeon, walleye, suckers, pike and a

few trout migrated up the tributaries (Hill, 2000).

One of the most important geologic features of the Chicago region was a sub-continental drainage

divide that separated the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico with the Great Lakes/Atlantic Ocean

(Figure 2). During the time of early exploration, the drainage divide was nearly undetectable. The

divide known as the Chicago Portage is located in the southwestern suburbs and extends from

south to north along what is today South Harlem Avenue. Traversing the drainage divide was

Mud Lake (Figure 2), a large slough or swampy area.

9

In September of 1673, on their route from the Mississippi River to Lake Michigan, Louis Jolliet

and Father Jacques Marquette, with assistance from members of the Miami tribe, passed through

the Chicago Portage (Mud Lake to the West Fork of the Chicago River) (Figure 2). The greatest

value of the portage for the native tribes of the area was a system of water routes that occasionally

provided a connection between the flowing waters of the Illinois and Des Plaines Rivers to the

10

open waters of the Great Lakes. More than three hundred years ago, the explorer Louis Jolliet

suggested that a man-made canal be built that would cut through the Chicago Portage, and

provide a waterway passage between Lake Michigan and the Gulf of Mexico.

For early settlers visiting the Chicago area, the inland waterways offered drinking water,

transportation, food, and safe harbor. With the subsequent development of the city of Chicago,

many of the original wetlands and swamps were drained and filled for agriculture.

Between 1860 and 1900, the North and South Branches of the Chicago River quickly became the

major focus of industrial activity, including meat packing, slaughterhouses, distilleries, and

lumber mills. As Chicago grew rapidly, untreated sewage from homes and industries throughout

the greater metropolitan area discharged to Chicago area waterways. These waterways eventually

flowed into Lake Michigan, the primary source of drinking water for Chicago area residents

(Figure 3).

Figure 3. Early Map (1860-1900) Showing CCW Flowing into Lake Michigan

Bacteria and viruses causing typhoid, cholera, dysentery, and other waterborne diseases were

present in the water that flowed to Lake Michigan from urban areas bordering the CCW. The

CCW became an open sewer. Between 1865 and 1885, scores of area residents died from diseases

caused by the contaminated drinking water, especially following storm events.

11

In order to protect the area’s primary water supply, Lake Michigan, the Illinois General Assembly

adopted the Sanitary District of Chicago Enabling Act in 1889. The legislation led to the creation

of the Sanitary District of Chicago, the predecessor of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation

District of Greater Chicago (MWRDGC).

Soon after the Sanitary District of Chicago was established, its board of trustees, subscribing to

the popular belief that “dilution was the solution to pollution,” implemented a long-term plan to

permanently reverse the flows of the North and South Branches of the Chicago Rivers and the

Calumet River away from Lake Michigan, and to divert the contaminated river water downstream

where it could be diluted as it flowed into the Des Plaines River, and eventually to the Illinois and

Mississippi Rivers.

By 1900, a man-made canal, the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, connected the South Branch of

the Chicago River with the Des Plaines River in Joliet. The artificial North Shore and Calumet-

Sag Channels were completed in 1910 and 1922, respectively. Following completion of the three

man-made waterways, Chicago’s raw sewage, industrial wastes, and urban storm water were

directed away from the Great Lakes watershed into the Des Plaines, Illinois, and Mississippi

Rivers (Figure 4), thereby providing a constant and unimpeded aquatic connection between the

Great Lakes and Mississippi River watersheds.

Figure 4. Map Showing Reversal of CCW upon completion of Cal-Sag Channel.

12

Uses

The inland waterways of the Chicago metropolitan area are of paramount aesthetic,

environmental, social, and economic importance. The CCW carry urban storm water (flood

control) and treated municipal and industrial wastewater (waste disposal) from the Chicago

metropolitan area away from Lake Michigan. The waterways also furnish water for cooling and

industrial processes, but no water from the CCW is used for drinking water. The waterways

provide transportation for commodities including sand, gravel, coal, steel, chemicals, and

agricultural products. Water-based recreational activities including motorized and non-motorized

boating and fishing are popular as well. Finally, the waterways provide physical habitat for

wildlife and aquatic organisms.

Ownership

The largest single owner of land along the waterways is the MWRDGC. The MWRDGC’s

property (over 7,000 acres) is a nearly continuous band bordering both sides of the North Shore

Channel, Calumet-Sag Channel, and the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. Both banks of the

North Branch of the Chicago River from the junction with the North Shore Channel downstream

to Belmont Avenue in the city of Chicago are also MWRDGC property. The riparian land along

the North Shore Channel, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, and the Calumet-Sag Channel has

been owned by the MWRDGC since construction of the man-made waterways.

A variety of land uses exist within the urban developments along the waterways. Through

comprehensive land use planning, MWRDGC’s property along the waterways has been made

available through a leasing program. The riparian area along the waterways is available to both

the public and private sector for industrial, commercial, recreational, and conservation activities.

Information on individual leases along the waterways is graphically illustrated on a real estate

atlas available from the MWRDGC (MWRDGC 2004).

The North Shore Channel flows through a predominantly residential area. Bordering land has

been leased primarily to suburban park districts for recreation and open space development. The

predominant land uses along the 2.5 mile reach of the North Branch of the Chicago River owned

by the MWRDGC are open space and residential. Along the Calumet-Sag Channel, a wide variety

of land uses including both residential and rural open space occur. A major portion of the

13

MWRDGC’s property along the Calumet-Sag Channel is undeveloped, unleased forest. The

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal extends from the city of Chicago through many suburban and

rural areas. The land along the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal includes both industrial leases

and vacant, undeveloped forest preserves.

The remaining riparian land along the North Branch of the Chicago River (Belmont Avenue to

the junction with the Chicago River), the Chicago River, South Branch of the Chicago River, the

South Fork, the Calumet River, the Little Calumet River, and the Grand Calumet River is a mix

of residential, commercial, industrial, and limited undeveloped open space. The riparian land is

either owned by a public agency (city of Chicago, Chicago Park District, Cook County Forest

Preserve District, MWRDGC, and suburban park districts) or a private entity. The ownership of

the riparian property along the inland waterways is a matter of public record and is available at

the Cook County Assessor’s Office.

Physical Habitat

In this report, the definition of physical habitat refers to the quality of riparian and instream

habitats that directly affect the structure and function of the aquatic community in lotic, or

flowing water, ecosystems. Factors affecting the physical habitat include riparian vegetation,

canopy cover, stream bank stability, channel morphology, sinuosity (meandering), stream

gradient, siltation, and stream bed sediment. Land use and stream flow also influence many of the

habitat characteristics of lotic ecosystems.

The biological potential of an aquatic ecosystem is directly limited by the quality of the physical

habitat (Southwood 1977). Anthropogenic alterations of riparian areas and river channels

generally act to reduce the quality and quantity of aquatic habitats, therefore, resulting in a loss of

species diversity and causing ecosystem degradation. An altered physical habitat is considered to

be one of the major environmental stressors in aquatic ecosystems (Karr and others 1986).

In 1992, EA Engineering, Science, and Technology (EA Engineering) conducted a physical

habitat survey in the South Branch of the Chicago River and in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship

Canal (EA Engineering 1993). The study area was divided into reaches based on changes in

channel morphology and the presence of power plants, tributaries and other dischargers. During

the summer of 1993, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Army Corps of

14

Engineers (Corps) and MWRDGC (USACE), characterized and assessed the physical habitats of

the CCW (Moore and others 1998). A habitat evaluation of selected reaches of both the CCW

was conducted by the MWRDGC during the period 2002-2005. As a result of a multi-stakeholder

collaboration, the Friends of the Chicago River prepared a technical report that summarized the

current physical habitat of the deep draft Chicago River system and recommended habitat

improvements (Friends of the Chicago River 2003).

With the exception of habitat field surveys conducted by EA Engineering and the MWRDGC,

very little physical habitat information on the CCW is currently available. The physical habitat

data discussed below were collected by the MWRDGC from 2002-2005 at 26 monitoring

locations in the CCW during multiple field surveys. The parameters discussed in this report were

selected based on those features expected to most affect the aquatic communities. These habitat

metrics include channel morphology, channel alterations, riparian zone, shading, stream bank

stability, and stream bed sediment.

Channel Morphology

Table 1 summarizes channel length, width, and depth and channel alterations for the deep-draft

CCW. Channel alterations include waterway straightening, channelization, and physical

modifications to the banks and riparian area. A waterway with moderate alterations would have

some natural, earthen banks.

Except for the North Shore Channel, all of the CCW are over 100 feet in width with water depths

greater than 5 feet. Riffles are absent in the deep-draft CCW. Except for a few bends, the

alignment of the artificial waterways is straight. Moderate to severe channelization is

characteristic of the CCW (Table 1). Shallow areas for fish spawning, feeding, and protection are

limited. During the 1900s, many of the natural rivers in the Chicago area had their channel

morphology substantially altered enough to impair aquatic life.

Riparian Zone

The riparian zone is the interface between the land surface and a flowing surface water body.

Vegetation in the riparian zone consists of aquatic plants, and trees and shrubs that flourish in

close proximity to water. The quality and quantity of riparian vegetation is a critical component

15

of physical habitat. The importance of riparian vegetation to channel structure is well recognized

(Gregory and others 1991) and it functions to reduce stream bank erosion and sedimentation,

enhance canopy cover and moderate stream temperature), provide input of coarse and fine

particulate organic material that serves as food and structure for aquatic organisms and buffers

against anthropogenic impacts.

Table 1. Morphology and Channel Alterations in CCW

Waterways

Length

(miles)

Width

(feet)

Depth

(feet)

Channel

Alteration

North Shore Channel 7.7 90 2-10 Moderate

North Branch Chicago River 7.7 150-300 3-17 Moderate

Chicago River 1.5 200-480 20-26 Severe

South Branch Chicago River 4.5 200-250 13-20 Moderate

South Fork 1.3 100-200 3-13 Moderate

Chicago Sanitary & Ship

Canal

31.0 160-300 8-27 Severe

Calumet River 7.7 300-550 3-31 Moderate

Grand Calumet River 2.7 135-250 2-12 Moderate

Little Calumet River 6.9 250-350 5-14 Moderate

Calumet-Sag Channel 16.2 300-450 4-12 Severe

Because of the vertical steel sheet piling, limestone, and concrete walls along most of the margins

of the CCW, the riparian zone is functionally disconnected from the waterways. The width of the

riparian zone is often zero because the urban and industrial nature of the areas bordering the

CCW has eliminated earthen side slopes and reduced quality and quantity of vegetation along the

waterways. Limited vegetation does occur on top of the fill placed behind the wall. Over time,

some of the protective structures along the waterways have eroded and collapsed and these areas

typically have steeply sloped banks. Vegetation on the banks of the waterways is a mix of

aggressive native and non-native plants. Deciduous trees include cottonwood, box elder, and

willow. The kinds of vegetation vary depending on the waterway (Table 2). For example, grasses

and trees are found on earthen side slopes along reaches of the North Shore Channel, while trees

and shrubs are in the hardened riparian zone along the North and South Branches of the Chicago

River. Because of the multiple impacts of urbanization, riparian vegetation along the CCW is

very limited.

16

Table 2. Physical Habitat Parameters in CCW

Waterways

Riparian

Vegetation

Bank

Erosion

Stream Bed Sediment

North Shore Channel Shrubs, Trees,

Grasses

Moderate Silt, Sand, Plant Debris

North Branch Chicago River Trees, Shrubs Slight Silt, Gravel, Sand

Chicago River None None Clay, Silt, Sand

South Branch Chicago River Trees, Grasses Slight Silt, Gravel, Clay, Sand

South Fork Trees, Shrubs Moderate Clay, Silt, Gravel, Sand

Chicago Sanitary & Ship

Canal

Trees, Grasses,

Shrubs

Moderate Clay, Bedrock, Silt,

Sand

Calumet River Grasses, Trees,

Shrubs

Slight Clay, Gravel, Sand, Silt

Grand Calumet River Grasses, Shrubs Moderate Silt, Plant Debris

Little Calumet River Trees, Shrubs Moderate Silt, Gravel, Sand, Clay

Calumet-Sag Channel Shrubs, Trees Slight Silt, Sand, Gravel

Shading

Shading, as provided by tree and shrub canopy cover, is important for the control of water

temperature. Canopy variability affects primary production of food from sunlight as well as other

biological processes. A diversity of shade conditions along a waterway is considered optimal,

with some areas receiving direct sunlight and other areas completely shaded. Most of the water

surface in the CCW is open with little canopy cover available.

Stream Bank Stability

Stream banks with riparian vegetation dissipate stream energy, resulting in less soil erosion and

sedimentation. The roots of trees and shrubs in the riparian zone hold stream banks in place.

Stream bank erosion results from the disturbance of riparian vegetation. Except for selected

reaches in areas where earthen banks occur (North Shore Channel, North and South Branches of

the Chicago River, Calumet and Little Calumet River), erosion is minimal along the banks of the

CCW (Table 2).

17

Stream Bed Sediment

Substrate size is one of the most important factors in determining the physical habitat for aquatic

organisms. In order to support and maintain a diverse community of aquatic organisms, a mixture

of clean, stream bed sediment materials is desirable. Decrease in the size of substrate materials

(boulders, gravel, and sand) and an increase in the percentage of fine sediments (silt) are

indicators of human perturbations.

The stream bed sediments of the CCW are predominantly silt (inorganic and organic) with

varying amounts of clay, gravel, and sand (Table 2). Because of scouring from commercial barge

navigation and periodic high flows during storms, bottom substrate is absent in a number of

reaches along the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal.

In summary, most of the CCW have been channelized, creating a continuous, uniform, physical

habitat that closely resembles a riverine or impoundment habitat. Over the years, the waterways

have been occasionally dredged and deepened for commercial navigation. Rather than gradual

sloping earthen banks along the waterways, the banks are primarily steel sheet piling or limestone

rock. Industrial development along the waterways has precluded the growth of trees and shrubs in

much of the riparian zone. The deep, wide waterways allow for the deposition of fine organic

sediment particles, or silt. These alterations have led to most of the water surface being open

rather than shaded. Shore erosion is minimal in the CCW. Many locations, particularly along the

artificial reaches of the CCW, are unsuitable for the development and support of a well-balanced,

diverse aquatic community.

Hydrology

Since the late 1800’s, urbanization in the Chicago region has caused major changes in the

hydrology of the watershed. These changes include the construction of the three man-made

navigable waterways, diversion of water from Lake Michigan, construction and operation of

waste water treatment plants, and overflows from combined and separate storm sewers.

Urban land use development increases the amount of impervious surface area in a watershed. As

impervious cover increases, surface runoff increases in volume and velocity while ground water

infiltration decreases. The increased urban runoff dramatically alters the natural hydrology of

urban waterways. Consequently, aquatic communities in the waterways are continually stressed.

18

Many investigators have shown that an increase in the percent of impervious surfaces in urban

watersheds (greater than 10%) cause a decrease in the biological integrity of aquatic communities

(Karr and Schlosser 1978, Schlosser 1991, Wang and others 1997). In many areas of Cook

County, the percent of imperviousness is greater than 30%.

The 740 square mile drainage area for the CCW extends from Lake Michigan on the east to the

junction of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal and the Des Plaines River north of Joliet,

Illinois. The dominant landscape feature of the Chicago region is its flatness. Generally, the

waterways have a low stream gradient resulting in slow moving waters (Butts et al 1974). During

dry weather, water velocities in the deep-draft CCW, excluding tributaries, are usually less than

0.5 ft/sec. Substantially higher velocities (greater than 2 ft/sec) have been measured in the deep-

draft waterways during storm events.

Flow in the CCW is managed by the MWRDGC according to rules and regulations provided by a

U.S. Supreme Court Consent Decree and Title 33, Parts 207.420 and 207.425 Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR). The CFR also provides for the maintenance of navigable water depths

throughout the inland waterways. The consent decree governs the quantity of water diverted from

Lake Michigan into the CCW at a maximum of 3200 cubic feet per second (cfs).

Surface Water Discharge Monitoring

Stream velocity and stage (water elevation) are continuously measured by the United States

Geological Survey (USGS) at 13 locations on the CCW. Ten of the 13 stream gauging stations

are located on shallow rivers and tributaries in the watershed. The three stations on the deep-draft

waterways are (1) Chicago River at Columbus Drive, (2) Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal at

Romeoville, and (3) North Branch of the Chicago River at Grand Avenue. Flow is determined by

the USGS at each cross-section monitoring location. During 2005, the gauging station at

Romeoville was relocated 5.8 miles upstream to River Mile 302.0 on the Chicago Sanitary and

Ship Canal near Lemont, IL. Flow data is no longer available from the Wilmette and O’Brien

Lock gauging stations because of insufficient funding.

In this report, mean annual flows will be reported by water year (WY). A water year refers to the

period beginning on October 1st of the previous water year through September 30th of the current

water year.

19

Inflows

Water Sources. There are six principal sources of water (inflow) to the CCW:

(1) Treated wastewater discharges from MWRDGC treatment plants;

(2) Direct diversion of Lake Michigan water at three lakefront locations for navigation

makeup, lockage, and leakage;

(3) Water directly diverted from Lake Michigan at three lakefront locations for improving

and maintaining water quality, called “discretionary diversion”;

(4) Tributary flows from the North Branch of the Chicago River, Grand Calumet River, and

the Little Calumet River;

(5) Periodic direct discharges from over 200 combined sewers; and

(6) Direct diffuse storm water runoff from urbanized and forested land

Treated Wastewater Flows. MWRDGC manages and operates seven advanced water reclamation

plants (WRPs) in Cook County, Illinois. Four of the seven plants (Calumet, North Side, Stickney

and Lemont) discharge secondary treated wastewater to the CCW (Figures 1 and 5). Over 70% of

the annual flow in the CCW is from the discharge of treated wastewater from the Calumet, North

Side, Stickney, and Lemont WRPs (USACE 2001). The waterways into which treated wastewater

is discharged, the mean annual wastewater flows for WY 2001, and the design maximum flows

for the four treatment plants that discharge to the CCW are summarized in Table 3.

20

Table 3. Characteristics of North Side, Calumet, Stickney, and Lemont Water Reclamation Plants

Water

Reclamation

Plant

Receiving

Waterbody

Mean

Design

Flow

(ft3/s)

Maximum

Design

Flow

(ft3/s)

2001

Mean

Flow

(ft3/s)

North Side North Shore Channel 516 698 415

Calumet Little Calumet River 549 667 398

Stickney Chicago Sanitary & Ship

Canal

1,860 2,232 1,159

Lemont Chicago Sanitary & Ship

Canal

5 6 3

Figure 5. Stickney Water Reclamation Plant

Lake Michigan Diversion Flows. Before 1939, water from Lake Michigan flowed unregulated

and unimpeded into the Chicago River. In 1901, the United States Secretary of War issued a

provisional permit to the Sanitary District of Chicago limiting the inflow (diversion) of water

from Lake Michigan into Chicago area waterways to 4,167 cfs. By 1908, the Sanitary MWRDGC

exceeded the diversion limit for Lake Michigan water (Changnon and Changnon 1996) and in

1930 the U.S. Supreme Court ordered that after December of 1938 the total Lake Michigan

21

diversion at Chicago should be reduced to 1,500 cfs plus additional water for domestic supply. A

total Lake Michigan diversion of 3,200 cfs was reaffirmed in 1967 and again in 1980 by the U.S.

Supreme Court. Currently, the Lake Michigan diversion accountable to the state of Illinois is

limited to 3,200 cfs over a forty-year averaging period.

The measurement of the quantity of Lake Michigan diversion water and the method for

accounting are specified in the U.S. Supreme Court Decree and in a 1996 Memo of

Understanding (MOU) between the U.S. Department of Justice and eight states bordering the

Great Lakes. The Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) controls and regulates Lake

Michigan diversion water. The USACE is responsible for computing the annual Illinois Lake

Michigan diversion and preparing an annual diversion report for IDNR.

Direct Diversion. Water directly diverted from Lake Michigan into the CCW is used for

improvement and maintenance of instream water quality, lockage, leakage, and navigational

makeup. Direct diversion of water from Lake Michigan into the CCW occurs at three lakefront

locations: Wilmette Pumping Station, Chicago River Controlling Works, and the O’Brien Lock

and Dam (Figure 1).

The Wilmette Pumping Station is located in Wilmette, Illinois under the Sheridan Road Bridge

where the North Shore Channel intersects Lake Michigan (Figure 6). The MWRDGC built the

Wilmette Pumping Station in 1910. The pumping station controls the flow of water between Lake

Michigan and the North Shore Channel. Lake Michigan water is diverted into the North Shore

Channel for augmenting low flows, diluting pollution and achieving water quality standards.

22

Figure 6. Lakefront Diversion Location at Wilmette Pumping Station

The pumping station at Wilmette includes four screw pumps and a concrete channel and sluice

gate (32 ft X 16 ft). Each screw pump is rated at 250 ft3/s. For a number of years, the screw

pumps were not in operation. To reduce leakage from Lake Michigan, the pump bays at the

Wilmette Pumping Station were sealed in 1993. During that period, water was diverted into the

North Shore Channel by raising the sluice gate. Because of non-operation of the screw pumps,

five temporary portable pumps (50 ft3/s) were placed in operation in 2000. Since the temporary

pumps provided insufficient capacity for maintaining water quality in the North Shore Channel,

one of the original screw pumps was rehabilitated in 2002. The MWRDGC is responsible for the

operation and maintenance of the Wilmette Pumping Station.

The Chicago River Controlling Works is located in Chicago, Illinois just south of Navy Pier,

where the Chicago River joins with Lake Michigan (Figure 1). The controlling works were built

by the MWRDGC in 1938 to prevent uncontrolled Lake Michigan water from draining into the

Chicago River. The control structure includes concrete walls separating the Chicago River from

Lake Michigan, a navigation lock, two sets of sluice gates, and a pumping station. The USACE is

responsible for maintenance and operation of the lock. The lock is 80 ft wide and 600 ft long,

with a lift of two feet. Water is diverted from Lake Michigan into the Chicago River through

openings in the sluice gates. The two sets of underwater sluice gates consist of eight openings

measuring 10 ft X 10 ft. The MWRDGC is responsible for the operation and maintenance of the

23

two sluice gates. A pumping station was built by IDNR for the purpose of returning excess

leakage and lockage water in the Chicago River back to Lake Michigan.

The Thomas J. O’Brien Lock and Dam are located in Chicago, Illinois at River Mile 326.5 on the

Calumet River (Figure 1). The control structure was built by the USACE in 1959 to control the

flow of water between Lake Michigan and the Little Calumet River. The lock is 110 ft wide and

1000 ft long, with a lift of two feet. Water is diverted from the Calumet River through four

submerged sluice gates, each 10 ft X 10 ft in size. The lock and dam are operated and maintained

by the USACE. However, the four sluice gates are operated by the MWRDGC.

During WY 2001, the estimated total Lake Michigan diversion accountable to the state of Illinois

was 2,767 ft3/s (USACE 2001). The Illinois Lake Michigan diversion allocations for WY 2001

are as follows: (1) 1,545.6 ft3/s (55.9%) for water supply, which is the sum of water supply for all

communities in Illinois receiving water directly from Lake Michigan; (2) approximately 871.5

ft3/s (31.5%) for storm water runoff diverted from Lake Michigan; (3) 260.5 ft3/s (9.4%) for

discretionary diversion (improving and maintaining water quality); (4) 27.0 ft3/s (1.0%) for

lockage, locking vessels to and from the lake; (5) 17.3 ft3/s (0.6%) for leakage, water estimated to

pass in an uncontrolled manner through or around the three lakefront intake structures; and (6)

45.4 ft3/s (1.6%) for navigational makeup, water used during drawdown periods to maintain

sufficient navigation depths.

Discretionary Diversion. Through 2014, the MWRDGC’s allocation of Lake Michigan diversion

water for the improvement and maintenance of water quality in the CCW is for an annual mean of

270 ft3/s. After 2014, the discretionary diversion is scheduled to be reduced to 101 ft3/s. A

reduction in Lake Michigan discretionary diversion was agreed upon because over time water

quality in the CCW will improve (fewer overflows from combined sewers). Discretionary

diversion principally occurs during the months of May through October. Generally, higher direct

diversion flows occur during the warmer, summer months. Some flow is diverted into the North

Shore Channel throughout the year because of low dissolved oxygen during the winter months.

During WY 2001, it is estimated that 9.4% (260.5 ft3/s) of the Lake Michigan diversion by the

state of Illinois was for improving and maintaining water quality in the CCW. The mean annual

direct diversion of Lake Michigan water for water quality improvement into the North Shore

Channel at Wilmette, Chicago River at the Chicago River Controlling Works, and Little Calumet

24

River at the O’Brien Lock and Dam during WY 2001 was estimated at 29 ft3/s, 125 ft3/s, and 107

ft3/s, respectively.

Between water years 1985 and 2005, the total amount of water diverted from Lake Michigan for

improving and maintaining water quality in the CCW has gradually decreased (Figure 7). The

decrease in discretionary diversion over the 20-year period can be directly attributed to improved

water quality in the waterways.

Time (years)

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Dis

char

ge

(ft3

/sec

)

160

180

200

220

240

260

280

300

320

340

360

380

r = 0.496p = <0.018

Figure 7. Total Annual Mean Discretionary Diversion at Wilmette Pumping Station, Chicago

River Controlling Works, and O’Brien Lock and Dam plotted Against Time (1985-2005).

Tributary Flows. Approximately 10% of the flow in the CCW originates from three major

tributaries (North Branch of the Chicago River, Grand Calumet River, and the Little Calumet

River) (USACE, 2001). During WY 2001, the estimated mean annual tributary flows from the

North Branch of the Chicago River, Grand Calumet River, and the Little Calumet River were

136.3, 11.8, and 160.2 ft3/s, respectively.

25

Operation of Storm Flows. In order to prevent or minimize localized flooding from anticipated

storm events, the MWRDGC lowers the water level in the CCW by increasing the discharge at

the Lockport powerhouse. The process of lowering the water level allows for additional water

storage in the waterways. During large, widespread, wet weather events, the subsequent runoff

may raise levels in the waterways, necessitating control of water levels by releasing flood waters

at one or more of the three lakefront diversion structures back into Lake Michigan. Since 1985, 8

reversals or back flows to the Lake have occurred. The majority of the reversals back to the Lake

have occurred at the Wilmette Pumping Station. The August 2007 reversal was the first since a

series in September 2002.

Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs). Overflows from combined sewers are discharges to

receiving water bodies from a wastewater collection system conveying both sanitary sewage and

storm water. Several hundred combined sewers are located on the CCW. Historically, the

capacities of combined sewers often were exceeded during some wet weather events, resulting in

the release of untreated sewage to area waterways. In 1975, the MWRDGC began construction of

drop shafts and tunnels (Figure 8) designed to capture overflows from combined sewers and

convey the storm water and untreated wastewater to open surface reservoirs rather than

overflowing to area waterways. Following storage of CSOs, the water is pumped to a water

reclamation plant for treatment. The structural flood control and water quality improvement

system is called the Tunnel and Reservoir Plan (TARP). To date, 109 miles of tunnels have been

built and are fully operational. Two large storage reservoirs (Thornton Composite and McCook)

are currently under construction. Both storage reservoirs are scheduled to be operational by 2014,

although completion schedules have varied during the 3-decade-plus life of the project.

According to the USACE, both reservoirs are designed to capture up to a 20-year storm event

(Lanyon, personal communication). It is estimated that since the first tunnels became operational

in 1985, more than 850 billion gallons of CSOs have been captured and conveyed to MWRDGC

water reclamation plants for treatment.

26

Figure 8. Construction of Conveyance Tunnels for Tunnel and Reservoir Plan (TARP)

Outlet Flows

All outlet flow exits the CCW at the Lockport Powerhouse and Lock and the Lockport

Controlling Works (Figure 1). During dry weather, water is released from the waterways through

one hydroelectric generating unit and the navigation lock at the Lockport Powerhouse and Lock.

Lockport Powerhouse and Lock. The Lockport Powerhouse and Lock are located in Lockport,

Illinois on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal one mile upstream from the junction with the Des

Plaines River (Figure 9). Two hydroelectric generating units at Lockport have a combined

capacity of 5,000 ft3/s. During storm conditions, water is diverted from the Chicago Sanitary and

Ship Canal through nine submerged sluice gates (9 ft X 14 ft). Each sluice gate is capable of a

maximum discharge of 2,500 ft3/s. The powerhouse is operated by the MWRDGC, and the

navigational lock is operated by the USACE. The Lockport lock is 110 feet wide and 600 feet

long, with a lift of 37 feet.

27

Figure 9. Lockport Powerhouse (left) and Lock (center) on the Chicago Sanitary & Ship Canal

Lockport Controlling Works. The Lockport Controlling Works operated by the MWRDGC is

located on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal two miles upstream from the Lockport

Powerhouse. The outlet structure operates periodically during storms when discharge above the

capacity of the Lockport Powerhouse is required. Flood waters from the Chicago Sanitary and

Ship Canal are discharged directly to the Des Plaines River through seven sluice gates (30 ft X 20

ft).

Flow at Romeoville. Until 2005, the total flow from the CCW was determined by the USGS at

Romeoville Road located on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal near the terminus of the

watershed, 6.1 miles above the junction of the canal and the Des Plaines River (Figure 1). In

2005, the stream gauge was relocated upstream to River Mile 302.0.

During WY 2001, the estimated mean annual flow at Romeoville was 2,710 ft3/s. The principal

components of the discharge at Romeoville include treated wastewater from four MWRDGC

treatment plants, direct diversion of water from Lake Michigan, tributary flows from the North

28

Branch of the Chicago River, Little Calumet River, and the Grand Calumet River, combined

sewer overflows, and direct runoff from urban storm water. It should be noted that there is a

general bias for measured and estimated inflows to the CCW to exceed the outflow measured at

Romeoville on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal (Institute for Urban Environmental Risk

Management 2003).

The minimum and maximum daily mean discharge during WY 2001 was 1,192 ft3/s (Jan 11,

2001) and 11,087 ft3/s (August 2, 2001), respectively. Since 1986, the minimum and maximum

water year mean annual discharges were 2,660 ft3/s and 4,319 ft3/s, respectively. The highest

maximum instantaneous flow during the 17-year period was 19,466 ft3/s in February 1997.

Generally, the highest mean monthly stream flows measured at Romeoville occurred during July,

August, and September and the lowest mean monthly discharges occurred during December and

January.

Overall, the CCW have experienced a significant decrease in flow over the past 20 years

(measured at Romeoville) throughout the range of flow conditions (Figure 10). During the period

1985-2005, the estimated annual mean discharge at Romeoville was 3,299 ft3/s compared with

2,725 ft3/s for WY 2005. The decrease in flow in the CCW can be attributed to climatic

variability, a decrease in discretionary diversion and leakage at the three lakefront locations, and

additional water conservation measures implemented by the city of Chicago.

29

Time (Years)

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Dis

char

ge

(ft3

/sec

)

2000

2200

2400

2600

2800

3000

3200

3400

3600

3800

4000

4200

4400

4600

r = 0.885p = <0.001

Figure 10. Annual Mean Discharge at Romeoville Road on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal

Plotted Against Time (1985-2005)

Mathematical Modeling

Flow and water quality in the CCW are very complex, and water quality varies considerably

under a wide range of flows. In the late 1970s, the Hydrocomp Continuous Simulation Model was

used by the Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission (NIPC) during the Areawide Waste

Treatment Management Planning Project to simulate existing and future flows and water quality

in major waterways throughout a six county area in northeastern Illinois (Hey 1980). The CCW

were included in the study. The mathematical flow and water quality receiving model QUAL2E

was applied by the MWRDGC to the CCW during the late 1980s and the early 1990s (CDM

1992). The primary limitation of the Hydrocomp and QUAL2E models was that they are only

applicable for steady-state, low-flow conditions.

Because of the limitations with previous hydraulic models, the MWRDGC recently selected the

DUFLOW mathematical model to simulate flow in the CCW during periods of unsteady-flow

(Institute for Urban Environmental Risk Management 2003). The EUTROF2 water quality model

was also used with DUFLOW to simulate complex, unsteady-water quality processes in the CCW

30

(Institute for Urban Environmental Risk Management 2004). These existing modeling resources

could feasibly be used to estimate the impacts of physical changes in the CCW on water quality,

velocity and elevation.

Chemical Water Quality

Water is an essential element in the maintenance and development of all forms of life. Most

living aquatic organisms, with a few exceptions, can survive only for short periods of time

without water. As population increases (urbanization), the demand for water grows accordingly at

a much more rapid pace especially if the growth is accompanied by improved living standards. In

an urban environment, treated municipal and industrial wastewater discharges and runoff from

combined sewers and separate storm sewers directly impact the chemical water quality in rivers

and streams.

Methods for measuring chemical constituents and the physical properties of water are well

defined and have considerable precision. It should be noted that a water sample is indicative of

the water quality only at the time of sample collection and does not reflect past or future

conditions.

Designated Water Uses

The Illinois Pollution Control Board (IPCB) has designated water uses for particular waters

within the state of Illinois. Currently, all waters in Illinois are designated for General Water Use

except those selected as Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life Water Uses.

Currently, a reach of the North Shore Channel from Lake Michigan to the North Side Treatment

Plant effluent outfall, the Chicago River, and the Calumet River from Lake Michigan to the

O’Brien Lock are classified as General Use Waters. Secondary Contact Waters include the North

Shore Channel below the North Side Treatment Plant outfall, the North Branch of the Chicago

River from its confluence with the North Shore Channel to the South Branch of the Chicago

River, the South Branch of the Chicago River, South Fork, Grand Calumet River, the Little

Calumet River from the Grand Calumet River to the junction with the Calumet-Sag Channel, the

Calumet-Sag Channel, and the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. Illinois rules and regulations (35

Ill Admin Code 303) concerning chemical water quality standards for General Use and Secondary

31

Contact waters are published periodically by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

(IEPA) (IEPA 1995).

The Illinois State Water Survey conducted a comprehensive water quality survey during 1973 in

the CCW (Butts and others 1974). Since 1975, numerous water samples for chemical and

physical analyses have been collected from multiple locations in the CCW by the MWRDGC and

the IEPA. In order to support mathematical water quality modeling and as a result of an IPCB

May 18, 1988 ruling, the MWRDGC conducted intensive chemical water quality monitoring in

the CCW during the periods 1976-77 and 1989-91, respectively.

Water Quality Parameters

One physical measurement (suspended solids) and three chemical water quality parameters

(dissolved oxygen, ammonia nitrogen, and total phosphorus) were selected to describe the

chemical integrity of the CCW. The physical and chemical water quality data discussed below

were collected and analyzed by the MWRDGC (MWRDGC 2006). Surface grab water samples

were collected monthly by MWRDGC staff from the center of a waterway at 26 ambient

monitoring stations in the CCW. Water samples were analyzed for a wide range of chemical,

physical, and biological parameters, including alkalinity, water temperature, pH, biochemical

oxygen demand, dissolved oxygen, solids, nutrients, dissolved and total metals, cyanide and fecal

coliform.

Total Suspended Solids. The total suspended solids concentration in streams and rivers consists of

the total quantity of suspended organic and inorganic particulate matter in suspension. Suspended

sediment directly affects water use and ecosystem health. Suspended solids interfere with

recreational water use and the aesthetic enjoyment of water. Suspended solids also are detrimental

and effect aquatic communities by (1) inhibiting respiration and feeding; (2) causing waters to be

turbid, and in turn reducing light penetration and therefore restricting photosynthesis; (3)

reducing stream substrate habitat and consequently preventing the development of fish eggs and

fish larvae; and (4) sediment particles settling to the stream bottom, suffocating benthic

organisms, especially larval stages; and if the solids are organic, can cause a sediment oxygen

demand.

Comparisons between the mean values of suspended solids measured in the CCW during the

periods 1975-1977 and 2003-2005 are presented in Table 4. The highest mean suspended solids

32

concentrations during 2003-2005 were measured in the Grand Calumet River (19 mg/L) and in

the Calumet-Sag Channel (19 mg/L). The lowest mean suspended solids value was recorded in

the Chicago River (5 mg/L). There are no national water quality criteria or Illinois standards for

suspended solids in rivers and streams.

During the period 2003-2005, the mean suspended solids concentration increased along the length

of the CCW as water was transported downstream from Lake Michigan (Wilmette Pumping

Station, Chicago River Controlling Works, and O’Brien lock) to the Lockport lock (Table 4). The

increase in suspended solids along the waterways may be the result of discharges from

MWRDGC wastewater treatment plants, bank erosion, and overflows from separate storm sewers

and combined sewers causing scouring and resuspension of bottom sediment during storm events.

Table 4. Mean Concentration of Suspended Solids in the CCW during 1975-1977 and 2003-

2005

Waterways

Mean

Suspended

Solids

1975-1977

(mg/L)

Mean

Suspended

Solids

2003-2005

(mg/L)

North Shore Channel 28 12

North Branch Chicago

River

19 15

Chicago River 18 5

South Branch Chicago

River

15 12

South Fork ND 13

Chicago Sanitary and Ship

Canal

20 13

Calumet River 19 8

Grand Calumet River ND 19

Little Calumet River 28 18

Calumet-Sag Channel 37 19

33

Between the periods 1975-1977 and 2003-2005, the mean suspended solids concentration

decreased 44.6 percent in the CCW (Table 4). The significant decrease in suspended solids in the

waterways resulted from the removal of solids by TARP and the improved quality of discharges

from MWRDGC water reclamation plants. From start-up in 1986 through 2005, more than 1.5

billion pounds of suspended solids were captured and removed by the Mainstream and Calumet

TARP systems, thus prevented the solids from entering the CCW.

Dissolved Oxygen. Just as water is necessary to sustain life, so too is oxygen. All living

organisms are dependent upon oxygen in one form or another to maintain the metabolic processes

that produce energy for growth and reproduction. Adequate dissolved oxygen at all times in

streams and rivers is as critical to the overall good health of the aquatic biological communities as

is gaseous oxygen is to humans. Too little oxygen contributes to an unfavorable environment for

aquatic organisms. A minimum dissolved oxygen concentration of 5.0 mg/L is required for early

life protection of fish in a warm water habitat (USEPA, 1986).

In 1972, the MWRDGC proposed a system of artificial aeration stations in the CCW for

maintaining oxygen at or above the applicable DO water quality standard. The principle behind

artificial aeration is that oxygen is transferred to a waterway by mechanical or other means before

the DO concentration has decreased below the oxygen standard. The first artificial aeration design

considered by the MWRDGC for the waterways was diffuser systems. In diffuser systems

(instream aeration), oxygen is transferred to the water column by passing compressed air through

porous ceramic diffuser plates placed on the bottom of a waterway.

In the late 1970s, one instream aeration station in the North Shore Channel (Devon Avenue) and

one station in the North Branch of the Chicago River (Webster Street) became operational (Figure

1). In the late 1980s, a second improved design for artificial aeration was proposed by the

MWRDGC. The improved design was known as sidestream elevated pool aeration (SEPA).

SEPA involves low-head pumping of water by means of screw pumps to a series of elevated

shallow sidestream pools linked by waterfalls (Figure 11). During the period 1993-95, five SEPA

34

stations were constructed and became operational along the Calumet Waterways (Figure 1). One

SEPA station is located in the Calumet River (River Mile 328.1), one station is in the Little

Calumet River (River Mile 321.2), and three SEPA stations are in the Calumet-Sag Channel

(River Miles 318.0, 311.5 and 303.7).

Figure 11. Sidestream Elevated Pool Aeration (SEPA) Station on the Calumet-Sag Channel

Comparisons between the mean values of dissolved oxygen measured in the CCW during the

periods 1975-1977 and 2003-2005 are presented in Table 5. A grab water sample for dissolved

oxygen was collected three feet below the water surface in the center of the waterway. During the

period 2003 through 2005, the highest mean DO concentrations were measured in the Calumet

River (9.3 mg/L) and the Chicago River (8.4 mg/L). The lowest mean DO level was recorded in

the Grand Calumet River (3.9 mg/L).

35

Table 5. Mean Concentration of Dissolved Oxygen in the CCW during 1975-1977 and 2003-

2005

Waterways

Mean

Dissolved Oxygen

1975-1977

(mg/L)

Mean

Dissolved Oxygen

2003-2005

(mg/L)

North Shore Channel 8.1 7.5

North Branch Chicago River 5.1 6.6

Chicago River 9.9 8.4

South Branch Chicago River 5.5 6.8

South Fork ND 5.8

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal 4.0 6.1

Calumet River 8.7 9.3

Grand Calumet River ND 3.9

Little Calumet River 5.7 7.7

Calumet-Sag Channel 4.0 7.1

As the flow moves downstream from the Chicago and Calumet Rivers to the Lockport lock, the

mean DO decreased in concentration along the length of the CCW during the period 2003-2005

(Table 5). The decrease in DO along the waterways may be the result of low stream velocities

causing little or no natural atmospheric reaeration, sediment oxygen demand, and the biological

oxidation of organic matter from both natural and anthropogenic sources, especially during wet

weather events.

While DO decreases as the waterways flow away from Lake Michigan, the mean DO

concentration increased 16.7 percent in the CCW between the periods 1975-1977 and 2003-2005

(Table 5). Significant increases in DO occurred in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal (52.5%)

and the Calumet-Sag Channel (77.5%). The increase in DO in the waterways resulted from the

operation of the seven supplemental aerations stations, the capture and treatment of oxygen

demanding pollutants from CSOs, and the improved quality of discharges (reduction in BOD and

36

ammonia) from MWRDGC wastewater treatment plants. From 1986 through 2005, over 700

million pounds of oxygen demanding pollutants were removed by the operation of the

Mainstream and Calumet TARP systems. Since less oxygen was required to decompose these

pollutants, more oxygen was available to the waterways to improve water quality and support

aquatic life.

Ammonia Nitrogen. Ammonia is largely produced by the decomposition of organic nitrogen and

by the hydrolysis of urea from urine. Ammonia in rivers and streams is usually indicative of

wastewater discharges from municipal or industrial sources. The major sources of ammonia

nitrogen in the CCW are from treated domestic and industrial wastewater and combined sewer

overflows.

Ecological concern about ammonia in streams and rivers stems from their toxicity to aquatic

organisms. When ammonia dissolves in water, a chemical equilibrium is established which

contain un-ionized ammonia (NH3), ionized ammonia (NH4+), and hydroxide ions (OH-). The

toxicity of aqueous solutions of ammonia is attributed to the un-ionized ammonia. The toxicity of

un-ionized ammonia is very much dependent upon pH, the concentration of total ammonia, and

water temperature. Many laboratories have demonstrated that lowest lethal concentration of un-

ionized ammonia for a variety of fish species are in the range of 0.2 mg/L (most sensitive species)

to 2.0 mg/L (most tolerant species) (USEPA, 1986).

Comparisons between the mean values of ammonia nitrogen measured in the CCW during the

periods 1975-1977 and 2003-2005 are presented in Table 6. The highest mean ammonia nitrogen

concentrations during the period 2003-2005 were measured in the Grand Calumet River (1.6

mg/L) and in the North Branch of the Chicago River (1.5 mg/L). The lowest mean ammonia

value was recorded in the Calumet River (0.2 mg/L).

37

Table 6. Mean Concentration of Ammonia Nitrogen in the

CCW during 1975-1977 and 2003-2005

Waterways

Mean

Ammonia

Nitrogen

1975-1977

(mg/L)

Mean

Ammonia

Nitrogen

2003-2005

(mg/L)



River

6.1 1.5



River

3.2 1.2

South Fork ND 1.2


Canal

4.9 0.8





During the period 2003-2005, the mean concentration of ammonia nitrogen slightly increased

along the length of the CCW as water was transported downstream from Lake Michigan

(Wilmette Pumping Station, Chicago River Controlling Works, and O’Brien lock) to the Lockport

lock (Table 6). The slight increase in ammonia along the waterways may be the result of

discharges from MWRDGC wastewater treatment plants and overflows from combined sewers

during wet weather events.

Between the periods 1975-1977 and 2003-2005, the mean ammonia nitrogen concentration

significantly decreased by 80.3 percent in the CCW (Table 6). Significant decreases in ammonia

occurred in the North Branch of the Chicago River (75.4%), Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal

(83.7%), Little Calumet River (95.0%), and the Calumet-Sag Channel (95.6%). The substantial

38

decrease in ammonia in the waterways resulted from the improved quality of discharges from

MWRDGC water reclamation plants (secondary wastewater treatment with ammonia removal)

and the removal of ammonia by the operation of TARP. Over 50 million pounds of ammonia

nitrogen were removed by the Mainstream and Calumet TARP systems between 1986 and 2005.

Total Phosphorus. In rivers and streams, phosphorus primarily occurs as phosphates and can be

either dissolved, incorporated in aquatic organisms, or attached to particles that eventually settle

to the substrate. Total phosphorus refers to the sum of all forms of phosphorus in the water

column. Phosphorus is a particularly important nutrient in freshwater ecosystems because it is

usually the nutrient most limiting to primary production in undisturbed, natural ecosystems, and

its availability often controls the rate of growth and standing crop for aquatic plants. When human

activities make phosphorus available to rivers and streams, the accelerated growth of algae and

other aquatic plants can cause eutrophication, reducing the dissolved oxygen in the water column.

The largest source of phosphorus to the CCW is from treated municipal and industrial wastewater

and overflows from combined sewers. Currently, there are no national criteria or state of Illinois

standard for total phosphorus in rivers and streams.

Comparisons between the mean values of total phosphorus measured in the CCW during the

periods 1975-1977 and 2003-2005 are presented in Table 7. During the period 2003 through

2005, the highest mean total phosphorus concentration was in the Calumet-Sag Channel (1.87

mg/L). The lowest mean total phosphorus levels were recorded in the Calumet River (0.06 mg/L)

and in the Chicago River (0.37 mg/L).

39

Table 7. Mean Concentration of Total Phosphorus in the

CCW during 1975-1977 and 2003-2005

Waterways

Mean

Total

Phosphorus

1975-1977

(mg/L)

Mean

Total

Phosphorus

2003-2005

(mg/L)



River

1.82 1.09



River

0.84 0.88

South Fork ND 0.81


Canal

0.80 1.01





As the flow moves downstream from Lake Michigan (Wilmette Pumping Station, Chicago River

Controlling Works, and O’Brien lock) to the Lockport lock, the mean total phosphorus

substantially increased in concentration along the length of the CCW during the period 2003-

2005 (Table 7). The increase in phosphorus along the waterways may be the result of diffuse

urban nonpoint runoff and effluent discharges from MWRDGC wastewater treatment plants.

Overall, the mean total phosphorus concentration increased 17.5 percent in the CCW between the

periods 1975-1977 and 2003-2005 (Table 7). Significant increases in phosphorus occurred in the

Little Calumet River (94.0%) and the Calumet-Sag Channel (85.1%). The increase in phosphorus

in the waterways resulted from point source discharges (MWRDGC water reclamation plants).

40

Biological Communities

Healthy aquatic ecosystems exhibit ecological integrity, representing a natural or undisturbed

state. Ecological integrity is a combination of chemical integrity (dissolved oxygen, nutrients,

organic matter, metals, etc.), physical integrity (flow, habitat, water temperature, etc.), and

biological integrity (ability to support and maintain a balanced, integrated, adaptive community

with a species composition, diversity, and functional organization comparable to that of a natural

habitat) (Karr and Dudley 1981).

When human activities in a watershed are minimal, the biological communities are determined by

the interaction of biogeographic and evolutionary processes. As urbanization increases in a

watershed, landscapes are modified in a variety of ways. These changes alter the biological health

of the watershed biota, causing it to diverge from ecological integrity. Aquatic life in the

watershed directly reflects the environmental degradation. In some cases the biotic changes in the

watershed are minimal. In others, they are substantial. Aquatic biological communities integrate

changes in hydrology, water chemistry, geomorphology, physical habitat, and biotic interactions

(Karr 1991). A biological assessment is the primary tool for determining the biological health or

integrity in aquatic habitats. Benthic invertebrates and fish are by far the most commonly used

group of organisms for evaluating the ecological health of aquatic ecosystems.

Biological communities respond to environmental stressors by shifting in structure, for example,

changes in the kinds and numbers of species and the abundance of individuals. An unstressed

community supports a large number of different biological groups with relatively few individuals

within each group. High quality water provides an optimum environment for the existence of a

large number of different species. When a community is under stress, the number of species

intolerant of stress decreases, and species that can tolerate stress (tolerant species) increase. The

remaining tolerant species flourish because of their increased survival: a direct result of the

reduction of predators and a more favorable food supply.

Benthic Invertebrates

Benthic invertebrates are aquatic organisms without backbones that inhabit the bottom substrates

(sediments, debris, logs, macrophytes, etc.) of aquatic habitats for at least part of their life cycle.

The major benthic taxonomic groups included in freshwater are aquatic worms, crustaceans,

insects, snails, and clams. These organisms occupy all levels in the trophic structure (herbivores,

41

carnivores, or omnivores). Benthic invertebrates include deposit and detritus feeders, parasites,

scavengers, grazers, and predators.

Benthic invertebrates offer many advantages for measuring the biological impact of

environmental stressors upon freshwater ecosystems. First, they are ubiquitous and thus

observable in many types of aquatic ecosystems. Second, they are species rich, so the large

number of species produces a wide range of biological responses. Third, their sedentary nature

allows for the determination of the spatial extent of a stressor. Fourth, their long life cycles allow

elucidation of temporal changes in response to stressors. Fifth, benthic invertebrates continuously

monitor the water they inhabit; therefore, they provide evidence of ecological conditions over a

long period of time.

Forbes and Richardson (1913) conducted a benthic invertebrate survey in the Chicago Sanitary

and Ship Canal during 1911 and 1912. They found that oligochaete worms accounted for 100% of

the benthic community in the vicinity of Lockport, Illinois. Fifty years after the Forbes and

Richardson survey, Keup and others (1965) reported on the benthic invertebrate community in the

CCW. It was noted that all areas of the inland waterways were “degraded,” and the dominant

benthic organisms at all monitoring stations were oligochaete worms.

Since 1978, the MWRDGC (Polls and others 1980, Polls and others 1992) and the IEPA have

conducted periodic benthic invertebrate surveys at multiple locations in the CCW. During the

period 1993-94, EA Engineering monitored benthic invertebrates in the Chicago Sanitary and

Ship Canal (EA Engineering 1994a, EA Engineering 1995a). With the exception of benthic

surveys conducted by the MWRDGC, IEPA, and EA Engineering, very little monitoring

information on benthic invertebrates in the CCW is available. The benthic invertebrate data

discussed below was collected and processed by the MWRDGC during the period 2001 through

2004 (MWRDGC 2006). Quantitative sampling was conducted once during the four-year period

at 26 locations in the CCW using Ponar grab samples and Hester-Dendy artificial plate samplers.

During the 2001-2004 period, a total of 80 benthic invertebrate taxa, most of which were

identified to species, were collected from the CCW. Oligochaete worms were counted, but not

identified during the processing of sediment samples. Benthic taxa included 33 midge species, 7

leeches, 7 snails, 6 caddisflies, 6 clams, 5 mayflies, and 3 crustaceans. Predominant benthic

42

organisms in the CCW were the tolerant midge Dicrotendipes simpsoni and the invasive nuisance

mussel Dreissena polymorpha.

For this report, five metrics were selected to represent key biological attributes of the aquatic

benthic community. Metrics related to taxonomic composition (species richness and dominant

taxa) and density (abundance) are indicative of the biological health of the invertebrate

community. Increased species richness, low total abundance, and few oligochaete worms are

generally indicative of a healthy benthic community while a community dominated by one or two

tolerant species of benthic invertebrates (for example, oligochaete worms and midges) represent a

degraded ecosystem. The total Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies), and Tricoptera

(caddisflies) (EPT) groups function as an indicator of environmental perturbations because these

aquatic organisms are generally intolerant. Selected benthic invertebrate community metrics for

the CCW during the period 2001-2004 are summarized in Table 8.

Table 8. Benthic Invertebrate Community Metrics for the CCW, 2001-2004

Waterways

Species

Richness

Total

EPT

Taxa

Mean

Abundance

(#/m2)

Oligochaete

Worms

(%)

Dominant Benthic Fauna

North Shore

Channel

35 4 53,824 91 Worms

North Branch

Chicago River

25 0 38,939 94 Worms

Chicago River 22 2 3,635 88 Worms

South Branch

Chicago River

21 2 4,955 43 Worms, Midges, Zebra

Mussels

South Fork 10 0 9,598 54 Worms, Midges

Chicago Sanitary

& Ship Canal

53 7 15,332 89 Worms

Calumet River 37 3 29,996 4 Zebra Mussels, Hydra

Grand Calumet

River

12 0 3,256 94 Worms

Little Calumet 44 5 12,433 44 Worms, Zebra Mussels,

43

River Hydra

Calumet-Sag

Channel

42 3 16,899 71 Worms, Midges

All of the CCW are characterized by a low diversity of benthic invertebrate taxa (Table 8). The

highest species richness (53) was in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. The overall estimated

mean number of benthic organisms range from a low of 3,256 organisms/m2 in the Grand

Calumet River to a high of 53,824 organisms/m2 in the North Shore Channel. The dominant

benthic invertebrate groups in the CCW are oligochaete worms, tolerant midges, and zebra

mussels which accounted for 67.2%, 11.8%, and 11.5%, respectively, of all organisms collected.

EPT taxa are rare or absent in the waterways.

Overall, the benthic invertebrate community in the CCW is not balanced (low diversity) and is

dominated by oligochaete worms (Table 8). The South Branch of Chicago River, Bubbly Creek,

Calumet River, and Little Calumet River also had substantial populations of midges, zebra

mussels, and Hydra sp. Oligochaete worms feed on bacteria and may be responding to the

increased bacteria in the fine-grained, silty, organic bottom sediments. A benthic community

primarily composed of worms is indicative of degraded conditions resulting from organic

enrichment and chemical contamination of sediments. Similarly, some species of midges and

clams are also tolerant of physical habitat conditions characterized by fine organic sediment and

low dissolved oxygen.

The probable causes of the impaired benthic community in the CCW include: (1) chemical

contamination of streambed sediments; (2) homogenous sediment particles (silt); (3) flow

alterations (hydromodifications) and impoundment; (4) periodic urban runoff from combined

sewers causing low dissolved oxygen, and (5) poor riparian habitat/streambank alteration.

Fish

The distribution, species composition, and abundance of stream fish are affected by both abiotic

and biotic factors (Schlosser 1991). Many anthropogenic disturbances characteristic of an urban

landscape, including municipal and industrial waste discharges, storm water runoff, erosion and

sedimentation, straightening and deepening of stream channels, and flow alterations caused by

dam operation and water diversion, negatively affect the ecological health of fish populations.

Monitoring of the fish community is an integral component of a water quality management

44

program. To adequately evaluate biological integrity and protect surface water resources, an

assessment of fish must measure the overall structure and function of the community.

Field assessments of the fish community provide an essential tool for detecting aquatic life

impairment and have several attributes that make them useful as indicators of biological integrity

and ecosystem health. First, fish are excellent indicators of long-term chemical and physical

perturbations because they live long and are mobile. Second, the fish community generally

includes a range of species that represent a broad spectrum of trophic and tolerance levels. Third,

fish are at the top of the aquatic food chain and are consumed by humans; thus they are important

for assessing chemical contamination in the water. Fourth, regulatory aquatic life uses are

typically characterized in terms of the fish community. Fifth, fish are relatively easy to collect

and identify to the species level.

Information on the composition, abundance, and distribution of fish in the CCW is limited to field

surveys conducted by the MWRDGC, IDNR, and EA Engineering. Since the mid 1970s, the

MWRDGC and IDNR have conducted numerous fish surveys at multiple locations in the CCW.

During the period 1993-94, EA Engineering monitored fish in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship

Canal (EA Engineering, 1994b, EA Engineering, 1995b). The fish data discussed below was

collected and processed by the MWRDGC during the period 2001 through 2005 (MWRDGC

2006). Fish were collected once every four years at 26 ambient monitoring stations in the CCW

employing DC electrofishing.

Forty-five species of fish, including four hybrids were identified from the CCW during the period

2001-2005 (Table 9). A combined total of 11,328 fish were collected from the CCW during the

five-year monitoring period. Species diversity was highest in the sunfish and minnow families.

The fish community included 12 species of Sunfishes, 12 Carps and minnows, 4 Bullhead

catfishes, 3 Herrings, 3 Suckers, 3 Basses, 2 Trouts, and 1 species each of Killifishes,

Livebearers, Perches, Drums, and Cichlids. The most abundant fishes collected in the CCW were

the gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) and the common carp (Cyprinus carpio).

Five metrics were selected for this report to represent key biological attributes of the fish

community collected during the period 2001-2005 (Table 10). The metrics include species

richness (number of species), composition (dominant fish species) indicator species (number of

intolerant fish species and percent of sucker species), and the health/condition of individual fish

45

(percent of fish with external anomalies). DELT is an acronym for a deformity, fin erosion,

lesion, or tumor observed in fish. Increased species richness, low percentage of intolerant fish,

high percentage of sucker species, and the absence or low occurrence of external anomalies are

generally indicative of a healthy fish community in a warm water river ecosystem. A riverine fish

community dominated by one or two tolerant species of fish, few or absence of intolerant fish

species, and fish with external anomalies represent a degraded aquatic ecosystem.

Table 9.Common and Scientific Names for Fish Taxa Collected from the CCW, 2001-2005

Common Name Scientific Name

Skipjack Herring Alosa chryochloris

Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus

Gizzard Shad Dorosoma cepedianum

Goldfish Carassius auratus

Grass Carp Ctenopharyngodon idella

Spotfin Shiner Cyprinella spiloptera

Common Carp Cyprinus carpio

Carp X Goldfish Hybrid Cyprinus carpio X Carassius auratus

Golden Shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas

Emerald Shiner Notropis antherinoides

Spottail Shiner Notropis hudsonius

Sand Shiner Notropis stramineus

Blutnose Minnow Pimephales notatus

Fathead Minnow Pimephales promelas

Creek Chub Semotilus atromaculatus

Quillback Carpiodes cyprinus

White Sucker Catostomus commersoni

Black Buffalo Ictiobus niger

Black Bullhead Ameiurus melas

Yellow Bullhead Ameiurus natalis

Brown Bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus

Channel Catfish Ictalurus punctatus

Chinook Salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha

46

Blackstripe Topminnow Fundulus notatus

Eastern Mosquitofish Gambusia holbrooki

White Perch Morone americana

White Bass Morone chrysops

Yellow Bass Morone mississippiensis

Rock Bass Ambloplites rupestris

Green Sunfish Lepomis cyanellus

Green Sunfish X Pumpkinseed Lepomis cyanellus X Lepomis gibbosus

Green Sunfish X Bluegill Lepomis cyanellus X Lepomis macrochirus

Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus

Pumpkinseed X Bluegill Lepomis gibbosus X Lepomis macrochirus

Warmouth Lepomis gulosus

Orangespotted Sunfish Lepomis humilis

Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus

Longear Sunfish Lepomis megalotis

Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieu

Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides

White Crappie Pomoxis annularis

Black Crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus

Yellow Perch Perca flavescens

Freshwater Drum Aplodinotus grunniens

Round Goby Neogobius melanostomus

47

Table 10. Fish Community Metrics for the CCW, 2001-2005

Waterways

Species

Richness

Number

of

Intolerant

Species

Sucker

Species

(%)

DELT

(%)

Dominant Fish

Species

North Shore

Channel

27 1 1 1 Gizzard Shad

North Branch

Chicago River

22 1 1 8 Gizzard Shad, Carp

Chicago River 12 1 0 7 Gizzard Shad

South Branch

Chicago River

15 1 0 5 Gizzard Shad,

Emerald Shiner, Carp

South Fork 18 1 0 0 Gizzard Shad

Chicago Sanitary &

Ship Canal

21 0 0 5 Gizzard Shad, Carp

0Calumet River 21 3 2 1 Rock Bass,

Smallmouth Bass

Grand Calumet

River

0 0 0 0 No fish collected

Little Calumet

River

29 1 1 2 Gizzard Shad

Calumet-Sag Ch 20 0 0 2 Gizzard Shad, Carp

The highest fish species richness was in the Little Calumet River (29). Few intolerant fish species

and sucker species were collected from the CCW (Table 10). Dominant species were gizzard shad

(45.0%) and common carp (15.5%). Four highly tolerant fish taxa were commonly collected in

the CCW: common carp (398), bluntnose minnow (182), golden shiner (105), and green sunfish

(74).

A total of 333 fish collected during the 2001-2005 surveys (2.9% of the total fish collected)

exhibited DELT anomalies in the CCW. External anomalies observed on fish from the CCW

ranged from 0-8% of the fish collected at individual monitoring locations. Predominant fish with

48

DELT anomalies included common carp, largemouth bass, bluegill, green sunfish, and goldfish.

An elevated incidence of DELT anomalies in fish (greater than 1%) is an indication of stress

caused by a variety of environmental factors, including contaminated sediments. No fish were

collected from the Grand Calumet River.

Although some of the CCW support a limited sportfishery (black bullhead, channel catfish, white

bass, white perch, yellow perch, rock bass, green sunfish, pumpkinseed sunfish, orangespotted

sunfish, bluegill, smallmouth and largemouth bass, white and black crappie), the diversity, size

and abundance of sportfish was generally low compared to other lotic ecosystems.

Overall, a very poor native fish community is present in the CCW. The fish community in the

CCW is characterized by low species richness, domination by omnivores and highly tolerant

species, and low native fish abundance. The composition of the current fish community is likely

the result of synergistic environmental stressors from several sources. The probable causes of

aquatic life use impairment in the CCW characterized by the fish community include: (1) severe

channel alterations (channelization); (2) absence of clean, gravel/cobble substrate in streambed

sediments; (3) poor riparian habitat; and (4) periodic discharges from combined sewers causing a

decrease in the dissolved oxygen concentration.

Even though the fish community in the CCW is not a highly valued aquatic resource, the

improvement in the fishery over the last 30 years has been dramatic. As a result of the poor water

quality in the mid 1970s, the fish community in the CCW was severely reduced and limited.

Between 1974 and 1976, a total of 31 species of fish, including hybrids, were collected in the

waterways (Dennison and others 1998). Twenty-one additional fish species were collected during

the period 2001 though 2005 (MWRDGC 2006). The number of game fish in the CCW has also

increased from 13 species during the 1974 through 1976 surveys to 21 species during 2001-2005

(MWRDGC 2006).

The current fish data strongly suggests that the reduced environmental perturbations in the CCW

over the last 30 years have resulted in a considerable improvement in chemical water quality.

Pollution control activities implemented by the MWRDGC include the cessation of effluent

chlorination at the North Side, Calumet, Stickney, and Lemont WRPs, a substantial reduction in

the frequency and volume of combined sewer overflows through the construction and operation

of TARP tunnels, the expansion of water reclamation plants with subsequent improvement in

49

treatment plant effluent discharges/reduction in the biochemical oxygen demand and ammonia

removal, and a substantial increase in the dissolved oxygen concentration in the waterways

provided by supplemental aeration.

50

Navigation5

Under Corps nomenclature, the Chicago Waterway System (CWS) is divided into six distinct

segments: the Main and North Branch Chicago River, the South Branch Chicago River, the

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, the Calumet River, Lake Calumet and the Calumet-Sag

Channel. For navigation purposes, the sum of these segments is called “Port of Chicago.” The use

of this term is distinct from that employed by the Illinois International Port District (IIPD), which

uses “Port of Chicago” to describe its deep-draft operations on the southeast side of Chicago. For

this report, “Port of Chicago” will mean the six segments comprising the CWS as described by

the Corps.

With substantial variability, approximately 25 million tons of commodities move on the CWS

each year. Movement centers on bulk commodities including coal (30%), building materials such

as sand and gravel (40%), iron ore and steel products (20%) and a variety of other small-quantity

commodities (10%). Commodity movement has not been a growth industry but has remained

relatively flat from year to year since the early 1990s.

There are 13 miles of deep-draft segments on the southeast side of Chicago in the Calumet

River/Lake Calumet and in the Chicago River and contiguous sections of its north and south

branches. The remaining 58 miles of the CWS are maintained for barge traffic at a 9 foot depth.

There are 3 locks: the lock at the Chicago River Controlling Works (“Chicago Lock”) in

downtown Chicago, the O’Brien Lock in the southeast part of the system, and the Lockport Lock

which functions as the sole downstream access point.

In addition to barge movements the CWS is subject to significant recreational pressure. Over the

last 10 years, the three CWS locks handled anywhere from 45,000 – 65,000 recreational vessel

movements per year. There are numerous recreational marinas on the CWS as well as boat

storage facilities.

These commonly-cited numbers provide only a superficial understanding of commercial

navigation pressures on the CWS. Commodity movements tend to congregate along specific

5 All data on navigation are published by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center. Data were extracted and organized from Corps databases via a proprietary program written by Scudder Mackey and are available from the authors upon request. Original databases are available for public download at http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/ndc/wcsc/wcsc.htm.

51

segments while being nearly absent from others. Likewise, pressure from recreational uses is

clustered at certain locks and segments.

A review of lockage data reveals that movement of commodities between the Chicago River and

Lake Michigan is minimal (Figure 12). Fewer than 100 loaded barges per year transit the Chicago

Lock, and this number has been dropping steadily since 2000. Transit of commodity-laden barges

is much higher at the CWS’s other two locks. Lockport accommodates anywhere from 9,000-

12000 loaded barge movements annually (Figure 13), while O’Brien accommodates 4,000-8,000

(Figure 14). These barges bring with them corresponding movements from commercial vessels

(barge tows). In each case, movements peaked in the mid-1990s and have dropped off but stayed

steady at the lower end of the ranges since 2000.

52

Annual Vessel LockagesLockport Lock and Dam

Time (Years)

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Nu

mb

er

of

Ve

sse

ls

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

Commercial Vessels

Recreational Vessels

Total Vessels

Number of Barges Empty and LoadedLockport Lock and Dam

Time (Years)

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Num

ber

of

Barg

es

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000

12000

13000

14000

Barges Empty

Barges Loaded

Annual Vessel LockagesChicago River Lock and Dam

Time (Years)

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Nu

mb

er

of

Ve

sse

ls

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

55000

60000

65000

70000

Commercial Vessels


Total Vessels

Number of Barges Empty and LoadedChicago River Lock and Dam

Time (Years)

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Num

ber

of

Barg

es

0

100

200

300

400

500

Barges Empty

Barges Loaded

Figure 12 Figure 13

53

While elucidating CWS pressure points, lockage data does not provide directional information.

To better understand the direction and destination of cargo on CWS segments, it is essential to

define navigation terminology.

Canadian traffic, for the purposes of this report, moves between the CWS and Great Lakes ports

in Canada. Lakewise traffic moves between U.S. ports on the Great Lakes, while internal traffic is

commodity movement that is entirely within an inland waterway such as the CWS. Internal traffic

includes commodities that are carried between Lake Michigan and the CWS on barges.

Inbound vessels are entering a segment

and delivering cargo on that segment,

while outbound vessels are leaving a

segment to deliver cargo on another.

Upbound traffic is moving in the upstream

direction while downbound traffic moves

in the downstream direction. Through

traffic moves through a segment without

delivering or taking on cargo (USACE).

Each of these definitions should be

considered relevant to a given internal and

domestic system segment, e.g. the

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal (CSSC).

A vessel entering the CSSC at Lockport

lock with a destination on the CSSC

would be said to be inbound and upbound.

A vessel moving from the North Branch

of the Chicago River into the South

Branch then on to deliver cargo along the

CSSC would be downbound through

relative to the South Branch but

downbound inbound relative to the CSSC.

Annual Vessel LockagesO'Brien Lock and Dam

Time (Years)

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Nu

mbe

r of

Vesse

ls

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

Commercial Vessels


Total Vessels

Number of Barges Empty and LoadedO'Brien Lock and Dam

Time (Years)

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Nu

mbe

r of

Barg

es

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

Barges Empty

Barges Loaded

Figure 14

54

An example of lakewise traffic would be a deep-draft vessel entering the Calumet River and

dropping off cargo from another Great Lakes port. Although this cargo has moved on both the

Great Lakes and inland waterways, its destination port being the deep-draft Great Lakes port at

Chicago makes it lakewise traffic.

Lake Traffic

All non-Canadian foreign, Canadian, and domestic lakewise traffic requires access to a deep-draft

port and includes movement between the CWS and Lake Michigan. Following is a brief summary

of 2004 data as representative of current commodity traffic.

Non-Canadian foreign imports comprised approximately 1.2% of total tonnage in the Port of

Chicago in 2004. This was made up nearly entirely of 300,000 short tons of steel products. There

were no foreign exports from the CWS. Meanwhile, the U.S. imported nearly 2 million tons of

building materials and other minerals from Canada while exporting 835,000 tons of coal and

373,000 tons of petroleum products. Canadian imports and exports provide about 13% of CWS

traffic by tonnage: over 10 times that provided by foreign movements.

Domestic lakewise inbound traffic has steadily decreased since 1993 while shipments from the

port of Chicago have skyrocketed (Figure 15). Lake vessels took on over 3 million tons of coal in

the Port of Chicago in 2004, along with small volumes of petroleum products and building

materials. The port received over 800,000 tons of building materials including sand, gravel,

Figure 15

55

manufactured cement and steel from these vessels. Lakewise traffic accounts for another 15% of

traffic on the CWS.

Taken in sum, the vast majority of cargo entering the CWS from other Great Lakes ports is

building materials, and the vast majority leaving for other Great Lakes ports is coal. Commodity

shipment to Great Lakes ports from the Port of Chicago has climbed in the last decade while

receipts have plummeted. Together, lake, Canadian and foreign vessels account for nearly 30% of

CWS tonnage. Foreign imports, while of a higher value per ton than raw commodities moved by

Canadian and domestic lakewise traffic, are a small portion of this percentage.

56

Internal Traffic

The remaining 70% of commodity movements is supported by internal barge traffic distributed

irregularly across the six system segments. Total tonnage is greater than 25 million as each

segment’s commodity movements are counted individually. These movements may, and often do,

include cargo carried on one or more other segments. Bidirectional traffic and high tonnage on

the CSSC, Calumet-Sag Channel, and Calumet Harbor and River indicates significant use of

these channels as two-way commodity conduits. Upbound commodity movement and lower

tonnage on the various branches of the Chicago River indicate that these segments are primarily

specific commodity recipients rather than shippers.

1,000s

of short

tons

Primary

commodity

Trend

since

1993

Principal

Direction

Through

Traffic

Upbound:

Downbound

(Through

traffic)

Upbound:

Downbound

(All traffic)

CSSC 20,569 Various Flat Both 45% 1.95:1 3:1

Cal-Sag

Channel

8,560 Various Flat Both 96% 2:1 2.1:1

Lake

Calumet

1,366 Iron and

steel,

cement and

concrete

Upbound None - 9.8:1

Calumet

Harbor and

River

7,346 Various Flat Both 58% 1.4:1 1.8:1

Chicago

River,

North and

Main

1,730 Sand and

gravel, steel

scrap

Flat Upbound 1% 3:1 3.6:1

Chicago

River,

South

3,616 Sand and

gravel, coal

Slight

increase

Upbound 47% 3:1 4:1

Table 11: Internal cargo traffic volumes and ratios, 2004

57

The CSSC, while supporting movements in both directions, carries approximately twice as much

cargo upstream to the Chicago River as downstream. The vast majority of this cargo is kept

within the CSSC rather than moving into upstream reaches (Figure 16). Likewise, the Chicago

River generates minimal cargo for movement downstream into the CSSC (Figure 17); most

downbound movement on the CSSC originates elsewhere.

Movements in the southern reaches are more complex. While little barge traffic accesses Lake

Calumet, large volumes move from the CSSC up the Cal-Sag Channel and Calumet River (Figure

18). In the downbound direction, the Calumet River receives large volumes of cargo, some of

which continues down the Cal-Sag Channel and CSSC. Smaller volumes move downbound but

these reaches clearly support significant two-way movement of commodities by barge.

58

Figure 16 Figure 17

Figure 18

Direction of Travel

Figure 19

20042003

20022001

20001999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

Cal

umet

Har

bor

Lake

Cal

um

et

Cal

Sag

CSS

C

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

Short Tons

(x 1000) Year

Downbound Tonnage Calumet River and Harbor to

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal

(Inbound/Outbound/Thru)

Calumet Harbor

Lake Calumet

CalSag

CSSC

20042003

20022001

20001999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

Nor

th B

ranc

h

Sou

th B

ranc

h

CS

SC

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

Short Tons

(x 1000)Year

Upbound Tonnage Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal to North

and Main Branch Chicago River (Inbound/Outbound/Thru)

North Branch

South Branch

CSSC

20042003

20022001

20001999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

Nor

th B

ranc

h

Sou

th B

ranc

h

CS

SC

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

Short Tons

(x 1000)Year

Downbound Tonnage North and Main Branch Chicago River

to Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal

((Inbound/Outbound/Thru)

North Branch

South Branch

CSSC

20042003

20022001

20001999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

Cal

umet

Har

bor

Lake

Cal

um

et

Cal

Sag

CSS

C

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

Short Tons

(x 1000) Year

Upbound Tonnage Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal to

Calumet River and Harbor (Inbound/Outbound/Thru)

Calumet Harbor

Lake Calumet

CalSag

CSSC

59

Recreational Traffic

Recreational data can be broadly characterized in two ways: vessel movements across locks and

vessel movements within the system itself. As with commodity movements, recreational lockages

on the CWS are localized and widely variable. Starting at the geographic and flow “bottom” of

the CWS, the Lockport Lock provides the connection between the Mississippi River basin and the

Great Lakes. This lock sees approximately 1100 recreational lockages in either direction annually

(Figure 14). Conversely, the O’Brien Lock and the Chicago Lock see massive recreational

lockage operations – anywhere between 15,000 and 25,000 annually for O’Brien over the last 10

years (Figure 13), and between 20,000 and 45,000 annually at Chicago (Figure 12). Recreational

movements at O’Brien have been steady if not growing, while lockages at Chicago have actually

decreased consistently over the last decade.

There is “commercial” traffic moving through the locks in addition to “recreational” vessels. At

O’Brien and Lockport locks, commercial traffic is comprised primarily of barge tows facilitating

commodity movements. Commercial traffic at the Chicago Lock is primarily tour boats operating

between the CWS and Lake Michigan along with a small number of barge tows, research vessels

and barges supporting local construction efforts.

Data on density of recreational movements indicates that recreation on the waterways themselves

is focused at specific locations. Canoeing and kayaking make significant (>50%) contributions to

recreational density on the North Branch of the Chicago River. However, the South Branch,

CSSC and Calumet-Sag Channel are dominated by powerboat traffic as the primary recreational

activity. No data is available for the Calumet Harbor and River; the presumption is that upbound

recreational movements through the O’Brien lock are destined for Lake Michigan via the

Calumet River as there are no other recreational waterways available upstream of O’Brien.

Although only 3 marinas on the Calumet-Sag Channel returned survey postcards for a recent

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency use attainability analysis (CDM 2004), there are many

other marina and boatyard operators along this stretch of the CWS (USACE 1998). Boats from

these marinas use both Lake Michigan and the Calumet-Sag Channel for recreation. In addition

there are several marinas and storage boatyards on the main, north and south branches of the

Chicago River (CDM 2004).

60

Summary

There is an expected bias toward upbound movement of commodities. Shipments of coal via

laker traffic to both U.S. and Canadian ports are growing, while 2 coal-fired power plants on the

upper portion of the system receive fuel from barges. Several companies that process receipts of

building materials for eventual shipment by truck are found in the upper portions of the system as

well. There is still substantial downbound movement in the lower reaches of the system.

Two issues are of particular concern when considering management of the artificial connection.

One is the pressure for commercial access to upper portions of the system. Nearly all

commodities on the Calumet-Sag channel are destined for locations elsewhere. At a 2:1 upbound

ratio (2004 data), over 5 million tons must lock through O’Brien to access destinations on the

Calumet River or in northwest Indiana. On the CSSC, 75% of cargo is upbound; 8.6 million tons

moved into the downtown waterway segments from the CSSC during 2004. However, a review of

the Main and North Branches of the Chicago River shows only 1.3 million tons inbound during

the same year. This is attributed to the receipt of coal at the Fisk Generating Station and the

deposit of sand and gravel at storage yards on the southern portion of the South Branch.

Second is the issue of commodity movement between the CWS and Lake Michigan without going

through a modal shift – that is, without being transferred from barge to deepwater vessel or vice

versa. There is potential for this in two places: at the Chicago Lock downtown and at Calumet

Harbor. For each of the last 5 years, fewer than 50 loaded barges transited the Chicago lock,

presumably to supply materials and equipment for shoreline construction projects. All of the

Canadian and U.S. laker traffic discussed previously requires entry into the Calumet River deep-

draft channel for offloading at various locations along a 7-mile stretch. More critically, about 1.5

million tons of coal and petroleum, along with smaller amounts of iron and steel products and

scrap, moved through the Calumet River in 2004. Direct observations of shipping traffic indicate

some of this material is moving by barge to locations in northwest Indiana.

Enhancement of intermodal shipping opportunities at the Calumet River is a priority for the city

of Chicago. A 2008 Department of Planning report highlights the possibility of revitalizing rail

links along the Calumet River and creating new investment opportunities linked to intermodal

infrastructure improvements (ETP 2008). Any future investment in intermodal logistic

improvements to the port should include consideration of how improvements can benefit progress

toward ecological separation.

61

Downtown marinas feed a substantial number of vessels to the Chicago Lock and there are plans

to increase the number of available boat launches in the south branch of the Chicago River. This

traffic will continue to be concentrated within the first three river miles downstream from the

Chicago lock. While recreational lockages at the Chicago lock have been dropping annually, at

least one community (Blue Island) is promoting residential development including a marina along

the Calumet-Sag Channel, while the South Suburban Mayors and Managers Association and the

Chicago Southland Convention and Visitors Bureau have both passed resolutions recently

committing to the development of a master plan for Cal-Sag development. Existing and new

southern marina operators will continue to expect access to both the Calumet-Sag Channel as well

as Lake Michigan.

Recreational pressure to transit the Lockport Lock is steady with operations numbering less than

10% of O’Brien and an even smaller percentage of Chicago lockages. There is a small but

committed group of users moving between the Inland Waterway System and the Great Lakes

(America’s Great Loop Cruisers Association 2008). As for bulk commodities, current system use

for recreation favors upbound movement with much lower pressure to transit downbound toward

the Illinois River. Unlike commodity movement via barge, the majority of recreational users

appear to enjoy and expect access to Lake Michigan via the CWS.

62

Chapter 2 - Stakeholder Input

The following summarizes responses received from a series of one-on-one or small group in-

person interviews with stakeholders and experts on the CWS. Using 30 interviews the team

reached approximately 40 individuals from academic, political, policy and transportation

backgrounds (Table 12). Questions were presented objectively and the team did not lead

interviewees to preferred responses. Interviewees were advised that they did not need to provide

an answer to a question if they did not know or felt uncomfortable responding. In an effort to

cultivate honest and straightforward responses, interviewees were asked to speak freely, told that

the conversation was being recorded through note-taking and assured that no specific comments

would be attributed to them personally.

Question Set 1 - General

1. What do you consider to be the primary purpose(s) of the waterway system?

2. What are the primary functions (or services) provided by the waterway system?

3. Who are the primary beneficiaries of these functions?

4. What would be different if the waterway system was not there? Why?

Nearly all interviewees identified the true primary purposes of the CWS – to facilitate movement

of wastewater and commercial navigation. Some also identified recreational navigation and

sportfishing as purposes. These purposes are seen to serve the function of lowering the cost of

wastewater treatment and reducing expenses for goods in the Chicago area.

Many interviewees identified the commercial shipping industry as the primary beneficiary of

CWS functions, although it was noted repeatedly that this is not a growth industry. Water quality

benefits were assumed for several entities, including the people of the city of Chicago, people

within MWRDGC’s service area and the entire state of Illinois. In addition, the CWS benefits

agencies such as MWRDGC and the Corps by providing opportunities for them to fulfill their

mandates.

Responses to question 4 were variable but comprehensively addressed costs and benefits of the

CWS. On the perceived “positive” side, it is presumed that if the CWS was not there, the Great

Lakes and Mississippi River systems would not be facing the current invasive species threat. No

ability to send untreated or partially treated wastewater downstream may have forced the Chicago

63

Sanitary MWRDGC to implement much more stringent water quality improvements earlier. The

state of Illinois would have avoided legal battles with other Great Lakes states; this may have

created a more hospitable atmosphere for the Great Lakes Compact negotiations and ongoing

ratification process.

Perceived “negative” impacts of the CWS not being there principally focused on threats to water

quality. A number of respondents believed that Lake Michigan water quality would be

significantly degraded, even today, without the ability to divert wastewater downstream. There

was a presumption among an even larger group of respondents that Chicago’s economy would

not have been able to grow as quickly or at such as sustained pace during the 20th century without

this wastewater management option. While some pointed to the rise in prices of goods or increase

in overland transport without the CWS, others suggested the CWS was already irrelevant for

shipping before it opened due to Chicago’s development as a rail hub.

Question Set 2 – Basis of Need

1. What is the need - is Ecological Separation necessary to protect the Mississippi and Great

Lakes ecosystems?

a. If yes, why we can (or should) do it.

b. If no, why we can’t (or should not) do it.

2. What is possible - is Ecological Separation (as defined above) possible?

a. Is bi-directionality (i.e. complete isolation) important?

b. Is less than 100% effectiveness acceptable? Why or why not?

3. What would you change or modify to improve the definition of Ecological Separation?

4. What is the threshold to take action against invasive species?

a. What information/data are necessary to demonstrate that action is necessary?

b. What are the constraints to taking action?

5. What alternatives to Ecological Separation would you suggest?

Nearly every respondent answered question 1 with a “yes” although responses to subquestions

were much more variable. Perhaps predictably, interviewees with a resource management

background were quick to point out that mingling of species from different ecosystems makes no

sense in a rational management strategy and was unacceptable. Non-resource managers often

64

suggested that if the goal was to “protect” these two ecosystems, then ecological separation was

necessary. Another common response was a version of “We broke it, now we should fix it.”

While no interviewees said “no,” a minority did provide a “maybe” response. Cautions included

the fact that creating a separation at the canal did not combat other vectors and should not be

considered a true ecological separation; that it only makes sense if you want to prevent drastic

change; and that immediate high costs may not be balanced by long-term benefits.

Most respondents believe that ecological separation is possible and needs to be the stated goal of

any work regardless of likelihood of success. One interviewee suggested that the goal should be

to “eliminate human agency in species transfers.” Several provided similar cautions as in question

1 that ecological separation was not likely to be achieved. Likewise, most respondents felt that

complete isolation of both the Mississippi River and Great Lakes watersheds was imperative

although one suggested that we should not assume the systems were historically hydrologically

separate.

Less than 100% effectiveness was generally deemed “biologically unacceptable.” Although many

interviewees acknowledged that <100% was a likely reality given other vectors, there was a

necessity for 100% to continue to be the “political goal.” The canal was noted as the most likely

vector to cause invasions and the most likely place where 100% separation or close to it was

achievable. However, the canal could be managed at 100% and catastrophe would come from

another vector. Others noted that as solutions approach 100%, they become more palatable than

the existing electric barrier, which one respondent believed should be rated at only 5-10%

effectiveness in the long term.

Most interviewees felt that the stakeholders are well past a point warranting further action, but

respondents were split on how to determine what actions are warranted. Some respondents

believed in the precautionary principle, or acting if potential harm is significant enough to be

“scary.” Others cautioned against drastic preemptive action and encouraged the use of standard

species-by-species risk assessment protocols. Proposed alternatives to pursuing ecological

separation include an aggressive and well-funded monitoring/rapid response effort, immediate

hydrologic separation, and completion of the electrical barrier project.

65

Despite this split, there was general agreement that, with a few exceptions, once a species is

present in a subwatershed, managers are likely past the point that anything can be done to prevent

its spread in the long term. There is a strong bias toward taking prevention steps early and

backing off if research shows that there is not a threat. Several interviewees felt that system users

should have to demonstrate a lack of threat before being allowed to use or manipulate the system.

Some respondents noted that lack of planning or information, which is often perceived as a

barrier to achieving protection, has not been a constraint to taking action previously. In several

cases, including the Chicago dispersal barrier and an attempt to prevent round gobies from

entering Lake Simcoe in Ontario, action was driven primarily by politicians’ and agency staff’s

perception of threat and knowledge of prior impacts. High level agency staff is, in some cases,

not convinced of the threat of invasive species to the Great Lakes and have not prioritized

protective actions regardless of planning effort. Notably, some agency staff suggested that

questions of ecosystem dynamics or predicted changes cannot be answered reliably by scientists

or academics in a timeframe that will result in protective action.

Question Set 3 - Implementation

1. Who should have the responsibility and/or authority to implement any changes necessary

to achieve Ecological Separation and to maintain those changes in perpetuity?

2. Who currently has the responsibility and/or authority to implement changes and maintain

those changes in perpetuity?

3. Who assigns responsibilities and/or authorities to implement and maintain these changes?

4. To whom should these entities be accountable?

5. Who should be responsible and/or accountable for consequences of actions (or lack of

action)?

Preferences for responsibility and authority to implement changes can be distilled to a singular

recommendation. The vast majority viewed the Corps as the project lead with a strong role for the

states. Most acknowledged that the states would be unable to fund this type of project on their

own. There was a strong bias toward some type of official interagency and/or state-federal

partnership blessed by a branch of the federal government but a strong bias against any “new”

agency. There is an expectation that Canada will play an advisory role but no funding

commitment is expected.

66

There was far more variability in responses to questions of existing authority. Most interviewees

felt that multiple federal agencies, including the Corps, USFWS, USCG, and USEPA, as well as

the state resource agencies in Illinois, all had some mandate to act in support of ecological

separation, but that these mandates were ambiguous and unlikely to result in protective action. It

was mentioned repeatedly that the Chicago Dispersal Barrier Panel was not empowered to

actually make any management decisions, although empowering the panel in this way was not

recommended.

Likewise, it appears unclear which entities can assign the type of authority desired. Some

respondents identified the state of Illinois as an “assigner” and noted that at least two state

agencies, Illinois DNR and EPA, have competing mandates with regard to the CWS. Respondents

also believed that every branch of the federal government could provide this authority: Congress

through legislative authorization, the White House via executive order, or the Supreme Court via

consent decree. While none of these options seemed preferable to the others, one respondent did

mention that he “never saw federal agencies move so fast toward getting a job done” than when

the executive order was issued forming the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration.

Accountability is tied to this assignment of authority. Respondents often made the assumption

that some type of official interagency agreement would, regardless of issuing authority, ensure

accountability. Interviewees reiterated the need to use existing authorities and one suggested that

this would be an opportunity to make the ANS Task Force accountable for a specific protective

measure. Others mentioned the need to give some oversight to an interstate and/or international

body such as the IJC, GLFC or MICRA.

Responsibility for consequences of failure or inaction was a sore spot for many of the

interviewees. Most recommended that responsibility rest with the entity that issued the authority.

But there is a perception that ANS problems in general, and specifically species moving and

threatening to move through the CWS, have been highlighted by low and mid-level agency staff

only to be ignored by high-level staff and Congress. Despite or because of this situation, some

recommend not focusing overly on accountability but instead to get high-level decisionmakers

and stakeholders to agree on the need for action. Others emphasized the need to incorporate

infrastructure costs related to protecting ecosystem services into the cost of doing business on the

CWS.

67

Question Set 4 – Where, When and How

1. What are your visions for the future of the Chicago Waterway system?

2. Are you aware of any future plans for development and/or growth on the Chicago

Waterway system?

3. What changes in the waterways need to occur in order to achieve protection from

invasive species?

4. Assuming Ecological Separation is an appropriate response, when should Ecological

Separation be implemented? Why?

5. Please provide ideas as to how (and where) you would implement ecological separation.

Conceptually, several respondents showed a preference for the Chicago Waterway System to no

longer be called a “system” in the future. These respondents felt that regional needs and priorities

would be better served by managing the system as “rivers” or an “ecosystem.” Others pointed out

that the CWS was likely to maintain its primary role as treated wastewater conveyance for the

foreseeable future, i.e. for at least the next 50 – 100 years. However, interviewees knowledgeable

with the system pointed out that completion of TARP and the push for disinfection of effluent

will greatly enhance the quality of this treated wastewater within the next 10 years.

Multiple respondents also emphasized that there is a strong and growing trend toward residential

development and increased recreation on the river. This is best exemplified by the city of

Chicago’s “Chicago River Corridor Development Plan” (City of Chicago 1998), which strongly

emphasizes recreational growth and natural area management over, though not at the expense of,

commercial uses. These expectations are mirrored in the previously cited movement by south

suburban communities to redevelop their local segments of the CWS. It is generally believed by

respondents that, while commercial uses may continue, they are likely to decline over the next 20

years.

There was substantial knowledge of specific projects pending within the CWS. MWRDGC has

plans to construct more aeration stations while the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency is

promoting application of disinfecting technology at MWRDGC’s discharge points. The

aforementioned community plans prioritize riverwalks, boat access and public park space in

multiple communities. One respondent suggested that thermal discharge standards for power

68

plants would be raised. Several interviewees perceived that commercial landowners were being or

would be pushed off the North Branch. Pressure for residential development is strong along the

South Branch and Cal – Sag Channel and brings a concomitant demand for new recreational

harbors and slips. However, no new recreational boat permits are to be issued for deep-draft

portions of the CWS.

Nearly all respondents believed that an ecological or hydrologic barrier was the only solution that

would satisfy the need to protect the Great Lakes and Mississippi Rivers from invasive species.

While one respondent specifically said to “pollute” the waterway, several others believed that any

solution that violates the Clean Water Act or requires changes to state NPDES rules was unlikely.

Interviewees with hydrological knowledge generally believed that infrastructure can be built to

move CWS water anywhere but that some type of barrier would be required. MWRDGC is

engaged in hydrologic modeling projects that would allow the evaluation of various flow

alteration scenarios.

Respondents were significantly split on the question of timing. Many, particularly scientists and

resource managers, felt that separation implementation should happen immediately, ASAP or “10

years ago,” while several in the policy community believed this should happen “only when

relevant stakeholders say yes.” Two interviewees made similar suggestions that time frame for

separation be determined by having stakeholders agree on how to minimize costs within reason –

an unreasonable delay being one that creates significant interim costs, e.g. longer construction

contracts, monitoring, harvest, rapid response, invasion. Several mentioned that ecological

separation cannot come at the expense of terminating maritime commerce between the Great

Lakes and Mississippi Rivers.

Many respondents felt that that “how” of ecological separation was more a political than practical

question. Although many suggested that a physical separation at Lockport would achieve the

most expedient ecological result, no respondents recommended the outright elimination of this

connection for various reasons, including significant commercial traffic, existing coal transport

infrastructure, and the difficulty and expense of rerouting water from MWRDGC’s Stickney

facility.

Popular concepts for achieving separation or partial separation included: constructing a

permanent physical barrier at the confluence of the Grand Calumet and Little Calumet Rivers;

69

constructing a physical barrier east of Hart’s Ditch on the Little Calumet in Munster, IN; building

a physical barrier on the South Branch near Damen Avenue; pumping disinfected, oxygenated

treated wastewater to the north end of the North Shore Channel to create high water quality for

the North, Main and South Branches of the Chicago River; allowing the Chicago River branches

to flow into Lake Michigan; closing the O’Brien lock; implement a relatively simple dewatering

system for barges where commercial movements were needed (e.g. near the O’Brien lock);

implementing boat lifts as needed for recreational traffic (again at O’Brien). The small number of

barge tows moving through each lock daily suggests that up to a doubling of lockage time could

be feasible but delays beyond that were unacceptable.

Question Set 5 - Impediments to Implementation

1. What are the major impediments that need to be addressed before Ecological Separation

can occur? What are “deal stoppers”?

2. Which of these issues or barriers are most important (ranking)? Why?

3. How would you address these issues or impediments?

4. Who should pay for this?

5. Are there any existing cases or examples where ecological separation has been tried

before?

a. What were the consequences of action or inaction?

b. What factors were considered in separation?

c. What were the primary reasons to act, or not to act?

d. Who made the decision?

By far, most respondents who cited an impediment believed that commercial navigation would

pose the greatest blockade to achieving ecological separation. Many also cited high short-term

costs and MWRDGC’s fulfillment of statutory requirements to clean and move water as

impediments. Two respondents suggested that there was little understanding of how stakeholders

value the waterway system and that an in-depth values assessment was required before making

any statements on impediments.

Key experts noted that inflow of stormwater into the CWS – particularly in the northern reaches

of the system – can be significant during storm events and would constrain any changes to the

flow of these segments. An outlet must be available to accommodate these flows, meaning

70

connectivity between the northern and southern portions of the system and/or direct discharge

into Lake Michigan, especially during extreme events. A few respondents noted that flow

changes in the system would impact shoreline property.

To address these impediments, several interviewees noted that arguments in favor of “ecological

integrity” or “biodiversity” were unlikely to create momentum to overcome impediments. A

“leadership vacuum” was broadly identified, as well as a strong belief that leadership would have

to break through the “agree to disagree” impasses that have stopped preventative action in the

past. One respondent suggested that flow changes could be used to reinvigorate investment in

aging infrastructure along the populated portions of the waterway. Likewise, several interviewees

suggested substantial public-private investment in new transportation infrastructure to assist with

strategic relocation of commercial navigation operations. Another suggestion was to focus all

energy on a fix with the highest percentage protection in the shortest term possible – presumably

not requiring the agreement of commercial operators.

Most felt that ecological separation was a federal responsibility and should be funded as such

with small contributions from the Great Lakes and Mississippi River states. Some also believed

that commercial carriers and/or shippers should be responsible for some portion of the cost if a

separation project required that the CWS remain open to commercial traffic. A few suggested that

the “public” will pay for the project in the form of increased electricity, water and sewage

disposal costs.

The Legacy Act, which provides funding for contaminated sediment removal, was suggested as a

model. Under this structure, Congress would authorize a ceiling for expenditures on ecological

separation activities and projects would be approved and appropriated on an annual basis. We

note that this type of funding model is available under existing Corps authorizations in the Water

Resources Development Act of 2007 and requires specific project appropriations annually. Unlike

the Legacy Act, WRDA authorizations for ecological separation work do not require a state or

local match.

Summary

General

71

• Most stakeholders have a firm understanding of the benefits provided to the city of Chicago

and state of Illinois by the CWS.

• There is disagreement on whether the CWS is truly relevant for commercial navigation.

• The CWS serves to greatly enhance the quality of life for northeastern Illinois residents

through water quality improvement, access to recreation and lower commodity prices.

Basis of Need

• Some stakeholders view the permanent connection of the Mississippi River and Great Lakes

systems as a mistake with unforeseeable consequences.

• Many respondents urged the “fixing” of this mistake by pursuing ecological separation.

• Ecological separation is viewed as the logical endpoint if achieving protection for both

watersheds.

Implementation

• The Corps is viewed as the natural lead on a separation project.

• There is substantial confusion over which agency or agencies have the authority to pursue a

separation strategy now.

• Establishing action commitments from high-level decisionmakers is more likely to lead to

implementation than emphasis on accountability.

Where, When, How

• Regardless of ecological separation, restoration of natural character within the CWS is a

priority, particularly among those with local knowledge of the system.

• Several stakeholders cautioned that even if separation is ecologically desirable, desirability

may not be enough to justify drastic action immediately

• There is a universe of community-based development plans for the CWS which provide

much, if not all, of the necessary information to generate an assessment of stakeholder values

throughout the system.

Impediments to Implementation

• While separation is urgent, unless the priority of separation and perception of threat is raised

at the executive level within an agency or in Congress, it is unlikely to occur regardless of

other factors.

72

• Siting and engineering concerns are distant seconds to concerns of political viability.

• The greatest expected impediment to a separation project that changes water flows in the

CWS is concerns from users, most notably commercial barge and marina operators and their

clients.

• A stable federal funding source is required to pursue a multiyear effort.

73

Interviewee Affiliation

Kay Austin International Joint Commission

Thomas Butts Illinois State Water Survey (retired)

Allegra Cangelosi Northeast-Midwest Institute

Lindsay Chadderton The Nature Conservancy

Michael Chrzastowski Illinois State Geological Survey

Mark Cornish U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Rock Island District

Becky Cudmore Environment Canada

Joe Deal city of Chicago

John Dettmers Great Lakes Fishery Commission

Jim Duncker U.S. Geological Survey

Tim Eder Great Lakes Commission

Marc Gaden Great Lakes Fishery Commission

Roger Gauthier Great Lakes Commission

Kathe Glassner-Shwayder Great Lakes Commission

Rick Granados U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Rock Island District

Dan Injerd Illinois Department of Natural Resources

Gail Krantzberg McMaster University

Dick Lanyon Metropolitan Water Reclamation District

David Lodge University of Notre Dame

Rick Lydecker BoatUS

Hugh MacIsaac University of Windsor

Charles Melching Marquette University

Darren Melvin Illinois River Carriers Association

Jan Miller U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Phil Moy University of Wisconsin

Joy Mulinex Congressional Great Lakes Task Force

Victoria Pebbles Great Lakes Commission

Jerry Rasmussen U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/MICRA

David Reid Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory

Steve Shults Illinois Department of Natural Resources

Garry Smythe Shaw Environmental, Inc.

Richard Sparks National Great Rivers Research and Education Center

David Ullrich Great Lakes – St. Lawrence Cities Initiative

Table 12: Interview respondents

74

Chapter 3 – Separation Technologies

While no feasibility study has ever been completed for the application of separation technologies

on the CWS, a wide variety of separation technologies have been informally considered in

addition to the existing electrical barrier project. Additionally, a number of technologies were

analyzed as part of a 2004 barrier study on the Upper Mississippi River (FishPro 2004) and a

2005 feasibility study for stopping species movement into Lake Champlain (Malchoff et al 2005).

As was concluded in the Champlain study, short of physical separation, no single technology is

likely to provide a true ecological separation at the Chicago Waterway System.

Chemical, Electrical and Behavioral Barriers

As summarized in Table 13 and in the Malchoff and FishPro studies, non-physical barrier

systems have significant drawbacks in terms of long-term likelihood of preventing invasion.

Electrical barriers are expected to be highly effective against fish but are ineffective on planktonic

stages, as are acoustic and light barriers. Chemical technologies are highly effective against

many, if not all, life stages of aquatic organisms. However, long-term use would require frequent

if not perpetual violation of state and federal water quality standards, repeated expense and is

inconsistent with the use of a public recreational waterway. The application of heat could be

effective against a broad spectrum of organisms but heat would need to be generated around the

clock; similar to chemical applications, efficacious long-term use of heat would require either

changes in law or water quality standard violations and ecological degradation.

A combination of chemical and physical degradation, referred to as a “dead zone,” would rely on

managing attributes of the CWS to create a habitat that was inhospitable to aquatic life. As noted

in Chapter 1, the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal and Cal-Sag Channel have undergone severe

channel morphology alterations resulting in minimal high-quality physical habitat and low

diversity macroinvertebrate and fish communities. It can be presumed that removal of artificial

enhancements of dissolved oxygen and acceptance of increased pollution into these segments of

the CWS could create a “dead zone” that would not allow movement of any species between the

two systems. As with purposeful violation of water quality standards for heat, this would be

illegal under federal law and thus require a legislative change. Impacts of such a practice on the

Des Plaines and/or Illinois River are unknown.

75

Physical Barriers

Physical barrier options will result in minimal risk of organism movement between the two

systems but also significant impacts. One is quite obvious: the placement of an actual hydrologic

barrier, e.g. a concrete wall, in the canal would prevent water flow at that point. Dependent upon

location, a hydrologic barrier may or may not result in significant impacts to water management.

Additionally, a physical barrier will necessarily limit recreation and commodity movements. This

is discussed further in Chapter 4.

Other types of physical barriers also have limitations. Multiple types of moving screen or rotating

drum technology are available and have minimal impact on water flow. However they are

undesirable for areas of high navigation pressure like the CWS (Table 13). Intentional and

unintentional ecological isolation of headwater streams via dams and weirs is common. Examples

include the use of electrical weirs for sea lamprey control in the Great Lakes and headwater

isolation resulting from power generating dams throughout the region. Weirs are also commonly

used to isolate ponds and wetlands undergoing restoration, such as at the Jackson Park lagoons on

the shore of Lake Michigan in the city of Chicago. However, examples of separation projects

using weirs that would be similar in size and scope to the Chicago Waterway System were not

found.

There are options for innovative use of physical lock structures. Locks that minimize saltwater

intrusion to freshwater bodies during lock operations provide a potential model for the CWS. The

most well-known of these in the United States are the Hiram M. Chittenden Locks at Salmon Bay,

Seattle, Washington, which provide a commercially navigable connection between several inland

freshwater lakes and saltwater Puget Sound. After lockage, high density saltwater settles to the

bottom of a basin dredged upstream of the lock and is drained via pipeline discharging

downstream. Saltwater is also blocked by a moveable barrier. Water separation in this system is

dependent on the density differential between freshwater and saltwater. This density differential

would have to be artificially created in the CWS to facilitate separation and disposal of canal

water and infusion of treated freshwater.

76

A similar approach could be taken with a dewatering system with no need for a density

differential. A lock could be completely dewatered with a loaded barge supported by a bladder or

on the lock floor itself, as in a graving dock, at which time the lock would be refilled with treated

wastewater effluent and operated as normal. A pumping system of this type, integrated with

behavioral deterrents, was described by Dr. Richard Sparks in 2002 (Sparks 2002). Alternatively

a lock could be “dewatered” simply by managing flow of stream water out and treated wastewater

effluent back in at rates that minimized the volume of stream water left in the lock. Both of these

options would require increased lockage time, would still allow for some risk of movement of

aquatic species and would require alternative means of movement for recreational boats.

Vessel Transit Options

Recreational vessel movement over a physical barrier could be accomplished via boat lift.

Options are available to transport vessels up to 1,000 tons (Marine Travelift Inc. 2008), although

this is far beyond the needed capacity to move most recreational and commercial vessels in the

CWS. The Malchoff et al study suggested pricing of approximately $400,000 for a 165-ton lift.

Combined with some type of washing and sterilization method, this would be an appropriate

means to move recreational vessels over a physical barrier.

The 1500-ton loaded weight of an Illinois River barge makes barge lift methods much more

difficult to conceptualize and exceedingly expensive. It is unclear if technology exists to move a

loaded barge overland around a physical barrier without compromising the cost savings of barge

movement. One concept is to combine isolation and sterilization of water with movement across

canal segments. The most famous and unique example is the Falkirk Wheel, which rotates 180

degrees to transport barges and narrowboats across a 24 meter differential between the Forth and

Clyde Canal and the Union Canal in Scotland. While not designed to provide an ecological

separation, the wheel does move barges inside an isolated tank of canal water that could

hypothetically be sterilized as part of the wheel’s operation. However, the wheel has a 600-ton

total weight limit, making it infeasible for lifting standard 35 x 195 foot, 1500-ton cargo barges

that operate on the Illinois River. Another European lift, the Strepy-Thieu boat lift in Belgium,

provides up to 1350 metric tons of capacity, making it much more suited for the type of traffic on

the CWS. Multiple lifts near this capacity are in operation in Germany and Canada. A 3000-ton

lift is under construction on the Yangtze River in China (China Three Gorges Project Corporation

2008). None of these mechanisms prevent water from mixing across canal segments.

77

Summary

Non-physical deterrents are unlikely to provide the level of protection from invasion desired by

stakeholders. They are also problematic for other reasons unlikely to be surmountable such as

requiring changes to federal environmental law. Physical barriers are preferable for their

ecological protectiveness but will require construction of alternative means for moving vessels.

While this is relatively straightforward for recreational and small commercial vessels, barge

traffic would require access to a novel lockage system that minimized the volume of

contaminated water moving between system segments. A lift system is likely prohibitively

expensive while use of a drydocking or water differential system is more feasible. A final option

is to eliminate barge movement completely at the chosen barrier site.

78

Control Method

6

Type of Alternative

Optimum Diversion Efficiency

for Designated

Taxa

Probable Risk of Allowing

Movement of Any Organism

Navigational Impact

Water Management

Impact

Construction and/or

Implementation Complexity

Operational and/or

Maintenance Issues

Stakeholder Acceptability

Probable Cost Range (Installed)

Comments

Physical Barriers

Vertical Drop (Existing Overflow Spillways)

95 – 100% Moderate: Site dependent, unidirectional

Significant at spillway; Access through locks

None to minimal

Site dependent Low High assuming minimal increase in lockage time

Existing Spillway

Locating a barrier or deterrent system at an existing lock and dam with a high head spillway can provide partial barrier benefits.

Rotating Drum &/or Traveling Screens, Floating Curtains

95 – 100% Low to Moderate Significant Impact at locks

None to minimal

Extreme: Extensive civil works; Cofferdams

High: Icing; Fouling

Low due to navigational

impacts and high maintenance

Varying; not applicable

High navigational impact and high maintenance requirement with a tendency to clog with silt and debris

Hydrodynamic Louver Screens

86 - 97% High: Fouling problems; species and size specific

Significant None to minimal

Moderate: Anchor system in water

High: Icing and fouling by debris

Low due to navigational

impacts and high maintenance

$1.0 million to $2.0 million

High navigational impact and high maintenance requirement with a tendency to clog with silt and debris

Hydrologic Separation

100% Minimal Significant High Extreme: Extensive civil works; Cofferdams

Minimal Variable: high among many

constituencies; low among

commercial navigation and

some recreational interests; variable

among agency staff

Expensive Barge traffic would have to undergo modal shift or pass through sterile lift

6 FishPro summary adapted for constraints of Chicago Waterway System by authors.

Table 13: Available barrier technologies

79

Bladder 95 - 100% Low to Moderate Significant None to minimal

Extreme: Extensive civil works; Cofferdams

High Moderate Expensive Locks are dewatered and barge is supported on a bladder while "new" water is introduced. Barge hulls and ballast are potential vectors

Electrical Barriers

Electrical Barrier (Main Stem)

95 – 100% High: Variable depth for electrical field, silt, maintenance, size dependent; not effective on planktonic stages

Moderate to Unknown

None to minimal

High: Electrode installation in water; custom design and engineering

High Power outages, maintenance, debris, etc.

Medium: negative perception of safety; no consensus on long-term effectiveness

$15.0 million to $25 million

Technically feasible for a large main stem river installation. Significant power requirement and public safety concerns.

Electrical Barrier (Inside Lock)


Moderate to Unknown

None to minimal


High: Safety Medium: negative perception of safety; no consensus on long-term effectiveness

$7.0 million to $10.0 million


Electrical Barrier (Lock Channel Entr.)


Moderate to Unknown

None to minimal


High: Safety Medium: negative perception of safety; no consensus on long-term effectiveness

$7.0 million to $10 million


Chemical Barriers

Piscicide 60-95% Low in short-term; Moderate to High in long term: Maintaining adequate concentrations difficult

Low and short-term

Short-term water quality standard violations

High: Chemical available; complex implementation

High: Implementation

Medium in short term, low in long

term due to violation of WQ

standards

Varying; Expensive short-term

Technically feasible but expensive short-term. Negative public perception. Significant regulatory issues.

Repellants (Pheromones)

60-95% Moderate Low None to minimal

High; technology unavailable

Moderate High $1.0 million to $2.0 million

Possibly applied in conjunction with an additional barrier, the object would be to repell species away from protection area.

Attractors (Pheromones)

60-95% Moderate Low None to minimal

High; technology unavailable

Moderate High $1.0 million to $2.0 million

Applied in conjunction with some sort of additional barrier, the object would be to divert species away from the

80

lock area before the lock is used.

Energy

Heat 95 - 100% Low to Moderate Low Long-term water quality standard violations

High: custom design and engineering

High Low due to long-term water quality

impacts except high among

energy suppliers

Expensive Water in lock is heated until exotic organisms die.

Energy (cont)

High Velocity (Point Release)

Unknown; species specific

Low: Site dependent None if installed at spillway gates

Unknown Site and species dependent

Moderate; debris may clog or damage

Unknown; Site Dependent

Site dependent

Although potentially retrofitted into an existing lock and dam spillway, swimming capabilities of Asian carp may preclude feasibility

Turbulence Unknown; species specific

Low Slight Unknown Moderate Moderate High Unknown Sufficient turbulence or velocity is introduced in lock to kill fish in system.

Viscosity Unknown; species specific

Low to Moderate None Unknown Extreme: Extensive civil works; Cofferdams

Moderate High $2 million to $4 million

European systems have had luck using fluids of different viscosities to separate salt water from fresh water habitats.

Acoustic and Light

Strobe Lights 50-95% Moderate to High: Species and size specific; location & day/night specific; effectiveness varies with time of year (water temperature, flow, etc.); not effective on planktonic stages

None to minimal

None to minimal

Moderate: Packaged unit

Low: Lamp and power delivery system maintenance

High $0.5 million to 1.0 million

Only considered to be appropriate as a lock entrance channel deterrent

Air Bubble Curtain

50-95% High: Does not work in high water velocity; not effective on planktonic stages

None to minimal

None to minimal

Moderate: Air piping in varying depths

Moderate : Compressor and air line maintenance

High $0.5 million to 1.0 million

Only considered to be appropriate as a lock entrance channel deterrent. Not effective under high flow conditions.

81

Acoustic Deterrent: Sound Projector Array (SPA) at Lock Entrance

~80% Moderate to High : Species and size specific; location & day/night specific; effectiveness varies with time of year (water temperature, flow, etc.); not effective on planktonic stages

None to minimal

None to minimal


Low : Transducer and power delivery system maintenance

High $1.0 to 1.2 million

Potentially feasible as a deterrent for lock entrance channels

Acoustic and Light (cont)

Acoustic Deterrent: Sound Projector Array (SPA) at Spillway gates

~80% Moderate to High: Species and size specific; location & day/night specific; effectiveness varies with time of year (water temperature, flow, etc.); not effective on planktonic stages

None to minimal

None to minimal


Low: Transducer and power delivery system maintenance

High $1.0 to 8.0 million

Potentially feasible as a deterrent for spillway gate areas opened under full flow conditions

Acoustic Deterrent: Pneumatic Acoustic Bubble Curtain (BAFF) at Lock Entrance

~90% Moderate to High: Species and size specific; location & day/night specific; effectiveness varies with time of year (water temperature, flow, etc.); does not work in high water velocity; not effective on planktonic stages

None to minimal

None to minimal

Moderate: Packaged unit; air piping in varying depths

Low: Transducer and power delivery system maintenance; compressor and air line maintenance

High $0.9 million to $1.2 Million

Potentially feasible as a deterrent for lock entrance channels

82

Acoustic Deterrent: SPA Based Acoustic Bubble Curtain (SPA/BAFF) at Lock Entrance

~90%+ Moderate to High: Species and size specific; location & day/night specific; effectiveness varies with time of year (water temperature, flow, etc.); does not work in high water velocity; enhances the overall effectiveness of a standard BAFF in areas with intermittent turbulence and barge traffic; not effective on planktonic stages

None to minimal

None to minimal



High $1.0 million to $1.4 million

Potentially feasible as a deterrent for lock entrance channels. Enhances the overall effectiveness of a standard BAFF system; SPA component allows utilization of Asian carp specific audiogram.

Hybrid Comb. System (Strobe light/acoustic)

60-95% Moderate to High: Species and size specific; location & day/night specific; effectiveness varies with time of year (water temperature, flow, etc.); not effective on planktonic stages

None to minimal

None to minimal



High $1.5 million to $2.2 Million

Potentially feasible as a deterrent for lock entrance channels. Combination systems have generally proven to be more effective

Hybrid Comb. System (Str. light/bubble curt.)

60-95% Moderate to High: Species and size specific; location & day/night specific; effectiveness varies with time of year (water temperature, flow, etc.); does not work in high water velocity; not effective on planktonic stages

None to minimal

None to minimal


Moderate: Compressor, air line and power delivery system maintenance

High $1.0 million to $2.0 million

Potentially feasible as a deterrent for lock entrance channels. Combination systems have generally proven to be more effective

83

Chapter 4 - Separation Scenarios

Based on assessment of all factors summarized earlier in this report, the team identified 5

locations on the CWS and associated Indiana waterways that should be considered for complete

or partial ecological separation (as defined in Chapter 2). Based on technical and interview data,

these proposed scenarios are considered most likely to be the ones eventually considered by a

broad group of stakeholders due to perceived ecological protection, consequent changes in flow,

transportation type, frequency or volume, presence of existing infrastructure, geographic location

or a combination of these factors. With the exception of the “Lockport-Romeoville” scenario,

these separation points are complementary not exclusionary. As shown in Chapter 3, several

technology options can reduce the likelihood of invasion and many of these do not affect water

quality parameters, flow or navigation. These options are unlikely to achieve 100% or near 100%

effectiveness against all life stages. In keeping with the recommendation of the 2003 Chicago

Invasive Species Summit, we extensively discuss options that have navigation impacts as well as

the appropriateness of other technologies. We make the assumption that a hydrologic barrier, or

complete elimination of all flow, at any location is the only way to guarantee 100% elimination of

movement of all life stages of organisms via waterway routes.

Any separation strategy that relies on an alternate mode of transport for commodities must

acknowledge the potential impacts on local transportation networks and environmental quality. A

single barge loaded with 1750 short tons of material corresponds to 16 railcars or 70 semi-

tractors/trailers. Additionally, rail and truck movements produce more pollutants per ton than

barges while being approximately 30% and 75% less fuel efficient, respectively (Texas

Transportation Institute 2007). The impacts of transitioning any volume of a commodity to an

alternate mode should balance these factors against costs avoided by making the modal shift.

Lockport –Romeoville

The 2-mile radius of the existing electrical barrier in the CSSC is an intuitive barrier site, as

protective action here eliminates all other potential canal vectors upstream in the CWS.

Recreational movements are down to a trickle with around 1,000 recreational vessels passing

through the nearby Lockport lock each year. Barge movement at this transition is comparatively

massive, averaging 25-30 barge “bottoms” (individual barges) moving through Lockport lock

84

daily carrying a wide variety of bulk commodities. Nearly the entire volume of water that enters

the CWS flows through this point.

Impact of Hydrologic Barrier

Barge traffic could be accommodated as described in Chapter 3. Operation would have to be

accomplished quickly enough to keep barge movements profitable. Existing lifts in operation in

Europe can accomplish movement in less than 20 minutes, but there is no sterilization step.

Another method would allow barges to offload cargo onto the barrier, then reload onto new

86

barges on the other side of the barrier. Finally, barge traffic could be eliminated and all bulk

commodities could be moved into upstream segments by different means, such as truck or rail.

Creation of a true hydrologic barrier here would eliminate MWRDGC’s ability to move treated

wastewater and stormwater through Lockport and into the Illinois River, requiring massive

replumbing of Chicago’s wastewater disposal system. Unlike the Chicago and Calumet Rivers,

the waterways directly upstream of this transition (CSSC and Cal-Sag Channel) are artificial

canals on the Mississippi side of the watershed divide. While downstream flow rates in this

transition can be as low as 2 ft/s, it is impossible to describe, without significant hydrologic

modeling, what would be necessary to create a flow that moved east from Lockport over the

continental divide and into Lake Michigan. As noted earlier, many stakeholders are aware of this

and hesitated to recommend a hydrologic separation here for this reason.

A dewatering lock, while not solving the issue of ecological connection via wastewater flows,

could presumably be installed with an acceptable increase in lockage time. Early indications from

industry representatives suggest that increases in lockage time of more than several hours may

eliminate the competitive advantage of low speed but low cost that barge movement offers.

Obviously, any project that requires a modal shift to rail or truck would have a significant impact

on barge operators’ ability to do business upstream of Lockport.

Impacts of Other Barrier Technologies

Stakeholders have determined that achieving 100% elimination of the CWS invasion vector via a

hydrologic barrier is unrealistic in a very short time frame. However, this site provides a sensible

location for interim application of multiple barrier technologies. Other barrier technologies should

be applied at the Lockport-Romeoville location as soon as possible. This will build upon

investment already made in the electric barriers.

The electrical barrier is only effective against fish of certain species and sizes and not at all

effective against planktonic stages or plants. Assuming the electrical barrier system is as effective

on fish of all sizes as predicted, additional technologies should be chosen based on their ability to

prevent movement of non-fish organisms. Application of any of the previously described acoustic

or light barriers would have minimal long-term impact on navigation or water management but

also appear to have minimal effect on non-fish species that may move through the electrical

87

barriers. Other physical barrier technologies are unlikely to provide significant benefit as they are

fish-specific, require significant maintenance and still impede navigation.

If a complete hydrologic separation is ever deemed infeasible – for instance, as the result of a

federally-funded and sponsored feasibility study - the Lockport location is a natural place to apply

lock-dependent technologies such as heat, chemical, graving dock or viscosity (mixing)

treatments in a lock-controlled environment. Under such a scenario, navigation would only be

impacted by increased wait times during lock operations. MWRDGC activities would be slightly

affected by increased lockage time and decreased water quality. However, any lock-dependent

technology would continue to allow some mixing of water and organisms between the CWS and

the Illinois River, preventing 100% certainty in the elimination of invasion risk.

Chicago River

Two locations on the Chicago River should be considered for possible ecological separation: the

transition from the CSSC to the South Branch and the mouth of the Main Branch to Lake

Michigan.

Impact of Hydrologic Barrier between the CSSC and the South Branch

The transition between the CSSC and the South Branch provides the most obvious change in

transportation type, frequency and volume anywhere on the CWS. The more than 20 million tons

carried annually (2004) on the CSSC drops to 3.5 million on the South Branch. Much of this is

coal destined for Midwest Generation’s Fisk Generating Station at 1111 W. Cermak, or just

downstream of the South Branch and Halsted Avenue. Upstream of Halsted, nearly all of the

remaining 1.7 million tons carried by barges is sand and gravel destined for building material

suppliers on the North Branch. A small amount of scrap steel is carried downbound from the

North Branch.

As noted earlier, all branches of the Chicago River host significant recreational traffic and are

home to many marinas and boatyards. However, the CSSC has relatively limited recreational

movement (38 powerboat observations during 28 days in summer of 2003 (CDM 2005)) due to

the lack of recreational facilities and limited destinations downstream of the South Branch

88

Chicago River. One exception is the ±1000 recreational vessels that move through the Lockport

lock each year which eventually reach Lake Michigan via the CSSC or Cal-Sag Channel.

Water flow characteristics at this site also represent a natural break within the system. Accepting

water from the North Branch, North Side treatment plant, stormwater inflows, CSOs and

discretionary diversions into the CWS, the South Branch enters the CSSC well upstream of the

Stickney Treatment plant. Less than 25% of the total CWS water volume moving through

Lockport during dry weather passes through this transition.

A hydrologic barrier here would have two primary impacts: elimination of commercial cargo

movement on the Main and North Branches and elimination of MWRDGC’s ability to move

treated wastewater and stormwater downstream to the CSSC. The only outlet for all branches of

the Chicago River would be Lake Michigan.

A barrier near Western Avenue and the CSSC would prevent coal delivery by barge to Fisk

Generating Station. This impact could be eliminated by siting the barrier upstream of Fisk

Generating Station near Halsted Street, but this would eliminate the ability to use MWRDGC’s

Racine Avenue Pumping Station (RAPS) during extreme weather for flood control purposes.

Placement at Halsted would also limit access to the rest of the Chicago River from Bubbly Creek,

which is undergoing ecological restoration and residential development. Creating access for

Bubbly Creek residential property owners over a physical barrier, e.g. via a sterile boat lift, may

be easier than creating a new coal delivery system to Fisk, but CSO discharges from RAPS would

still need to be accommodated. Building material and scrap metal facilities on the North Branch

would no longer use the CSSC for cargo movement.

The elimination of the Chicago Lock would allow water levels in the Chicago River near its

mouth to ebb and rise with Great Lakes water levels. Impacts to upstream Chicago River levels

are unknown and would need to be modeled. Shoreline infrastructure exposed to these new

fluctuations would have to be evaluated to ensure long-term safety. All inflows to the Chicago

River would mix with Lake Michigan water which necessitates the minimization of CSO activity.

Stormwater runoff would mix freely with lake water and potentially cause water quality standard

violations during storm events. Largely dependent upon cost, North Side treatment plant effluent

would either need to be raised to drinking water standards or rerouted so it did not impact Lake

89

Michigan water quality. Water exiting the Chicago River system into Lake Michigan would, as

now, be credited against Illinois’ water diversion threshold of 3200 cf/s.

If level control of the Chicago River is desirable, the Chicago Lock could be retained. This would

eliminate concerns over shoreline infrastructure and would create a closed system including the

Main, North and South Branches of the Chicago River along with the North Shore channel.

Wastewater would still need to be treated to drinking water standards since the Chicago Lock

would be the only option for level control on the Chicago River and would presumably allow for

mixing of river and lake water. The lock would still be used to discharge water to Lake Michigan,

providing the benefits to Illinois’ water diversion account.

Managing water flows in the CSSC under either of the above scenarios is entirely possible but

would be expensive. MWRDGC already has the ability to move captured combined sewage into

the TARP system on the north side. If placement of water into the CSSC or South Branch was

desirable to maintain levels or water quality, MWRDGC could construct a similar system to

allow the discharge of treated effluent from the North Side treatment plant into the CSSC.

Alternatively, North Side effluent could be pumped to the upstream end of the North Shore

channel and allowed to flow downstream to enhance water quality in the Chicago River.

Likewise, a system would need to be installed to generate flow in the upper reach of the CSSC

after the connection to the South Branch was eliminated.

Impact of Hydrologic Barrier between the Main Branch and Lake Michigan

This option provides the significant advantage of requiring very minor modifications to

MWRDGC’s current operations and infrastructure to achieve ecological separation. Replacement

of the Chicago Lock with a hydrologic separation would eliminate all water and species

movement via this vector while allowing MWRDGC’s existing treatment facilities and overflows

to operate as they exist today. Direct diversions of Lake Michigan water for water quality

improvement purposes soon no longer be necessary, but MWRDGC (Lanyon 2008) maintains

that despite significant reduction in regular CSO activity, the option to reverse stormwater flows

to Lake Michigan will be required in perpetuity to protect public safety even with the completion

of TARP. There has already been a dramatic decrease in the amount of water diverted for water

quality purposes as shown in Figure 7.

90

However, a barrier at this site has the serious disadvantage of impacting tens of thousands of

recreational and commercial vessel movements annually. During 2006, the lock supported

approximately 11,000 commercial movements and 22,000 recreational movements. A hydrologic

barrier would eliminate the option for movement via lock between Lake Michigan and the

Chicago River. However, recreational movements could be accommodated by sterile boat lift

with wait times comparable to lockage. Alternately, recreational slips for users wishing to access

Lake Michigan could be relocated to new or expanded Lake Michigan marinas. Commercial

operation carrying passengers between the Chicago River and Lake Michigan would likely be

eliminated unless provisions were made for the safety of passengers on board during lift

operations.

Calumet Region

The Calumet region presents a unique set of circumstances in the CWS. It includes the only

segment, the Calumet River, that regularly accommodates deep-draft lake and ocean vessels. It

also includes Lake Calumet, unique in that vessels cannot transit the lake but enter and exit

through a single point. Finally, the Calumet River is under use pressure from both commercial

barge navigation originating far below the region and recreational boats transiting the O’Brien

Lock, originating nearby on the Little Calumet River.

Oceangoing shipping is a minor concern in the Port of Chicago, comprising 1.2% of traffic in

2004. Laker traffic is significant with port operations primarily at the upper reaches of the

Calumet River. Lake Calumet is a significant (10:1) receiver of goods, primarily concrete and

cement products from lakers and steel from barges.

Further complicating this portion of the system is the movement of barges from the mouth of the

Calumet River into northwest Indiana, carrying steel scrap and products as well as coal. These

barges also return to the Calumet River with slag and steel products.

Impact of Hydrologic Barrier in the Calumet River

It will be difficult to site a hydrologic barrier in the Calumet region without having a significant

impact on commodity movements. Any barrier that eliminated deep-draft commerce will

necessarily impact a major segment of commodity shippers. To impact the smallest volume of

91

commodity movement and still provide a 100% hydrologic barrier, the logical location is on the

Calumet River near Lake Michigan. This would allow laker and ocean vessels deep-draft access

to some existing Calumet River ports but would require construction of a new modal transfer

facility to move commodities over the barrier. Likewise, barge traffic originating in the Cal-Sag

Channel would still be able to access some of the ports available today. Exceptions may include

deep-draft access to Lake Calumet and direct barge access to Lake Michigan would certainly be

eliminated. The O’Brien Lock would no longer be used. Consideration of this separation can be

built into ongoing discussions of intermodal improvements in the Calumet River (ETP 2008).

Recreational traffic could be accommodated with the use of a sterile boat lift at the barrier site.

Since boaters are accustomed to using the O’Brien Lock to access Lake Michigan, there should

be little concern from this stakeholder group over wait times, particularly since access to Lake

Michigan will be preserved. Any use of boat lift technology combined with hull cleaning and

inspection still runs the risk of species transfer. Alternatively, boat owners who desire access to

the Great Lakes could move their slips to newly constructed marinas on Lake Michigan or at the

mouth of the Calumet River. Access to seasonal boat storage facilities could be provided via a

boat lift or by road access.

Waste and stormwater management would be impacted very little under this scenario. There are

two CSO points on the Calumet River, at 95th and 122nd Streets, both of which are rarely used

due to water quality impacts to Lake Michigan. While they must remain available for use to

discharge stormwater during extreme weather, the need for these operations will be minimized

with completion of TARP. While the O’Brien lock is used for level management of the CWS,

MWRDGC could use its Calumet treatment facility to supply treated water for this purpose as

needed, eliminating any direct diversion of Lake Michigan water to the Cal-Sag Channel.

Impact of Hydrologic Barrier in the Cal Sag Channel

A hydrologic barrier construction in the Cal Sag Channel downstream of the Little Calumet

River, with the upstream portion remaining hydrologically connected to Lake Michigan, would

provide more ecological certainty by allowing recreational vessels in the Little Calumet River to

continue to access Lake Michigan without crossing an ecological divide. However, the impact to

commodity movements by barges would be near 100% since the Cal-Sag Channel is used

primarily to move goods from the CSSC to the Calumet region. An offload of barges as described

92

under “Lockport-Romeoville” would be required under this scenario. Additionally, this would

either require treatment of Calumet Wastewater Treatment Plant to Lake Michigan water quality

standards or relocation of the discharge point for this plant near the transition between the Little

Calumet River and the Cal-Sag channel.

Grand Calumet and Little Calumet Rivers

The Grand Calumet River could still facilitate movement of species into Lake Michigan if a

separation was created at or upstream of the O’Brien lock. While the Grand Calumet does receive

some CSO flow from MWRDGC, the river’s drainage divide is just east of the IL-IN border and

provides a natural setting for a physical barrier that would isolate the Lake Michigan watershed

segment from the Mississippi River segment. The river on the western side of the drainage divide

is not used for powerboating. Small paddling craft do use the river but could accommodate a

physical barrier by portaging.

Likewise, if separations are created upstream of Halsted Street and the Cal-Sag Channel,

organisms could move via the Little Calumet River into Indiana and the Great Lakes. The Little

Calumet also has a drainage divide just east of the IL-IN border (Figure 1). A controlling works

near this divide is under construction at Hart Ditch for flood control purposes. If needed, an

ongoing flood control project on the Little Calumet could include construction of a barrier to

prevent organism movement. As in the Grand Calumet, this river is not used for commercial or

powered recreational navigation at the drainage divide.

93

Chapter 5 - Implementation

Characteristics of the CWS alternately support state of Illinois and federal jurisdiction over its

operation. The entire CWS is located in Illinois, which has a sovereign interest and control over

its land and water resources. Illinois also has legislated authority to maintain the intrastate Illinois

Waterway.

However, the CWS is connected to northwest Indiana waterways via the Grand Calumet and

Little Calumet Rivers and to the Mississippi River via the Illinois River. Any AIS that migrate

through the CWS can have damaging impacts over a huge geographic area. AIS that move

downstream and become established in the Illinois River have a surface water route to spread into

the entire Mississippi River Basin, which has tributaries covering 41% of the continental USA,

including parts of 31 States and 2 Canadian provinces.7 AIS that move upstream through the

CWS to become established in the Great Lakes have a surface water route to spread to the waters

and ports of 8 States and 2 Canadian provinces around the Great Lakes, and to additional

provinces along the St. Lawrence River estuary.

The functions of the CWS also complicate implementation. Its role in providing for commercial

navigation between different states, and between the U.S. and foreign countries, is under federal

jurisdiction. But the primary original function to dispose of metropolitan Chicago’s waste water

in a way that protects its own drinking water source is under state jurisdiction and a U.S. Supreme

Court consent decree. These characteristics lead to complicated overlapping jurisdiction over the

CWS and hence may require legislative changes to achieve implementation of the scenarios

discussed previously.

Legislative Needs

The CWS provides substantial benefits for stormwater/wastewater management and navigation.

The multiple functions of the CWS make it subject to the overlapping jurisdiction of several

governmental bodies under a legal structure that has built up over the century of the CWS’s

operation. Any solution that would block navigation would require legislative approval from both

the U.S. Congress and the state of Illinois. Congress has already delegated its authority to approve

changes to a navigation route to the Corps where such changes would alter or modify the

7 From National Park Service website, http://www.nps.gov/miss/features/factoids/ .

94

navigable waterway but maintain navigation. In fact, certain ecological separation concepts

proposed during the AIS Summit and discussed in greater detail herein would provide for

continuing navigation.

The tipping point lies where alterations to a navigable waterway would change it to an extent that

they are not maintaining interstate navigation. These alterations are beyond the Corps’ delegated

approval authority but whether this authority is compromised is subject to agency debate and

dependent upon the factual details of the project. Even for an ecological separation scenario that

sufficiently maintains navigation to be within Corps’ delegated approval authority, a federal

appropriation will be necessary for the expensive studies the Corps is legally required to complete

before it could approve an ecological separation project, not to mention the actual project cost.

The tipping point at which such alterations would not sufficiently maintain navigation to the

extent that they would require Illinois legislative approval is a distinct and separate legal issue.

Even for an ecological separation project that would provide for continuing navigation, if it

would interfere with Illinois’s rights to the diversion of Lake Michigan water, it would also

require Illinois legislative approval. Illinois has rights to this diversion of Lake Michigan water

out of the Great Lakes basin into the Mississippi River Basin under U.S. Supreme Court decrees

dating back to 1930, and subsequent endorsements of those decrees in federal statutes and the

Great Lakes Water Resources Compact. The Illinois legislature has delegated authority to the

Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) to apportion this diversion water among users,

but it does not include authority to lower the total diversion volume except to mitigate a lowering

of the level of Lake Michigan.

New Project Authority

In such legislation enabling changes to navigation or diversion volume, Congress and the Illinois

legislature could legally authorize any number of government agencies to implement a separation

project at the federal, state and local levels. If an ecological separation project would sufficiently

provide for continuing navigation such that the Corps could approve it without new legislative

authority, it could be implemented by a number of government agencies under their existing legal

authorities, with limitations. The main limitation is funding. Proposed concepts for ecological

separation that provide for continuing navigation would be very expensive. If such a project

would also accommodate Illinois’s authorized diversion, IDNR could design it, seek a Corps

95

permit, and construct it without new legislative authority, but not without new appropriations.

IDNR has authority to serve as the required local sponsor to seek assistance under existing Corps

environmental restoration programs that can provide over half of the funding and construction

assistance on water resource projects. Even with such federal assistance, a new Illinois legislative

appropriation would likely be needed to fund the required local share of project costs and IDNR

staff on the project.

The Corps also has existing legal authority to design, construct, and operate water resource

projects like an ecological separation, but with significant legal constraints. In maintaining

navigation routes, it has discretionary authority to implement environmental restoration projects

under certain continuing budget appropriations, so long as requirements of a local sponsor and

commitments to pay the local share are satisfied. These discretionary Corps authorities to use

continuing appropriations have dollar limits that are insufficient to fund a ecological separation

project and may be insufficient to even fund the required feasibility studies. While the Corps may

not need new legislative authority to take the lead on an ecological separation project that would

maintain navigation, it would need a new appropriation.

The Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (MWRDGC) was proposed at

the 2003 AIS Summit as the local sponsor agency to request funding and construction assistance

for a ecological separation project from the Corps. Unlike the IDNR and the Corps, MWRDGC

has its own independent taxing authority, and can raise funds outside of the legislative

appropriations process. However, fundraising of the magnitude necessary for projects requiring

plumbing alterations would require new statutory authority or statewide approval by referendum.

MWRDGC’s existing mandate does not include creation of an ecological separation (Lanyon

2008)

Existing Authorities and Practices

In addition to simply providing a surface water pathway for AIS, certain operations of the CWS

increase the AIS transfer threat. These include direct discharges from the CWS into Lake

Michigan during storm events to prevent flooding and the relatively small fraction of Illinois’s

authorized diversion of Lake Michigan water that is a “direct diversion” into the CWS without

treatment. Various government agencies could take action without new legislative authorities to

implement partial ecological separation projects to minimize these direct discharges and direct

96

diversions until AIS transfers through the CWS are blocked. If possible, a long term solution

should be identified before such partial separation actions are taken.

MWRDGC discharges into Lake Michigan from the three lakefront control structures

during extreme storm events to prevent flooding. Since the late 1970s, MWRDGC has

constructed the multi-billion dollar Tunnel and Reservoir Project (TARP, a.k.a. the Deep Tunnel)

with major federal funding assistance. Proper management of water levels in the TARP and the

CWS by MWRDGC and the Corps in anticipation of storm events has substantially reduced the

need for these discharges into Lake Michigan. MWRDGC should move toward elimination of

this practice to reduce the risk of allowing new species to access Lake Michigan. MWRDGC has

the legal authority to stop these direct discharges to Lake Michigan when the TARP system is

completed. Illinois EPA has also completed a Use Attainability Analysis to study alternatives to

use of the “discretionary diversion” water to maintain water quality in the Chicago River, such as

disinfection of treated wastewater effluent.

IDNR has existing legal authority over allocation of Illinois’s authorized diversion of Lake

Michigan water to the Mississippi River Basin. IDNR and MWRDGC could, over time, further

restrict or prohibit the relatively small portion that is directly diverted from Lake Michigan into

the CWS, and reallocate it to uses that receive treatment before discharge. IDNR currently

permits direct diversion for four purposes: (1) “discretionary diversion” water to maintain

dissolved oxygen levels in the Chicago River; (2) “navigation make up” water, such as after

MWRDGC has lowered water levels in the Chicago Waterway to prepare for an anticipated storm

event; (3) “lockage” water moved as a consequence of lock operations; and (4) “leakage” through

lake front structures.

The Corps has already been directed by Congress to study measures to minimize the other three

categories of the direct diversion, that is, leakage, lockage, and “navigation make up” water. With

several existing statutory authorities to implement technological barrier projects to stop or slow

inter-basin AIS transfers through the CWS, the Corps has already exercised them to construct a

demonstration electric dispersal barrier and subsequently a more permanent barrier on the CWS

with participation of the IDNR as the local sponsor.

IDNR has the legal authority to implement a technological barrier project itself, if it chose to do

so without seeking Corps funding and construction assistance. It is hard to imagine a future

97

project that would not alter or modify the navigation route, however, so IDNR would likely need

to seek USACE approval even if it did not seek Corps funding assistance. IDNR could also

modify and condition its permits for use of diversion waters on the prompt completion of Corps

studies on lockage, leakage and navigation makeup and/or implementation of technical solutions

that minimize or eliminate these direct diversions. IDNR could impose such conditions on its own

initiative, or upon granting a petition for them from third parties as allowed in its permit

regulations.

In northwest Indiana, Burns Ditch and Indiana Harbor Canal discharge into Lake Michigan

during storm events. Both provide outlets to the lake for storm water and both are hydrologically

connected to the CWS. Neither canal currently has flow control structures regulating their level

independent of Lake Michigan. Both are maintained by the Corps and the state of Indiana, which

could take coordinated actions to block the connections at points that minimize the loss of storm

water control benefits.

If chemicals are to be discharged under a selected barrier technology, approval from the IEPA

will be required. Both the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) and the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (U.S. EPA) have existing legal authorities to regulate various aspects of the CWS AIS

vector.

98

Chapter 6 - Recommendations

Goal

A clear goal must be articulated by the entities with the authority to prevent movement of species

between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River systems. The importance of this cannot be

overstated: without it, it is unlikely that ecological separation will become a priority for the

region. A suggested goal, modeled after the Clean Water Act, is zero movement of live organisms

between the systems via the CWS within a realistic timeframe. Based on the 10-year completion

recommended at the 2003 Aquatic Invasive Species Summit , this would be 2013. While a five-

year timeframe may be unrealistic, an aggressive workplan is imperative. The suggested authority

to set this goal is either the administration via an executive order or Congress.

Implementation Authority

It does not appear that a new entity or authority to implement projects leading toward ecological

separation is necessary or desirable. A directive from the administration or from Congress would

be sufficient to create accountability for project implementation. This accountability could be

derived from existing authorities (e.g. Corps) or could be created within an existing institution

(ANS Panel, Great Lakes Fishery Commission). In practice, some combination of these is likely

but it is essential that the goal is linked directly to the implementing authorities. The state of

Illinois and MWRDGC should be in agreement with the structure and goals of the implementing

authorities.

Near – Term Actions

Several management tools can and should be applied immediately to minimize risk of species

movement between the two watersheds:

1. Complete and activate the electrical barrier system in the CSSC.

2. Hydrologically separate Indiana Harbor and Burns Ditch from the Grand Calumet and

Little Calumet Rivers, respectively, to eliminate opportunity for species movement.

3. Acquire state and federal administrative approvals for a rapid response plan for the CWS

and educate local stakeholders on the potential impacts of rapid response activities.

99

4. Immediately begin a federal feasibility study on separation of the two systems under

existing federal authority via the Corps.

A review of non-electrical barrier technologies suggests that these will be unlikely to deter

movement of planktonic stages of organisms. A highly effective electrical barrier could make the

use of acoustic or bubble-type barriers redundant. Implementation of additional non-electrical

barrier technologies should be pursued only if they are shown to have an impact on a broader

range of organisms than that targeted by the electrical barrier, or if they can be completed quickly

and at low cost to provide redundancy.

Research Needs

The Corps will need to conduct reconnaissance and feasibility studies prior to pursuing

implementation of any ecological separation solution. While a small amount of initial federal

funding has been made available for this work already, these studies will cost multiple millions of

dollars, perhaps as much as $10 million. However, there are several specific research needs that

should be filled, either via public or private funding, as soon as possible that can inform the

Corps’ work.

1. Hydrologic modeling: The Corps and MWRDGC possess significant data sets on system

flows and have the capability to model flows in the system given a set of conditions, such

as new sources of flow input or the creation of new structures within the canals. These

tools should immediately be applied to evaluate potential infrastructure impacts of new

physical structures, such as hydrologic separation structures, on water flows within the

CWS.

2. Logistics: While the Corps receives data on cargo entering, leaving and passing through

CWS, data specific to shipments to and from individual companies are considered

proprietary competitive information. Understanding the impacts of changes to system

access depends on understanding how these shipments motivate continued use of the

system. To determine options for handling cargo at the key points in the system as

discussed under Chapter 4, a system-wide logistics study should be completed to

determine source and destination of all cargo on the system at the scale of individual

bargeload and individual port.

100

3. Recreational movements: If any physical changes are made to the CWS, particularly at

locks near Lake Michigan, thousands of recreational users will require accommodation to

gain access to Lake Michigan. This could be accomplished via boat lift and/or creation of

new marinas in waterway segments with access to Lake Michigan. Similar to the logistics

study recommended for commodity movements, research should be completed on

alternate accommodation of the recreational traffic moving between the Cal-Sag Channel

and Lake Michigan.

Funding

The Corps has existing authorization to complete the feasibility study of ecological separation.

The agency will require annual appropriations to support this work and should publicly describe a

desired annual funding level and schedule for completion as soon as possible so this funding can

be prioritized by Congress and the Great Lakes community. In addition, private foundations and

federal research programs under NOAA, USEPA and USFWS should prioritize completion of the

recommended preliminary research as soon as possible in support of the Corps’ effort.

101

LITERATURE CITED

America’s Great Loop Cruisers Association. 2008. www.greatloop.com/topic.asp?pid=1.

Arnold, T.L., D.J. Sullivan, A. Harris, F.A. Fitzpatrick, B.C. Scudder, P.M. Ruhl, D.W.

Hatcher, AND J. S. Stewart. 1998. Environmental Setting of the Upper Illinois River Basin and

Implications for Water Quality. United States Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations

Report 98-4268, 63 pages.

Bails, J., A. Beeton, J. Bulkley, M. DePhilip, J. Gannon, M. Murray, H. Regier, D. Scavia.

2005. Prescription for Great Lakes Ecosystem Protection and Restoration: Avoiding the Tipping

Point of Irreversible Changes. Available at:

www.miseagrant.umich.edu/downloads/habitat/PrescriptionforGreatLakes.pdf.

Butts, T. A., R. L. Evans, AND J. B. Stall. 1974. A Waste Allocation Study of Selected

Streams in Illinois. Report to Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Urbana, Illinois.

CDM (Camp, Dresser, AND McKee). 1992. Water Quality Modeling for the Greater

Chicago Waterway and Upper Illinois River System, Main Report. Report to Metropolitan Water

Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.

CDM. 2004. Chicago Area Waterways Use Attainability Analysis. Report to Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency.

Changnon, S. A. AND J. M. Changnon. 1996. History of the Chicago diversion and future

implications. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 22:100-118.

China Three Gorges Project Corporation. 2008. Benefits: its buildings with biggest indices.

Available at www.ctgpc.com.cn/en/benefifs/benefifs_a_5.php.

City of Chicago. 2005. Aquatic Invasive Species Summit Proceedings. Summary and

proceedings available on request from city of Chicago Department of Environment.

City of Chicago. 1998. Chicago River Corridor Development Plan. Available on request

from city of Chicago Department of Planning and Development.

102

Davis, S. 2006. Indiana Department Natural Resources, personal communication.

Dennison, S. G., S. J. Sedita, P. Tata, D. R. Zenz, AND C. Lue-Hing. 1998. A Study of the

Fisheries Resources and Water Quality in the Chicago Waterway System 1974 through 1996.

Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, Department of Research and

Development Report No. 98-10, Chicago, Illinois.

Duncker, J. 2006. United States Geological Survey, personal communication.

EA Engineering (EA Engineering, Science and Technology). 1993. Mesohabitat Survey of

the Upper Illinois Waterway River Miles 270.0 to 324.3. Report to Commonwealth Edison,

Chicago, Illinois.

EA Engineering (EA Engineering, Science & Technology). 1994a. The Upper Illinois

Waterway Study: Interim Report: 1993 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Investigation and Habitat

Assessment, River Miles 272.0-323.0. Report to Commonwealth Edison Company, Chicago,

Illinois.

EA Engineering (EA Engineering, Science & Technology). 1994b. The Upper Illinois

Waterway Study: Interim Report: 1993 Fisheries Investigation, River Miles 272.0-323.0. Report

to Commonwealth Edison Company, Chicago, Illinois.

EA Engineering (EA Engineering, Science & Technology). 1995a. The Upper Illinois

Waterway Study: Interim Report: 1994 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Investigation and Habitat

Assessment, RM 272.0-323.0. Report to Commonwealth Edison Company, Chicago, Illinois.

EA Engineering (EA Engineering, Science and Technology). 1995b. The Upper Illinois

Waterway Study: Interim Report: 1994 Fisheries Investigation, RM 272.0-323.0. Report to

Commonwealth Edison Company, Chicago, Illinois.

ETP Limited. 2008. Port and Intermodal Development Programs for the Lake Calumet

Industrial Corridor. Available from the City of Chicago Department of Planning and

Development.

103

FishPro. 2004. Feasibility Study to Limit the Invasion of Asian Carp into the Upper

Mississippi River Basin. Report to Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Available from

files.dnr.state.mn.us/natural_resources/invasives/aquaticanimals/asiancarp/umrstudy.pdf.

Forbes, S. A. AND R. E. Richardson. 1913. Studies on the biology of the upper Illinois River.

Illinois State Laboratory of Natural History Bulletin, 9(10):481-574.

Friends of the Chicago River. 2003. Chicago River Habitat: An Assessment and Strategies for

Improvement. Friends of the Chicago River Technical Report, Chicago, Illinois.

Gregory, S. V., F. J. Swanson, W. A. McKee, AND K.W. Cummins. 1991. An ecosystem

perspective of riparian zones. Bioscience, 41:540-551.

Hey, D. L., D. W. Dreher, AND T. W. Trybus. 1980. NIPC Chicago Waterways Model:

Verification/Recalibration. Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission Technical Report,

Chicago, Illinois.

Hill, L. 2000. The Chicago River. Lake Claremont Press, Chicago, Illinois.

IEPA (Illinois Environmental Protection Agency). 1995. Title 35: Environmental Protection,

Subtitle C: Water Pollution, Chapter I: Illinois Pollution Control Board, Springfield, Illinois.

Institute for Urban Environmental Risk Management. 2003. Hydraulic Calibration of an

Unsteady Flow Model for the Chicago Waterway System. Metropolitan Water Reclamation

District of Greater Chicago, Department of Research and Development Report No. 03-18,

Chicago, Illinois.

Institute for Urban Environmental Risk Management. 2004. Preliminary Calibration of a

Model for Simulation of Water Quality during Unsteady Flow in the Chicago Waterway System

and Application to Proposed Changes to Navigational-Makeup Diversion Procedures.

Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, Department of Research and

Development Report No. 04-14, Chicago, Illinois.

104

Karr, J. R. AND I.J. Schlosser. 1978. Water resources and the land-water interface. Science,

201:229-234.

Karr, J. R., AND D. R. Dudley. 1981. Ecological perspective on water quality goals.

Environmental Management, 5:55-68.

Karr, J. R., K. D. Fausch, P. L. Angermeier, P. R. Yant, AND I. J. Schlosser. 1986.

Assessment of biological integrity in running waters: A method and its rationale. Illinois Natural

History Survey Special Publication 5.

Karr, J. R. 1991. Biological Integrity: A long-neglected aspect of water resources

management. Ecological Applications, 1:66-84.

Keup, L. E., W. M. Ingram, J. Geckler, AND W. B. Horning. 1965. Biology of Chicago’s

Waterways. United States Public Health Service Publication 999-WP-32.

Lanyon, R. 2007. Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, personal

communication.

Lanyon, R. 2008. Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, personal

communication

Marine Travelift, Inc. 2008. Mobile Boat Hoists brochure. Available at

www.marinetravelift.com/files/General%20Boat%20Hoist%2001-07-2.pdf.

Malchoff, M., J.E. Mardsen and M. Hauser. 2006. Feasibility of Champlain Canal Aquatic

Nuisance Species Barrier Options. Prepared under NOAA grant # NSGO/NA16RG1703. Available from www.uvm.edu/~seagrant/communications/assets/ansbarrierrprt06.pdf.

MWRDGC (Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago). 2004. Real Estate

Atlas. Available from www.MWRDGC.org.

MWRDGC (Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago). 2006. Chicago

Area Waterways Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Program Available at www.MWRDGC.org.

105

Moore, B. J., J. D. Rogner, AND D. Ullberg. 1998. Nature and the River: A Natural

Resources Report of the CCW. United States Department of Interior, National Park Service,

Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Polls, I., C. Lue-Hing, D. R. Zenz, AND S. J. Sedita. 1980. Effects of Urban Runoff and

Treated Municipal Wastewater on a Man-Made Channel in Northeastern Illinois. Water

Research, 14:207-15.

Polls, I., S. J. Sedita, D .R. Zenz., AND C. Lue-Hing. 1992. Comprehensive Evaluation of

Water Quality. Distribution of Benthic Invertebrate Species in the Chicago Waterways System.

Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago Report No. 92-22, Chicago, Illinois.

Rasmussen, J. 2002. The Cal-Sag and Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal:

A Perspective on the Spread and Control of Selected Aquatic Nuisance Fish Species. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Rock Island, IL. Available at www.fws.gov/Midwest/LacrosseFisheries/documents/Connecting_Channels_Paper_Final.pdf.

Schlosser, I. J. 1991. Stream fish ecology: a landscape perspective. Bioscience, 41:704-712.

Southwood, T. R. E. 1977. Habitat, the template for ecological strategies? Journal of Animal

Ecology, 46:337-365.

Sparks, R. 2002. Closing the Chicago gateway to invasion. Testimony to Governor-elect Rod

Blagojevich’s Environment, Energy and Natural Resources Transition Committee.

Texas Transportation Institute. 2007. A Modal Comparison of Domestic Freight Transportation Effects on the General Public. Available at www.nationalwaterwaysfoundation.org.

USACE. 1999. Illinois Waterway Navigation Charts. Available at

www2.mvr.usace.army.mil/NIC2/ilwwcharts.cfm.

USACE (United States Army Corp of Engineers, Chicago MWRDGC). 2001. Lake Michigan

Diversion Accounting, Water Year 2001 Report. Available at www.lrc.usace.army.mil.

106

USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1986. Quality Criteria for Water

1986. Office of Water, EPA 440/5-86-001.

Wang, L., J. Lyons, P. Kanehl, AND R. Gatti. 1997. Influences of watershed land use on

habitat quality and biotic integrity in Wisconsin streams. Fisheries, 22(6):6-12.

great lakes fishery commission 2008 project completion ... · the great lakes is a major problem....

Documents