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 Do not cite findings without permission of the author. 2 Alliance for the Great Lakes, 17 N. State Street, Chicago, IL 60602 3 Ecological Monitoring and Assessment, 3206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
112
Embed
GREAT LAKES FISHERY COMMISSION 2008 Project Completion ... · the Great Lakes is a major problem. Leading scientists suggest that future invasions put the Great Lakes at risk of “ecosystem
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
GREAT LAKES FISHERY COMMISSION
2008 Project Completion Report1
PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY OF ECOLOGICAL
SEPARATION OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND THE
GREAT LAKES TO PREVENT THE TRANSFER OF
AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES
by:
Joel Brammeier
2, Irwin Polls
3, Scudder Mackey
4
November 2008
1 Project completion reports of Commission-sponsored research are made available to the Commission’s Cooperators in the interest of rapid dissemination of information that may be useful in Great Lakes fishery management, research, or administration. The reader should be aware that project completion reports have not been through a peer-review process and that sponsorship of the project by the Commission does not necessarily imply that the findings or conclusions are endorsed by the Commission. Do not cite findings without permission of the author. 2 Alliance for the Great Lakes, 17 N. State Street, Chicago, IL 60602 3 Ecological Monitoring and Assessment, 3206 Mapleleaf Drive, Glenview, IL 60026 4 Habitat Solutions, 37045 N. Ganster Road, Beach Park, IL 60087
i
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements
Executive Summary
Introduction
Chapter 1: Chicago Area Waterway System Summary
Study Area
History Uses
Ownership Physical Habitat Hydrology Water Quality Biological Communities Navigation
Chapter 2: Stakeholder Input
Chapter 3: Separation Technologies
Chapter 4: Separation Scenarios
Chapter 5: Implementation
Chapter 6: Recommendations
Literature Cited
i
ii
1
3
3 7 12 12 13 17 30 40 50
62
74
83
93
98
101
i
Acknowledgements
The team is indebted to many people who provided hydrology, physical habitat, water
quality, benthic invertebrate, and fish data for this report: James Casey, Sam Dennison, Jim
Dunker, Dan Injerd, Dale McDonald, Sergio Serafino, Mike Sopcak, Tzuoh-Ying Su, and
Jennifer Wasik. We are extremely grateful to Dick Lanyon for informal discussions on the
Chicago and Calumet Waterways. Special thanks to Rich Anderson, Susanne Davis, Steve Davis,
Alex DaSilva, and Scott Morlock for helping the team understand the direction of flow in the
Grand Calumet and Little Calumet Rivers in Indiana. Many thanks to Greg Seegert for assisting
with selecting the fish metrics.
Thank you to all who were willing to take several hours out of your busy day to
participate in an interview for this project and provide content. We appreciate comments on drafts
of parts of this work from Cameron Davis, Marc Gaden, Dan Injerd, Phil Moy, Dick Lanyon and
Lindsay Chadderton.
Significant portions of this work were completed under contract by Matt Cochran of
HDR Inc./FishPro, Thomas Daggett of Dagget Law Firm and Frank Lupi, Ph.D. Thank you to
Mike Poulakos for helping draft the figures and for graphic assistance.
This work was supported by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission and the Great Lakes
Fishery Trust. We are grateful for their financial support.
Finally, we particularly would like to recognize the many dedicated scientists and
managers in local and state environmental agencies who over the years have spent countless
hours in the field, in the laboratory and in the office working to monitor and protect the ecological
integrity of the Chicago and Calumet Waterways, the Mississippi River and the Great Lakes.
ii
Executive Summary
There is broad consensus that continuing introduction of new aquatic invasive species (AIS) into
the Great Lakes is a major problem. Leading scientists suggest that future invasions put the Great
Lakes at risk of “ecosystem breakdown” while prevention of new invasions is a top priority of the
2005 Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy. Canals connecting the Great Lakes basin to
other watersheds have served as an important pathway for these AIS introductions, second only to
ballast water discharges from ocean going ships. The Chicago Waterway System (CWS) has
already allowed several damaging AIS to move between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi
River Basin, including the zebra mussel and round goby.
The imminent threat of Asian carp reaching the Great Lakes and knowledge of the impacts of past
invasions creates a strong incentive to permanently protect both the Great Lakes and Mississippi
Basins from new invasive species. State and federal governments have invested wisely for the
short term by developing electric barriers that are effective against current invaders. But even if
the barriers operate as designed, they will not last forever, nor will they ever achieve guaranteed
100 percent effectiveness. With the passage of time – through human error, an accident, or a
natural disaster – the effectiveness of the barriers will be compromised.
The long-term approach to achieving protection is “ecological separation.” A true ecological
separation is defined as no inter-basin transfer of aquatic organisms via the Chicago Waterway
System at any time – 100% effectiveness. Ecological separation prohibits the movement or inter-
basin transfer of aquatic organisms between the Mississippi and Great Lakes basins via the CWS.
Once established, the impacts of invasive species on ecosystem health are permanent and
irreversible. Preventing the transfer and introduction of invasive species between the Mississippi
River and Great Lakes basins is the only long-term solution that will eliminate the risk of
irreversible ecosystem damage.
The CWS is a highly engineered and complex combination of natural rivers and artificial canals.
Much of the system has been channelized to facilitate its primary purpose as a treated wastewater
and stormwater conduit downstream from the city of Chicago. As a result of this and other human
activity, ecological values of the CWS such as habitat quality have been compromised. However,
the system functions as a thriving recreational network and maintains steady, if not growing,
traffic in commodity movements. Until recently, many users and stakeholders have assumed that
iii
the availability of regular connectivity and an accompanying threat of AIS movement between
the CWS and Lake Michigan was a foregone conclusion given twin demands for wastewater
management and navigation. A close look at system flows, navigation patterns and short- and
medium-term regulatory imperatives suggests otherwise. The need for direct diversions of Lake
Michigan water into the CWS is diminishing and navigation is confined in bulk to specific
portions of the system.
Stakeholders, with a few exceptions, are hospitable to the idea of ecological separation. Most
stakeholders have a firm understanding of the benefits provided to the city of Chicago and state of
Illinois by the CWS and understand the tremendous quality of life enhancements offered by the
system as it currently exists. Despite this, some view the permanent connection of the Mississippi
River and Great Lakes as a mistake with unforeseeable consequences that needs to be rectified.
Fortunately, existing planning and modeling resources will shorten the timeframe for and reduce
the cost of analysis that needs to occur prior to project implementation.
Strategies for separation can be pursued at Lockport/Romeoville, the south branch of the Chicago
River, the Chicago Lock to Lake Michigan, and the Calumet, Grand Calumet and Little Calumet
Rivers. Ecological separation at several of these points will require new infrastructure that is
almost certain to impact commercial and recreational navigation. Traffic flows in the CWS
suggest that these impacts can be minimized; the flow of goods, vessels and passengers could
even be enhanced if ecological separation was addressed as part of a revitalized Chicago-area
navigation infrastructure. Impacts to movement of stormwater and wastewater are highly
dependent on whether separation is located in the upper or lower part of the system, with impacts
growing extreme if any separation occurs lower in the CWS.
Achievement of ecological separation can be hastened by:
� Prioritization of an outcome of ecological separation by a federal authority such as
Congress or an administration via an executive order;
� Clarifying and authorizing project implementation responsibility;
� Completing detailed studies on changes to hydrology, recreation and commodity logistics
that would result from any infrastructure alterations; and
� Establishing a stable, multi-year source of funding for federal studies and project
implementation.
iv
Short of immediate ecological separation, protection from species movement can be partially
achieved by:
� Completing and activating the electrical barrier system in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship
Canal.
� Hydrologically separating Indiana Harbor and Burns Ditch from the Grand Calumet and
Little Calumet Rivers, respectively, to eliminate opportunity for species movement.
� Acquiring state and federal administrative approvals for a rapid response plan for the
CWS and educate local stakeholders on the potential impacts of rapid response activities.
� Immediately beginning a federal feasibility study on separation of the two systems under
existing federal authority via the Corps.
While the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers is viewed as the natural lead on a separation project, an
apparent leadership vacuum makes envisioning ecological separation difficult. Engineering and
siting concerns should not be limiting factors in ecological separation, but a commitment to act
from high level decision makers combined with a stable federal funding source are both required.
Invasive species prevention is the rare ecological problem where opportunity and consensus tend
to arrive in tandem. Presented in the CWS is the opportunity to prevent damage to two great
watersheds combined with consensus that some drastic action is likely necessary to achieve that
prevention. Lack of information is no hurdle to meeting this challenge, but successful prevention
will demand leadership and will to get the job done. We encourage the Great Lakes and
Mississippi River regions to act on this opportunity as quickly as possible.
1
Introduction
There is broad consensus that continuing introduction of new aquatic invasive species (AIS) into
the Great Lakes is a major problem. Leading scientists suggest that future invasions put the Great
Lakes at risk of “ecosystem breakdown” (Bails et al 2005) while prevention of new invasions is a
top priority of the 2005 Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy (Great Lakes Interagency
Task Force 2005).
Canals connecting the Great Lakes basin to other watersheds have served as an important
pathway for these AIS introductions, second only to ballast water discharges from ocean going
ships. The Chicago Waterway System (CWS) has already allowed several damaging AIS to move
between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River Basin, including the zebra mussel and round
goby (Rasmussen 2002). The CWS presents an imminent threat of introducing a particularly
destructive AIS into the Great Lakes: bighead and silver carp, or “Asian carp.” Increasing
concern over AIS in the Great Lakes, and the open pathway for AIS through the CWS led to an
“Aquatic Invasive Species Summit” in Chicago in 2003. Bringing together agencies and
researchers from all levels of government, the group explored the shared responsibility for the
CWS and recommended a long term solution of ecological separation of the two basins by 2013,
and a short term solution of adding technological barriers to discourage fish from moving
between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River basins (City of Chicago 2005).
The threat of Asian carp reaching the Great Lakes and knowledge of past invasions creates a
strong incentive to act now to permanently protect both the Great Lakes and Mississippi Basins
from new invasive species. State and federal governments have invested wisely for the short term
by developing electric barriers that are effective against current invaders. But even if the barriers
operate as designed, they will not last forever, nor will they ever achieve guaranteed 100 percent
effectiveness. With the passage of time – through human error, an accident, or a natural disaster –
the effectiveness of the barriers will be compromised.
The long-term approach to achieving protection is “ecological separation.” A true ecological
separation is defined as no inter-basin transfer of aquatic organisms via the Chicago Waterway
System at any time – 100% effectiveness. Ecological separation prohibits the movement or inter-
basin transfer of aquatic organisms between the Mississippi and Great Lakes basins via the CWS.
2
Once established, the impacts of invasive species on ecosystem health are permanent and
irreversible. Preventing the transfer and introduction of invasive species between the Mississippi
River and Great Lakes basins is the only long-term solution to eliminate the risk of irreversible
ecosystem damage. The CWS provides an opportunity where the spread of aquatic invasive
species between two great watersheds can be halted. Taking advantage of this opportunity relies
on four key pieces of information:
• Knowledge of the CWS’s functions of chemical, biological and physical integrity, hydrology
and flows, and commercial and recreational navigation;
• An understanding of stakeholder views and opinions about the CWS, the threat of invasive
species and the relevance of ecological separation;
• An assessment of available options for stopping all species of concern from moving between
the Mississippi River and the Great Lakes; and
• Analysis of which authorities and responsibilities can enable action to achieve prevention,
and how this can be achieved in a political context.
Based on this information, there are a number of near-term actions that will lead to long-term
management of the Mississippi River and Great Lakes systems as ecologically separate,
including:
• Prioritization of an outcome of ecological separation by a federal authority such as Congress
or an administration via an executive order;
• Clarify and authorize project implementation responsibility;
• Complete detailed studies on changes to hydrology, recreation and commodity logistics that
would result from any infrastructure alterations; and
• Establish a stable, multi-year source of funding for federal studies and project
implementation.
Invasive species prevention is the rare ecological problem where opportunity and consensus tend
to arrive in tandem. Presented in the CWS is the opportunity to prevent damage to two great
watersheds combined with consensus that some drastic action is likely necessary to achieve that
prevention. Lack of information is no hurdle to meeting this challenge, but successful prevention
will demand leadership and will to get the job done. We encourage the Great Lakes and
Mississippi River regions to act on this opportunity as quickly as possible.
3
Chapter 1 – Chicago Waterway System Summary
Study Area
While the Chicago Waterway System and the Chicago and Calumet Waterways are highly visible
and used by a broad range of stakeholders, the structure and function of the systems are generally
poorly understood outside of a small community of scientific and navigation professionals. A
summary of the functions of chemical, biological and physical integrity, hydrology, ownership
and commercial and recreational navigation is the critical foundation to decision-making
regarding the system’s future.
The Chicago and Calumet Waterways (CCW) are located in northeastern Illinois and northwest
Indiana (Figure 1) and include the Chicago Waterway System (CWS). The CWS is a subset of the
less commonly known CCW. Chapter 1 refers to the CCW with the exception of the section on
navigation, which defines and refers to the reaches of the CWS. Subsequent chapters refer to the
more commonly known CWS.
The CCW include seven modified rivers (North Branch of the Chicago River, Chicago River,
South Branch of the Chicago River, South Fork of the South Branch of the Chicago River,
Calumet River, Grand Calumet River, and the Little Calumet River) and three artificial or man-
made channels and canal (Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, North Shore Channel, and the
Calumet-Sag Channel).
The approximately 740 square mile watershed contains the Great Lakes region’s largest city,
Chicago. The eastern boundary of the watershed is Lake Michigan, and the southern boundary is
defined by the junction of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal and the Des Plaines River in
Joliet, Illinois. Located within Cook, Lake, and Will County, Illinois and Lake County, Indiana,
the Cook County portion of the watershed is approximately 35 miles long and 20 miles wide at its
widest point. The CCW are dominated by an urban landscape. However, concentrations of non-
developed land (principally forest preserves) are found throughout the watershed and in particular
border the waterways.
4
5
Abiotic factors affecting the CCW include ownership, waterway uses, physical habitat,
hydrology, and chemical water quality. Biotic characteristics include the benthic invertebrate and
fish communities. The information contained in this report is a compilation of data collected from
Federal, State, and local environmental agencies.
Chicago Waterways
The Chicago waterways includes the West Fork of the North Branch of the Chicago
River, Middle Fork of the North Branch of the Chicago River, East Fork (Skokie River), North
Branch of the Chicago River (North Branch), North Shore Channel, Chicago River, South Branch
of the Chicago River (South Branch), South Fork of the South Branch of the Chicago River
(South Fork), and the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal (Figure 1).
The West, Middle, and East Forks of the North Branch of the Chicago River arise in central Lake
County, Illinois. The three shallow, wadeable tributaries flow southeast, parallel to each other.
The Skokie River eventually turns west and joins with the Middle Fork in Glenview, Illinois. The
West Fork and Middle Fork meet in Morton Grove, Illinois and become the North Branch of the
Chicago River. The North Branch continues to flow south and east and eventually joins with the
man-made North Shore Channel in the north side of Chicago. The North Shore Channel
originates in Wilmette, Illinois and flows in a southerly direction. The channel is straight
throughout its length except for four bends.
Below the junction of the North Shore Channel and the North Branch of the Chicago River, the
North Branch widens and deepens flowing south and east through the city of Chicago. The lower
reach of the river from Belmont Avenue to the junction with the Chicago River follows its
original course. The North Branch of the Chicago merges with the Chicago River in downtown
Chicago.
Historically before the reversal of the CCW, waters from the North Branch of the Chicago River
flowed into the Chicago River. Subsequently, the Chicago River flowed east and south into Lake
Michigan. In the present day, the Chicago River flows west away from Lake Michigan joining the
North Branch of the Chicago River at Wolf Point (Figure 1). The alignment of the Chicago River
is generally straight with three bends near Michigan Avenue, State and Orleans Streets.
6
Before the construction of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, the South Branch of the Chicago
River flowed north merging with the North Branch of the Chicago River. Following the reversal
of the waterways, the South Branch flowed south and west through the city of Chicago. The
South Branch generally follows its original course and has several bends.
A small tributary, the South Fork, joins the South Branch of the Chicago River before the river
merges with the man-made Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. The man-made Chicago Sanitary
and Ship Canal flows southwest eventually joining the Des Plaines River in Joliet, Illinois. Except
for four bends near Harlem Avenue, LaGrange and Romeoville Roads, and in Lockport, the
alignment of the canal is straight throughout its length.
Calumet Waterways
The Calumet Waterways include the Calumet River, Lake Calumet, Grand Calumet River, Little
Calumet River, and the Calumet-Sag Channel (Figure 1). Before the reversal of the Calumet
Waterways, the Calumet River flowed east into Lake Michigan. Following construction of the
Calumet-Sag Channel, the flow in the Calumet River was reversed, and water flowed southwest
away from Lake Michigan.
The Grand Calumet River, a shallow tributary flowing northwest from the state of Indiana,
eventually joins the Calumet River just below the O’Brien Lock (Figure 1). A drainage divide or
hydrologic summit occurs on the Grand Calumet River just east of the Illinois-Indiana state line
(Figure 1). The drainage divide is a relatively flat area which allows for water to stand and to
flow in one of two directions. On one side of the divide, the water in the Grand Calumet River
flows west into Illinois. On the other side, the water flows east towards Lake Michigan. The exact
location of the summit is highly variable and is influenced by storm events and the water level in
Lake Michigan (Davis, personal communication). The flow summit on the Grand Calumet River
is thought to be generally located between the effluent outfalls of the Hammond and East Chicago
wastewater treatment plants. During dry weather when water levels in the lake are low, water in
the Grand Calumet River east of the divide flows into Lake Michigan through the Indiana Harbor
Canal. However, water in the Grand Calumet River on the east side of the divide can also flow
west into Illinois during storms and high lake levels (Duncker, personal communication).
The Calumet River and the Grand Calumet River join to form the deep draft Little Calumet River
North (referred to in this report as the Little Calumet River). Before the construction of the
7
Calumet-Sag Channel, the direction of flow in the Little Calumet River was east towards Lake
Michigan. Following the reversal of the Calumet Waterways, the Little Calumet River flowed
west merging with the shallow, Little Calumet River South. Over the years, the Little Calumet
River has been widened and deepened. The Little Calumet River South originates in northern
Indiana. In the case of the Little Calumet River South, a drainage divide occurs east of the
confluence with Harts Ditch in northwestern Indiana (Figure 1). It is assumed that during dry
weather, all of the water in the Little Calumet River South west of the divide flows in a westerly
direction into Illinois. On the other side of the drainage divide, the water in the Little Calumet
River South flows east into Burns Ditch and eventually into Lake Michigan. As is the case with
the Grand Calumet River, water in the Little Calumet River South on the east side of the divide
can also flow west towards Illinois during wet weather events (Davis, personal communication).
The Little Calumet River South flows northwest merging with the Little Calumet River.
The man-made Calumet-Sag Channel begins below the junction of the Little Calumet River and
the Little Calumet River South. Several small, shallow, natural streams tributary to the Calumet-
Sag Channel include Midlothian Creek, Tinley Creek, and Stony Creek. The Calumet-Sag
Channel continues to flow west merging with the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal in Lemont,
Illinois. The alignment of the channel is generally straight with three bends near Western,
Ridgeland, and Crawford Avenues.
History
The CCW have significantly changed since the time of the Native American tribes and European
settlement. Perhaps no other waterways in an urban environment have been so completely
transformed and modified.
During the period when First Nations peoples lived in the Chicago region, the area was not only
flat but decidedly swampy. In the 1700s, the tributaries to the Chicago River would have been
shallow and very sluggish in flow; it was unusual for the waterways in the Chicago area to have
anything more than a slight current. Both woodlands and tall grass prairies occurred along the
banks of the tributaries. In the upper reaches of the watershed, the tributaries flowed through
catchments with greater slope. The additional elevation provided for development of riffles and
deeper pools (Hill, 2000). Pre-settlement aquatic communities in the CCW included warm and
cool-water assemblages adapted to the low gradient waterways (Arnold and others 1998). The
8
varied land use characteristics of the watershed most likely sustained physical habitats that
supported diverse communities of insects, shellfish, and fish. Because of its connection to Lake
Michigan, fish came up the Chicago River to spawn. Lake sturgeon, walleye, suckers, pike and a
few trout migrated up the tributaries (Hill, 2000).
One of the most important geologic features of the Chicago region was a sub-continental drainage
divide that separated the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico with the Great Lakes/Atlantic Ocean
(Figure 2). During the time of early exploration, the drainage divide was nearly undetectable. The
divide known as the Chicago Portage is located in the southwestern suburbs and extends from
south to north along what is today South Harlem Avenue. Traversing the drainage divide was
Mud Lake (Figure 2), a large slough or swampy area.
9
In September of 1673, on their route from the Mississippi River to Lake Michigan, Louis Jolliet
and Father Jacques Marquette, with assistance from members of the Miami tribe, passed through
the Chicago Portage (Mud Lake to the West Fork of the Chicago River) (Figure 2). The greatest
value of the portage for the native tribes of the area was a system of water routes that occasionally
provided a connection between the flowing waters of the Illinois and Des Plaines Rivers to the
10
open waters of the Great Lakes. More than three hundred years ago, the explorer Louis Jolliet
suggested that a man-made canal be built that would cut through the Chicago Portage, and
provide a waterway passage between Lake Michigan and the Gulf of Mexico.
For early settlers visiting the Chicago area, the inland waterways offered drinking water,
transportation, food, and safe harbor. With the subsequent development of the city of Chicago,
many of the original wetlands and swamps were drained and filled for agriculture.
Between 1860 and 1900, the North and South Branches of the Chicago River quickly became the
major focus of industrial activity, including meat packing, slaughterhouses, distilleries, and
lumber mills. As Chicago grew rapidly, untreated sewage from homes and industries throughout
the greater metropolitan area discharged to Chicago area waterways. These waterways eventually
flowed into Lake Michigan, the primary source of drinking water for Chicago area residents
(Figure 3).
Figure 3. Early Map (1860-1900) Showing CCW Flowing into Lake Michigan
Bacteria and viruses causing typhoid, cholera, dysentery, and other waterborne diseases were
present in the water that flowed to Lake Michigan from urban areas bordering the CCW. The
CCW became an open sewer. Between 1865 and 1885, scores of area residents died from diseases
caused by the contaminated drinking water, especially following storm events.
11
In order to protect the area’s primary water supply, Lake Michigan, the Illinois General Assembly
adopted the Sanitary District of Chicago Enabling Act in 1889. The legislation led to the creation
of the Sanitary District of Chicago, the predecessor of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation
District of Greater Chicago (MWRDGC).
Soon after the Sanitary District of Chicago was established, its board of trustees, subscribing to
the popular belief that “dilution was the solution to pollution,” implemented a long-term plan to
permanently reverse the flows of the North and South Branches of the Chicago Rivers and the
Calumet River away from Lake Michigan, and to divert the contaminated river water downstream
where it could be diluted as it flowed into the Des Plaines River, and eventually to the Illinois and
Mississippi Rivers.
By 1900, a man-made canal, the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, connected the South Branch of
the Chicago River with the Des Plaines River in Joliet. The artificial North Shore and Calumet-
Sag Channels were completed in 1910 and 1922, respectively. Following completion of the three
man-made waterways, Chicago’s raw sewage, industrial wastes, and urban storm water were
directed away from the Great Lakes watershed into the Des Plaines, Illinois, and Mississippi
Rivers (Figure 4), thereby providing a constant and unimpeded aquatic connection between the
Great Lakes and Mississippi River watersheds.
Figure 4. Map Showing Reversal of CCW upon completion of Cal-Sag Channel.
12
Uses
The inland waterways of the Chicago metropolitan area are of paramount aesthetic,
environmental, social, and economic importance. The CCW carry urban storm water (flood
control) and treated municipal and industrial wastewater (waste disposal) from the Chicago
metropolitan area away from Lake Michigan. The waterways also furnish water for cooling and
industrial processes, but no water from the CCW is used for drinking water. The waterways
provide transportation for commodities including sand, gravel, coal, steel, chemicals, and
agricultural products. Water-based recreational activities including motorized and non-motorized
boating and fishing are popular as well. Finally, the waterways provide physical habitat for
wildlife and aquatic organisms.
Ownership
The largest single owner of land along the waterways is the MWRDGC. The MWRDGC’s
property (over 7,000 acres) is a nearly continuous band bordering both sides of the North Shore
Channel, Calumet-Sag Channel, and the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. Both banks of the
North Branch of the Chicago River from the junction with the North Shore Channel downstream
to Belmont Avenue in the city of Chicago are also MWRDGC property. The riparian land along
the North Shore Channel, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, and the Calumet-Sag Channel has
been owned by the MWRDGC since construction of the man-made waterways.
A variety of land uses exist within the urban developments along the waterways. Through
comprehensive land use planning, MWRDGC’s property along the waterways has been made
available through a leasing program. The riparian area along the waterways is available to both
the public and private sector for industrial, commercial, recreational, and conservation activities.
Information on individual leases along the waterways is graphically illustrated on a real estate
atlas available from the MWRDGC (MWRDGC 2004).
The North Shore Channel flows through a predominantly residential area. Bordering land has
been leased primarily to suburban park districts for recreation and open space development. The
predominant land uses along the 2.5 mile reach of the North Branch of the Chicago River owned
by the MWRDGC are open space and residential. Along the Calumet-Sag Channel, a wide variety
of land uses including both residential and rural open space occur. A major portion of the
13
MWRDGC’s property along the Calumet-Sag Channel is undeveloped, unleased forest. The
Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal extends from the city of Chicago through many suburban and
rural areas. The land along the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal includes both industrial leases
and vacant, undeveloped forest preserves.
The remaining riparian land along the North Branch of the Chicago River (Belmont Avenue to
the junction with the Chicago River), the Chicago River, South Branch of the Chicago River, the
South Fork, the Calumet River, the Little Calumet River, and the Grand Calumet River is a mix
of residential, commercial, industrial, and limited undeveloped open space. The riparian land is
either owned by a public agency (city of Chicago, Chicago Park District, Cook County Forest
Preserve District, MWRDGC, and suburban park districts) or a private entity. The ownership of
the riparian property along the inland waterways is a matter of public record and is available at
the Cook County Assessor’s Office.
Physical Habitat
In this report, the definition of physical habitat refers to the quality of riparian and instream
habitats that directly affect the structure and function of the aquatic community in lotic, or
flowing water, ecosystems. Factors affecting the physical habitat include riparian vegetation,
canopy cover, stream bank stability, channel morphology, sinuosity (meandering), stream
gradient, siltation, and stream bed sediment. Land use and stream flow also influence many of the
habitat characteristics of lotic ecosystems.
The biological potential of an aquatic ecosystem is directly limited by the quality of the physical
habitat (Southwood 1977). Anthropogenic alterations of riparian areas and river channels
generally act to reduce the quality and quantity of aquatic habitats, therefore, resulting in a loss of
species diversity and causing ecosystem degradation. An altered physical habitat is considered to
be one of the major environmental stressors in aquatic ecosystems (Karr and others 1986).
In 1992, EA Engineering, Science, and Technology (EA Engineering) conducted a physical
habitat survey in the South Branch of the Chicago River and in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship
Canal (EA Engineering 1993). The study area was divided into reaches based on changes in
channel morphology and the presence of power plants, tributaries and other dischargers. During
the summer of 1993, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Army Corps of
14
Engineers (Corps) and MWRDGC (USACE), characterized and assessed the physical habitats of
the CCW (Moore and others 1998). A habitat evaluation of selected reaches of both the CCW
was conducted by the MWRDGC during the period 2002-2005. As a result of a multi-stakeholder
collaboration, the Friends of the Chicago River prepared a technical report that summarized the
current physical habitat of the deep draft Chicago River system and recommended habitat
improvements (Friends of the Chicago River 2003).
With the exception of habitat field surveys conducted by EA Engineering and the MWRDGC,
very little physical habitat information on the CCW is currently available. The physical habitat
data discussed below were collected by the MWRDGC from 2002-2005 at 26 monitoring
locations in the CCW during multiple field surveys. The parameters discussed in this report were
selected based on those features expected to most affect the aquatic communities. These habitat
metrics include channel morphology, channel alterations, riparian zone, shading, stream bank
stability, and stream bed sediment.
Channel Morphology
Table 1 summarizes channel length, width, and depth and channel alterations for the deep-draft
CCW. Channel alterations include waterway straightening, channelization, and physical
modifications to the banks and riparian area. A waterway with moderate alterations would have
some natural, earthen banks.
Except for the North Shore Channel, all of the CCW are over 100 feet in width with water depths
greater than 5 feet. Riffles are absent in the deep-draft CCW. Except for a few bends, the
alignment of the artificial waterways is straight. Moderate to severe channelization is
characteristic of the CCW (Table 1). Shallow areas for fish spawning, feeding, and protection are
limited. During the 1900s, many of the natural rivers in the Chicago area had their channel
morphology substantially altered enough to impair aquatic life.
Riparian Zone
The riparian zone is the interface between the land surface and a flowing surface water body.
Vegetation in the riparian zone consists of aquatic plants, and trees and shrubs that flourish in
close proximity to water. The quality and quantity of riparian vegetation is a critical component
15
of physical habitat. The importance of riparian vegetation to channel structure is well recognized
(Gregory and others 1991) and it functions to reduce stream bank erosion and sedimentation,
enhance canopy cover and moderate stream temperature), provide input of coarse and fine
particulate organic material that serves as food and structure for aquatic organisms and buffers
against anthropogenic impacts.
Table 1. Morphology and Channel Alterations in CCW
Waterways
Length
(miles)
Width
(feet)
Depth
(feet)
Channel
Alteration
North Shore Channel 7.7 90 2-10 Moderate
North Branch Chicago River 7.7 150-300 3-17 Moderate
Chicago River 1.5 200-480 20-26 Severe
South Branch Chicago River 4.5 200-250 13-20 Moderate
South Fork 1.3 100-200 3-13 Moderate
Chicago Sanitary & Ship
Canal
31.0 160-300 8-27 Severe
Calumet River 7.7 300-550 3-31 Moderate
Grand Calumet River 2.7 135-250 2-12 Moderate
Little Calumet River 6.9 250-350 5-14 Moderate
Calumet-Sag Channel 16.2 300-450 4-12 Severe
Because of the vertical steel sheet piling, limestone, and concrete walls along most of the margins
of the CCW, the riparian zone is functionally disconnected from the waterways. The width of the
riparian zone is often zero because the urban and industrial nature of the areas bordering the
CCW has eliminated earthen side slopes and reduced quality and quantity of vegetation along the
waterways. Limited vegetation does occur on top of the fill placed behind the wall. Over time,
some of the protective structures along the waterways have eroded and collapsed and these areas
typically have steeply sloped banks. Vegetation on the banks of the waterways is a mix of
aggressive native and non-native plants. Deciduous trees include cottonwood, box elder, and
willow. The kinds of vegetation vary depending on the waterway (Table 2). For example, grasses
and trees are found on earthen side slopes along reaches of the North Shore Channel, while trees
and shrubs are in the hardened riparian zone along the North and South Branches of the Chicago
River. Because of the multiple impacts of urbanization, riparian vegetation along the CCW is
very limited.
16
Table 2. Physical Habitat Parameters in CCW
Waterways
Riparian
Vegetation
Bank
Erosion
Stream Bed Sediment
North Shore Channel Shrubs, Trees,
Grasses
Moderate Silt, Sand, Plant Debris
North Branch Chicago River Trees, Shrubs Slight Silt, Gravel, Sand
Chicago River None None Clay, Silt, Sand
South Branch Chicago River Trees, Grasses Slight Silt, Gravel, Clay, Sand
South Fork Trees, Shrubs Moderate Clay, Silt, Gravel, Sand
Chicago Sanitary & Ship
Canal
Trees, Grasses,
Shrubs
Moderate Clay, Bedrock, Silt,
Sand
Calumet River Grasses, Trees,
Shrubs
Slight Clay, Gravel, Sand, Silt
Grand Calumet River Grasses, Shrubs Moderate Silt, Plant Debris
Little Calumet River Trees, Shrubs Moderate Silt, Gravel, Sand, Clay
Calumet-Sag Channel Shrubs, Trees Slight Silt, Sand, Gravel
Shading
Shading, as provided by tree and shrub canopy cover, is important for the control of water
temperature. Canopy variability affects primary production of food from sunlight as well as other
biological processes. A diversity of shade conditions along a waterway is considered optimal,
with some areas receiving direct sunlight and other areas completely shaded. Most of the water
surface in the CCW is open with little canopy cover available.
Stream Bank Stability
Stream banks with riparian vegetation dissipate stream energy, resulting in less soil erosion and
sedimentation. The roots of trees and shrubs in the riparian zone hold stream banks in place.
Stream bank erosion results from the disturbance of riparian vegetation. Except for selected
reaches in areas where earthen banks occur (North Shore Channel, North and South Branches of
the Chicago River, Calumet and Little Calumet River), erosion is minimal along the banks of the
CCW (Table 2).
17
Stream Bed Sediment
Substrate size is one of the most important factors in determining the physical habitat for aquatic
organisms. In order to support and maintain a diverse community of aquatic organisms, a mixture
of clean, stream bed sediment materials is desirable. Decrease in the size of substrate materials
(boulders, gravel, and sand) and an increase in the percentage of fine sediments (silt) are
indicators of human perturbations.
The stream bed sediments of the CCW are predominantly silt (inorganic and organic) with
varying amounts of clay, gravel, and sand (Table 2). Because of scouring from commercial barge
navigation and periodic high flows during storms, bottom substrate is absent in a number of
reaches along the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal.
In summary, most of the CCW have been channelized, creating a continuous, uniform, physical
habitat that closely resembles a riverine or impoundment habitat. Over the years, the waterways
have been occasionally dredged and deepened for commercial navigation. Rather than gradual
sloping earthen banks along the waterways, the banks are primarily steel sheet piling or limestone
rock. Industrial development along the waterways has precluded the growth of trees and shrubs in
much of the riparian zone. The deep, wide waterways allow for the deposition of fine organic
sediment particles, or silt. These alterations have led to most of the water surface being open
rather than shaded. Shore erosion is minimal in the CCW. Many locations, particularly along the
artificial reaches of the CCW, are unsuitable for the development and support of a well-balanced,
diverse aquatic community.
Hydrology
Since the late 1800’s, urbanization in the Chicago region has caused major changes in the
hydrology of the watershed. These changes include the construction of the three man-made
navigable waterways, diversion of water from Lake Michigan, construction and operation of
waste water treatment plants, and overflows from combined and separate storm sewers.
Urban land use development increases the amount of impervious surface area in a watershed. As
impervious cover increases, surface runoff increases in volume and velocity while ground water
infiltration decreases. The increased urban runoff dramatically alters the natural hydrology of
urban waterways. Consequently, aquatic communities in the waterways are continually stressed.
18
Many investigators have shown that an increase in the percent of impervious surfaces in urban
watersheds (greater than 10%) cause a decrease in the biological integrity of aquatic communities
(Karr and Schlosser 1978, Schlosser 1991, Wang and others 1997). In many areas of Cook
County, the percent of imperviousness is greater than 30%.
The 740 square mile drainage area for the CCW extends from Lake Michigan on the east to the
junction of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal and the Des Plaines River north of Joliet,
Illinois. The dominant landscape feature of the Chicago region is its flatness. Generally, the
waterways have a low stream gradient resulting in slow moving waters (Butts et al 1974). During
dry weather, water velocities in the deep-draft CCW, excluding tributaries, are usually less than
0.5 ft/sec. Substantially higher velocities (greater than 2 ft/sec) have been measured in the deep-
draft waterways during storm events.
Flow in the CCW is managed by the MWRDGC according to rules and regulations provided by a
U.S. Supreme Court Consent Decree and Title 33, Parts 207.420 and 207.425 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR). The CFR also provides for the maintenance of navigable water depths
throughout the inland waterways. The consent decree governs the quantity of water diverted from
Lake Michigan into the CCW at a maximum of 3200 cubic feet per second (cfs).
Surface Water Discharge Monitoring
Stream velocity and stage (water elevation) are continuously measured by the United States
Geological Survey (USGS) at 13 locations on the CCW. Ten of the 13 stream gauging stations
are located on shallow rivers and tributaries in the watershed. The three stations on the deep-draft
waterways are (1) Chicago River at Columbus Drive, (2) Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal at
Romeoville, and (3) North Branch of the Chicago River at Grand Avenue. Flow is determined by
the USGS at each cross-section monitoring location. During 2005, the gauging station at
Romeoville was relocated 5.8 miles upstream to River Mile 302.0 on the Chicago Sanitary and
Ship Canal near Lemont, IL. Flow data is no longer available from the Wilmette and O’Brien
Lock gauging stations because of insufficient funding.
In this report, mean annual flows will be reported by water year (WY). A water year refers to the
period beginning on October 1st of the previous water year through September 30th of the current
water year.
19
Inflows
Water Sources. There are six principal sources of water (inflow) to the CCW:
(1) Treated wastewater discharges from MWRDGC treatment plants;
(2) Direct diversion of Lake Michigan water at three lakefront locations for navigation
makeup, lockage, and leakage;
(3) Water directly diverted from Lake Michigan at three lakefront locations for improving
and maintaining water quality, called “discretionary diversion”;
(4) Tributary flows from the North Branch of the Chicago River, Grand Calumet River, and
the Little Calumet River;
(5) Periodic direct discharges from over 200 combined sewers; and
(6) Direct diffuse storm water runoff from urbanized and forested land
Treated Wastewater Flows. MWRDGC manages and operates seven advanced water reclamation
plants (WRPs) in Cook County, Illinois. Four of the seven plants (Calumet, North Side, Stickney
and Lemont) discharge secondary treated wastewater to the CCW (Figures 1 and 5). Over 70% of
the annual flow in the CCW is from the discharge of treated wastewater from the Calumet, North
Side, Stickney, and Lemont WRPs (USACE 2001). The waterways into which treated wastewater
is discharged, the mean annual wastewater flows for WY 2001, and the design maximum flows
for the four treatment plants that discharge to the CCW are summarized in Table 3.
20
Table 3. Characteristics of North Side, Calumet, Stickney, and Lemont Water Reclamation Plants
Water
Reclamation
Plant
Receiving
Waterbody
Mean
Design
Flow
(ft3/s)
Maximum
Design
Flow
(ft3/s)
2001
Mean
Flow
(ft3/s)
North Side North Shore Channel 516 698 415
Calumet Little Calumet River 549 667 398
Stickney Chicago Sanitary & Ship
Canal
1,860 2,232 1,159
Lemont Chicago Sanitary & Ship
Canal
5 6 3
Figure 5. Stickney Water Reclamation Plant
Lake Michigan Diversion Flows. Before 1939, water from Lake Michigan flowed unregulated
and unimpeded into the Chicago River. In 1901, the United States Secretary of War issued a
provisional permit to the Sanitary District of Chicago limiting the inflow (diversion) of water
from Lake Michigan into Chicago area waterways to 4,167 cfs. By 1908, the Sanitary MWRDGC
exceeded the diversion limit for Lake Michigan water (Changnon and Changnon 1996) and in
1930 the U.S. Supreme Court ordered that after December of 1938 the total Lake Michigan
21
diversion at Chicago should be reduced to 1,500 cfs plus additional water for domestic supply. A
total Lake Michigan diversion of 3,200 cfs was reaffirmed in 1967 and again in 1980 by the U.S.
Supreme Court. Currently, the Lake Michigan diversion accountable to the state of Illinois is
limited to 3,200 cfs over a forty-year averaging period.
The measurement of the quantity of Lake Michigan diversion water and the method for
accounting are specified in the U.S. Supreme Court Decree and in a 1996 Memo of
Understanding (MOU) between the U.S. Department of Justice and eight states bordering the
Great Lakes. The Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) controls and regulates Lake
Michigan diversion water. The USACE is responsible for computing the annual Illinois Lake
Michigan diversion and preparing an annual diversion report for IDNR.
Direct Diversion. Water directly diverted from Lake Michigan into the CCW is used for
improvement and maintenance of instream water quality, lockage, leakage, and navigational
makeup. Direct diversion of water from Lake Michigan into the CCW occurs at three lakefront
locations: Wilmette Pumping Station, Chicago River Controlling Works, and the O’Brien Lock
and Dam (Figure 1).
The Wilmette Pumping Station is located in Wilmette, Illinois under the Sheridan Road Bridge
where the North Shore Channel intersects Lake Michigan (Figure 6). The MWRDGC built the
Wilmette Pumping Station in 1910. The pumping station controls the flow of water between Lake
Michigan and the North Shore Channel. Lake Michigan water is diverted into the North Shore
Channel for augmenting low flows, diluting pollution and achieving water quality standards.
22
Figure 6. Lakefront Diversion Location at Wilmette Pumping Station
The pumping station at Wilmette includes four screw pumps and a concrete channel and sluice
gate (32 ft X 16 ft). Each screw pump is rated at 250 ft3/s. For a number of years, the screw
pumps were not in operation. To reduce leakage from Lake Michigan, the pump bays at the
Wilmette Pumping Station were sealed in 1993. During that period, water was diverted into the
North Shore Channel by raising the sluice gate. Because of non-operation of the screw pumps,
five temporary portable pumps (50 ft3/s) were placed in operation in 2000. Since the temporary
pumps provided insufficient capacity for maintaining water quality in the North Shore Channel,
one of the original screw pumps was rehabilitated in 2002. The MWRDGC is responsible for the
operation and maintenance of the Wilmette Pumping Station.
The Chicago River Controlling Works is located in Chicago, Illinois just south of Navy Pier,
where the Chicago River joins with Lake Michigan (Figure 1). The controlling works were built
by the MWRDGC in 1938 to prevent uncontrolled Lake Michigan water from draining into the
Chicago River. The control structure includes concrete walls separating the Chicago River from
Lake Michigan, a navigation lock, two sets of sluice gates, and a pumping station. The USACE is
responsible for maintenance and operation of the lock. The lock is 80 ft wide and 600 ft long,
with a lift of two feet. Water is diverted from Lake Michigan into the Chicago River through
openings in the sluice gates. The two sets of underwater sluice gates consist of eight openings
measuring 10 ft X 10 ft. The MWRDGC is responsible for the operation and maintenance of the
23
two sluice gates. A pumping station was built by IDNR for the purpose of returning excess
leakage and lockage water in the Chicago River back to Lake Michigan.
The Thomas J. O’Brien Lock and Dam are located in Chicago, Illinois at River Mile 326.5 on the
Calumet River (Figure 1). The control structure was built by the USACE in 1959 to control the
flow of water between Lake Michigan and the Little Calumet River. The lock is 110 ft wide and
1000 ft long, with a lift of two feet. Water is diverted from the Calumet River through four
submerged sluice gates, each 10 ft X 10 ft in size. The lock and dam are operated and maintained
by the USACE. However, the four sluice gates are operated by the MWRDGC.
During WY 2001, the estimated total Lake Michigan diversion accountable to the state of Illinois
was 2,767 ft3/s (USACE 2001). The Illinois Lake Michigan diversion allocations for WY 2001
are as follows: (1) 1,545.6 ft3/s (55.9%) for water supply, which is the sum of water supply for all
communities in Illinois receiving water directly from Lake Michigan; (2) approximately 871.5
ft3/s (31.5%) for storm water runoff diverted from Lake Michigan; (3) 260.5 ft3/s (9.4%) for
discretionary diversion (improving and maintaining water quality); (4) 27.0 ft3/s (1.0%) for
lockage, locking vessels to and from the lake; (5) 17.3 ft3/s (0.6%) for leakage, water estimated to
pass in an uncontrolled manner through or around the three lakefront intake structures; and (6)
45.4 ft3/s (1.6%) for navigational makeup, water used during drawdown periods to maintain
sufficient navigation depths.
Discretionary Diversion. Through 2014, the MWRDGC’s allocation of Lake Michigan diversion
water for the improvement and maintenance of water quality in the CCW is for an annual mean of
270 ft3/s. After 2014, the discretionary diversion is scheduled to be reduced to 101 ft3/s. A
reduction in Lake Michigan discretionary diversion was agreed upon because over time water
quality in the CCW will improve (fewer overflows from combined sewers). Discretionary
diversion principally occurs during the months of May through October. Generally, higher direct
diversion flows occur during the warmer, summer months. Some flow is diverted into the North
Shore Channel throughout the year because of low dissolved oxygen during the winter months.
During WY 2001, it is estimated that 9.4% (260.5 ft3/s) of the Lake Michigan diversion by the
state of Illinois was for improving and maintaining water quality in the CCW. The mean annual
direct diversion of Lake Michigan water for water quality improvement into the North Shore
Channel at Wilmette, Chicago River at the Chicago River Controlling Works, and Little Calumet
24
River at the O’Brien Lock and Dam during WY 2001 was estimated at 29 ft3/s, 125 ft3/s, and 107
ft3/s, respectively.
Between water years 1985 and 2005, the total amount of water diverted from Lake Michigan for
improving and maintaining water quality in the CCW has gradually decreased (Figure 7). The
decrease in discretionary diversion over the 20-year period can be directly attributed to improved
The distribution, species composition, and abundance of stream fish are affected by both abiotic
and biotic factors (Schlosser 1991). Many anthropogenic disturbances characteristic of an urban
landscape, including municipal and industrial waste discharges, storm water runoff, erosion and
sedimentation, straightening and deepening of stream channels, and flow alterations caused by
dam operation and water diversion, negatively affect the ecological health of fish populations.
Monitoring of the fish community is an integral component of a water quality management
44
program. To adequately evaluate biological integrity and protect surface water resources, an
assessment of fish must measure the overall structure and function of the community.
Field assessments of the fish community provide an essential tool for detecting aquatic life
impairment and have several attributes that make them useful as indicators of biological integrity
and ecosystem health. First, fish are excellent indicators of long-term chemical and physical
perturbations because they live long and are mobile. Second, the fish community generally
includes a range of species that represent a broad spectrum of trophic and tolerance levels. Third,
fish are at the top of the aquatic food chain and are consumed by humans; thus they are important
for assessing chemical contamination in the water. Fourth, regulatory aquatic life uses are
typically characterized in terms of the fish community. Fifth, fish are relatively easy to collect
and identify to the species level.
Information on the composition, abundance, and distribution of fish in the CCW is limited to field
surveys conducted by the MWRDGC, IDNR, and EA Engineering. Since the mid 1970s, the
MWRDGC and IDNR have conducted numerous fish surveys at multiple locations in the CCW.
During the period 1993-94, EA Engineering monitored fish in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship
Canal (EA Engineering, 1994b, EA Engineering, 1995b). The fish data discussed below was
collected and processed by the MWRDGC during the period 2001 through 2005 (MWRDGC
2006). Fish were collected once every four years at 26 ambient monitoring stations in the CCW
employing DC electrofishing.
Forty-five species of fish, including four hybrids were identified from the CCW during the period
2001-2005 (Table 9). A combined total of 11,328 fish were collected from the CCW during the
five-year monitoring period. Species diversity was highest in the sunfish and minnow families.
The fish community included 12 species of Sunfishes, 12 Carps and minnows, 4 Bullhead
catfishes, 3 Herrings, 3 Suckers, 3 Basses, 2 Trouts, and 1 species each of Killifishes,
Livebearers, Perches, Drums, and Cichlids. The most abundant fishes collected in the CCW were
the gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) and the common carp (Cyprinus carpio).
Five metrics were selected for this report to represent key biological attributes of the fish
community collected during the period 2001-2005 (Table 10). The metrics include species
richness (number of species), composition (dominant fish species) indicator species (number of
intolerant fish species and percent of sucker species), and the health/condition of individual fish
45
(percent of fish with external anomalies). DELT is an acronym for a deformity, fin erosion,
lesion, or tumor observed in fish. Increased species richness, low percentage of intolerant fish,
high percentage of sucker species, and the absence or low occurrence of external anomalies are
generally indicative of a healthy fish community in a warm water river ecosystem. A riverine fish
community dominated by one or two tolerant species of fish, few or absence of intolerant fish
species, and fish with external anomalies represent a degraded aquatic ecosystem.
Table 9.Common and Scientific Names for Fish Taxa Collected from the CCW, 2001-2005
Common Name Scientific Name
Skipjack Herring Alosa chryochloris
Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus
Gizzard Shad Dorosoma cepedianum
Goldfish Carassius auratus
Grass Carp Ctenopharyngodon idella
Spotfin Shiner Cyprinella spiloptera
Common Carp Cyprinus carpio
Carp X Goldfish Hybrid Cyprinus carpio X Carassius auratus
Golden Shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas
Emerald Shiner Notropis antherinoides
Spottail Shiner Notropis hudsonius
Sand Shiner Notropis stramineus
Blutnose Minnow Pimephales notatus
Fathead Minnow Pimephales promelas
Creek Chub Semotilus atromaculatus
Quillback Carpiodes cyprinus
White Sucker Catostomus commersoni
Black Buffalo Ictiobus niger
Black Bullhead Ameiurus melas
Yellow Bullhead Ameiurus natalis
Brown Bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus
Channel Catfish Ictalurus punctatus
Chinook Salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
46
Blackstripe Topminnow Fundulus notatus
Eastern Mosquitofish Gambusia holbrooki
White Perch Morone americana
White Bass Morone chrysops
Yellow Bass Morone mississippiensis
Rock Bass Ambloplites rupestris
Green Sunfish Lepomis cyanellus
Green Sunfish X Pumpkinseed Lepomis cyanellus X Lepomis gibbosus
Green Sunfish X Bluegill Lepomis cyanellus X Lepomis macrochirus
Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus
Pumpkinseed X Bluegill Lepomis gibbosus X Lepomis macrochirus
Warmouth Lepomis gulosus
Orangespotted Sunfish Lepomis humilis
Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus
Longear Sunfish Lepomis megalotis
Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieu
Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides
White Crappie Pomoxis annularis
Black Crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus
Yellow Perch Perca flavescens
Freshwater Drum Aplodinotus grunniens
Round Goby Neogobius melanostomus
47
Table 10. Fish Community Metrics for the CCW, 2001-2005
Waterways
Species
Richness
Number
of
Intolerant
Species
Sucker
Species
(%)
DELT
(%)
Dominant Fish
Species
North Shore
Channel
27 1 1 1 Gizzard Shad
North Branch
Chicago River
22 1 1 8 Gizzard Shad, Carp
Chicago River 12 1 0 7 Gizzard Shad
South Branch
Chicago River
15 1 0 5 Gizzard Shad,
Emerald Shiner, Carp
South Fork 18 1 0 0 Gizzard Shad
Chicago Sanitary &
Ship Canal
21 0 0 5 Gizzard Shad, Carp
0Calumet River 21 3 2 1 Rock Bass,
Smallmouth Bass
Grand Calumet
River
0 0 0 0 No fish collected
Little Calumet
River
29 1 1 2 Gizzard Shad
Calumet-Sag Ch 20 0 0 2 Gizzard Shad, Carp
The highest fish species richness was in the Little Calumet River (29). Few intolerant fish species
and sucker species were collected from the CCW (Table 10). Dominant species were gizzard shad
(45.0%) and common carp (15.5%). Four highly tolerant fish taxa were commonly collected in
the CCW: common carp (398), bluntnose minnow (182), golden shiner (105), and green sunfish
(74).
A total of 333 fish collected during the 2001-2005 surveys (2.9% of the total fish collected)
exhibited DELT anomalies in the CCW. External anomalies observed on fish from the CCW
ranged from 0-8% of the fish collected at individual monitoring locations. Predominant fish with
48
DELT anomalies included common carp, largemouth bass, bluegill, green sunfish, and goldfish.
An elevated incidence of DELT anomalies in fish (greater than 1%) is an indication of stress
caused by a variety of environmental factors, including contaminated sediments. No fish were
collected from the Grand Calumet River.
Although some of the CCW support a limited sportfishery (black bullhead, channel catfish, white
bass, white perch, yellow perch, rock bass, green sunfish, pumpkinseed sunfish, orangespotted
sunfish, bluegill, smallmouth and largemouth bass, white and black crappie), the diversity, size
and abundance of sportfish was generally low compared to other lotic ecosystems.
Overall, a very poor native fish community is present in the CCW. The fish community in the
CCW is characterized by low species richness, domination by omnivores and highly tolerant
species, and low native fish abundance. The composition of the current fish community is likely
the result of synergistic environmental stressors from several sources. The probable causes of
aquatic life use impairment in the CCW characterized by the fish community include: (1) severe
channel alterations (channelization); (2) absence of clean, gravel/cobble substrate in streambed
sediments; (3) poor riparian habitat; and (4) periodic discharges from combined sewers causing a
decrease in the dissolved oxygen concentration.
Even though the fish community in the CCW is not a highly valued aquatic resource, the
improvement in the fishery over the last 30 years has been dramatic. As a result of the poor water
quality in the mid 1970s, the fish community in the CCW was severely reduced and limited.
Between 1974 and 1976, a total of 31 species of fish, including hybrids, were collected in the
waterways (Dennison and others 1998). Twenty-one additional fish species were collected during
the period 2001 though 2005 (MWRDGC 2006). The number of game fish in the CCW has also
increased from 13 species during the 1974 through 1976 surveys to 21 species during 2001-2005
(MWRDGC 2006).
The current fish data strongly suggests that the reduced environmental perturbations in the CCW
over the last 30 years have resulted in a considerable improvement in chemical water quality.
Pollution control activities implemented by the MWRDGC include the cessation of effluent
chlorination at the North Side, Calumet, Stickney, and Lemont WRPs, a substantial reduction in
the frequency and volume of combined sewer overflows through the construction and operation
of TARP tunnels, the expansion of water reclamation plants with subsequent improvement in
49
treatment plant effluent discharges/reduction in the biochemical oxygen demand and ammonia
removal, and a substantial increase in the dissolved oxygen concentration in the waterways
provided by supplemental aeration.
50
Navigation5
Under Corps nomenclature, the Chicago Waterway System (CWS) is divided into six distinct
segments: the Main and North Branch Chicago River, the South Branch Chicago River, the
Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, the Calumet River, Lake Calumet and the Calumet-Sag
Channel. For navigation purposes, the sum of these segments is called “Port of Chicago.” The use
of this term is distinct from that employed by the Illinois International Port District (IIPD), which
uses “Port of Chicago” to describe its deep-draft operations on the southeast side of Chicago. For
this report, “Port of Chicago” will mean the six segments comprising the CWS as described by
the Corps.
With substantial variability, approximately 25 million tons of commodities move on the CWS
each year. Movement centers on bulk commodities including coal (30%), building materials such
as sand and gravel (40%), iron ore and steel products (20%) and a variety of other small-quantity
commodities (10%). Commodity movement has not been a growth industry but has remained
relatively flat from year to year since the early 1990s.
There are 13 miles of deep-draft segments on the southeast side of Chicago in the Calumet
River/Lake Calumet and in the Chicago River and contiguous sections of its north and south
branches. The remaining 58 miles of the CWS are maintained for barge traffic at a 9 foot depth.
There are 3 locks: the lock at the Chicago River Controlling Works (“Chicago Lock”) in
downtown Chicago, the O’Brien Lock in the southeast part of the system, and the Lockport Lock
which functions as the sole downstream access point.
In addition to barge movements the CWS is subject to significant recreational pressure. Over the
last 10 years, the three CWS locks handled anywhere from 45,000 – 65,000 recreational vessel
movements per year. There are numerous recreational marinas on the CWS as well as boat
storage facilities.
These commonly-cited numbers provide only a superficial understanding of commercial
navigation pressures on the CWS. Commodity movements tend to congregate along specific
5 All data on navigation are published by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center. Data were extracted and organized from Corps databases via a proprietary program written by Scudder Mackey and are available from the authors upon request. Original databases are available for public download at http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/ndc/wcsc/wcsc.htm.
51
segments while being nearly absent from others. Likewise, pressure from recreational uses is
clustered at certain locks and segments.
A review of lockage data reveals that movement of commodities between the Chicago River and
Lake Michigan is minimal (Figure 12). Fewer than 100 loaded barges per year transit the Chicago
Lock, and this number has been dropping steadily since 2000. Transit of commodity-laden barges
is much higher at the CWS’s other two locks. Lockport accommodates anywhere from 9,000-
95 – 100% Low to Moderate Significant Impact at locks
None to minimal
Extreme: Extensive civil works; Cofferdams
High: Icing; Fouling
Low due to navigational
impacts and high maintenance
Varying; not applicable
High navigational impact and high maintenance requirement with a tendency to clog with silt and debris
Hydrodynamic Louver Screens
86 - 97% High: Fouling problems; species and size specific
Significant None to minimal
Moderate: Anchor system in water
High: Icing and fouling by debris
Low due to navigational
impacts and high maintenance
$1.0 million to $2.0 million
High navigational impact and high maintenance requirement with a tendency to clog with silt and debris
Hydrologic Separation
100% Minimal Significant High Extreme: Extensive civil works; Cofferdams
Minimal Variable: high among many
constituencies; low among
commercial navigation and
some recreational interests; variable
among agency staff
Expensive Barge traffic would have to undergo modal shift or pass through sterile lift
6 FishPro summary adapted for constraints of Chicago Waterway System by authors.
Table 13: Available barrier technologies
79
Bladder 95 - 100% Low to Moderate Significant None to minimal
Extreme: Extensive civil works; Cofferdams
High Moderate Expensive Locks are dewatered and barge is supported on a bladder while "new" water is introduced. Barge hulls and ballast are potential vectors
Electrical Barriers
Electrical Barrier (Main Stem)
95 – 100% High: Variable depth for electrical field, silt, maintenance, size dependent; not effective on planktonic stages
Moderate to Unknown
None to minimal
High: Electrode installation in water; custom design and engineering
High Power outages, maintenance, debris, etc.
Medium: negative perception of safety; no consensus on long-term effectiveness
$15.0 million to $25 million
Technically feasible for a large main stem river installation. Significant power requirement and public safety concerns.
Electrical Barrier (Inside Lock)
95 – 100% High: Variable depth for electrical field, silt, maintenance, size dependent; not effective on planktonic stages
Moderate to Unknown
None to minimal
High: Electrode installation in water; custom design and engineering
High: Safety Medium: negative perception of safety; no consensus on long-term effectiveness
$7.0 million to $10.0 million
Technically feasible for a large main stem river installation. Significant power requirement and public safety concerns.
Electrical Barrier (Lock Channel Entr.)
95 – 100% High: Variable depth for electrical field, silt, maintenance, size dependent; not effective on planktonic stages
Moderate to Unknown
None to minimal
High: Electrode installation in water; custom design and engineering
High: Safety Medium: negative perception of safety; no consensus on long-term effectiveness
$7.0 million to $10 million
Technically feasible for a large main stem river installation. Significant power requirement and public safety concerns.
Chemical Barriers
Piscicide 60-95% Low in short-term; Moderate to High in long term: Maintaining adequate concentrations difficult
Low and short-term
Short-term water quality standard violations
High: Chemical available; complex implementation
High: Implementation
Medium in short term, low in long
term due to violation of WQ
standards
Varying; Expensive short-term
Technically feasible but expensive short-term. Negative public perception. Significant regulatory issues.
Repellants (Pheromones)
60-95% Moderate Low None to minimal
High; technology unavailable
Moderate High $1.0 million to $2.0 million
Possibly applied in conjunction with an additional barrier, the object would be to repell species away from protection area.
Attractors (Pheromones)
60-95% Moderate Low None to minimal
High; technology unavailable
Moderate High $1.0 million to $2.0 million
Applied in conjunction with some sort of additional barrier, the object would be to divert species away from the
80
lock area before the lock is used.
Energy
Heat 95 - 100% Low to Moderate Low Long-term water quality standard violations
High: custom design and engineering
High Low due to long-term water quality
impacts except high among
energy suppliers
Expensive Water in lock is heated until exotic organisms die.
Energy (cont)
High Velocity (Point Release)
Unknown; species specific
Low: Site dependent None if installed at spillway gates
Unknown Site and species dependent
Moderate; debris may clog or damage
Unknown; Site Dependent
Site dependent
Although potentially retrofitted into an existing lock and dam spillway, swimming capabilities of Asian carp may preclude feasibility
Turbulence Unknown; species specific
Low Slight Unknown Moderate Moderate High Unknown Sufficient turbulence or velocity is introduced in lock to kill fish in system.
Viscosity Unknown; species specific
Low to Moderate None Unknown Extreme: Extensive civil works; Cofferdams
Moderate High $2 million to $4 million
European systems have had luck using fluids of different viscosities to separate salt water from fresh water habitats.
Acoustic and Light
Strobe Lights 50-95% Moderate to High: Species and size specific; location & day/night specific; effectiveness varies with time of year (water temperature, flow, etc.); not effective on planktonic stages
None to minimal
None to minimal
Moderate: Packaged unit
Low: Lamp and power delivery system maintenance
High $0.5 million to 1.0 million
Only considered to be appropriate as a lock entrance channel deterrent
Air Bubble Curtain
50-95% High: Does not work in high water velocity; not effective on planktonic stages
None to minimal
None to minimal
Moderate: Air piping in varying depths
Moderate : Compressor and air line maintenance
High $0.5 million to 1.0 million
Only considered to be appropriate as a lock entrance channel deterrent. Not effective under high flow conditions.
81
Acoustic Deterrent: Sound Projector Array (SPA) at Lock Entrance
~80% Moderate to High : Species and size specific; location & day/night specific; effectiveness varies with time of year (water temperature, flow, etc.); not effective on planktonic stages
None to minimal
None to minimal
Moderate: Packaged unit
Low : Transducer and power delivery system maintenance
High $1.0 to 1.2 million
Potentially feasible as a deterrent for lock entrance channels
Acoustic and Light (cont)
Acoustic Deterrent: Sound Projector Array (SPA) at Spillway gates
~80% Moderate to High: Species and size specific; location & day/night specific; effectiveness varies with time of year (water temperature, flow, etc.); not effective on planktonic stages
None to minimal
None to minimal
Moderate: Packaged unit
Low: Transducer and power delivery system maintenance
High $1.0 to 8.0 million
Potentially feasible as a deterrent for spillway gate areas opened under full flow conditions
Acoustic Deterrent: Pneumatic Acoustic Bubble Curtain (BAFF) at Lock Entrance
~90% Moderate to High: Species and size specific; location & day/night specific; effectiveness varies with time of year (water temperature, flow, etc.); does not work in high water velocity; not effective on planktonic stages
None to minimal
None to minimal
Moderate: Packaged unit; air piping in varying depths
Low: Transducer and power delivery system maintenance; compressor and air line maintenance
High $0.9 million to $1.2 Million
Potentially feasible as a deterrent for lock entrance channels
82
Acoustic Deterrent: SPA Based Acoustic Bubble Curtain (SPA/BAFF) at Lock Entrance
~90%+ Moderate to High: Species and size specific; location & day/night specific; effectiveness varies with time of year (water temperature, flow, etc.); does not work in high water velocity; enhances the overall effectiveness of a standard BAFF in areas with intermittent turbulence and barge traffic; not effective on planktonic stages
None to minimal
None to minimal
Moderate: Packaged unit; air piping in varying depths
Low: Transducer and power delivery system maintenance
High $1.0 million to $1.4 million
Potentially feasible as a deterrent for lock entrance channels. Enhances the overall effectiveness of a standard BAFF system; SPA component allows utilization of Asian carp specific audiogram.
Hybrid Comb. System (Strobe light/acoustic)
60-95% Moderate to High: Species and size specific; location & day/night specific; effectiveness varies with time of year (water temperature, flow, etc.); not effective on planktonic stages
None to minimal
None to minimal
Moderate: Packaged unit
Low: Transducer and power delivery system maintenance
High $1.5 million to $2.2 Million
Potentially feasible as a deterrent for lock entrance channels. Combination systems have generally proven to be more effective
Hybrid Comb. System (Str. light/bubble curt.)
60-95% Moderate to High: Species and size specific; location & day/night specific; effectiveness varies with time of year (water temperature, flow, etc.); does not work in high water velocity; not effective on planktonic stages
None to minimal
None to minimal
Moderate: Packaged unit; air piping in varying depths
Moderate: Compressor, air line and power delivery system maintenance
High $1.0 million to $2.0 million
Potentially feasible as a deterrent for lock entrance channels. Combination systems have generally proven to be more effective
83
Chapter 4 - Separation Scenarios
Based on assessment of all factors summarized earlier in this report, the team identified 5
locations on the CWS and associated Indiana waterways that should be considered for complete
or partial ecological separation (as defined in Chapter 2). Based on technical and interview data,
these proposed scenarios are considered most likely to be the ones eventually considered by a
broad group of stakeholders due to perceived ecological protection, consequent changes in flow,
transportation type, frequency or volume, presence of existing infrastructure, geographic location
or a combination of these factors. With the exception of the “Lockport-Romeoville” scenario,
these separation points are complementary not exclusionary. As shown in Chapter 3, several
technology options can reduce the likelihood of invasion and many of these do not affect water
quality parameters, flow or navigation. These options are unlikely to achieve 100% or near 100%
effectiveness against all life stages. In keeping with the recommendation of the 2003 Chicago
Invasive Species Summit, we extensively discuss options that have navigation impacts as well as
the appropriateness of other technologies. We make the assumption that a hydrologic barrier, or
complete elimination of all flow, at any location is the only way to guarantee 100% elimination of
movement of all life stages of organisms via waterway routes.
Any separation strategy that relies on an alternate mode of transport for commodities must
acknowledge the potential impacts on local transportation networks and environmental quality. A
single barge loaded with 1750 short tons of material corresponds to 16 railcars or 70 semi-
tractors/trailers. Additionally, rail and truck movements produce more pollutants per ton than
barges while being approximately 30% and 75% less fuel efficient, respectively (Texas
Transportation Institute 2007). The impacts of transitioning any volume of a commodity to an
alternate mode should balance these factors against costs avoided by making the modal shift.
Lockport –Romeoville
The 2-mile radius of the existing electrical barrier in the CSSC is an intuitive barrier site, as
protective action here eliminates all other potential canal vectors upstream in the CWS.
Recreational movements are down to a trickle with around 1,000 recreational vessels passing
through the nearby Lockport lock each year. Barge movement at this transition is comparatively
Malchoff, M., J.E. Mardsen and M. Hauser. 2006. Feasibility of Champlain Canal Aquatic
Nuisance Species Barrier Options. Prepared under NOAA grant # NSGO/NA16RG1703. Available from www.uvm.edu/~seagrant/communications/assets/ansbarrierrprt06.pdf.
MWRDGC (Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago). 2004. Real Estate
Atlas. Available from www.MWRDGC.org.
MWRDGC (Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago). 2006. Chicago
Area Waterways Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Program Available at www.MWRDGC.org.
105
Moore, B. J., J. D. Rogner, AND D. Ullberg. 1998. Nature and the River: A Natural
Resources Report of the CCW. United States Department of Interior, National Park Service,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Polls, I., C. Lue-Hing, D. R. Zenz, AND S. J. Sedita. 1980. Effects of Urban Runoff and
Treated Municipal Wastewater on a Man-Made Channel in Northeastern Illinois. Water
Research, 14:207-15.
Polls, I., S. J. Sedita, D .R. Zenz., AND C. Lue-Hing. 1992. Comprehensive Evaluation of
Water Quality. Distribution of Benthic Invertebrate Species in the Chicago Waterways System.
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago Report No. 92-22, Chicago, Illinois.
Rasmussen, J. 2002. The Cal-Sag and Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal:
A Perspective on the Spread and Control of Selected Aquatic Nuisance Fish Species. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Rock Island, IL. Available at www.fws.gov/Midwest/LacrosseFisheries/documents/Connecting_Channels_Paper_Final.pdf.
Schlosser, I. J. 1991. Stream fish ecology: a landscape perspective. Bioscience, 41:704-712.
Southwood, T. R. E. 1977. Habitat, the template for ecological strategies? Journal of Animal
Ecology, 46:337-365.
Sparks, R. 2002. Closing the Chicago gateway to invasion. Testimony to Governor-elect Rod
Blagojevich’s Environment, Energy and Natural Resources Transition Committee.
Texas Transportation Institute. 2007. A Modal Comparison of Domestic Freight Transportation Effects on the General Public. Available at www.nationalwaterwaysfoundation.org.
USACE. 1999. Illinois Waterway Navigation Charts. Available at
www2.mvr.usace.army.mil/NIC2/ilwwcharts.cfm.
USACE (United States Army Corp of Engineers, Chicago MWRDGC). 2001. Lake Michigan
Diversion Accounting, Water Year 2001 Report. Available at www.lrc.usace.army.mil.
106
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1986. Quality Criteria for Water
1986. Office of Water, EPA 440/5-86-001.
Wang, L., J. Lyons, P. Kanehl, AND R. Gatti. 1997. Influences of watershed land use on
habitat quality and biotic integrity in Wisconsin streams. Fisheries, 22(6):6-12.