DOCSLIB.ORG

Summary of Technical Evaluations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Summary of Technical Evaluations Summary of Technical Evaluations Prepared for: CAWS Advisory Committee Chicago, IL November 2015 Prepared by: In Association with: Summary of Technical Evaluations | Table of Contents CAWS Advisory Committee TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES __________________________________ 1 2.0 ANS CONTROL MEASURES _______________________________________ 4 2.1 Dispersal and ANS of Concern __________________________________________________ 4 2.2 Control Measure Risk Reduction Screening _______________________________________ 6 2.3 Control Measure Secondary Screening __________________________________________ 11 2.4 Control Measure Combinations _________________________________________________ 16 2.5 Enhanced Combination Analysis by Species _____________________________________ 22 2.6 Comparison of Long Term Scenarios ____________________________________________ 26 2.7 Summary ___________________________________________________________________ 32 2.8 Next Steps __________________________________________________________________ 35 2.9 References __________________________________________________________________ 37 3.0 COMMERCIAL CARGO NAVIGATION _______________________________ 39 3.1 Background of CAWS Commercial Cargo Navigation ______________________________ 39 3.1.1 Waterway Infrastructure and Identified Capital Needs _______________________________ 41 3.1.2 Maritime Transportation Operation Considerations _________________________________ 46 3.1.3 Transportation Usage, Commodities and Industries _________________________________ 49 3.2 Trends Analysis _____________________________________________________________ 59 3.3 Mode Shift Potential __________________________________________________________ 61 3.4 Current and Forecasted CAWS Demand _________________________________________ 63 3.4.1 Overall Commodity Forecasts, by Commodity _____________________________________ 65 3.4.2 Long Term (2040) CAWS Demand ______________________________________________ 75 3.5 Scenario Evaluation __________________________________________________________ 76 3.5.1 Description of Scenarios ______________________________________________________ 76 3.5.2 Assumptions and Evaluation Criteria ____________________________________________ 78 3.5.3 Comparison of Scenarios _____________________________________________________ 82 3.6 Summary ___________________________________________________________________ 82 3.7 References __________________________________________________________________ 86 4.0 FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT AND WATER QUALITY CONVEYANCE _____ 88 4.1 Background and Existing Conditions ____________________________________________ 89 4.2 Potential Long Term Strategy __________________________________________________ 90 i Summary of Technical Evaluations | Table of Contents CAWS Advisory Committee 4.2.1 System Components _______________________________________________________ 90 4.2.2 Assumptions _____________________________________________________________ 92 4.2.3 Implications and Comparison of Potential AIS Control Points _______________________ 93 4.3 Summary ___________________________________________________________________ 97 4.4 References __________________________________________________________________ 99 5.0 WATER QUALITY ______________________________________________ 100 5.1 Background ________________________________________________________________ 101 5.2 Water Quality Standards _____________________________________________________ 101 5.3 Antidegradation _____________________________________________________________ 103 5.4 Total Maximum Daily Loads ___________________________________________________ 104 5.5 NPDES Permitting Implications ________________________________________________ 105 5.5.1 Wastewater Treatment Plants _______________________________________________ 106 5.5.2 Stormwater and MS4 Permittees ____________________________________________ 109 5.5.3 Combined Sewer Overflows ________________________________________________ 110 5.6 Summary __________________________________________________________________ 111 5.7 References _________________________________________________________________ 112 6.0 CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT _____________________________________ 113 6.1 Chicago River System Upstream of Stickney ____________________________________ 113 6.1.1 North Shore Channel _______________________________________________________ 113 6.1.2 Upper North Branch of the Chicago River above Albany Avenue _____________________ 114 6.1.3 North Branch of the Chicago River (NBCR) below Albany Avenue ____________________ 114 6.1.4 Chicago River Main Channel _________________________________________________ 114 6.1.5 South Branch of the Chicago River, Bubbly Creek, and nearby slips___________________ 115 6.2 Calumet River System Upstream of Alsip _______________________________________ 116 6.2.1 Cal-Sag Channel / Little Calumet River / Thorn Creek / Grand Cal River _______________ 116 6.2.2 Calumet River, O’Brien Locks to Lake Michigan___________________________________ 117 6.3 Summary __________________________________________________________________ 118 6.4 References _________________________________________________________________ 119 7.0 SUMMARY ____________________________________________________ 120 ii Summary of Technical Evaluations | Table of Contents CAWS Advisory Committee TABLE OF TABLES Table 1: ANS of Concern Identified in the GLRMIS Document _________________________________ 5 Table 2: Control Measure Risk Reduction Screening ________________________________________ 10 Table 3: Control Measures Secondary Screening __________________________________________ 15 Table 4: Potential Control Measure Combinations for the CAWS ______________________________ 21 Table 5: Control Measure Combinations by Species ________________________________________ 23 Table 6: Relating Passing Probability with Risk Reduction ___________________________________ 25 Table 7: Relating Passing Probability with Risk Reduction by Species __________________________ 25 Table 8: Potential Long Term Scenarios by Species ________________________________________ 28 Table 9: Relating Passing Probability to Risk Reduction by Potential Long Term Scenario __________ 31 Table 10: Risk Reduction by Species for Potential Long Term Scenarios ________________________ 32 Table 11: CAWS Lock Usage (2013) ____________________________________________________ 43 Table 12: Inland Waterway System Primary Industries and Commodities ________________________ 50 Table 13: Facilities Lakeside of Proposed Scenarios ________________________________________ 54 Table 14: Factors that Affect Freight Modal Choice _________________________________________ 61 Table 15: Commodities in Each Commodity Group _________________________________________ 69 Table 16: Summary of 2020 Forecast Assumptions _________________________________________ 70 Table 17: Forecast Summary of Industry Specific Actions and Trends by Commodity Group (GLMRIS) 71 Table 18: 2020 GLMRIS Future Without Project Forecasts, by Commodity ______________________ 71 1 Table 19: Current Volumes by Commodity and Segment (2011-12 average, ktons) _______________ 73 Table 20: 2020 “Low Forecast” Volumes by Commodity and Segment (ktons) ____________________ 74 Table 21: 2020 “High Forecast” Volumes by Commodity and Segment (ktons) ___________________ 74 Table 22: 2040 Forecast Volumes by Commodity (ktons) ____________________________________ 75 Table 23: 2040 Forecast Volumes by Segment (ktons) ______________________________________ 76 Table 24: Cost Impact Assumptions _____________________________________________________ 80 Table 25: Current and Forecast Volumes Impacted by Separation (ktons) _______________________ 82 Table 26: Comparison of Scenarios _____________________________________________________ 85 Table 27: Potential Ranges of Future Regulatory Requirements ______________________________ 109 iii Summary of Technical Evaluations | Table of Contents CAWS Advisory Committee TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1: Conceptual Elements of Potential Long Term Solution ________________________________ 2 Figure 2: GLMRIS Risk Assessment _____________________________________________________ 7 Figure 3: Probability of Establishment Elements ____________________________________________ 8 Figure 4: Example Dispersal Points ______________________________________________________ 8 Figure 5: Physical Barrier Separation Concept _____________________________________________ 16 Figure 6: ANS Lock System Concept ____________________________________________________ 19 Figure 7: Control Point Locations for Conceptual Long Term Scenarios _________________________ 26 Figure 8: Pathway Proximity of Control Points _____________________________________________ 29 Figure 9: Cumulative Effect of Control Points – Mississippi to Great Lakes _______________________ 30 Figure 10: Cumulative Effect of Control Points – Great Lakes to Mississippi ______________________ 31 Figure 11: CAWS Segments ___________________________________________________________ 40 Figure 12: Historical Lake Michigan Elevations ____________________________________________ 48 Figure 13: Frequency of Lake Michigan Elevations Exceeding CAWS Water Level ________________ 48 Figure 14: Freight Transportation “Service Spectrum” _______________________________________ 50 Figure 15: Chicago Region as Defined in FHWA Freight Analysis Framework (FAF) _______________ 51 Figure 16: Greater Chicago Region Marine Flows by Commodity, Tons (2011) ___________________ 52 Figure 17: Greater Chicago Region
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Our Great Rivers Confidential Draft Draft
    greatriverschicago.com OUR GREAT RIVERS CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT DRAFT A vision for the Chicago, Calumet and Des Plaines rivers TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments 2 Our Great Rivers: A vision for the Chicago, Calumet and Des Plaines rivers Letter from Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel 4 A report of Great Rivers Chicago, a project of the City of Chicago, Metropolitan Planning Council, Friends of the Chicago River, Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning and Ross Barney Architects, through generous Letter from the Great Rivers Chicago team 5 support from ArcelorMittal, The Boeing Company, The Chicago Community Trust, The Richard H. Driehaus Foundation and The Joyce Foundation. Executive summary 6 Published August 2016. Printed in Chicago by Mission Press, Inc. The Vision 8 greatriverschicago.com Inviting 11 Productive 29 PARTNERS Living 45 Vision in action 61 CONFIDENTIAL Des Plaines 63 Ashland 65 Collateral Channel 67 Goose Island 69 FUNDERS Riverdale 71 DRAFT DRAFT Moving forward 72 Our Great Rivers 75 Glossary 76 ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANT OUR GREAT RIVERS 1 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This vision and action agenda for the Chicago, Calumet and Des Plaines rivers was produced by the Metropolitan Planning RESOURCE GROUP METROPOLITAN PLANNING Council (MPC), in close partnership with the City of Chicago Office of the Mayor, Friends of the Chicago River and Chicago COUNCIL STAFF Metropolitan Agency for Planning. Margaret Frisbie, Friends of the Chicago River Brad McConnell, Chicago Dept. of Planning and Co-Chair Development Josh Ellis, Director The Great Rivers Chicago Leadership Commission, more than 100 focus groups and an online survey that Friends of the Chicago River brought people to the Aaron Koch, City of Chicago Office of the Mayor Peter Mulvaney, West Monroe Partners appointed by Mayor Rahm Emanuel, and a Resource more than 3,800 people responded to.
    [Show full text]
  • Summer 2018 Volume 18 Number 2
    PAID Chicago, IL U.S. Postage U.S. Postage Nonprofit Org. Permit No. 9119 TM LIGHTHOUSES Chicago, IL 60608-1288 • ON THE MAG MILE | ENAZ | Highland Park, IL Park, | Highland | ENAZ | Loews Chicago Hotel Chicago | Loews | Chicago’s Magnificent Mile® Magnificent Chicago’s | June 19 - August 11 PRESENTED BY 1850 W. Roosevelt Road Roosevelt 1850 W. UPCOMING EVENTS UPCOMING Mile Mag The on Lighthouses 11 August 19 - June Philanthropy. Fashion. Fun. FLAIR. 2 October Tuesday, Sight for Style 8 November Thursday, Summer 2018 n Volume 18 Number 2 ONCE IN A LIFETIME ART DISPLAY SEEKS TO OPEN DOORS They will steal your hearts THE LIGHTHOUSES SERVE opportunity for people who are and open your eyes to what is blind, visually impaired, disabled Lighthouse are beacons. beacons. are Lighthouse We ask that you become beacons too! beacons become you that ask We David Huber and his firm, Huber Financial Advisors, LLC, as well well as LLC, Advisors, Financial Huber firm, his and Huber David possible. In the process they AS A VIVID REMINDER and Veterans. We all have a role to play. All of us at The Chicago Chicago The at us of All play. to role a have all We with disabilities. with exhibition in partnership with our outstanding Board Member Member Board outstanding our with partnership in exhibition will ask you to become engaged ABOUT WHAT PEOPLE can do to create access and inclusion for our fellow citizens citizens fellow our for inclusion and access create to do can For Dr. Szlyk, the lighthouses The Chicago Lighthouse is very proud to present this world class class world this present to proud very is Lighthouse Chicago The and consider what you can do serve as a vivid reminder about enjoy our lighthouses this summer, ask yourselves, what you you what yourselves, ask summer, this lighthouses our enjoy as an individual to break down WITH DISABILITIES and national artists, including many people who are disabled.
    [Show full text]
  • Streeterville Neighborhood Plan 2014 Update II August 18, 2014
    Streeterville Neighborhood Plan 2014 update II August 18, 2014 Dear Friends, The Streeterville Neighborhood Plan (“SNP”) was originally written in 2005 as a community plan written by a Chicago community group, SOAR, the Streeterville Organization of Active Resi- dents. SOAR was incorporated on May 28, 1975. Throughout our history, the organization has been a strong voice for conserving the historic character of the area and for development that enables divergent interests to live in harmony. SOAR’s mission is “To work on behalf of the residents of Streeterville by preserving, promoting and enhancing the quality of life and community.” SOAR’s vision is to see Streeterville as a unique, vibrant, beautiful neighborhood. In the past decade, since the initial SNP, there has been significant development throughout the neighborhood. Streeterville’s population has grown by 50% along with new hotels, restaurants, entertainment and institutional buildings creating a mix of uses no other neighborhood enjoys. The balance of all these uses is key to keeping the quality of life the highest possible. Each com- ponent is important and none should dominate the others. The impetus to revising the SNP is the City of Chicago’s many new initiatives, ideas and plans that SOAR wanted to incorporate into our planning document. From “The Pedestrian Plan for the City”, to “Chicago Forward”, to “Make Way for People” to “The Redevelopment of Lake Shore Drive” along with others, the City has changed its thinking of the downtown urban envi- ronment. If we support and include many of these plans into our SNP we feel that there is great- er potential for accomplishing them together.
    [Show full text]
  • Louis Vuitton America's Cup World Series
    LOUIS VUITTON AMERICA’S CUP WORLD SERIES ON-WATER GUIDE LVACWS CHICAGO | ON-WATER GUIDE Please monitor VHF Channel 20 for Race Updates and Commentary. For the first time in history, America’s Cup racing is coming to a freshwater racecourse as the Louis Vuitton America’s Cup World Series Chicago welcomes the best sailors in the world June 10-12, 2016! This is a spectacle for the entire boating community to experience and we look forward to welcoming fans from around the country to our lakeshore racecourse. Planning on enjoying the racing from your boat? Here’s what you need to know. On-Water Race Course Viewing On-water viewing of the Louis Vuitton America’s Cup World Series Chicago is free to the public (though fans who have purchased Boaters Pass tickets in advance will have access to the Chicago Harbors Boaters Pass Viewing Zone to the north of the course). To maintain the safety of the event, please be advised of the following if you’re planning on watching from your boat: CLIFF NOTES: › A USCG Safety Zone has been established for the America’s Cup racing, there are penalties for entering the zone. › This zone runs from Navy Pier on the North to the Monroe Harbor Entrance on the South, all inside the outer Chicago Harbor break wall. › It will not be possible to transit from the South Side of the Zone (i.e., Chicago Lock & Monroe Harbor) to the north side of the Zone (i.e., Playpen) without going outside of the Chicago Harbor break wall when the zone is in effect.
    [Show full text]
  • Floods of October 1954 in the Chicago Area, Illinois and Indiana
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OP THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY FLOODS OF OCTOBER 1954 IN THE CHICAGO AREA ILLINOIS AND INDIANA By Warren S. Daniels and Malcolm D. Hale Prepared in cooperation with the STATES OF ILLINOIS AND INDIANA Open-file report Washington, D. C., 1955 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY FLOODS OF OCTOBER 1954 IN THE CHICAGO AREA ILLINOIS AND INDIANA By Warren S. Daniels and Malcolm D. Hale Prepared in cooperation with the STATES OF ILLINOIS AND INDIANA Open-file report Washington, D. C., 1955 PREFACE This preliminary report on the floods of October 1954 in the Chicago area of Illinois and Indiana was prepared by the Water Resources Division, C. G. Paulsen, chief, under the general direction of J. V. B. Wells, chief, Surface Water Branch. Basic records of discharge in the area covered by this report were collected in cooperation with the Illinois De­ partment of Public Works and Buildings, Division of Waterways; the Indiana Flood Control and Water Resources Commission; and the Indiana Department of Conservation, Division of Water Re­ sources. The records of discharge were collected and computed under the direction of J. H. Morgan, district engineer, Champaign, 111.; and D. M. Corbett, district engineer, Indi­ anapolis, Ind. The data were computed and te^t prepared by the authors in the district offices in Illinois and Indiana. The report was assembled by the staff of the Technical Stand­ ards Section in Washington, D. C., Tate Dalrymple, chief. li CONTENTS Page Introduction............................................. 1 General description of floods............................ 1 Location.............................................. 1 Little Calumet River basin...........................
    [Show full text]
  • Section 3.8 Little Calumet River Tributary Characteristics and Analysis
    Section 3.8 Little Calumet River Tributary Characteristics and Analysis 3.8 Little Calumet River The Little Calumet River subwatershed Table 3.8.1: Communities Draining to encompasses approximately 33 square Little Calumet River Subwatershed Within miles (27.66 in Cook County and 4.86 in Cook County Lake County, Indiana) within the Tributary Community northwestern portion of the Little Area (mi2) Calumet River watershed. Table 3.8.1 Blue Island 0.30 lists the communities that lie within the Calumet City 2.44 subwatershed and the associated Calumet Park <0.01 drainage area for each community Country Club Hills 0.02 contained within the subwatershed. Dixmoor 1.24 Dolton 2.40 Table 3.8.2 lists the land use breakdown by area within the Little Calumet River Harvey 4.35 subwatershed. Figure 3.8.1 provides an Lansing 4.35 overview of the tributary area of the Markham 2.26 subwatershed. Reported stormwater Midlothian 0.51 problem areas and proposed alternative Oak Forest 0.44 projects are also shown on the figure, and Phoenix 0.44 are discussed in the following Posen 0.17 subsections. Riverdale 1.95 South Holland 4.20 Within the Little Calumet River Unincorporated Cook County/ 2.59 subwatershed, a total of 13.8 stream miles Forest Preserve were studied among two tributaries, the Little Calumet River main stem and an Unnamed Tributary to the Little Calumet River. The remaining tributaries to the Little Calumet River were studied as separate subwatersheds (See Sections 3.1 through 3.7). Little Calumet River (LCRW) – Table 3.8.2: Land Use Distribution for The Little Calumet River Little Calumet River Subwatershed Within Cook County originates in Indiana near Hart Ditch (Plum Creek) at a flow Land Use Acres % divide, which varies in location Commercial/Industrial 2,466 13.9 depending on flow conditions and Forest/Open Land 4,279 24.1 precipitation distribution across Institutional 1,023 5.8 the watershed.
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science
    Tolleston and Post-Tolleston Beaches and Bars in Lake County, Indiana C. L. Bieber, DePauw University The history of glacial Lake Chicago has been set forth, modified, and reviewed by various authors. The purpose of this paper is to describe and interpret beach and bar deposits of Tolleston and post- Tolleston age in Lake County. 1 Late in Pleistocene history, stabilization of levels of Lake Chicago at about 20 feet above present lake levels formed a beach line that passes one-half mile south of Tolleston, an early settlement near Tenth Avenue and Garfield Street in Gary. The Tolleston beach, where not obscured by dunes, is represented by a series of sand ridges parallel to the lake shore at the time of deposition. The lake must have stood near the 600 foot level for a long period, as these sand ridges stand about 20 feet higher than the surrounding plain. This type of beach development is in strong contrast to the Calumet beach, which lies to the south and consists of a single main ridge except for the embayment in the Griffith area. In late Tolleston time the Straits of Makinac cleared of ice and allowed drainage to the east, probably through the Port Huron outlet, which is in glacial till. The lake levels gradually lowered as the outlet eroded forming low parallel beachlines and bars on the level plain in northern Lake County. Earth movements in post-Pleistocene time along with temporary halts in the erosion of the outlet, have complicated the problem of interpreting the history by a study of the ancient shore lines.
    [Show full text]
  • Aecom Letter Re: Streeterville Thorium
    953601 AECOM 312-939-1000 tel A:COM 303 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 1400 312-939-4198 fax Chicago, Illinois 60606 February 7, 2020 Mr. Naren Prasad Peoples Gas Light & Coke Co. Environmental Services Department 200 E. Randolph Street, 24th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 RE: Streeterville Thorium Monitoring Results – Corrosion Protection Permit No.: Digger #600780766 Permit Address: 500-528 N. Streeter Dr., Chicago, Illinois AECOM Project No. 60157647.129 Dear Mr. Prasad: Pursuant to conditions specified in the private property form (attached) issued by the City of Chicago Department of Public Health (CDPH), radiation monitoring was required to be performed at the above referenced site. AECOM Technical Services, Inc. (AECOM) provided the required radiation surveillance on February 5, 2020 for a small trench excavation required for the installation of corrosion protection on a gas main located in an unpaved area within Polk Brothers Park just west of Navy Pier. Surveying was performed within the excavation in the grass area of the park just west of N. Streeter Dr. (also known as Headhouse Road). Refer to the drawing attached to the CDPH form for the approximate location of the excavation. The excavation was conducted to install corrosion protection on an existing gas main. The work consisted of a single excavation approximately 3-feet wide, 5-feet long, and excavated to a depth of 36-inches. The monitoring did not indicate that the fill soils were above the removal action level established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) for the Streeterville area of Chicago. The USEPA removal action level for Chicago’s Streeterville area is 7.1 picocuries per gram (pCi/g) total radium (Ra- 226 + Ra-228).
    [Show full text]
  • Yachting in Chicago 2017
    60th anniversary THE ANNUAL PUBLICATION OF THE CHICAGO YACHTING ASSOCIATION MESSAGE FROM THE COMMODORE official publication of the chicago yachting association CHICAGO YACHTING ASSOCIATION Member of the National Boating Federation By Commodore Sandra Smith 2019 OFFICERS DIVERSEY YACHT CLUB AWARDS COMMODORE Sandra Smith Com. Sharon Rice-Minoso PC Jerry Metzger, PC BPYC PC Mark Klym COMMODORES CRUISE VICE COMMODORE FOREST VIEW MARINA & STORAGE RC La Rue Watson, PC SSYC Douglas A. James 60th anniversary Michael Giuffre COMMUNITY OUTREACH REAR COMMODORE I begin this article saying thank you to the La Rue Watson FREEDOM BOAT CLUB VC Douglas James, PC CS&PC Mike Ginter MEMBERSHIP & MEMBERSHIP EXPANSION members of the Chicago Yachting Association for SECRETARY Randall Schmidt HAMMOND YACHT CLUB Sec. Randall Schmidt, PC DYC nd Com. John Botich, Jr. electing me as Commodore for a 2 year. Sandra Smith, Commodore YACHTING GALA TREASURER JACKSON PARK YACHT CLUB VC Douglas James, PC CS&PC James Caldwell I want to thank the current CYA Bridge for their hard work and interested in boating. The CYA partnered with Com. Janet Hansen Captain Toby Lindo PC Karen Harris YACHTING IN CHICAGO MAGAZINE dedication to helping keep the CYA striving to be bigger and better. (of the Chicago Maritime Arts Center) and together we sponsored an BOARD OF DIRECTORS PC Betty Lerner, PC BYC To Vice Commodore Doug James, thanks for your hard work on the event hosted at Columbia Yacht Club, where 70 children participated IMMEDIATE PAST COMMODORE JOSEPH CONRAD YACHT CLUB annual Yachting Celebration in 2018. I was not in attendance but I in seminars on boating and a class about boat building.
    [Show full text]
  • Property Rights in Reclaimed Land and the Battle for Streeterville
    Columbia Law School Scholarship Archive Faculty Scholarship Faculty Publications 2013 Contested Shore: Property Rights in Reclaimed Land and the Battle for Streeterville Joseph D. Kearney Thomas W. Merrill Columbia Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Environmental Law Commons, and the Property Law and Real Estate Commons Recommended Citation Joseph D. Kearney & Thomas W. Merrill, Contested Shore: Property Rights in Reclaimed Land and the Battle for Streeterville, 107 NW. U. L. REV. 1057 (2013). Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/383 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Publications at Scholarship Archive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarship Archive. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Copyright 2013 by Northwestern University School of Law Printed in U.S.A. Northwestern University Law Review Vol. 107, No. 3 Articles CONTESTED SHORE: PROPERTY RIGHTS IN RECLAIMED LAND AND THE BATTLE FOR STREETERVILLE Joseph D. Kearney & Thomas W. Merrill ABSTRACT-Land reclaimed from navigable waters is a resource uniquely susceptible to conflict. The multiple reasons for this include traditional hostility to interference with navigable waterways and the weakness of rights in submerged land. In Illinois, title to land reclaimed from Lake Michigan was further clouded by a shift in judicial understanding in the late nineteenth century about who owned the submerged land, starting with an assumption of private ownership but eventually embracing state ownership. The potential for such legal uncertainty to produce conflict is vividly illustrated by the history of the area of Chicago known as Streeterville, the area of reclaimed land along Lake Michigan north of the Chicago River and east of Michigan Avenue.
    [Show full text]
  • Industrial Usage of Chicago Area Waterway System
    Industrial Usage of Chicago Area Waterway System DRAFT Final Report March 31, 2015 Table of Contents I. Executive Summary......................................................................1 II. Barge Facilities by Industrial Corridor...........................................7 a. North Branch Industrial Corridor..............................................7 b. Pilsen Industrial Corridor...........................................................9 c. Little Village Industrial Corridor................................................10 d. Calument Industrial Corridor....................................................11 III. The Port of Chicago....................................................................15 IV. Case Studies of Barge Users.......................................................21 a. General Iron..........................................................................21 b. Ozinga...................................................................................22 c. Prairie Material....................... ...............................................23 V. Trends and Forecasts of Industrial Usage of the Chicago Area Waterway.................................................................................29 VI. CAWS Infrastructure Conditions and Needs.......................39 I. Executive Summary ChicagoChica Areago A Waterwaysrea Water wSystemays M Mapap § ¨¦ S 8 3 ¨¦§I94 ¯ 3 5 S ¨ ¦ § l Wilmette Pump Station e n n a h C e r o h S N h North Side WWTP t o r r o t h N B ra nc 90 h, I§¨¦1 Ch ica *#North Branch Pump Station
    [Show full text]
  • Grand Calumet River Area of Concern
    Great Lakes Areas of Concern (AoCs): Grand Calumet River| Great Lakes | US EPA Great Lakes Area of Concerns Share Recent Additions | Contact Us Search: All EPA This Area You are here: EPA Home Great Lakes > Areas of Concern (AOCs): Grand Calumet River Great Lakes Home Grand Calumet River Area of Concern Basic Information Interagency Task Force Interested Parties US Agencies States Canada Background Tribal Nations Beneficial Use Impairments Others Delisting Targets Federal Programs RAP Development and Status Significant RAP Milestones Legacy Act RAP Implementation Grand Calumet River AOC Boundary Map Policies & RAP-Related Publications (PDF 91kb, 1 page) Strategies Community Involvement (click on map to view in separate window) Partners and Stakeholders Grand Calumet River Shape File Monitoring & Contacts Indicators Ecosystems NOTE: Most links on this You will need Adobe Acrobat Reader, available as Toxics Reduction & page are pointers to other a free download, to view some of the files on this Pollution hosts and locations in the page. See EPA's PDF page to learn more about Prevention Internet. This information is PDF, and for a link to the free Acrobat Reader. Funding provided as a service; however the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency does not endorse, approve or otherwise support these sites. Background The Grand Calumet River, originating in the east end of Gary, Indiana, flows 13 miles (21 km) through the heavily industrialized cities of Gary, East Chicago, and Hammond. The majority of the river's flow drains into Lake Michigan via the Indiana Harbor and Ship Canal, sending about one billion gallons of water into the lake per day.
    [Show full text]