GREAT LAKES FISHERY COMMISSION 2008 Project Completion Report PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY of ECOLOGICAL SEPARATION of the MISSISSIPP

GREAT LAKES FISHERY COMMISSION

2008 Project Completion Report 1

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 Do not cite findings without permission of the author. 2 Alliance for the Great Lakes, 17 N. State Street, Chicago, IL 60602 3 Ecological Monitoring and Assessment, 3206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 Table of Contents

Acknowledgements i

Executive Summary ii

Introduction 1

Chapter 1: Chicago Area Waterway System Summary 3

Study Area 3 History 7 Uses 12 Ownership 12 Physical Habitat 13 Hydrology 17 Water Quality 30 Biological Communities 40 Navigation 50

Chapter 2: Stakeholder Input 62

Chapter 3: Separation Technologies 74

Chapter 4: Separation Scenarios 83

Chapter 5: Implementation 93

Chapter 6: Recommendations 98

Literature Cited 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.

i 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

ii 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.

iii

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.

iv Introduction

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.

1 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.

2 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.

4 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.

5 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

6 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

7 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.

8 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

9 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.

10 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.

11 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

12 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

13 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

14 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 Length Width Depth Channel Waterways (miles) (feet) (feet) 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 31.0 160-300 8-27 Severe Canal 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.

Table 2. Physical Habitat Parameters in CCW Riparian Bank Waterways Vegetation Erosion Stream Bed Sediment North Shore Channel Shrubs, Trees, Moderate Silt, Sand, Plant Debris Grasses 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 Trees, Grasses, Moderate Clay, Bedrock, Silt, Canal Shrubs Sand Calumet River Grasses, Trees, Slight Clay, Gravel, Sand, Silt Shrubs 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).

16 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.

17 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 1 st of the previous water year through September 30 th of the current water year.

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.

19 Table 3 . Characteristics of North Side, Calumet, Stickney, and Lemont Water Reclamation Plants Mean Maximum 2001 Water Design Design Mean Reclamation Receiving Flow Flow Flow Plant Waterbody (ft 3/s) (ft 3/s) (ft 3/s) North Side North Shore Channel 516 698 415 Calumet Little Calumet River 549 667 398 Stickney Chicago Sanitary & Ship 1,860 2,232 1,159 Canal Lemont Chicago Sanitary & Ship 5 6 3 Canal

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

20 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.

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 ft 3/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 ft 3/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

22 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 ft 3/s (USACE 2001). The Illinois Lake Michigan diversion allocations for WY 2001 are as follows: (1) 1,545.6 ft 3/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 ft 3/s (31.5%) for storm water runoff diverted from Lake Michigan; (3) 260.5 ft 3/s (9.4%) for discretionary diversion (improving and maintaining water quality); (4) 27.0 ft 3/s (1.0%) for lockage, locking vessels to and from the lake; (5) 17.3 ft 3/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 ft 3/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 ft 3/s. After 2014, the discretionary diversion is scheduled to be reduced to 101 ft 3/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

23 River at the O’Brien Lock and Dam during WY 2001 was estimated at 29 ft 3/s, 125 ft 3/s, and 107 ft 3/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.

380

360 r = 0.496 p = <0.018 340

320

300 /sec) 3 280

260

Discharge (ft Discharge 240

220

200

180

160 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5

Time (years) 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 ft 3/s, respectively.

24 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.

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 ft 3/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.

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 ft 3/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

27 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 ft 3/s (Jan 11, 2001) and 11,087 ft 3/s (August 2, 2001), respectively. Since 1986, the minimum and maximum water year mean annual discharges were 2,660 ft 3/s and 4,319 ft 3/s, respectively. The highest maximum instantaneous flow during the 17-year period was 19,466 ft 3/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 ft 3/s compared with 2,725 ft 3/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.

28 4600 4400 r = 0.885 4200 p = <0.001 4000 3800 3600 /sec) 3 3400 3200 3000 Discharge (ft Discharge 2800 2600 2400 2200 2000 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5

Time (Years) 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

29 (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

30 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

31 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

Mean Mean Suspended Suspended Solids Solids Waterways 1975-1977 2003-2005 (mg/L) (mg/L) North Shore Channel 28 12 North Branch Chicago 19 15 River Chicago River 18 5 South Branch Chicago 15 12 River South Fork ND 13 Chicago Sanitary and Ship 20 13 Canal Calumet River 19 8 Grand Calumet River ND 19 Little Calumet River 28 18 Calumet-Sag Channel 37 19

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

33 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).

34 Table 5. Mean Concentration of Dissolved Oxygen in the CCW during 1975-1977 and 2003- 2005 Mean Mean Dissolved Oxygen Dissolved Oxygen 1975-1977 2003-2005 Waterways (mg/L) (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

35 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 (NH 3), ionized ammonia (NH 4 ), 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).

Table 6. Mean Concentration of Ammonia Nitrogen in the CCW during 1975-1977 and 2003-2005

Mean Mean Ammonia Ammonia Nitrogen Nitrogen Waterways 1975-1977 2003-2005 (mg/L) (mg/L) North Shore Channel 2.9 1.2 North Branch Chicago 6.1 1.5 River Chicago River 0.3 0.6 South Branch Chicago 3.2 1.2 River South Fork ND 1.2 Chicago Sanitary and Ship 4.9 0.8 Canal Calumet River 0.5 0.2 Grand Calumet River ND 1.6 Little Calumet River 6.0 0.3 Calumet-Sag Channel 7.1 0.3

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

37 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).

Table 7. Mean Concentration of Total Phosphorus in the CCW during 1975-1977 and 2003-2005

Mean Mean Total Total Phosphorus Phosphorus Waterways 1975-1977 2003-2005 (mg/L) (mg/L) North Shore Channel 0.76 0.84 North Branch Chicago 1.82 1.09 River Chicago River 0.23 0.37 South Branch Chicago 0.84 0.88 River South Fork ND 0.81 Chicago Sanitary and Ship 0.80 1.01 Canal Calumet River 0.18 0.06 Grand Calumet River ND 0.69 Little Calumet River 0.66 1.28 Calumet-Sag Channel 1.01 1.87

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).

39 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,

40 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

41 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

Total Mean Oligochaete Species EPT Abundance Worms Waterways Richness Taxa (#/m2) (%) Dominant Benthic Fauna North Shore 35 4 53,824 91 Worms Channel North Branch 25 0 38,939 94 Worms Chicago River Chicago River 22 2 3,635 88 Worms South Branch 21 2 4,955 43 Worms, Midges, Zebra Chicago River Mussels South Fork 10 0 9,598 54 Worms, Midges Chicago Sanitary 53 7 15,332 89 Worms & Ship Canal Calumet River 37 3 29,996 4 Zebra Mussels, Hydra Grand Calumet 12 0 3,256 94 Worms River Little Calumet 44 5 12,433 44 Worms, Zebra Mussels,

42 River Hydra Calumet-Sag 42 3 16,899 71 Worms, Midges Channel

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/m 2 in the Grand Calumet River to a high of 53,824 organisms/m 2 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

43 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

44 (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

45 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

46 Table 10. Fish Community Metrics for the CCW, 2001-2005

Number of Sucker Species Intolerant Species DELT Waterways Richness Species (%) (%) Dominant Fish Species North Shore 27 1 1 1 Gizzard Shad Channel North Branch 22 1 1 8 Gizzard Shad, Carp Chicago River Chicago River 12 1 0 7 Gizzard Shad South Branch 15 1 0 5 Gizzard Shad, Chicago River Emerald Shiner, Carp South Fork 18 1 0 0 Gizzard Shad Chicago Sanitary & 21 0 0 5 Gizzard Shad, Carp Ship Canal 0Calumet River 21 3 2 1 Rock Bass, Smallmouth Bass Grand Calumet 0 0 0 0 No fish collected River Little Calumet 29 1 1 2 Gizzard Shad River 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

47 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

48 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.

49 Navigation 5

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.

50 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.

51 Figure 12 Annual Vessel Lockages Figure 13 Annual Vessel Lockages Chicago River Lock and Dam Lockport Lock and Dam

70000 8000 65000 Commercial Vessels Commercial Vessels 60000 Recreational Vessels 7000 Recreational Vessels Total Vessels Total Vessels 55000 6000 50000

45000 5000 40000 35000 4000 30000 25000 3000

Number ofNumber Vessels 20000 ofNumber Vessels 2000 15000

10000 1000 5000 0 0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Time (Years) Time (Years)

Number of Barges Empty and Loaded Number of Barges Empty and Loaded Chicago River Lock and Dam Lockport Lock and Dam

500 14000 13000 Barges Empty Barges Loaded 12000 400 11000 10000 9000 300 8000 7000 6000 200 5000 Number ofNumber Barges ofNumber Barges 4000

100 3000 2000 Barges Empty Barges Loaded 1000 0 0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Time (Years) Time (Years)

52 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.

Figure 14 Annual Vessel Lockages O'Brien Lock and Dam Inbound vessels are entering a segment and delivering cargo on that segment, 35000 while outbound vessels are leaving a 30000 segment to deliver cargo on another.

25000 Upbound traffic is moving in the upstream direction while downbound traffic moves 20000 in the downstream direction. Through 15000 traffic moves through a segment without Commercial Vessels Number of Vessels 10000 Recreational Vessels delivering or taking on cargo (USACE). Total Vessels

5000 Each of these definitions should be 0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 considered relevant to a given internal and Time (Years) domestic system segment , e.g. the

Number of Barges Empty and Loaded Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal (CSSC). O'Brien Lock and Dam A vessel entering the CSSC at Lockport

9000 lock with a destination on the CSSC

8000 would be said to be inbound and upbound.

7000 A vessel moving from the North Branch

6000 of the Chicago River into the South

5000 Branch then on to deliver cargo along the

4000 CSSC would be downbound through

3000 relative to the South Branch but Number of Barges

2000 downbound inbound relative to the CSSC. Barges Empty 1000 Barges Loaded

0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Time (Years) 53 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.

Figure 15

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,

54 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.

55 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.

Table 11: Internal cargo traffic volumes and ratios, 2004

1,000s Primary Trend Principal Through Upbound: Upbound: of short commodity since Direction Traffic Downbound Downbound tons 1993 (Through (All traffic) traffic) CSSC 20,569 Various Flat Both 45% 1.95:1 3:1 Cal-Sag 8,560 Various Flat Both 96% 2:1 2.1:1 Channel Lake 1,366 Iron and Upbound None - 9.8:1 Calumet steel, cement and concrete Calumet 7,346 Various Flat Both 58% 1.4:1 1.8:1 Harbor and River Chicago 1,730 Sand and Flat Upbound 1% 3:1 3.6:1 River, gravel, steel North and scrap Main Chicago 3,616 Sand and Slight Upbound 47% 3:1 4:1 River, gravel, coal increase South

56 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.

57 Figure 16 Figure 17

Upbound Tonnage Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal to North Downbound Tonnage North and Main Branch Chicago River and Main Branch Chicago River (Inbound/Outbound/Thru) to Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal ((Inbound/Outbound/Thru)

18000 2004 18000 2004 16000 2003 16000 2003 2002 2002 14000 2001 14000 2001 12000 2000 12000 2000 1999 1999 Short Tons 10000 Short Tons 10000 1998 Year 1998 Year (x 1000) 8000 1997 (x 1000) 8000 1997 6000 6000 1996 1996 4000 4000 1995 1995 2000 2000 North Branch 1994 North Branch 1994 0 0 South Branch 1993 South Branch 1993 C C S h CSSC c CSSC S h S h S C n c c h a C n r n a c a r n B r B a h B r t h th B u t h o r u t o o r S S o N N

Direction of Travel

Upbound Tonnage Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal to Downbound Tonnage Calumet River and Harbor to Calumet River and Harbor (Inbound/Outbound/Thru) Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal (Inbound/Outbound/Thru)

18000 2004 18000 2004 16000 2003 16000 2003 2002 2002 14000 2001 14000 2001 12000 2000 12000 2000 Short Tons 10000 1999 Short Tons 10000 1999 (x 1000) 8000 1998 Year (x 1000) 8000 1998 Year 6000 1997 6000 1997 4000 1996 4000 1996 2000 1995 Calumet Harbor 2000 1995 Calumet Harbor 0 1994 0 1994 Lake Calumet Lake Calumet C 1993 C 1993 S g t S g t CalSag a CalSag a S e S e S r S r C l m o C l m o a a b CSSC lu b CSSC lu r C r C a a a a C C H H e t e t k e k e a m a m L L u lu l a a C C 58 Figure 18 Figure 19 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).

59 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.

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.

61 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

62 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 20 th 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

63 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.

64 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.

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.

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

67 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;

68 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

69 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

70 • 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.

71 • 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.

72 Table 12: Interview respondents

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

73 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.

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.

75 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.

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.

77 Table 13: Available barrier technologies

Control Type of Optimum Probable Risk of Navigational Water Construction Operational Stakeholder Probable Comments Method 6 Alternative Diversion Allowing Impact Management and/or and/or Acceptability Cost Range Efficiency Movement of Any Impact Implementation Maintenance (Installed) for Organism Complexity Issues Designated Taxa Physical Vertical Drop 95 – 100% Moderate: Site Significant at None to Site dependent Low High assuming Existing Locating a barrier or Barriers (Existing dependent, spillway; minimal minimal increase Spillway deterrent system at an Overflow unidirectional Access in lockage time existing lock and dam Spillways) through locks with a high head spillway can provide partial barrier benefits.

Rotating Drum 95 – 100% Low to Moderate Significant None to Extreme: High: Icing; Low due to Varying; not High navigational &/or Traveling Impact at minimal Extensive civil Fouling navigational applicable impact and high Screens, locks works; impacts and high maintenance Floating Cofferdams maintenance requirement with a Curtains tendency to clog with silt and debris

Hydrodynamic 86 - 97% High: Fouling Significant None to Moderate: High: Icing and Low due to $1.0 million High navigational Louver Screens problems; species minimal Anchor system in fouling by navigational to $2.0 impact and high and size specific water debris impacts and high million maintenance maintenance requirement with a tendency to clog with silt and debris

Hydrologic 100% Minimal Significant High Extreme: Minimal Variable: high Expensive Barge traffic would have Separation Extensive civil among many to undergo modal shift works; constituencies; low or pass through sterile Cofferdams among lift commercial navigation and some recreational interests; variable among agency staff

6 FishPro summary adapted for constraints of Chicago Waterway System by authors.

78 Bladder 95 - 100% Low to Moderate Significant None to Extreme: High Moderate Expensive Locks are dewatered minimal Extensive civil and barge is supported works; on a bladder while Cofferdams "new" water is introduced. Barge hulls and ballast are potential vectors Electrical Electrical 95 – 100% High: Variable depth Moderate to None to High: Electrode High Power Medium: negative $15.0 million Technically feasible for Barriers Barrier (Main for electrical field, Unknown minimal installation in outages, perception of to $25 a large main stem river Stem) silt, maintenance, water; custom maintenance, safety; no million installation. Significant size dependent; not design and debris, etc. consensus on power requirement and effective on engineering long-term public safety concerns. planktonic stages effectiveness

Electrical 95 – 100% High: Variable depth Moderate to None to High: Electrode High: Safety Medium: negative $7.0 million Technically feasible for Barrier (Inside for electrical field, Unknown minimal installation in perception of to $10.0 a large main stem river Lock) silt, maintenance, water; custom safety; no million installation. Significant size dependent; not design and consensus on power requirement and effective on engineering long-term public safety concerns. planktonic stages effectiveness

Electrical 95 – 100% High: Variable depth Moderate to None to High: Electrode High: Safety Medium: negative $7.0 million Technically feasible for Barrier (Lock for electrical field, Unknown minimal installation in perception of to $10 a large main stem river Channel Entr.) silt, maintenance, water; custom safety; no million installation. Significant size dependent; not design and consensus on power requirement and effective on engineering long-term public safety concerns. planktonic stages effectiveness

Chemical Piscicide 60-95% Low in short-term; Low and Short-term High: Chemical High: Medium in short Varying; Technically feasible but Barriers Moderate to High in short-term water quality available; Implementation term, low in long Expensive expensive short-term. long term: standard complex term due to short-term Negative public Maintaining violations implementation violation of WQ perception. Significant adequate standards regulatory issues. concentrations difficult Repellants 60-95% Moderate Low None to High; technology Moderate High $1.0 million Possibly applied in (Pheromones) minimal unavailable to $2.0 conjunction with an million additional barrier, the object would be to repell species away from protection area. Attractors 60-95% Moderate Low None to High; technology Moderate High $1.0 million Applied in conjunction (Pheromones) minimal unavailable to $2.0 with some sort of million additional barrier, the object would be to divert species away from the

79 lock area before the lock is used.

Heat 95 - 100% Low to Moderate Low Long-term High: custom High Low due to long- Expensive Water in lock is heated water quality design and term water quality until exotic organisms standard engineering impacts except die. violations high among Energy energy suppliers High Velocity Unknown; Low: Site dependent None if Unknown Site and species Moderate; Unknown; Site Site Although potentially (Point Release) species installed at dependent debris may Dependent dependent retrofitted into an specific spillway clog or existing lock and dam gates damage spillway, swimming capabilities of Asian Energy carp may preclude (cont) feasibility Turbulence Unknown; Low Slight Unknown Moderate Moderate High Unknown Sufficient turbulence or species velocity is introduced in specific lock to kill fish in system. Viscosity Unknown; Low to Moderate None Unknown Extreme: Moderate High $2 million to European systems have species Extensive civil $4 million had luck using fluids of specific works; different viscosities to Cofferdams separate salt water from fresh water habitats. Acoustic Strobe Lights 50-95% Moderate to High: None to None to Moderate: Low: Lamp High $0.5 million Only considered to be and Light Species and size minimal minimal Packaged unit and power to 1.0 million appropriate as a lock specific; location & delivery entrance channel day/night specific; system deterrent effectiveness varies maintenance with time of year (water temperature, flow, etc.); not effective on planktonic stages Air Bubble 50-95% High: Does not work None to None to Moderate: Air Moderate : High $0.5 million Only considered to be Curtain in high water minimal minimal piping in varying Compressor to 1.0 million appropriate as a lock velocity; not depths and air line entrance channel effective on maintenance deterrent. Not effective planktonic stages under high flow conditions.

80 Acoustic ~80% Moderate to High : None to None to Moderate: Low : High $1.0 to 1.2 Potentially feasible as a Deterrent: Species and size minimal minimal Packaged unit Transducer million deterrent for lock Sound Projector specific; location & and power entrance channels Array (SPA) at day/night specific; delivery Lock Entrance effectiveness varies system with time of year maintenance (water temperature, flow, etc.); not effective on planktonic stages Acoustic Acoustic ~80% Moderate to High: None to None to Moderate: Low: High $1.0 to 8.0 Potentially feasible as a and Light Deterrent: Species and size minimal minimal Packaged unit Transducer million deterrent for spillway (cont) Sound Projector specific; location & and power gate areas opened Array (SPA) at day/night specific; delivery under full flow Spillway gates effectiveness varies system conditions with time of year maintenance (water temperature, flow, etc.); not effective on planktonic stages Acoustic ~90% Moderate to High: None to None to Moderate: Low: High $0.9 million Potentially feasible as a Deterrent: Species and size minimal minimal Packaged unit; Transducer to $1.2 deterrent for lock Pneumatic specific; location & air piping in and power Million entrance channels Acoustic Bubble day/night specific; varying depths delivery Curtain (BAFF) effectiveness varies system at Lock with time of year maintenance; Entrance (water temperature, compressor flow, etc.); does not and air line work in high water maintenance velocity; not effective on planktonic stages

81 Acoustic ~90%+ Moderate to High: None to None to Moderate: Low: High $1.0 million Potentially feasible as a Deterrent: SPA Species and size minimal minimal Packaged unit; Transducer to $1.4 deterrent for lock Based Acoustic specific; location & air piping in and power million entrance channels. Bubble Curtain day/night specific; varying depths delivery Enhances the overall (SPA/BAFF) at effectiveness varies system effectiveness of a Lock Entrance with time of year maintenance standard BAFF system; (water temperature, SPA component allows flow, etc.); does not utilization of Asian carp work in high water specific audiogram. velocity; enhances the overall effectiveness of a standard BAFF in areas with intermittent turbulence and barge traffic; not effective on planktonic stages Hybrid Comb. 60-95% Moderate to High: None to None to Moderate: Low: High $1.5 million Potentially feasible as a System (Strobe Species and size minimal minimal Packaged unit Transducer to $2.2 deterrent for lock light/acoustic) specific; location & and power Million entrance channels. day/night specific; delivery Combination systems effectiveness varies system have generally proven with time of year maintenance to be more effective (water temperature, flow, etc.); not effective on planktonic stages Hybrid Comb. 60-95% Moderate to High: None to None to Moderate: Moderate: High $1.0 million Potentially feasible as a System (Str. Species and size minimal minimal Packaged unit; Compressor, to $2.0 deterrent for lock light/bubble specific; location & air piping in air line and million entrance channels. curt.) day/night specific; varying depths power delivery Combination systems effectiveness varies system have generally proven with time of year maintenance to be more effective (water temperature, flow, etc.); does not work in high water velocity; not effective on planktonic stages

82 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

83 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

85 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

86 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

87 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

88 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.

89 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

90 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 95 th 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

91 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.

92 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/ .

93 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

94 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

95 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

96 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.

97 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.

98 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.

99 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.

100 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.

101

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.

102

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.

103 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 .

104 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 .

105 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.

106