IEPA ATTACHMENT NO. 0
Dispersal Barrier Advisory Panel 6/23/05
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
111 N. Canal St. Chicago, IL
Phil Moy, WI Sea Grant
Chuck Shea, USACE – Chicago District
Scudder Mackey, Habitat Solutions
Mark Cornish, Corps- Rock Island
Frank Monfelli, Corps – Rock Island
Karen Stainbrook, INHS
Tom Trudeau, IDNR
John Dettmers, INHS
Kristin TePas, INHS/IISG
Traci Barkley, University of Illinois
Mark Pegg, INHS
Jeff Smith, Smith-Root Inc •
Stephen Treharne, Corps of Engineers
Irwin Polls, Ecological Monitoring &
Assessment
Glenn Rhett, USACE – WES
Joel Brammeier, Alliance for the Great
Lakes
Matt Cochran, FishPro/Cochran &
Wilken Inc
John Rogner, U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service
Daniel Injerd, IL DNR-OWR
Dan Thomas, Great Lakes Sport Fishing
Council
Marc Gaden, GLFC
Karla Thomas, IEPA (Intern)
Duke O'Malley, Daily Southtown
Thomas Marks, N.Y. Dir GLSFC
James Sobel, OZIWGA Chicago RMC
Robert Barnes, Illinois Marine Towing
Holly Arrigon, USEPA – Water
Sam Dennison, MWRDGC
Ed Guida, Ultra Electronics
Sarah Beazley, Chicago Dept of
Environment
Beth Murphy, USEPA GLNPO
Elizabeth Hinchey Malloy, USEPA
GLNPO
Mark Burrows , IJC – GLRO
Rob Sulski, IEPA
Tzuch-Yiag Su, USACE Chicago
Larry H Green, USACE Chicago
Roy Deda, USACE Chicago
Lynn M Muench, AWO
Darren Melvin, RCA
Gary Johnston, USACE
Jeremy Nedwell, Fish Guidance
Julia Wozniak, MWGEN
Lt Cameron Land, USCG
Capt T. W. Carter, USCG
Eddie Landmichl – Perch America
Barrier I
Barrier I is beginning to near the end of design life; Jeff estimates there is about 1 year
until we lose another cable.
Barge Safety Study
Scope of Work developed with Coast Guard & American Water Operators, and
the River Carriers. The Champaign Corps lab did the study, the IL River Carriers Assoc.
helped with barges.
The study assessed voltage at several depths and found uniform voltage throughout
Some voltage is detectable 350' up & downstream of the barrier
Measured voltage between barges, tow & fence
0.1 - 0.2 volts between barges with steel cable
200 — 250 volts with ropes
Used fully loaded barges
There was voltage difference with fences, too.
Barges in parallel showed similar low voltage (2-3 v) with steel lines
Passing
When passing a stationary barge the voltage difference of 200+ volts drops as barges near
each other.
In the event of a collision or when forming a tow over the barrier the study observed
sparking and a 30-40 volt difference
There was a question about the effect of the field on a person in the water. Jeff
Smith replied that the barrier could cause temporary paralysis (an inability to
control ones muscles) of a person in water. Smith-Root has about 30 to 40 barriers
in U.S., animals & people have passed through without deaths.
Will the field affect pacemakers? The field could affect pacemakers if the person
was in the water.
The study tested the field with a life ring to 6' deep. They found the peak voltage was 7-8
volts; but it is the current is that has the greatest effect. The electrical current could be
high in the worst scenario.
The Coast Guard has suggested using Underwriters Labs to assess the barrier effect on a
person in the water. UL may not have the experience to do the work. The Navy has
published data on divers working with electricity underwater that suggests the current
associated with the barrier is OK. We need to address what is not known about the effect
on a person. The Corps will ultimately determine who will help review and interpret the
data.
USCG approval is needed for the barge safety. Currently the crew has to wear a Type 1
PFD. More fencing will be used around the barriers. Wire ropes are required for barges
passing through the barrier site; no passing is allowed; no making tows or breaking tows.
Sparking within a boat is not a problem
Barrier II
Construction
All underwater work on the barrier is done. Barrier HA is coming along well. The
pulsators were constructed in Washington at the Smith-Root plant. They will have their
first full test this week.
The electrodes for barrier II are 5" x 5" steel bars. Corrosion at the connections was a
concern that has been addressed.
Schedule: Expect IIA to be done late July – early August. The funding for JIB is in place.
Expect to sign an amended Project Cooperation Agreement soon which will activate the
option for ITB.
The Corps will keep Barrier I operating until IIB is running, then will shut off Barrier I.
We expect Barrier II to be fully operational by the end of the year.
What is the effective length of field? 350' for Barrier II; each field is 130' long,
480' total length. Field extends 20 – 30' up and down stream
Are fish repelled fully? Can they jump? The fish may get paralyzed – stunned,
then pushed back. Need 2 volts/in to stop small fish.
What is the future of Barrier I?
House & Senate Water Resource Development Act (WRDA) authorizes Barrier I
to be permanent but needs appropriations. Are two electric barriers best for
duplication? We need to discuss the future of Barrier I.
Please contact legislators re WRDA
There was a question about barges ballasting. Barges don't use ballast water. How
do you level barges? Each barge holds 1400-1500 tons; the barges are leveled
with the load. Tows sometimes take on water to get under a bridge on the Cal Sag.
They uptake & pump off at LeMont above the barrier.
Traci Barkley – Barge ballasting is rare. She is testing barge ballast & water.
Barges do leak; it's an operational issue. Leaking barges move water.
Most common organisms in ballast water are diatoms & rotifers. Recreational
boats pose a small risk too.
When barges are brought in for repair a hole is cut in the barge; the water drains
into canal.
Barge ballasting is a USCG responsibility. The USCG recommends exchange of
water on same side of barrier.
Phil suggested the panel could develop an educational fact sheet for IRCA on the barrier.
Darren Melvin stated the water operators are following the USCG Regulations for
operation at the barrier and for ballasting operations and ballasting plans.
Dan Injerd mentioned we need WRDA & appropriations to operate Barrier II; IL doesn't
want to operate BII, it should be a Federal project Dan noted it is remarkable that eight
jurisdictions contributed to barrier funding.
If WRDA doesn't pass what will IL do? There are some dollars in 2006 budget in
case
Monitoring –
Traci Barkley
There are 118 tagged fish in the canal. Each transmitter has a 400-day service life; 23 live
transmitters now. There are fixed stations & manual tracking. The fish were tracked in
Nov. & 2 times in May. No fish have crossed the barrier since April 2002. She observed
common carp lined up again this year on June 2
nd
.
She plans to release more tagged fish
once Bll is online.
Do the fish challenge the barrier? From 1-2 weeks after release, then dissipate
What about high flow at the barrier? The barrier is designed to handle a 100-year
flood event
Habitat quality may be a limiting factor. There's not a lot of habitat for Asian Carp in the
canal
When Asian Carp approach barrier, what numbers will we see? Don't know. If
there's a high density of Asian Carp – some management action may be taken too.
Asian Carp Monitoring –
Irwin Polls
Sampling stations in the Sanitary Ship Canal at River Miles: 300.0, 295.2, 292.4 and in
the DesPlaines at 290.0, 288.9, 286.0
Electro fishing only performed at RM 308 and 295
No Asian Carp observed or captured
Dresden & Marsailles Pools – No Asian Carp collected by EA technologies
A Big Head & Silver Carp were reportedly caught by anglers in the Brandon Road Pool –
need confirmation of location.
Irwin recommended Asian Carp monitoring downstream in the Marsailles & Starved
Rock pools.
Round Goby Round – Up –
Irwin Polls for Pam Thiel
No gobies further downstream
No Asian Carp further upstream
In 2002 an Asian Carp was caught at about RM 274. In Nov. 2004 an Asian Carp was
found dead in Sanitary Ship Canal.
Asian carp are abundant at Starved Rock.
Audiograms —
Jeremy Nedwell
To test the effectiveness of the acoustic barrier on fish we need to know about fish
hearing. Testing started with 50% hearing threshold in first trials at 20hz — 500hz. Later
we found 20 hz — 2 kilohz crated maximum repelling effectiveness of 95%. The barrier is
unbearable loudness to fish
90 decibels above the hearing threshold deters fish.
Usually we assess hearing behaviorally, through a response in some way. When fish
respond the frequency is subsequently reduced until till the fish doesn't respond.
Auditory Brainstem Response relies on the brain activity for a response; it is a more
sensitive method.
Big Head & Silver carp show a similar response to sound to up to 3 Khz — they are
hearing specialists. Jeremy recommends increasing the frequency to 2 to 3 Khz to achieve
97% effectiveness. Increase sound density from 750 hz --> 2Khz for Silver, 1.5 Khz for
Big Head.
Specializing the frequency for Asian carp could allow native species to move through.
Is the jumping related to water noise? Maybe. Could depth be a factor? No, but
water currents can deflect the bubble stream.
Increasing effectiveness to 100% is possible — especially in concert with other barriers or
in use as a trap
What about propwash? Tugs have 500 to 1500 hp, some are 2500 hp. They
disrupt the water 100 feet behind the boat. It could diffuse the bubble field but
would not affect the acoustic effect.
The frequency of a big propeller is about 10Hz — 100 Hz
Bass boats are noisy but do not repel the fish
Diet Overlap Study —
John Chick
John commented that Asian carp jump in response to canoes, too.
The electric barrier will have a great effect; it will stop a lot of fish.
In John's study, backwaters were sampled in the spring flood to assess zooplankton
abundance & composition and abundance of Asian Carp. They looked at dietary overlap
of Asian Carp with gizzard shad, big mouth buffalo, and paddle fish. Asian Carp compete
with larval fish & adult bigmouth buffalo, gizzard shad and paddle fish
The IL River is a very productive system; ranging from eutrophic to hypereutrophic. The
zooplankton is rotifer dominated with few large zooplankton species.
The study sampled 300 stomachs; they contained primarily rotifiers but also algae &
detritus. The greatest diet overlap (80%) was with gizzard shad, primarily rotifers. There
was less overlap with Big Mouth Buffalo & paddle fish – large zooplankton.
At high Big Head abundance could large zooplankton affected? Maybe.
At high Silver Carp abundance could large zooplankton affected? Maybe.
Irwin: Chlorophyll a in the Sanitary and Ship Canal is about like the lake, it could be
limiting.
Does diet change with size? - Don't know yet.
Movement of Asian Carp –
Jim Garvey
The lower IL River is a conduit for the upper IL, Missouri, Missouri, Des Moines rivers.
This study looked at milestones in life history; aggregations; vulnerabilities and life stage
threats like the gizzard shad impact. Adult Habitat was assessed thru tagging work.
Asian carp feed on algae behind wing dikes
Spawning primarily occurs in the river and occurs in response to migratory cues such as
floods. The fish form spawning aggregations.
Offspring Success: larval development occurs in the river; juvenile development occurs
in backwaters.
Adult Movement: They looked at the La Grange to Grafton region using ultrasonic tags.
They tagged 50 of each species. The study examined local movement including intensive
habitat use and seasonal movements. Other variables measured included Temperature,
dissolved oxygen, depth, turbidity and velocity. The study used 35 stationary tracking
receivers in additional to manual tracking.
The fish moved upstream as far as Havana, IL. Silver Carp primarily used the channel
border, main channel and backwaters. In the late summer the fish moved to sand bars.
Big Head behave differently than Silver Carp, using less backwater habitat in the
summer.
The fish move with flood waters – one moved 140 km (at least) in 7 months. This could
be related to reproductive events. The fish swim upstream to spawn – larvae & eggs float
downstream & hatch.
Could conductivity affect habitat use? Maybe
Ecological Separation of River and Lake –
Scudder Mackey
Scudder is working with a team to study ecological separation of Lake Michigan from the
San-Ship Canal to prevent inter-basin transfer of Aquatic Invasive Species
There are several options to consider over a range of time scales:
Short term – Barrier
Interim – Kill zone or management
Long term – Ecological separation
Great Lakes Fishery Commission is funding the work which will start in the next 30 days
The project will explore options and assemble information on geographic & physical
attributes, economic uses, and habitat & biological resources. The study will identify a
range of options & scenarios and determine whether ecological separation can occur.
Where possible they will begin to assess feasibility.
They will identify next steps; hopefully to narrow down the list of possibilities to a few
good options that are realistic solutions.
Dan Injerd was "mystified" as to how the objectives can be accomplished in short
time & low dollars. He suggested the project would identify a scope of work, that
it may not really be a "study".
Time ran out for discussion of further topics. Phil will work with Kristin on development
of a barrier fact sheet for IRCA and per Col. Johnston's suggestion, will assemble a small
work group to discuss Barrier I options.
The meeting adjourned at 3:30 pm.