August 2007
•
•
Contents
Section 1 - Executive Summary
1.1
UAAProcess
1-2
1.2
Objectives ofthe UAA
1-3
1.3
CAWS Description
1-4
1.4
Data Analysis
1-6
1.5
Proposed Use Designations for the CAWS
1-12
1.6
Proposed CAWS Reach Use Designations
1-15
1.7
StrategicPlan
1-15
Section 2 - Introduction-
2.1
ProjectOverview
2-1
2.2
Use Attainability Analysis
2-2
2.3
Objectives of the UAA
2-5
2.4
References
2-6
Section 3 - Existing Conditions in the Chicago Area Waterways
3.1
System Description
:
3-1
3.1.1
Chicago River System
3-2
3.1.2
Calumet River System
3-9
3.1.3
Tributaries
of CAWS
3-12
3.1.4
Lockport Powerhouse
and Lock and Controlling Works
3-12
3.1.5
Treated Wastewater Sources
3-12
3.1.6
Navigation
and Leakage
3-12
3.1.7
Storm Runoff
3-13
3.1.8
CSO
3-13
3.1.9
Industrial Sources
3-15
3.1.10
TARP
3-15
3.1.11
SEPA
and In-stream Aeration System Stations
3-15
3.1.12 Lake Michigan Navigational Makeup
and Discretionary Diversion
Program
3-16
3.2
Chicago River Programs
and Projects
3-17
3.2.1
Chicago River Corridor Development
Plan
3-17
3.2.2
Greenways Project
3-17
3.2.3
A Vision for Lake Calumet
3-18
3.3
NPDES Permits
issued
in
the CAWS
3-18
3.4
Existing Uses
and Water Quality Criteria
3-18
3.4.1
Waterways Listed as Secondary Contact
and Indigenous
Aquatic Life
3-19
3.4.2
General Use Waterways
3-20
3.5
References
3-26
CDNI
\\SUsvr1\commonlCAWS UM\AUQust o'!ns\TOC.doc
Table of Contents
CAWSUAA
Section 4 - Characterization of Waterway Reaches
4.1
Methodology
4-1
4.1.1
Reach Definitions
4-1
4.1.2
Data Acquisition and Gaps
4-2
4.1.3
Data Assessment
4-5
4.1.4
Stakeholder Process
4-21
4.2
North Shore Channel System (Upper and Lower)
4-23
4.2.1
Recreation
and Navigation Uses
4-23
4.2.2
Water Quality
4-24
4.2.3
Sediment
Quality
4-34
4.2.4
Biological Assessment
4-35
4.2.5
IEPA Letter Response Request..
4-43
4.3
Chicago River System
4-43
4.3.1
Recreation
and Navigation Uses
4-44
4.3.2
Water Quality
:
4-47
4.3.3
Sediment Quality
4-52
4.3.4
Biological Assessment
4-54
4.3.5
IEPA Letter Response Request..
4-69
4.4
CSSCReach
4-69
4.4.1
Recreation
and Navigation Uses
4-69
4.4.2
Water
Quality
4-70
4.4.3
Sediment Quality
4-76
4.4.4
Biological Assessment
4-77
4.4.5
IEPA Letter Response Request
4-81
4.5
Calumet System
4-81
4.5.1
Recreation
and Navigation Uses
4-83
4.5.2
Water Quality
4-86
4.5.3
Sediment
Quality
4-91.
4.5.4
Biological Assessment
4-92
4.5.5
Habitat Assessment
4-101
4.5.6
IEPA Letter Response Request..
4-104
4.6
References
4-105
Section 5 - Proposed Use Classifications and Water Quality Criteria for CAWS
Reaches
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
Approach
~
5-1
Development of Use Designations
and Water Quality Criteria
for the CAWS
5-5
Proposed CAWS Use Classifications
and Water Quality Criteria
5-11
Proposed CAWS Reach Use Designations
5-13
References
5-15
ii
IlStlsvr1'commonlCAWS UAAlAugusl editslTOC.doc
Table
of
Contents
CAWSUAA
Section 6 - Strategic Plan
6.1
Proposed Use Designations for the Chicago Awa Waterways
6-2
6.2
Limited Contact Recreation
6-3
6.3
Recreational Navigation
6-5
6.4
General Warm-Water Aquatic Life
6-6
6.5
Modified Warm Water Aquatic Life
6-8
6.6
Limited Warm Water Aquatic Life
6-9
COM
IIStlsvr1lcommonlCAWS UAAlAugust edilslTOC.doc
iii
Table of Contents
CAWSUM
Figures
1-1
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
4-5
4-6
4-7
4-8
4-9
4-10
4-11
4-12
4-13
4-14
4-15
COM
Chicago Area Waterway System (CAWS)
1-5
UAA Reach Segmentation
was defined to have break points at critical
locations
4-1
Monitoring Stations
4-9
CSO Outfalls and Instream Aeration Stations Legend
4-10
Sediment Toxicity Thresholds
..:
4-11
Sediment Sampling Stations Legend
4-13
Biological Sampling Stations
4-18
The Percent Time D.O. Levels Were Below Criteria
(General Use Standards)
4-25
D.O. Response at Simpson Street After a Large Rain Event in
August 2002
4-26
D.O. Response
at Devon Avenue After a Large Rain Event in
November 2000
4-27
E.coli
Bacteria Frequency Distribution for March through November
4-28
E.coli
Geometric Mean Concentrations for March through November
4-29
Percent of the Time Metal Concentrations Exceeded Quality
Screening Criteria
4-30
Percent of the Time Other Pollutant Concentrations Exceeded Water Quality
Screening Criteria
4-30
Temporal
Trend in Species Diversity in the North Shore Channel
1993 - 2002
4-36
IBI Scores for NSC Fish Sampling Locations 1992 - 2002
4-39
iv
IlStlsvrllcommonlCAWS UMlAugust ednslTOC.doc
4-16
4-17
4-18
4-19
4-20
4-21
4-22
4-23
4-24
A-25
4-26
4-27
4-28
4-29
4-30
4-31
4-32
CDM
Table of Contents
CAWSUM
Percent of Time D.O. Levels Fell Below Water Quality Screening
Criteria for the Chicago River from
1998 to 2002
4-49
Percent of the Time D.O. Levels
Dropped Below Water Quality
Screening Criteria
in the North Branch during CSO Impacted and
Non-CSO Periods
4-51
Percent of time metal concentrations exceeded water quality screening
criteria
in the Chicago River System
4-52
Percent of time various pollutant concentrations exceeded water
quality screening criteria
in the Chicago River System
4-52
Temporal Trend
in Species Diversity for North Branch 1993 - 2002
4-56
IBI Scores for North Branch Fish Sampling Locations 1992 - 2002
4-56
Temporal Trend
in Species Diversity in the Chicago River 1993 - 2002
4-59
IBI Scores for Selected Fish Sampling Locations in the Chicago River
4-59
Temporal Trend
in Fish Species Diversity in the South Branch
1993 - 2000
4-61
IBI Scores of SBCR/NBCR Fish Sampling Location 1993 - 2000
4-61
Percent of the Time D.O. Levels Fell Below Water Quality Screening
Criteria for the CSSC from 1998 to
2002
4-71
D.O.
Wet Weather Response at Cicero Avenue on the CSSc.
4-72
D.O.
Wet Weather Response at Cicero Followed by Warm Water
Temperatures
4-72
Temperature Data Collected
Over the Past Five Years
4-73
Percent of the Time Metal Concentrations Exceeded Water Quality
Screening Criteria in the CSSC
4-74
Percent of the Time Various Pollutant Concentrations Exceeded
Water Quality
Screening Criteria in the csse
4-74
Temporal
Trend in Fish Species Diversity in the CSSC 1993 - 2002
4-79
v
\\StlsvrllcommonlCAWS UAAlAugusi edttslTOC.doc
4-33
4-34
4-35
4-36
4-37
4-38
4-39
4-40
4-41
5-1
5-2
CDM
--------=---;-;---;-~----;------;-------
-~----
Table of Contents
CAWSUAA
illI Scores for Fish Sampling Locations on the CSSC 1992 - 2002
'"
4-79
Percent of the time D.O. Levels fell below
water quality screening
criteria
4-87
2004 IEPA Lake
Calumet sampling locations
4-88
Percent of the time metal concentrations exceeded
water quality
screening criteria
in the Calumet River System
4-89
Percent of the time various pollutant concentrations exceeded
water quality screening criteria in the Calumet River System
4-89
Temporal Trend in Fish Species Diversity in the Calumet-Sag
Channel 1993
- 2002
.
4-94
illI Scores for Fish Sampling Locations for the Calumet
System 1992 - 2002
4-94
Temp,oral
Trend in Fish Species Diversity in the Calumet
River 1993 - 2002
4-95
Temporal
Trend in Fish Species Diversity in the Little Calumet
River 1993 - 2002
4-97
Flow
Chart for Assessing Aquatic Life Use in illinois Streams and Rivers..... 5-7
Use Designation Categories Defined
by Whisker Box Plots of Ohio Boatable
illI Scores (1993-2002) vs. QHEI Scores (2004) for the Chicago Area Waterways
and Reference Waterbodies
5-9
vi
1\S1lsvr1lcommonICAWS UAAlAugust
ed~sITOC.doc
----------------------------------~---------------------=---;-;-----:--=----:-----:-----
Table of Contents
CAWSUAA
Tables
1-1
1-2
1-3
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-5
3-6
3-7
3-8
3-9
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
4-5
CONI
Recommended Use Designations for the NSC and Chicago River System... 1-16
Recommended Use Designations for the
CSSC and Calumet System
1-16
Proposed
Management Strategies to Address New Use
Sub-categories
in CAWS
1-19
Delineation of Flow Characteristics
at Each Diversion Facility Located
on CAWS
3-13
Number of CSOs in CAWS
3-14
Reversals to Lake Michigan 1985-2003 (million gallons)
3-16
NPDES
Permitted Discharges contributing to CAWS
3-19
Numeric
Water Quality Standards for illinois Secondary Contact
and Indigenous Aquatic Life Waterways (35
m.
Adm. Code 302.400) .......... 3-21
Temperature Limits for illinois General Use Waterways
3-22
Numeric
Water Quality Standards for illinois General Use Waterways
to Protect Aquatic Organisms 35
m.
Adm. Code 302.208(e)
3-24
Numeric Water Quality Standards in illinois General Use Waterways
for the Protection of
Human Health 35
m. -
Adm. - Code 302.208(£)
3-25
Numeric
Water Quality Standards
35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 302.208(g)
3-25
Reach Segmentation
4-2
Agencies Solicited for Data Acquisition
4-2
UAA Water Quality Parameters of Concern
4-3
UAA Habitat, Biological
and Aesthetics Parameters of Concern
4-4
Hydrology/Meteorological Parameters of Concern
4-4
vii
\\SUsvr1\common\CAWS UAAlAugust edltslTOC.doc
---------------------~
~~~~--._-~_._~~----~-~-
- ---------------
Table of Contents
CAWSUAA
4-6
4-7
4-8
4-9
4-10
4-11
4-12
4-13
4-14
4-15
4-16
4-17
4-18
4-19
4-20
4-21
4-22
4-23
4-24
CONI
GIS Data Needs
4-5
Data Gaps
4-5
UAA Sediment Quality Criteria Guidelines Applied
4-11
Sediment Quality Guideline Concentration Thresholds
4-12
Sediment Quality Studies included
in UAA Assessment
4-14
Ohio EPA
IBI Metrics and Scoring Criteria for Boatable Sites
4-17
Metrics
and Scoring Ranges for Ohio QHEI
4-21
Narrative Ranges of the QHEI Based on a General Ability of that
Habitat to Support Aquatic Life
4-22
Activity Observed
on NSC
4-24
Constituents Analyzed at CAWS Grab Sampling Sites
4-30
Number of Samples for Exceeding Constituents at CAWS Grab Sampling
Stations
4-31
Statistics for pH Samples at CAWS Grab Sampling Sites with pH
Measurements that have Exceeded Standards
4-32
North Side WRP Effluent Water Quality Screening Summary
4-33
Parameters Analyzed at CAWS Wastewater Treatment Plants
4-33
Number of Samples for Exceeding Constituents at CAWS Wastewater
Treatment Plants
4-34
Statistics for
pH Samples at CAWS Wastewater Treatment Plants with pH
Measurements that have Exceeded Standards
4-34
NSC Water Quality ConstitUents of Concern
4-35
NSC Surface Sediments Quality Summary
4-37
Species Richness
and Relative Abundance of Fish Species in the North Shore
Channel 1993-2002- All Sampling Locations
4-42
viii
IIStlsvr11commonlCAWS UAAlAugusI edltslTOC.doc
4-25a
4-25b
4-26
4-27
4-28
4-29
4-30
4-31
4-32
4-33
4-34
4-35
4-36
4-37a
4-37b
4-38
Table of Contents
CAWSUM
Macroinvertebrate data from the North Shore Channel (IEPA Data 2001)
Samples were collected with Hester-Dendy artificial substrates
4-40
Macroinvertebrate data from the North Shore Channel (MWRDGC Data 2001).
Samples collected using Hester Dendy (HD) Plates and Petite Ponar (PP)
Dredge
4-42
QHEI Scores for NSC Sampling Locations
4-43
Recreational Activities
on North Branch
4-45
Recreational Activities
on Chicago River
4-46
Activities
on South Branch of Chicago River
4-47
Activities on South Fork
4-48
Chicago River System Water Quality Constituents of Concern
4-53
Chicago River System Surface Sediment Quality
Summary
4-53
Chicago River System SOD Measurements
4-54
Species Richness
and Relative Abundance of Fish Species in the
North Branch
4-55
Species Richness
and Relative Abundance of Fish Species in the Chicago River
1993
- 2002. All sampling Locations
4-58
Species Richness
and Relative Abundance of Fish Species in the South
Branch
4-66
Macroinvertebrate
data from the North Branch Chicago River (IEPA Data 2001)
Samples were collected with Hester-Dendy artificial substrates
4-71
Macroinvertebrate data from the North Branch Chicago River (MWRDGC
Data 20001). Samples collected using Hester-Dendy (HD) Plates and Petite
Ponar (PP) Dredge
4-64
Macroinvertebrate
data from the Chicago River (MWRDGC Data 2001).
Samples collected using Hester Dendy (HD) Plates and Petite Ponar (PP)
Dredge
'"
4-71
ix
\\SllsvrllcommonlCAWS UAAlAugust edtlslTOC.doc
4-39a
4-39b
4-40
4-41
4-43
4-44
4-45
4-46
4-47
4-48
4-49
4-50
4-51
4-52
4-53
4-54
4-55
4-56
4-57
COM
Table of Contents
CAWSUAA
Macroinvetebrate data from the South Branch Chicago River (MWRDGC Data
2002). Samples collected using Hester
Dendy (HD) Plates and Petite Ponar
(PP) Dredge
4-67
Macroinvertebrate
data from the South Fork of the South Branch Chicago
River (MWRDGC 2002). Samples collect5ed using Hester Dendy (HD) Plates
and Petite Ponar (PP) Dredge
4-68
QHEI Scores for the
North Branch
4-68
QHEI Scores for the Chicago River
4-69
Recreation Activities Observed
on the CSSc.
4-70
Stickney WRP Effluent Water Quality Screening Summary
4-75
Lemont WRP Effluent Water Quality Screening Summary
4-75
CSSC Water Quality Constituents of Concern
4-75
CSSC Surface Sediment Quality Summary
4-76
Species Richness
and Relative Abundance of Fish Species in the CSSC
1993 - 2002. All Sampling Locations
4-78
Macroinvertebrate
data from the Chicago Sanitary Ship Canal (MWRDGC
Data 2002). Samples collected using Hester Dendy (HD) Plates
and Petite
Ponar (PP) Dredge
4-81
QHEI Scores for the CSSC
4-83
Observed Activities
on the Grand Calumet
4-84
Observed Activities
on the Little Calumet River
4-84
Observed Recreational Activities
on the Calumet Sag Channel
4-85
Observed Recreational Activities
on Lake Calumet
4-86
Calumet WRP Effluent Water Quality Screening Summary
4-90
Calumet System Water Quality Constituents of Concern
4-91
Calumet System Surface Sediment Quality Summary
4-91
Calumet System SOD Mesurements
4-92
x
IIStlsvr1lcommonICAWS UAAlAugust edhslTOC.doc
---------------------- ---------------
Table of Contents
CAWSUAA
4-58
4-59
4-60
4-61
4-62a
462b
4-63
5-1
5-2
6-1
Species Richness and Relative Abundance of Fish Species in the Calumet-Sag
Channel 1993-2002
4-93
Species Richness
and Relative Abundance of Fish Species in the Calumet River
1993-2002
4-96
Species Richness
and Relative Abundance of Fish Species in the Little Calumet
River 1993-2002
4-98
Species Richness
and Relative Abundance of Fish Species in Lake Calumet,
1990-1996
4-99
Macroinvertebrate data from the
South Fork of the Calumet-Sag System (IEPA
Data 2001). Samples collected using Hester Dendy (HD) Plates,
hand picking
or jabs
4-101
Macroinvertebrate data from the Calumet-Sag System (MWRDGC Data 2002).
Samples collected using Hester
Dendy (HD) Plates and Petite Ponar (PP)
Dredge
4-103
QHEI Scores for the Calumet System
4-104
Recommended Use Designations for the NSC and Chicago River System 5-14
Recommended Use Designations for the
csse and Calumet System
5-14
Proposed Management Strategies to Address
New Use
Sub-categories
in CAWS
6-7
xi
\\S~svr1\cornmOn\CAWS
UMlAugusl edltslTOC_doc
•
•
CDNI
Section 1
Executive Summary
The illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) is conducting a Use
Attainability Analysis (UAA) of the Chicago Area Waterway System (CAWS). The
primary focus of the UAA is on the Chicago River System and Calumet River System
waterway reaches currently classified by the illinois Pollution Control Board (!PCB) as
Secondary Contact
and Indigenous Aquatic Life. Three CAWS reaches are General
Use,
upgraded relatively recently without undergoing the rigors of a UAA. The UAA
excludes
the reach of the Lower Des Plaines River currently being evaluated through
a separate UAA. The purpose of the CAWS UAA is to evaluate existing conditions,
including
waterway use practices and anticipated future uses to determine if use
classification revisions are warranted. The IEPA wishes to examine the present
Secondary Contact
and Indigenous Aquatic Life portions of CAWS to evaluate
.whether
use upgrades for balanced aquatic life and contact recreation are achievable
and whether downgrades of the General Use reaches are appropriate.
An upgrade to balanced aquatic life and contact recreation use designations may
conflict with important existing uses, such as navigation and wastewater and
stormwater management..
It is
the intent of the UAA, through stakeholder
involvement, to consider these potential conflicts while developing criteria for uses
that
would meet or approach aquatic life protection and primary contact recreational
uses ("fishable/swimmable") required
by the Clean Water Act (CWA).
If
the
statutory
CWA uses are not attainable, the UAA will define the most optimal
attainable
use for each water body.
The Chicago area is
home to a large
and diverse series of waterways,
many of
which have been man-made
in order to facilitate water flow away
from Lake Michigan to protect
drinking water
and recreational uses.
The Chicago area waterways have
experienced
many changes
throughout the last century,
and
there have been dramatic
improvements
in water quality and
expansions in shoreline development
South Branch Marina
in the last 25 years. The City of
Chicago,
the Metropolitan Wastewater Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
(MWRDGC), Cook County,
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA),
IEPA, industries
and local environmental organizations all have a vested interest in
the future of the Chicago area waterways and have participated as valuable
stakeholders
in the UAA process.
1-1
1ISIIsvr11commonlCAWS UAAlAugust edltslSection 1 UAA
20071~
8-1-07
edits.doc
CDNI
...
-·-·-.---··-·~-----~·SectJOnT---
Executive Summary
1.1 UAA Process
USEPA's water quality standards regulation (40 CFR 131.100)) requires states to
conduct a
UAA when designating uses which do not include the goals of the Act, or
when designating new subcategories of uses which require less stringent criteria.
Alternatively,
in the case of CAWS, where recent water quality improvements have
occurred, IEPA wishes to examine the present Secondary Contact
and Indigenous
Aquatic Life designated sections of the Chicago area waterways to determine
whether
a use upgrade for balanced aquatic life and contact recreation are achievable and to
determine
whether relatively recent upgrades of General Use reaches in CAWS were
appropriate.
Designated
uses are those uses specified in state water quality criteria for each of the
waterway reaches whether or not they are being attained. Existing uses are those uses
attained
on or after November 28,1975, whether they are included in the water
quality criteria. Once a state has designated a use or uses for a given waterway, then
water quality criteria needs to be developed to protect those uses.
illinois presently
has two major use designations that apply to CAWS: General Use,
and Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life Use (35
m.
Adm. Code 303). The
General Use
water quality criteria comply with CWA goals in that they protect
aquatic life, wildlife, agricultural use, secondary contact, most industrial uses
and
they safeguard the aesthetic quality of the aquatic environment. Primary contact uses
are protected for all General Use waters whose physical configuration permits such
use
(35
m.
Adm. Code 302.202). illinois defines primary contact as any recreational or
other water use in which there is prolonged and intimate contact with the water
involving considerable risk of ingesting water in quantities sufficient to pose a
significant
health hazard, such as swimming and water skiing.
Secondary Contact
and Indigenous Aquatic Life use criteria are intended for those
waters not suited for general use activities, but which are appropriate for all
secondary contact uses
and are capable of supporting indigenous aquatic life limited
only
by the physical configuration of the body of water, characteristics and origin of
the
water and the presence of contaminants in amounts that do not exceed the water
quality criteria listed in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302 Subpart
D.
Secondary Contact means
any recreational or other water use in which contact with the water is either incidental
or accidental and in which the probability of ingesting appreciable quantities of water
is minimal, such as fishing, commercial and recreational boating (e.g. canoeing or
hand-powered boating activity) and any limited contact incident to shoreline activity.
Uses are considered attainable
if
they can be achieved by adopting effluent limits
required under Sections 301(b) and 306 of the CWA and the implementation of cost-
effective
and reasonable best management practices (BMPs) for non-point source
control. Uses
that can be achieved by applying appropriate pollution control
technology as
required in the CWA are likewise considered attainable unless one of
the six factors listed
in 40 CFR 131.10(g) can be satisfied. Those six factors are:
1-2
\\StlsvnlcommonlCAWS UAAlAugust
ed~slSectlon
1 UAA 2007
I~
8-1-07
ed~s.doc
Sectiori1
Executive Summary
•
Naturally occurring pollutant concentrations prevent the attainment of the use.
•
Natural, ephemeral, intermittent
or low flow conditions or water levels prevent
the attainment of the use, unless these conditions
may be offset by the discharge
of a sufficient volume of effluent, (may
be used for determining aquatic life use,
but may not be used solely to determine recreational use).
•
Human caused conditions or sources of pollution prevent the attainment of the
use,
and cannot be remedied or would cause more environmental damage to
correct
than to leave in place.
•
Dams, diversions
or other types of hydrologic modifications preclude the
attainment of the use and it is not feasible to restore the water body to its original
condition or to operate such modifications
in such a way that would result in the
attainment of the use.
•
Physical conditions related to the
natural features of the water body, such as the
lack of a
proper substrate, cover, flow, depth, pools, riffles, and the like,
unrelated to water quality, preclude attainment of aquatic life protection uses,
(may
be used for determining aquatic life use, but may not be used solely to
determine recreational use).
•
Controls more stringent
than those required by Sections 301(b) and 306 of the Act
would result in substantial and widespread economic and social impact.
The economic
and social impact of the management decisions in the UAA will not be
presented in this report.
1.2 Objectives of the UAA
The objectives of the study, as specified by IEPA include:
•
Review
and evaluation of all available environmental data from the last
5 - 10 years to determine the physical, chemical, and biological conditions of the
waterway, recommending additional
data gathering activities and coordinating
the generation
and evaluation of additional data as may be necessary to
accomplish the objectives.
•
Identification
and characterization of the types, causes and sources of major
stressors
on the system including potential use impairments identified in the
agency'smost recent CWA Section 303(d) List.
•
Assessment of available
water quality and habitat management options for
eliminating
or reducing system stressors.
CDNI
1-3
IIStlsvr11commonlCAWS UAAlAugust edils\SectIon 1 UAA 20071jf 8-1-07 edlts.doc
~~~--
Section1-
~
Executive Summary
•
Determination of the potential to achieve and maintain use classification other
than existing classifications.
•
Development of recommended
use designations and associated water quality
criteria.
•
Identification of strategies
that would help CAWS meet the goals of the CW
A.
•
Providing expert testimony before the IPCB in support of use designation
changes.
•
Establishment
and coordination of stakeholder involvement
il).
the UAA process.
1.3 CAWS Description
The primary focus of the UAA will be on CAWS reaches currently classified as
Secondary Contact
and Indigenous Aquatic Life (Figure 1-1). There are several major
General Use
waterway segments, reaches or tributaries adjoining the Secondary
Contact
waterways which are similar in structure and function. The three General
Use reaches
were upgraded in the 1980s without undergoing a UAA. The CAWS
UAA addresses the following waterways:
Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life
•
North Shore Channel (NSC) downstream of the MWRDGC North Side Water
Reclamation Plant (WRP)
•
North Branch Chicago River (NBCR) from its confluence with the NSC to its
confluence with the South Branch
•
Chicago Sanitary
and Ship Canal (CSSC)
•
South Branch of the Chicago River (SBCR) and South Fork (Bubbly Creek)
•
Calumet-Sag Channel
•
The Little Calumet River from its junction
with the Grand Calumet River to the
Calumet-Sag Channel
•
The
Grand Calumet River (GCR)
•
The
Calumet River, except the 6.8 mile segment extending from the O'BrienLock
and Dam to Lake Michigan
•
Lake Calumet
ClIVI
1-4
IIStlsvr11commonlCAWS UAAlAugust odilslSection 1 UAA 20071jf 8-1-07 &dRs.doc
Section 1
Executive Summary
Figure 1-1
Chicago Area Waterway System (CAWS)
GRAND CALU"ET
RIVER
LAKE
MICHIGAN
-N-
+
I
SCALE IN MILES
•1
Z j • i
I
I
",
0. ....
C..
LOCKPORT POWERHOUSE
AND LOCK
0.0
c."
Co.
1,.11' CL
LEGEND
• MAJOR WRP INFLOW
• MINOR WRP INFLOW
-
CHICAGO WATERWAY
SYSTEM SECONDARY
CONTACT
-
OTHER WATERWAYS
GENERAL USE
-CHICAGO WATERWAY
SYSTEM GENERAL USE
-
OTHER WATERWAYS
SECONDARY CONTACT
9.9
MILES UPSTREAM OF
12.~3_-._v
LOCKPORT
~~~---
..-FLOW
CONFLUENCE WJT!i THE
DES PLAINES
RIVER
-1.1 JOLIET
Figure provided by MWRDGC and modified by CDM
CONI
1-5
--
--- --"- --- .-
---~"
...
---"-'~$ectlOn-"1
Executive Summary
General Use
•
NSC upstream of the MWRDGC North Side WRP
•
Chicago River
•
Calumet River upstream (lakeside) of O'BrienLock and Dam
CAWS consists of 78 miles of man-made canals and modified river channels which
provide an outlet for drainage of urban storm water runoff, treated municipal
wastewater effluent and support commercial navigation. The waterways also support
recreational boating, fishing, streamside recreation and aquatic habitat for wildlife.
Approximately
75 percent of the waterway length consists of man-made canals where
no waterway existed previously. The remainder is natural streams that have been
deepened, straightened or widened. The flow is artificially controlled by four
hydraulic structures managed by MWRDGC. The level of water in the waterways can
be lowered in the anticipation of a storm event to provide.additional storage for flood
controL Wastewater effluent
makes up approximately 70 percent of the average
annual flow going through the Lockport Powerhouse and Lock (LP&L) Facility. This
percentage
can be higher or lower during the winter months.
1.4 Data Analysis
The UAA process required the analysis of physical, chemical, biological, recreational
arid other data to characterize existing conditions arid assess uses. Since the
waterways were monitored extensively over the past two decades by various
agencies, the
UAA utilized these resources and collected additional field data to fill
significant and high priority data gaps. Since there have been significant
improvements in MWRDGC'swastewater treatment operations throughout the last
ten years, including the construction of the Tunnel and Reservoir Project (TARP), the
focus on data evaluation has been on the most recent data collected within the last
five
(and some cases ten) years.
More
than ten different agencies and stakeholders at-large were solicited to provide
relevant water quality and sediment data collected for a five year period from January
1,1998
to December 31, 2002. Biological data, which includes fish and
macroinvertebrates, were evaluated from data sets collected between 1992 and 2002.
The
evaluated data set included:
•
Water Quality
•
Sediment Chemistry
•
Biological (fish
and macroinvertebrates)
•
Habitat
CDNI
1-6
\\Stlsvr1Icommon\CAWS UAAlAugusl editslSecIIon 1 UAA
20071~
8.1.07
ed~s.doc
Section 1
Executive Summary
•
Aesthetics
•
Hydrological
and Meteorological
•
Waterway Use
•
Mapping/Geographical Information Systems
(GIS)
•
Recreational
Water quality data
was evaluated using a use attainment screening approach that
identified
whether CAWS reach segments are currently attaining CWA goals. In-
stream water quality data were compared to General Use water quality criteria to
determine
whether recent water quality conditions justified a use upgrade for reaches
currently designated as Secondary Contact
and Indigenous Aquatic Life Use, or a use
downgrade for reaches designated as General Use. The use attainment screening
approach identified constituents of concern that are limiting attainment of CWA goals
or potential use designations developed through the UAA.
What Does the Data Tell Us?
Water Quality
The data shows that the overall water quality in CAWS during dry weather periods
for the most
part meets the General Use water quality standards (screening criteria).
The exceptions were for bacteria, dissolved oxygen (D.O.), temperature, ammonia
and
selected heavy metals. Selected reaches of CAWS had better water quality than
others, with the sites with the greatest water quality problems being influenced more
by the contribution of combined sewer overflows (CSOs) and the hydrologic nature of
the waterway.
North Shore Channel (Upper and Lower)
D.O. was the water quality parameter of concern in the upper NSC with levels falling
below the 6
mg/L water quality screening criteria over 50 percent of the time. The
low D.O. levels are most likely attributable to low flow stagnant conditions, coupled
with CSO input and storm water discharges. D.O. in this reach often takes several
days to recover, depending on the severity of the event, the amount of the
discretionary lake diversion
and other factors.
CSOs are the likely cause for the elevated bacteria levels
in the upper NSC and
occasionally, back flow from the North Side WRP will contribute to the bacterial
contamination of this reach. The bacteria
data shows that on average, the bacteria
levels
in the upper NSC can support limited contact recreation (E. coli
<
1030 cfu).
However, caution
would have to be exercised during and following a wet-weather
event. The lower NSC flow is
dominated by the non-disinfected effluent from the
North Side WRP which contains elevated levels of bacteria exceeding limited
CONI
IlStlsvr1\commonlCAWS UAAlAugusl edltslSecllon 1 UAA
20071~
8.1.07 edns.doc
1-7
COM
Section 1
Executive Summary
recreation contact (E. coli <1030) and recreational navigation (E. coli >1030 and < 2740
cfu)
water quality screening criteria.
Dissolved zinc
was the only metal that exceeded water quality screening criteria
greater
than 10 percent of the time. Total silver was the next highest
(8
percent) and
the remaining other General Use water quality constituents met or slightly exceeded
the water quality screening criteria.
Chicago River System
D.O. levels in the NBCR fell below the
6
mg/L standard over
50
percent of the time
from Fullerton Avenue to Kinzie Street, and fell below the 5 mg/L standard 18
percent of the time in this reach.
D.O. levels
in the Chicago River are good and only fell below the
6
mg/L standard
about 5 percent of the time.
In
the SBCR, the D.O. levels are comparable to the NBCR,
with the poorest D.O. occurring in the South Fork, where th.e
4
mg/L level was not
met approximately
45
percent of the time. The South Fork is a stagnant waterbody
that receives no flow unless the Racine Avenue Pump Station, storm sewers or other
CSOs are discharging. The
pump station discharges CSO to the South Fork, which is
high in oxygen demanding material, as well as bacteria, solids and floatables. The
percent of time D.O. levels dropped below water quality screening criteria in the
upper Chicago River System were significantly greater during CSO impacted periods.
In
the CSSC, D.o. levels fell below the 6 mg/L water quality screening criteria more
than 55 percent of the time, with the 5 mg/L and the 4 mg/L not being met 32 percent
and 12 percent of the time, respectively.
Bacteria levels
in the upper and lower NBCR exceed the limited contact recreation
water and recreational water quality screening criteria. Bacteria levels begin to meet
recreational navigation criteria at Grand Avenue in Chicago. Bacteria levels
in
the
Chicago River
and SBCR met the limited contact recreation water quality screening
criteria a significant
portion of the time, including the South Fork. However, CSO
overflows
can cause bacteria levels to rise dramatically above proposed criteria.
Downstream of the Stickney WRP, the bacteria levels in the CSSC exceed water
quality screening criteria for both limited contact recreation and recreational
navigation. Bacteria levels decline
in a downstream fashion from the Stickney WRP,
and become acceptable for recreational navigation at Route 83, and the CSSC meets
water quality screening criteria for limited contact recreation by the time it reaches the
LP&L.
In
the NBCR, the Chicago River and SBCR (including the South Fork), total silver,
dissolved nickel, dissolved zinc
were the only metals that exceeded water quality
screening criteria greater
than 5 percent of the time. Ammonia levels in the NBCR,
SBCR
and South Fork exceeded water quality screening criteria 5 percent of the time.
In
the CSSC, ammonia, total silver, pH and temperature exceeded water quality
1-8
lISt\svr1lcommonlCAWS UAAlAugust
ed~slSection
1
UAA
20071jl 8.1.07
ecfrts.doc
-Section
1
Executive Summary
screening criteria more than 5 percent of the time. Most other water quality
constituents
met or slightly exceeded the water quality screening criteria. Water
quality dramatically
improved downstream of the Stickney WRP discharge into the
CSSe. Water temperatures
in the CSSC were above water quality screening criteria
just
downstream of the Midwest Generation'sCrawford Station (above Cicero
Avenue). Water temperatures
downstream of the Crawford Station exceeded water
quality temperature screening criteria approximately
15 percent of the time. Greater
exceedences of the temperature
water quality screening criteria occurred during the
winter time period (December through March). Water temperatures declined
significantly
downstream of the Stickney WRP discharge to the CSSe. Water
temperatures increased again
downstream of the Midwest Generation'sWill County
Station,
with the water quality temperature screening criteria being exceeded 3
percent of the time. Exceedences of the water quality screening criteria for
.temperature
at this location were greatest during the winter period.
Calumet River System
D.O. levels in the Calumet System varied for each waterway reach. D.O. challenges
were most significant
in the GCR, followed by the Calumet-Sag Channel. D.O. levels
in the GCR fell below the 6 mg/L screening criteria approximately 47 percent of the
time,
with the 5 mg/L and 4 mg/L screening criteria not being met 27 percent and
19 percent of the time, respectively. The D.O. levels
in
the Calumet-Sag Channel fell
below the 6
mg/L and the 5 mg/L water quality screening
~riteria,
34 percent and
12 percent of the time, respectively. D.O. levels in the Calumet-Sag Channel for the
most
part were consistently above 4 mg/L. The lowest exceedence of the D.O.
screening level criteria
was in Lake Calumet and the Calumet River. Except for a
short segment of the Calumet River
downstream of the O'BrienLock and Dam, both
of these waterbodies are lake ward of the lock and dam and the Calumet River is
directly connected to Lake Michigan.
The D.O. levels in the Little Calumet River were
significantly higher
than the levels observed in the Calumet-Sag Channel. The 6
mg/L screening criteria was not met 16 percent of the time, while the 5 mg/L and the
4
mg/L screening criteria were not met 5 percent and 2 percent, respectively.
Bacteria levels
in the Calumet-Sag Channel for the most part met screening level
criteria for limited contact recreation. The Little Calumet River (west), downstream of
the Calumet WRP
did not meet the water quality screening criteria for limited contact
recreation,
however this reach does meet the water quality screening criteria for
recreational navigation. The Little Calumet River (east)
met the water quality
screening criteria for limited contact recreation. Lake Calumet also meets the water
quality screening criteria for limited contact recreation, except
during early summer at
the east side of the lake
where and when a large colony of gulls is breeding and
fledging young.
1-9
IIStlsvr1\commonICAWS UAAlAugust ednslSection 1 UAA 2007
1~
8-1-07 edns.doc
Section 1
Executive Summary
As in other parts of CAWS, pH, total silver, dissolved nickel, and dissolved zinc were
the metal parameters of concern. The remaining other water quality constituents met
or slightly exceeded the water quality screening criteria.
Numerous innovative treatment systems (e.g. side-stream elevated pooled aeration
(SEPA) structures, TARP) have been placed in CAWS to help alleviate water quality
problems. However, even with this technology in place, there are still areas of water
quality impairment, particularly as it relates to D.O. and temperature.
In
those
reaches where D.O. levels cannot meet General Use criteria, even after treatment
technologies have been implemented, a site-specific standard may be more
appropriate.
Since the MWRDGC does not disinfect at the three major WRPs in CAWS, bacteria
levels
will remain high during the non-recreation season, the disinfection period of
December to February and may be high during about a 24 hour period following a
significant CSO
events until MWRDGC'sCSO Long Term Control Plan, TARP is
completed preventing the attainment of limited contact recreation in selected reaches
of the waterways. The MWRDGC treatment plant effluents are the leading
contributors to high bacteria levels in CAWS during dry weather, and other sources
contribute bacteria during wet weather. Detailed studies of E. coli levels in the
waterways, particularly during wet-weather events, would provide a better picture of
the extent of bacterial contamination and how they affect the attainment of
recreational
opportunities.
Sediments
Contaminated sediments reside in many reaches of CAWS and it is important to
identify how sediment quality characterizations would influence the use designation
decision making process in terms of the goals for CAWS UAA. Although
contaminated sediments are an importantconsideration in evaluating the health of a
water resource, the goal of this UAA is to determine whether sediment conditions in
CAWS threaten attainment of a use. Barge traffic and future dredging in CAWS can
re-suspend these sediments, preventing the attainment of a recreational use category.
The sediment data primarily consisted of chemical parameters, with little or no
information regarding the bacteria levels in the sediments. Since there is little data on
how sediment contamination may impact recreational activities, it will not be
evaluated in this UAA.
From an aquatic life use designation viewpoint, contaminated sediments from a
chemical
perspective can limit the diversity of benthic organisms as well as influence
the risk associated with fish consumption.. As a result, sediment toxicity can
secondarily constrain attainment of an aquatic life use designation. The current
procedures for evaluating sediment toxicity includes bioassay analysis, for which
there was little data to evaluate.
1-10
\\Stlsvr1lcommon\CAWS UAA\Augusl edilslSectlon 1 UAA 2007 Ijf 8-1-07
ed~s.doc
CDNI
Section 1
Executive Summary
Recreational
Recreational uses of waters are more likely to occur in areas where there are higher
densities of people living
and working along the river, and this is true for CAWS.
Recreational use
by non-motorized boats (e.g. canoes) in the Chicago River System
was common in the NSC, upper NBCR, Chicago River and SBCR. Power boating was
also common in these reaches as well, including the lower NBCR. Fishing was the
most common potential contact activity observed along the shoreline
in these reaches.
The Chicago River
and sections of the NBCR and SBCR are host to a variety of water-
based events (e.g. Friends of Chicago River Annual Flatwater Classic), and many
school-based groups, as well as environmental organizations use the waterways for
educational purposes.
In the South Fork, power boating was the dominant activity, but was only observed a
limited
number of times. In the CSSC, the dominant recreational use was power
boating. Along the Calumet-Sag Channel, power boating and fishing were the
dominant activities observed. Jet skiing and water skiing occurred infrequently.
Wading
was observed, but it was primarily associated with launching boats. At the
Villages of Alsip
and Worth, the estimated number of launches at their boat launch
facilities
was 7,000 and 4,000 launches per season, respectively. Other boating
activities that occur
in this segment include the annual Poker Fun Run and limited
canoeing. In the GCR, the
only observed activity was fishing, where as in the Little
Calumet River
power boating and fishing were the dominant activities. The Little
Calumet River is host to
many marinas whose livelihood depends upon the power
boat uses of this waterway. Recreational uses observed in the Calumet River include
fishing
and power boating. The dominant activity occurring in Lake Calumet was
fishing, both from shore and boat. Full body contact recreation activities (e.g.
swimming) were observed to
be extremely rare and in the few instances it was
observed, the survey crew warned the participants of its inappropriateness.
Biological
With the availability of biological data characterizing macroinvertebrate and fish
populations
in CAWS, these more direct measures of aquatic life conditions were
given precedence
in evaluating aquatic life use attainment OTwater quality conditions
.
in a given reach. Biological data collected
over the last
25 years, and particularly from
the 1992-2002 time period, indicates that
the
waterways contain a diverse assemblage of
fish
and macroinvertebrates that are
dominated by pollution tolerant organisms.
Dramatic improvements
in the fish
community structure
has occurred since the
1970s, however fish species like common
carp, bluntnose minnow, goldfish,
and
Fish sampling with electroshocking
alewife numbers and biomass tend to
1-11
IlStIsv,llcommonlCAWS UAAlAugust ed"slSectlon 1 UAA 2007
I~
8.1.07ed"s.doc
Section 1
Executive Summary
dominate CAWS. Game fish, such as largemouth bass and bluegill have seen a
dramatic increase
in numbers since the MWRDGC has been collecting data and now
are commonly pursued by local anglers.
Due to the lack of habitat
data for the fish collection locations in CAWS, a study was
conducted by USEPA and IEPA to evaluate the aquatic habitats within CAWS. The
data showed that the aquatic habitats were rated from very poor to fair, with most of
the reaches having habitat unable to
support a diverse aquatic community. Since
most of the
waterways are man-made and were created primarily for conveyance of
wastewater
and navigation, little attention was given to fish habitat during their
construction
in the early 1900s. However, this does not preclude the potential for
these waterways to achieve higher uses if modifications can
be made to improve fish
and macroinvertebrate habitat. Major habitat limitations in the waterways include
channelization, lack of riffle habitat, lack of
woody debris, silty substrates, sheetpile,
concrete
and rip-rap bank walls and deep draft channels.with low gradient.
1.5
Proposed Use Designations for the CAWS
Since CAWS comprises a large area with diverse conditions, the waterways were
broken
up into fourteen different reach segments. Reach segments were defined to
have breakpoints
at critical locations that contribute to their unique characteristics
based
upon physical morphology, water quality and quantity, flow, chemical and
biological properties. The proposed use designations and water quality criteria to
proted the uses of the waters in the open channels that flow through the Chicago
metropolitan area
apply to the following CAWS reaches:
•
Upper NSC- Wilmette Pumping Station to North Side WRP
•
Lower NSC-
North Side WRP to the confluence with the NBCR
•
Upper NBCR- Confluence with NSC to North Avenue
•
Lower NBCR-
North Avenue to confluence with Chicago River
•
Chicago River- Chicago River Controlling Works (CRCW) to confluence
with
NBCR and SBCR
•
SBCR- Confluence with the Chicago River to confluence with CSSC
•
South Fork (Bubbly Creek)- Racine Avenue Pump Station to confluence with
SBCR
•
CSSC and Collateral Channel- Confluence with SBCR to LP&L
•
Calumet-Sag Channel- Confluence
with Little Calumet River to confluence with
CSSC
•
Little Calumet River West- Calumet WRP to confluence with Calumet-Sag
Channel
•
Little Calumet River East- O'BrienLock
and Dam to Calumet WRP
CDNI
1-12
1\Sllsvr1\cOmmonlCAWS UAAlAugust ednslSec1lon 1 UAA
20071~
8-1-07 edns.doc
CONI
Section 1
Executive Summary
•
GCR-illinois State Line to confluence with Little Calumet River
•
Calumet River
•
Lake
Calumet
Proposed Use Designations
The six factors that the state must take into consideration when conducting a UAA in
order to demonstrate that the attainment of a CWA goal use is not feasible, were
specifically included in stakeholder involvement process. The CAWS UAA differs
from
most UAAs in that improving conditions are prompting a potential use upgrade
for most reaches rather than the typical scenario where existing conditions are not
supporting a currently regulated designated use and are prompting consideration of a
use
downgrade.
In
either case, the criteria are still applicable.
In
the case where a use
upgrade is being considered, the criteria were applied in evaluating the feasibility of
potential future use designations rather than one that is already in place. The
approach is consistent with the intent of the UAA process and the CWA goals.
The
data clearly shows that more than one of the six criteria prevents the attainment
of a
high quality biological community in CAWS. Good quality aquatic habitat in
CAWS is limited and the waterways would need to undergo major habitat creation
andjor restoration to improve the fish and macroinvertebrate assemblages. The
recreational
use data demonstrate that secondary contact forms of recreation (e.g.
hand powered boating activity, canoeing, fishing and recreational boating) are
occurring
in the waterways and these uses need to be protected. The physical and
institutional limitations, along with periodic impairments to water quality from CSOs
and stormwater in CAWS, prevent the attainment of primary contact recreation (e.g.
swimming)
over the next ten years.
illinois' existing
General Use chemical standards would for the most part protect all of
the proposed CAWS uses and, with a few adjustments, should be proposed for
adoption by IPCB. Standards for some parameters will be adjusted to conform with
federal guidance or other relevant information more current than that available when
the General Use standards were adopted and revised. Proposed D.O., temperature
and bacteria standards for CAWS should also be proposed to protect the proposed
designated uses. Temperature criteria should be derived from recent research
commissioned
by the USEPA. Additional economic and human health risk related
submissions to IPCB
may be made by some of the stakeholders.
At the request and urgings of some stakeholders, the defined recreation season was
expanded to include March and November to protect the existing sculling use. The
UAA record shows that sculling teams train early and late in the season in order to
prepare for the warm-weather racing season and to avoid congestion from
commercial vessel,
touring and other recreational boat traffic.
1-13
\\sllsvr1Icommon\CAWS UAAlAugust edits\Sac"on 1 UAA 20071jf 801-07 edtts.doc
Section 1
Executive Summary
The integrated assessment of the physical, chemical, biological, and waterway use
conditions
in CAWS have resulted in recommendations documented herein for
revised use classifications
and water quality criteria. Based upon the review of data
for CAWS, five use designation sub-categories are being proposed to protect aquatic
life
and recreational uses in CAWS. The recreational and aquatic life use sub-
categories
and the applicable water quality standards and criteria proposed for CAWS
include
the following:
Warm-Water Aquatic Life
•
General Warm-Water Aquatic Life (GWAL)
- These waters are capable of
supporting a year-round balanced, diverse, warm-water fish and
macroinvertebrate community. The fish community is characterized by the
presence of a significant
proportion of native species, including mimic shiner,
spotfin shiner,
brook stickleback, longnose dace, hornyhead chub, smallmouth
buffalo, rock bass
and smallmouth bass. Water quality criteria as identified in
35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 302, Subpart B: Sections 302.201 - 302.213 or more
appropriate criteria
based upon recent guidance shall be applied to protect the
GWAL use designation.
•
Modified Warm-Water Aquatic Life (MWAL)
- These waters are presently not
capable of
supporting and maintaining a balanced, integrated, adaptive
community of a
warm-water fish and macroinvertebrate community due to
significant modifications of the channel morphology, hydrology
and physical
habitat
that may be recoverable. These waters are capable of supporting and
maintaining communities of native fish and macroinvertebrates that are
moderately tolerant
and may include desired sport fish species such as channel
catfish,
largemouth bass, bluegill, and black crappie. Water quality criteria as
identified
in 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 302, Subpart B: Sections 302.201 - 302.213 or
more appropriate criteria based upon recent guidance shall be applied to protect
the MWAL
use designation.
•
Limited Warm-water Aquatic Life (LWAL)
- These waters are not presently
capable of sustaining a balanced
and diverse warm-water fish and
macroinvertebrate community due to irreversible modifications that result in
poor physical habitat and stream hydrology. Such physical modifications are of
long-duration (Le. twenty years or longer) and may include artificially
constructed channels consisting of vertical sheet-pile, concrete
and rip-rap walls
designed to
support commercial navigation and the conveyance of stormwater
and wastewater. Hydrological modifications include locks and dams that
artificially control
water discharges and levels. The fish community is comprised
of tolerant species, including central mudminnow, golden shiner, white sucker,
bluntnose
minnow, yellow bullhead and green sunfish. These waters shall allow
for fish passage. Water quality criteria as identified
in 35 lil. Adm. Code Part
302, Subpart
B: Sections 302.201 - 302.213 or more appropriate criteria based
upon recent guidance or habitat limitations shall be applied to protect the LWAL
ClIVI
1-14
\1S~svrllcommon\CAWS
UAAlAugust edltslSeclion 1 UAA
20071~
8-1-07 e<frts.doc
Section 1
Executive Summary
use designation. On a parameter-by-parameter basis, General Use water quality
criteria
may be modified to protect the existing aquatic life use designation.
Water Recreation
•
Limited Contact Recreation
- These waters shall protect for incidental or
accidental body contact during which the probability of ingesting appreciable
quantities of
water is minimal including: recreational boating (e.g. hand
powered boating activity, canoeing, jet skiing) and any limited contact incident
to shoreline activity,
such as wading and fishing. Protection requires the
attainment of 30-day geometric
mean 1030 cfu
E.
coli
standard based on 10
illnesses per thousand contacts. These limited- body contact recreation criteria
shall
apply only during the defined recreational period of March 1 through
November 30.
•
Rec,:eational Navigation
- These waters shall protect for non-contact activities
including,
but not limited to pleasure boating and commercial boating traffic
operations. Protection
would require attainment of a 30-day geometric mean
2740 cfu
E. coli
standard based on 14 illnesses per thousand contacts. These
recreational navigation criteria shall
apply only during the defined recreational
period of March 1 through November 30.
1.6 Proposed CAWS Reach Use Designations
In developing use designations for CAWS reaches, stakeholders were asked how they
perceived each reach of the
waterway should be designated. This discussion occurred
at the end of each meeting in which the physical, chemical, biological, and waterway
use data were presented for selected reaches. Stakeholders were asked to take into
consideration uses that are anticipated
within the next ten years and the feasibility of
restoration actions
that might be required to attain such a designation. The
recommended use designations as defined above for the fourteen waterway reaches
are
shown in
Tables 1-1 and 1-2.
1.7 Strategic Plan
The Strategic Plan sets the overall priorities and associated goals and strategies for
CAWS.
It is based on the long-term vision shared by many of the stakeholders in the
Chicago area.
It does not provide an exhaustive list of all the strategies to achieve
water quality goals, nor does it provide a complete summary of accomplishments to
date. The
plan is designed to be concise and include only essential information to
support the strategic goals. The intended audiences are governmental agencies,
environmental organizations, the general public,
and specific constituent groups. The
plan incorporates strategies to address the attainment of each of the use designations
proposed for the Chicago area waterway reaches through selected management
options.
Table 1-3
identifies management options to address impairments that
prevent the attainment of a proposed designated use in a given waterway reach.
1-15
\1S~svr1Icommon\CAWS
UAAlAugusl editslSection 1 UAA 2007
r~
8-1-07 edits.doc
caM
Section 1
Executive Summary
Table 1-1
nations for the NSC and Chica
Table 1-2
nations for the CSSC and Calumet S stem
The management alternatives were reviewed with the UAA stakeholder group and
the public. Discussions took place on how each of these management alternatives
would be implemented, the responsible agency or organization(s) and the potential
costs for implementing each
management alternative. The goals, objectives and
strategies for implementing the management alternatives for aquatic life and
recreational use designations are discussed with specific goals, objectives and
strategies. As the water-based recreational and aquatic life opportunities continue to
1-16
IlStlsvr1lcommonlCAWS UMlAugust .,mslSectlon 1 UM 20071jf 8-1-07
ed~s.doc
Section 1
Executive Summary
expand in CAWS it is imperative that these uses be protected and where possible
enhanced so
that the waterway system can become truly the "second shoreline" for
the City of Chicago
and the surrounding communities. The following strategies are
being recommended to
ens'ure a safer environment for water-based recreation and
enhancing aquatic communities in CAWS.
Limited Contact Recreation
The number of recreational boaters utilizing the Chicago waterways is increasing and
the added emphasis from the City of Chicago in embracing the Chicago waterways as
the City's "second-shoreline" continues to encourage more users.
At this time no
governmental agency or environmental organization is supporting the use of the
waterways for primary contact recreation (i.e. swimming) because of the physical
limitations
and the safety hazards. However, many Chicagoans are taking to the
waterways to canoe, power boat and fish, and such uses need to be protected through
appropriate
water quality criteria.
Goal
Protect recreational users and improve the existing water quality in the Chicago area
waterways to support limited contact recreation consistent with the requirements of
theCWA.
Objective
Work closely with MWRDGC, the City of Chicago and other CAWS communities to
control site-specific
point sources of bacterial pollution and develop a plan to address
CSO events until the remaining portions of TARP come
on line.
Strategies
a) Complete the engineering studies already begun by MWRDGC to determine
the costs of disinfection at
the Stickney, Calumet and North Side WRPs.
b) Determine the cost for implementing CAW5-wide disinfection of MWRDGC
and surrounding community CSOs.
c) Conduct an economic analysis of implementing water quality improvements
to protect recreational uses
in CAWS.
d) Prepare a construction schedule for the implementation of disinfection at the
North Side, Stickney and Calumet WRPs to meet appropriate bacteria criteria,
provided that these controls do not result in substantial and widespread
economic
and social impact.
e) Conduct detailed E.
coli
sampling in CAWS during dry-weather and wet-
weather periods (using various rainfall events) to determine the nature and
extent of bacterial contamination from CSOs.
COM
IIStlsvrl1commonlCAWS UAAlAugust edttslSecfton 1 UAA
20071~
8-1-07 edtts.doc
1-17
Section 1
Executive Summary
f)
Require MWRDGC to complete TARP and evaluate the economics of
MWRDGC's
and others'submissions on additional end-of-pipe treatment of
CSOs.
g) Evaluate the feasibility of wet-weather exclusions in the water quality criteria.
h)
Conduct a detailed engineering review of the Chicago area "sewershed" to
evaluate the feasibility of maximizing the use of the TARP system for CSO
pollution control, as opposed to solely flow capture mechanisms during wet
weather events, provided that these controls do not result in substantial and
widespread economic and social impact.
i) Continue to educate the public on the environmental hazards in the
waterways and continue the already implemented CSO notification plan.
j)
Develop additional data to determine the nature and extent of pathogens
residing
in the sediment since sediments can be a reservoir'to harmful bacteria
and could prevent the attainment of a designated use when disturbed
sediments are re-suspended.
COM
Recreational Navigation
Many por9-0ns of CAWS are still used by commercial barge traffic and recreational
pleasure boats. The heavy uses occur
on the CSSC and in the Calumet System. The
exposure to
high levels of bacteria from these uses is minimal, but water quality
criteria
needs to be in place to protect against accidental exposure (Le. worker falling
into the water; splashing water).
Goal
Protect commercial and recreational users of the waterways from accidental exposure
to
high levels of bacteria.
Objective
Identify treatment technologies that can be implemented at the Calumet and Stickney
WRPs to achieve a lower level bacterial quality
in the effluent during the recreational
time
period of March 1 through November 30.
Strategies
a) Prepare a construction schedule for the implementation of disinfection at the
MWRDGC WRPs to meet appropriate bacteria criteria,
provided that these
controls
do not result in substantial and widespread economic and social
impact.
1-18
\lStlsvrllcommon\CAWS UAAlAugust adnslSectIon 1 UAA
20071~
8-1-07 edns.doc
Flow Augmentation
to Address Low
Dissolved Oxygen
Levels
Instream Habitat
Enhancement
to
Improve Fish
Communities
Sediment Removal
to Improve Aquatic
Life Conditions
Disinfection to
Protect for Water
Recreation
CDM
\\Stlsvrl\common\CAWS UAA\August edits\Sectlon 1 UAA 2007 ijf 8-1-07 edlts.doc
Table 1-3
ies
to Address New Use Sub-cate
1-19
COM
b) Require the City of Chicago and surrounding communities to treat their CSOs
to reduce or eliminate bacterial loading to the waterways
during wet weather
events,
provided that these controls do not result in substantial and
widespread economic and social impact.
c) Evaluate the feasibility of wet-weather exclusions in the water quality criteria.
d)
Conduct a detailed engineering review of the Chicago area "sewershed" to
evaluate the feasibility of maximizing the
use of the TARP system for CSO
pollution control, as
opposed to solely flow capture mechanisms during wet
weather events.
e) Continue to educate the public on the environmental hazards in the
waterways and continue the already implemented CSO plan.
f)
Develop additional data to determine the nature and extent of pathogens
residing
in the sediment since sediments can be a reservoir to harmful bacteria
and could prevent the attainment of a designated use when disturbed
sediments are re-suspended.
General Warm-water Aquatic Life
None of the Chicago area waterway reaches possessed the necessary characteristics to
support a GWAL use designation. The primary constraints preventing the attainment
of this
use were the lack of suitable habitat to support a diverse fish and
macroinvertebrate community.
Goal
Create favorable habitat in selected reaches of CAWS to support a diverse aquatic and
wildlife community. Ensure water quality is sufficient to support a viable and
productive fish and macroinvertebrate community.
Objective
To upgrade selected reaches in the Chicago area waterways to GWAL through habitat
enhancement and water quality improvement.
Strategies
a) Develop a stakeholder group to study habitat issues.
b) Develop a habitat restoration
plan and guidelines for the waterway reaches.
c) Determine the costs for implementing temperature control at the Midwest
Generation'sCrawford
and Will County power generating stations.
d) Complete the MWRDGC engineering studies to determine the costs of flow
augmentation
in the Upper NSC and the South Fork.
1-20
\1S~svr1lcommon\CAWS
UAAlAugusl edltslSectlon 1 UAA 2007ljf 8-1-07 edUs.doc
Section 1
Executive Summary
e) Conduct an economic analysis of implementing water quality improvements
for aquatic life
in CAWS.
f) Identify areas for potential restoration that could allow the waterbody to
achieve a higher aquatic life designated use. These could include selected
areas
on the NSC, NBCR, South Fork (Bubbly Creek), the Little Calumet River,
GCR
and Lake Calumet.
g) Complete the water quality modeling already begun by the MWRDGC to
demonstrate measures
needed to meet General Use D.O. criteria.
h) Install appropriate supplemental aeration technology
in those reaches not
meeting D.O. criteria
provided that these controls do not result in substantial
~nd
widespread economic and social impact.
i) Create flow augmentation
in the upper reaches of the NSC and the South Fork
to create a flow regime
that will enhance D.O. levels provided that these
controls
do not result in substantial and widespread economic and social
impact.
j)
Remove contaminated sediments from the South Fork, Collateral Channel and
theGCR.
k) Conduct additional studies on fish in CAWS to determine if endocrine
disruptors are having
an impact on the fish community.
1) Develop a comprehensive educational outreach program for the general public
and local governmental agencies.
Modified Warm Water Aquatic Life
Most of the Chicago area waterways have been designated this use classification as a
result of significant modifications to channel morphology, hydrology and physical
habitat that
may be reversible to some extent.
Goal
Create favorable habitat and water quality conditions at selected locations in the
waterways to support a diverse aquatic and wildlife community.
Objective
Identify those areas where habitat enhancement is feasible and develop a long term
plan to implement habitat improvements in the Chicago area waterways. Eliminate
water quality impairments through BMPs or Best Practicable Technology.
1-21
IlStlsvrllcommonlCAWS UAAlAugusl edttslSectlon 1 UAA 2007
I~
8-1-07 edtts.doc
Section 1
Executive Summary
Strategies
a) Develop a stakeholder group to study habitat issues and form a technical team
to evaluate aquatic habitat restoration technologies applicable
in a high
urbanized environment
that does not adversely impede drainage or
navigation.
b) Identify practical restoration technologies
and plans for such areas as the
turning basins
on the North and South Branch, the inner harbor area of the
Chicago River; slip channels
on the CSSC and the SBCR, and the stretch of
river between Cicero
Avenue and Harlem Avenue on the CSSe.
c) Construct in-stream aquatic habitat in the non-navigable portions of CAWS
(e.g. Christmas tree "reefs") to provide habitat for warm-water fish.
d) Install appropriate
supplemental aeration technology in those reaches not
meeting
D.o. criteria provided that these controls do notresult in substantial
and widespread economic and social impact.
e) Augment flow in the upper NSC provided that these controls do not result in
substantial and widespread economic and social impact.
Limited Warm Water Aquatic Life
Selected reaches of CAWS have been designated LWAL due to irreversible
modification$ that result in poor physical habitat and stream hydrology. The Chicago
River as
it flows through the city has been highly developed and the existing
structures will
not be modified or removed to accommodate aquatic life habitat
improvements. The
CSSC and the Calumet River are deep-draft channels that have
steep walls, are heavily industrialized
in the upper reaches and are host to significant
numbers of large commercial barge vessels and recreational power boats.
Goal
Maintain water quality to meet general use criteria, where attainable, and allow for
navigation
and fish passage.
Objective
To ensure D.O. and temperature criteria are met, and
if
unattainable, identify a
treatment alternative to increase D.O. levels
and reduce temperature levels.
Strategies
a) Evaluate the feasibility of aerating and lowering temperature in selected areas
in the CSSC provided that these controls do not result in substantial and
widespread economic and social impact.
b) Continue the MWRDGC
water quality, temperature and D.O. monitoring
programs
and fish and macroinvertebrate sampling programs throughout
CAWS.
CDNI
IlStlsvrllcommonlCAWS UAAlAugust edItslSection 1 UAA
20071~
8-1-07
ed~s.doc
1-22
CONI
Section 1
Executive Summary
c) Develop site-specific water quality criteria for D.O. and temperature to
support existing fish communities.
d) Install appropriate supplemental aeration technology
in those reaches not
meeting D.O. criteria
provided that these controls do not result
in
substantial
and widespread economic and social impact.
e) Augment flow
in
the upper NSC provided that these controls do not result in
substantial and widespread economic and social impact.
1-23
l\StlsvrtlcommonlCAWS UAAlAugust edttslSectlon 1 UAA
20071~
8-1-07
edits.doc
•
•
Section 2
Introduction
2.1 Project Overview
The IEPA is conducting a UAA for CAWS to determine the existing and potential uses
for the waterways. This project will assess the factors limiting the potential uses
and
evaluate whether or not those factors can be controlled through appropriate
technology
and regulation. The focus of the UAA is on the Calumet and Chicago
River basin
waterway reaches which are for the most part currently classified by the
IPCB as Secondary Contact
and Indigenous Aquatic Life use. Three CAWS reaches
are designated General Use
waterwClYs, which were upgraded relatively recently
without undergoing the rigors of a UAA. The UAA excludes the reach of the Lower
Des Plaines
River currently being evaluated through a separate UAA. A complete
listing of Secondary Contact
and General Use waterways that are addressed by the
CAWS UAA are
provided in Section 3.0.
The Chicago area is
home to a large and diverse series of waterways, many of which
have been man-made in order to facilitate water flow away from Lake Michigan to
protect drinking
water and recreational uses. The waterways are used for commercial
and recreational purposes by people across Cook and neighboring counties, the state
of illinois
and the Midwest. The Chicago area waterways have experienced many
changes throughout the last 100 years. There have been dramatic improvements in
water quality and shoreline development in the last 25 years. The City of Chicago,
MWRDGC, Cook County, USEPA, IEPA, industries and local environmental
organizations (e.g. Friends of the Chicago River, Lake Michigan Federation, Sierra
Club) all
have a vested interest in the future of the Chicago area waterways and have
participated as valuable stakeholders
in the UAA. Their wisdom, vision, dreams, and
aspirations for CAWS have been taken into consideration in this UAA. Without
stakeholder
input, the challenges would have been much greater,
if
not impossible, in
preparing a final strategic plan for the waterways.
As evident
by the number of stakeholders who participated in the UAA process, there
is intense interest
in the outcome of the UAA with stakeholders advocating many
competing uses and visions for the future, not one more important than the other. In
the detailed analyses conducted to determine the perception of how the Chicago area
waterways
should be used, Paul Gobster and Lynne Westphal (1998) concluded in
their report
"People and the River: Perception and Use of Chicago Waterways for
Recreation"
that fishing, canoeing, paddling boat activity, rowing, commercial
navigation,
parks and trails, excursion boat operations and the aesthetic quality of a
river are
important uses to Chicagoans. This UAA will focus on existing and
potential uses that are occurring in the waterway now and that are expected to occur
over the
next ten years. The UAA will result in a recommended management strategy
to protect
the existing and potential uses with appropriate water quality criteria,
while
at the same time being cognizant of the economic and social costs to area
citizens. This will
be achieved by creatively developing new use designations (sub-
2-1
11StIsvr1lcommon1CAWS UAAlAugusl edltslSection
2
UAA
20071~
8-01.07
edits.doc
CDM
Section 2
Introduction
categories) for CAWS to replace the General and Secondary Contact uses currently in
place.
Like the
water quality challenges faced in the last 100 years, Chicagoans can tackle the
challenges that face
them now and in the future, by providing a healthy and safe
water environment for enjoying recreation and conducting business. The reversal of
the Chicago
and Calumet Rivers was a major engineering accomplishment that
provided a safer environment for the citizens of the Chicago area and helped protect a
critical global resource
in Lake Michigan. Now they face a new challenge: tapping
the amenity potential of a
waterway system that gave the city life a century ago. Just
as the foresight
and guidance of past leaders helped turn Chicago into a world-class
city, today's government
and environmental organization leaders have a vision of a
greener Chicago. In the last
25 years tremendous progress has been made in
improving water quality in CAWS by upgrading and improving MWRDGC'sthree
major WRPs
that make up the
bulk
of the flow in the waterways and controlling CSOs
through TARP. Through the leadership of environmental organizations, like the
Friends of the Chicago River, Lake Michigan Federation
and the Sierra Club, they
have invested time and effort in helping to make the waterways cleaner and
educating the public on the benefits of the waterways. Additionally, the City of
Chicago
and area communities have implemented projects to make their
surroundings environmentally and aesthetically friendly.
2.2 Use Attainability Analysis
A UAA is a structured scientific assessment of the factors that prevent the attainment
of uses ("fishable/swimmable") specified
in Section 101(a)(2) of the CW
A.
The Act
requires states to conduct a
UAA if waters of the state are not able to support the
protection
and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife for primary contact
recreational uses. Alternatively,
in the case of the CAWS UAA where recent water
quality improvements have occurred, IEPA wishes to examine the present Secondary
Contact
and Indigenous Aquatic Life designated sections. These investigations will
determine
whether a use upgrade for balanced aquatic life and contact recreation are
attainable
and whether relatively recent upgrades of the General Use reaches of
CAWS were appropriate.
Designated uses are those uses specified in state water quality criteria for each of the
waterway reaches whether or not they are being attained. Existing uses are those
uses attained
on or after November 28, 1975, whether or not they are included in the
water quality criteria. Once a state has designated a use or uses for a given waterway,
then water quality criteria need to be developed to protect such uses.
The basis for creating
use designations for waterways is in the CWA which states it is
the national goal for
waterways to be "fishable and swimmable". In illinois there are
two major use designations that apply to CAWS (35
m.
Adm. Code 303): General Use
and Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life. The General Use water quality
criteria, comply
with CWA goals in that they protect aquatic life, wildlife, agricultural
use, secondary contact,
most industrial uses and safeguard the aesthetic quality of the
2-2
IISUsvrl\commonlCAWS UAAlAugust edrtslSecli0fl2 UAA 20071jf 8-01.07 edrts.doc
Section 2
Introduction
aquatic environment. Primary contact uses are protected for all General Use waters
whose physical configuration permits such use (35 ill. Adm. Code 302.202). illinois
defines
primary contact as any recreational or other water use in which there is
prolonged
and intimate contact with the water involving considerable risk of
ingesting
water in quantities sufficient to pose a significant health hazard, such as
swimming and water skiing.
Secondary Contact
and Indigenous Aquatic Life use criteria are intended for those
waters
not suited for general use activities, but which are appropriate for all
secondary contact uses
and are capable of supporting indigenous aquatic life limited
only
by the physical configuration of the body of water, characteristics and origin of
the
water and the presence of contaminants in amounts that do not exceed the water
quality criteria listed
in 35 ill. Adm. Code 302 Subpart D. Secondary contact means
any recreational or other water use in which contact with the water is either incidental
or accidental and in which the probability of ingesting appreciable quantities of water
is minimal, such as fishing, commercial and recreational boating (e.g. canoeing and
hand-powered boating activity) and any limited contact incident to shoreline activity.
Since the Secondary Contact
use class does not meet CWA goals of "fishable/
swimmable", the State
must conduct a UAA in order to justify any deviation from a
General Use designation. Specifically, a State
must conduct a UAA as described in 40
CFR 131.10(j) whenever:
•
The State designates
or has designated uses that do not include the uses specified
in Section 101(a)(2) of the Act, or
•
The State wishes to remove a designated use
or adopt subcategories of uses
specified in Section 101(a)(2) of the Act which require less stringent criteria.
Those factors
that the state must take into consideration when conducting a UAA in
order to demonstrate that attaining the designated use is not feasible include one or
more of the following six factors:
•
Naturally occurring
pollutant concentrations preventing the attainment of the use.
•
Natural, ephemeral, intermittent or low flow conditions or
water levels
preventing the
attainment of the use, unless these conditions may be offset by the
discharge of a sufficient
volume of effluent, (may be used for determining aquatic
life use,
but may not be used solely to determine recreational use).
•
Human caused conditions or sources of pollution preventing the attainment of the
use and cannot be remedied or would cause more environmental damage to
correct
than to leave in place.
•
Dams, diversions
or other types of hydrologic modifications precluding the
attainment of the use, and it is not feasible to restore the water body to its original
CDM
2-3
l\SUsvrllcommonlCAWS UAAlAuoust edoslSection 2 UAA 2007 Iff a-Ol-07 edOs.doc
Section 2
Introduction
condition or to operate such modifications in such a way that would result in the
attainment of the use.
•
Physical conditions related to the natural features of the
water body, such as the
lack of a
proper substrate, cover, flow, depth, pools, riffles, and the like, unrelated
to
water quality, preclude attainment of aquatic life protection uses, (may be used
for determining aquatic life use, but may not be used solely to determine
recreational use).
•
Controls
more stringent than those required by Sections 301(b) and 306 of the Act
would result in substantial and widespread economic and social impact.
The economic and social impact of the management decisions in the UAA will not be
presented in this report. MWRDGC is in the process of collecting engineering and
cost estimate data to determine the costs for upgrading the three mairi. WRPs for
disinfection
and the potential for
instr~am
aeration and flow augmentation. The City
of Chicago is conducting
an investigation to characterize and verify CSOs and
prioritize remedial measures. Midwest Generation is evaluating the cost of
upgrading their facilities to address temperature concerns in the CSSe.
UAAProcess
After the Water Quality Standards Regulations were revised in 1983 (54 Federal
Register 51400), the UAA
was made the standard procedure through which states
gather and analyze data and document decision processes to resolve questions about
site-specific attainability
of designated use classes. USEPA does not insist that the
published UAA guidelines (USEPA, 1983a, 1984a, b, 1994) are followed. However,
any process that a state develops to address attainability issues must be sufficient to
meet the intent of the UAA guidelines. Since the State of Illinois has no formal
procedures for conducting a UAA, the guidelines
used for this evaluation generally
follow those
outlined in
/I
A Suggested Framework for Conducting UAAs and Interpreting
Results"
by Michael and Moore (1997) for the Water Environment Federation, and the
USEPA's
"Water Quality Standards Handbook"
(USEPA 1994). Both guidance
documents state that the physical, chemical and biological factors affecting the
attainment of a use are to be evaluated through a water body survey and assessment.
The assessment
should answer the following four questions:
1. What are the aquatic use(s) currently being achieved in the water body?
2. What are the causes of any impairment of the aquatic uses?
3. What are the aquatic use(s) that can be attained based on the physical,
chemical
and biological characteristics of the water body?
4. What are the socioeconomic impacts to the community?
These questions are typically
answered through the following approaches:
COM
IISlIsvr11commonlCAWS UAAlAugust editslSeclion
2
UAA
20071~
8-01.fJ7
edits.doc
2-4
Section 2
Introduction
•
Define the objectives and scope of the assessment.
•
Gather
and analyze existing data.
•
Select evaluation
approach that will address the objectives.
•
Select a reference
body for comparison analyses, if applicable.
•
Conduct the evaluation.
•
Integrate the
data and prepare a management strategy for the waterway, which
includes recommendations about the attainment of the selected uses.
After the
UAA has been completed, IEPA will, at a minimum, provide the public with
the opportunity to
comment on the revised use designations and supporting water
quality criteria. Once comments
have been received and a final report has been
prepared, IEPA will
present their recommendations to the IPCB in the form of
proposed regulations. The IPCB will hold hearings and solicit comments before final
rulemaking
on the new water quality criteria. The final report for the UAA will
include the economic
and social impact analysis and will be made available for public
comment before
it
is presented to the IPCB.
2.3 Objectives of the UAA
The purpose of CAWS UAA is to evaluate existing conditions including waterway
use practices
and anticipated future uses to determine if use classification revisions
are warranted, particularly to protect the anticipated expansion of recreational
activity occurring
in the waterways. The IEPA wishes to examine the present
Secondary Contact
and Indigenous Aquatic Life portions of CAWS to evaluate
whether a use upgrade for balanced aquatic life and contact recreation are achievable
and whether a downgrade of the General Use reaches are appropriate.
An upgrade to balanced aquatic life and contact recreation use designations may
conflict with important existing uses, such as navigation and wastewater and
stormwater management.
It
is the intent of the UAA, through stakeholder
involvement, to consider these potential conflicts while developing criteria for uses
that would meet or approach aquatic life protection and primary contact recreational
uses ("fishable/swimmable")
required by the CW
A. If
the statutory CWA uses are
not attainable, the UAA will define the highest attainable use for each water body,
consistent
with the requirements of the CW
A.
The objectives of the study, as specified by IEPA, include:
•
Review
an evaluation of the last five to ten years of environmental data to
determine the physical, chemical,
and biological conditions of the waterway,
recommending additional
data gathering activities and coordinating the
CDM
2-5
IIStlsv,11commonlCAWS UMlAugust edllslSectlon 2 UM 2007ljf 8.01.07edlts.doc
Section 2
Introduction
generation and evaluation of additional data as may be necessary to accomplish
the objectives.
•
Identification
and characterization of the types, causes and sources of major
stressors
on the system including potential use impairments identified in the
agency's
most recent CWA Section 303(d) List.
•
Assessment of available
water quality and habitat management options for
eliminating
or reducing system stressors.
•
Determination of the potential
to achieve and maintain use classification other
than existing classifications.
•
Development of
recommended use designations and associated water quality
criteria to achieve the highest attainable uses consistent
with CWA goals and
Chapter 2 of USEPA's Water Qualify Standards Handbook (40 CFR 131.10).
•
Providing expert testimony before the IPCB
in support of use designation
changes.
•
Establishment
and coordination of stakeholder involvement in the UAA process.
The final UAA report will outline
the process/approach utilized to determine the
attainable use classifications for CAWS. The remaining sections of this report will
consist of the following chapters:
•
Section 3.0 - Existing
Conditions of the Chicago Area Waterways - Describes the
existing conditions of CAWS including the physical characteristics, water quality
impairments, limiting factors, recreational uses, major facilities
and current
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit holders.
•
Section 4.0
- Characterizations of Waterway Reaches - Characterizes current
water quality, biological and recreational use conditions in the waterways
including spatial
and temporal analysis using statistical and quantitative methods.
•
Section 5.0 -
Proposed Use Classifications and Water Quality Criteria for
CAWS - Outlines
recommended use classifications for the segments of CAWS and
water quality criteria to protect those uses.
•
Section 6.0 - Strategic
Plan Development - Provides the framework for
identifying
recommended actions necessary to achieve desired use designations.
The
plan will also identify actions to address stressors that may be preventing
attainment of applicable
water quality criteria designed to protect those uses.
CDM
2-6
l\Stlsvr1lcommonlCAWS UAAlAugust ednslSection 2 UAA
20071~
a-Ol-07 edits.doc
Section 2
Introduction
2.4
References
City of Chicago. 2003. Chicago'sWater Agenda 2003. Chicago, illinois.
Gobster, P.H.
and L.M. Westphal, Editors. 1998. People and the River: Perception and
Use of Chicago Waterways for Recreation. (Chicago Rivers Demonstration Project
Report, 192p) Milwaukee, WI: U.s. Department of the Interior, National Park Service,
Rivers, Trails,
and Conservation Assistance Program.
USEPA. 1983a. Technical
Support Document for Waterbody Surveys and Assessments
for Conducting UAA. Office of Water Regulations
and Standards, Washington, D.C.
USEPA. 1984a. Technical
Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys and Assessments for
Conducting UAA. Volume II-Estuarine Systems. Office of Water Regulations and
Standards, Washington, D.C.
USEPA. 1984b. Technical
Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys and Assessments for
Conducting UAA. Volume
III-
Lake Systems. Office of Water Regulations and
Standards, Washington, D.C.
USEPA.
1994. Water Quality Standards Handbook, Second Edition. Office of Water
Regulations
and Standards, Washington, D.C. EPA 823-B-94-005a, August 1994.
COM
11S11svr1lcommonlCAWS UMlAugust edilslSection 2 UM
20071~
8-01-07 edits.doc
2-7
•
•
Section 3
Existing Conditions
in the Chicago Area
Waterways
3.1 System Description
The purpose of this section is to describe the attributes of the Chicago Area Waterways
that pertain to existing and potential conditions of selected reaches. The primary focus
of the UAA is
on the Calumet and Chicago River basin waterway reaches currently
classified
by the IPCB as Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life and selected
General Use waterways. Three CAWS reaches are General Use,
upgraded relatively
recently
without undergoing the rigors of a UAA (Figure 3-1). The CAWS UAA
addresses the following
waterways defined by 35 Ill. Adm. Code 303.441:
Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life
•
NSC downstream of the MWRDGC North Side WRP
•
NBCR from its confluence
with the NSC to its confluence with the South Branch
•
CSSC
•
SBCR
and South Fork (Bubbly Creek)
•
Calumet-Sag Channel
•
The Little Calumet River from its junction
with the GCR to the Calumet-Sag
Channel
•
GCR
•
The Calumet River, except
the 6.8 mile segment extending from the O'BrienLock
and Dam to Lake Michigan
•
Lake Calumet
•
The Little Calumet River
General Use
•
NSC upstream of the MWRDGC North Side WRP
•
Chicago River
•
Calumet River
upstream (lakeside) of O'BrienLock and Dam
IlStlsvrllcommonlCAWS UAAlAugusl e<frtslSection 3 UAA
I~
8-01-07 edlls.doc
3-1
Section 3
Existing Conditions in the Chicago Area Waterways
CAWS consists of 78 miles of man-made canals and modified river channels which
provide for drainage of urban storm water runoff, treated municipal wastewater effluent
and support commercial navigation. The waterways also support recreational boating,
fishing, streamside recreation
and aquatic habitat for wildlife. Approximately 75
percent of the waterway length consists of man-made canals where no waterway existed
previously. The remainder is
natural streams that have been deepened, straightened
and/or widened. The flow is artificially controlled by four hydraulic structures
managed by MWRDGC. The level of water in the waterways can be lowered in the
anticipation of a
storm event to provide additional storage for flood control.
Wastewater effluent makes
up approximately 70 percent of the annual flow going
through the LP&L facility.
CAWS
watershed is approximately 740 square miles and is composed of the Chicago
River
and the Calumet River sub-watersheds. The Chicago River system, which consists
of 55 miles of waterways, includes the Chicago River, the CSSC,
the North Branch, the
North Branch Canal, the NSC, the South Branch, and the South Fork of the South
Branch. The Calumet system,
which
is
23 miles in length, includes the Calumet-Sag
Channel, the Little Calumet River, the GCR, the Calumet River
and Lake Calumet.
Characterization of the existing
water quality, biology and habitat of the Chicago and
Calumet River systems are described below. Distances provided in the following reach
descriptions are
measured from the LP&L.
3.1.1 Chicago River System
3.1.1.1 Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal
The CSSC extends upstream from the confluence with the Des Plaines River (near LP&L)
to the South Damen Avenue/I-55 Bridge, for a distance of 31.1 miles. The CSSC was
created
in
1900 to transport human waste and industrial pollutants away from Lake
Michigan,
which was accomplished through a flow reversal of the Chicago River
(Solzman 1998, Lanyon 2000). In addition to its primary purpose of transporting waste
downstream of Chicago, the CSSC was constructed to provide a commercial navigation
conduit between the Great Lakes
and the Mississippi River. The river serves as a
primary passage for the transport of sand and gravel, coal, cement, fuel oils and other
industrial materials (FCR 2000).
The seven
day low flow in a ten year period (7Q10) is approximately 1,050 cubic feet per
second (ds) at it'sconfluence with the Calumet-Sag Channel. Downstream of the LP&L
the 7Q10 is 1,317
ds. According to illinois 2004 305(b) report, the CSSC
is
potentially
impaired
by polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in fish tissue, ammonia (unionized), low
D.O., total nitrogen, oil
and grease, total phosphorus and iron. Potential sources of
impairment include flow regulation/modification, municipal
point sources, CSO, urban
runoff during storm events, channelization and hydro-modification.
The
man-made channel has many different shapes and sizes. The alignment is generally
straight,
with the exception of four bends. The 1.1 mile reach downstream of the LP&L
is 10-feet deep
and 200-feet wide. The reach upstream of the LP&L varies from 20- to 27-
feet deep. The 2.4 mile reach immediately upstream of the LP&L varies from 160- to
3-2
IIStlsvr1lcommonlCAWS UAAlAugust edltslSectlon 3 UAA
I~
8-01.07 edtts.doc
Section 3
Existing Conditions in the Chicago Area Waterways
300-feet wide and consists of a vertical concrete wall on the east bank and a combination
of vertical dock walls
and steep rock fill embankments on the west bank. The next 14.6
miles are 160-feet
wide with vertical concrete or rock walls. The remaining portion has a
trapezoidal shape, 220-feet wide,
with steep earth or rock side slopes. Additionally,
several areas of this reach have vertical dock walls (MWRDGC 2001). Near Kedzie
Avenue is the Collateral Channel which is a former navigation slip to the CSSe. At the
head end of this channel is a large CSO owned by the City of Chicago.
The
CSSC is dominated by industrial and commercial land uses. MWRDGC, which is
the largest land-owner in the area, leases a majority of the canal edge land to industrial
users. There are
no pedestrian paths adjacent to the waterway due to the heavy
industrial
nature of the canal. Open space is limited in nearby residential areas.
Hazardous, steep banks limit access and heavy barge traffic limits recreational
opportunities
on the waterway (City of Chicago 1999). However, in the upper reaches of
the CSSC, the Chicago Park District is building a motorized
boat launch at Western
Avenue. Just
downstream of the South Branch turning basin and near the new Chicago
Sun-Times
building is a half-mile river edge path and area for bank fishing.
Recreational small-boating is limited
and dangerous in the CSSC as the wakes from the
large commercial
and recreational boats can create hazardous paddling conditions.
In
the event of a capsize, the paddler would have an extremely difficult time getting out of
the water due to the steep banks.
MWRDGC'slargest wastewater treatment plant, the Stickney WRP, discharges to the
CSSC
in Cicero, illinois. The plant occupies approximately 570 acres, and has an
average design flow of 1.2 billion gallons per day (bgd) and a design maxiinum flow of
1.4
bgd, making it one of the largest wastewater treatment facilities in the world. The
Stickney
plant provides secondary wastewater treatment for more than 2 million people
in a 260 square mile area. The Stickney WRP effluent is not disinfected.
Situated
on the lower reaches of the CSSC near Lemont, lllinois, is the MWRDGC's
Lemont WRP. The
plant's average design flow is 2.3 mgd, with a maximum design flow
of 4 mgd. The Lemont WRP provides secondary treatment of wastewater for
approximately 12,000 people
in a service area that includes 21 square miles. Similar to
the Stickney WRP upstream, the Lemont WRP effluent is not disinfected.
Upstream of the Stickney WRP, are
tw6
coal-fired power plants, the Fisk and Crawford
Generation Stations
and downstream of the Stickney WRP is the Will County
Generating Station
near Romeoville, lllinois. The stations are owned by Midwest
Generation, a subsidiary to Edison Mission Energy. The stations
withdraw and
discharge water from the CSSC for non-contact cooling purposes. Other industrial
facilities along the CSSC utilize
it for cooling purposes and also contribute some
stormwater runoff. They include scrap metal recyclers, cement mixers,
sandigravel
processors
and bulk material handlers.
The CSSC, near Romeoville is also
home to the Aquatic Nuisance Species Barrier Project.
An electric field barrier has been placed in one location in the CSSC to prevent the
upstream migration of aquatic nuisance species (e.g. Asian carp) into Lake Michigan.
CONI
\\Stlsvr1IcommonlCAWS UAAlAugusl editslSection 3 UAA
I~
8-01-07 edlts.doc
3-3
Section 3
Existing Conditions in the Chicago Area Waterways
Under the 1996 National Invasive Species Act (Section 1202), the United States Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) was authorized to design and construct a demonstration
project to investigate the feasibility of preventing nuisance species from entering the
CSSC
via the Des Plaines River (and the Mississippi River system). After numerous
meetings
and inputs by federal, state and local entities, it was decided that an electrical
barrier
would hold the most promise in preventing the upward migration of nuisance
species. The electrical barrier
has been in place for approximately three years and seems
to
be successful in deterring the nuisance species from entering the CSSe. However, this
barrier also
prevents the movement of many native fish from moving into and out of
CAWS. A second
permanent barrier will be installed and operational in 2005 or 2006.
3.1.1.2 South Branch Chicago River
The waterway transitions into the SBCR approximately 31.2 miles upstream of the
LP&L. The South Branch
ends at the junction of the Chicago River and the NBCR.
Generally, the 4.5 mile long segment follows its original course. There is a short reach
relocated
in 1928 to eliminate a major bend. The South Branch consists of vertical dock
walls
throughout most of its length.
It
varies from 200- to 250-feet wide and 15- to 20-
feet deep (MWRDGC 2001). There are three former navigation slips off the South
Branch
near Ashland Avenue. This stretch of river, which runs through Chicago's
Chinatown, McKinley Park, Bridgeport,
Armour Square, Lower West Side (Pilsen), Near
South Side, and the Loop is mainly commercial and industrial. However, several
abandoned areas have grown up with pioneer vegetation. The neighborhoods
surrounding this reach have one of the lowest amounts of open space per capita
(Gobster
and Westphal 1998).
The only
water quality impairment listed in the state's 2004 305(b) report is from PCBs,
which are contributing to fish consumption advisory. The source of PCBs in the
sediments is
unknown at this time.
Recreational amenities located along the South Branch include
Ping Tom Park where
there is access for fishing
and three marina launch sites, including Crowley'sMarina,
Skokie Marina Corporation,
and South Branch Marina. The River City Marina is located
just
south of the Loop, contains approximately 50 recreational boat slips. The Rezmer
Development
Group is requesting the City of Chicago approve their plans for 5,000
residential units to
be located on 62 acres along the SBCR. A river walk will be
developed along with this planned development. The City of Chicago is also planning
to develop canoe
launch sites at a future park development north of 18
th
Street.
3.1.1.3 South Fork of the South Branch
The South Fork (Bubbly Creek), which is 1.3 miles long, flows into the South Branch.
The channel varies from 100- to 200-feet
wide and 3- to 13-feet deep. The majority of the
bank consists of steeply sloped earth or rock materials. However, there are several
sections
with vertical dock walls (MWRDGC 2001).
Land-use along the canal is dominated by industrial and commercial uses. Land-use on
the South Fork north of 35
th
Street is transitioning to residential and open space. Two
\\Stlsvr1~monlCAWS
COM
UAAlAugusl edttslSecllon 3 UAA Ijf 8.01.07
ed~s.doc
3-4
Section 3
Existing Conditions in the Chicago Area WatelWays
residential developments have been approved by the Chicago Plan Commission. Vacant
land is often contaminated. Land uses and barge and commercial traffic limit
recreational use of the
waterways (City of Chicago 1999). The South Fork is primarily a
stagnant side-channel to the SBCR, as the original creek has been mostly filled in.
Currently, there is virtually
no natural flow into the system. Most flow occurs when the
MWRDGC Racine
Avenue Pumping Station is discharging CSOs to the South Fork. The
flow coming
from this pumping station is high in oxygen demanding compounds as
well as floatable materials (e.g. sanitary waste products).
The headwaters of the South Fork used to be the site of the Union Stock Yards from the
late 1800s until closing in 1971. The South Fork was also the recipient of large amounts
of slaughterhouse and rendering waste. As a result, the significantly contaminated
sediments in the South Fork are the residual of historic discharges from the stockyards
and other industries, plus organic matter originating from the Racine Avenue Pumping
Station (Hill 2000).
The
South Fork is impaired by high pH, low D.O. and total phosphorus (IEPA 2004).
The primary cause of impairments is from CSOs along the South Fork, with the majority
of the flow coming from the Racine Avenue Pumping Station.
Limited recreational activities occur
in this reach, but at the confluence with the SBCR,
the South Chicago Rowing Center has a small boat launch. Additionally, the City of
Chicago is
proposing canoe and rowing access for the future park at Eleanor and Fuller.
Bank fishing is also
common at the confluence with the SBCR. Just north of the South
Fork, between West 34
th
and 32
nd
streets is Bridgeport Village, a new single-family
residential development. This is
one of many new developments that are being
constructed along the Chicago River area. Many of these developments are creating
river walks to connect the waterways to the people.
3.1.1.4
Chicago River
The Chicago River begins at the junction of the North and South Branch, ends at the
Chicago River Lock
and Controlling Works (CRCW) and is 1.5 miles in length. The
Chicago River is 200-feet
wide west of Michigan Avenue and up to 250-feet wide east of
there. The
banks consist primarily of vertical walls, however, Wolf Point, at the
confluence of the three branches of the river, has a sloped earthen riverbank.
It
is 20-feet
deep at the west end and 26-feet deep at the east end. The river alignment is generally
straight with three bends near Michigan Avenue, Orleans and State Streets (MWRDGC
2001). The
banks are developed with high-rise office, residential buildings, and open
space that consist of hardscape plazas and cafes. The Chicago River, as it flows through
the City, is one of the most visible aspects of the city that separates it from the highways
and majestic buildings that adorn the Lake Michigan skyline. To many Chicagoans, it is
commonly referred to as the City's "second shoreline." Segments of the river are
bordered by a riverwalk and recreational boating and fishing are becoming increasingly
popular with locals and visitors to the City (Gobster and Westphal 1998). The amount of
open space along the river is limited, and the City has plans to increase the number of
public plazas along the river. Recreational navigation boating occurs in the Chicago
CDM
IlStIsvrllcommonlCAWS UAAlAugust edltslSedlon 3 UAA
I~
8-01-07 adns.doc
3-5
Section 3
Existing Conditions in the Chicago Area Waterways
River, with the many excursion boats motoring up and down the downtown waterway.
In addition to the excursion boats, the Chicago University Rowing Team, through the
Chicago River Rowing
and Paddling Center at Lake Shore Drive Bridge, uses the river in
the early morning hours for training. Friends of the Chicago River host several
waterway recreational events each year, many of them taking place in the Chicago River
as
it flows through downtown. Several commercial canoe rental and launch facilities
such as Chicago River Canoe
and Kayak and Chicagoland Canoe Base, cater to locals
and tourists within the city. Marina City located under the building complex locally
known as the "corncobs" provides recreational slips for pleasure boats. Light
commercial barge traffic occurs
in the Chicago River. Tour and Water Taxi boating are
some of the most common uses of the Chicago River.
In addition to boating and sightseeing, many Chicagoans use the Chicago River for
angling. The area
between Michigan Avenue and Columbus Drive is popillar with
fisherman, with a variety of game fish species being caught (Gobster and Westphal
1998).
As discussed previously, the Chicago River is currently designated General Use,
but on
occasion the flow in the NBCR will enter into the Chicago River when the force of the
discretionary diversion
and lock flow is not sufficient to overcome a density current
found
in
the Chicago River (personal communication, Lanyon 2003). This can cause the
bacteria criteria for this reach of the
waterway to be exceeded. Currently, The
Hydrosystems Laboratory
at the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign is
conducting studies to better
understand the effects of the density currents
in
the Chicago
River
and how they affect river flow in and out of the CRCW. Between the period of
November
and April, no discretionary diversion water is withdrawn from Lake
Michigan
through the CRCW.
3.1.1.5 North Branch Chicago River
The NBCR within the CAWS, is 7.7 miles long, and stretches from the junction of the
Chicago River
and South Branch, up to the North Branch Dam at the NSC junction. The
river follows its original course for a distance of
5.1 miles from the junction of the
Chicago River
and South Branch, although the channel has been deepened and widened
in this area. The width of this reach varies from 150- to 300-feet with a depth between
10- to IS-feet. In several reaches, the
banks consist of vertical dock walls in various
states of disrepair.
Throughout the remaining 2.6 miles, the channel has been either
straightened
or relocated into straight segments with steep earthen side slopes. The
width is generally 90-feet with a depth in the center of the channel of approximately 10-
feet (MWRDGC 2001). This reach of the river consists of a mix of commercial, industrial,
residential
and park land/open space.
It
is one of the few stretches with single family
homes bordering the
waterway
in
all of the Chicago River system reaches. Similar
developments exist along the Little Calumet River. However,
many of the homes
(approximately
41) along the Ravenswood section of the NBCR have built docks and
structures on land that belongs to MWRDGC and through these structures homeowners
have access to the
waterway (Chicago Tribune 2003). The MWRDGC Board of
ClIVI
\\SllsvrllcommonlCAWS UAAlAugust edltslSectlon 3 UAA 1jl8-01-07
ed~s.doc
3-6
Section 3
Existing Conditions in the Chicago Area Waterways
Commissioners passed a resolution to assess fair market value for the use of its land.
Currently,
homeowners are disputing the resolution.
Many of the neighborhoods have taken an active interest in enhancing banks of the
NBCR, particularly the communities at Ravenswood
and Lathrop. Along with
residential homeowners, some commercial businesses and industries have conducted
stream improvement activities.
MWRDGC owns, manages
and controls several facilities in the NBCR. These include
the Webster Avenue aeration station, which is used to increase D.O. levels in the
waterway and the North Branch Pumping Station near Lawrence Avenue. The North
Branch Pumping Station discharges CSO flow to the NBCR when the TARP tunnels are
full.
Water quality impairments listed
in the state"s 2004 305(b) report for the North Branch
are silver, total nitrogen, D.O., total dissolved solids, chlorides, physical habitat
alterations, total
suspended solids, aldrin, iron, flow alterations, oil and grease, PCBs,
and hexachlorobenzene. Potential causes for impairment include municipal point
sources, CSOs,
urban runoff/stormwater, hydro-modification, channelization, habitat
modification,
bank or shoreline modification, highway maintenance and runoff,
contaminated sediments
and flow regulation.
Recreational activities
in the NBCR include fishing, canoeing, paddling boating activity
and some power boating. The Lincoln Park Boat Club ahd the Chicago Union Rowing
and Paddling Foundation share a boat launch facility near the North Avenue turning
basin at the end of the Federal Navigable Waterway. The City of Chicago and the
Chicago
Park District are completing a canoe launch nearby at Weed Street on the North
Branch Canal. Non-motorized boat facilities are also available at Clark Park, a ten-acre
passive recreation area along the NBCR
and River Park.
The Friends of the Chicago River
hold their annual Chicago River Flatwater Classic and
other events in the lower reaches of the NBCR. The Annual Chicago Chase rowing
regatta is also
held here. West River Park, where the NBCR meets the NSC, is a favorite
spot for fishing and other shoreline activities (e.g. wading). The City built a ramp from
Albany Street to
the canoe launch on the upper North Branch and developed a water-
edge portage
path between these two canoe launches. Along with these improvements,
the City plans to improve aquatic habitat in the river adjacent to West River Park.
In
addition to river access at West River Park, the City plans to encourage river access with
new developments that would be constructed between Lawrence Avenue and Chicago
Avenue. There are also several
boat mooring structures associated with some
restaurants
and condominium complexes.
3.1.1.6 North Branch Canal
The North Branch Canal, which is an alternate route around Goose Island, is 1 mile long.
The channel
was constructed in the 1870s and connects around to the North Avenue
turning basin and forms the east side of Goose Island. The canal has a straight
CDM
l\StlsvrllcommonlCAWS UAAlAugust
ed~slSectlon
3 UAA
r~
8-01.07 edlts.doc
3-7
Section 3
Existing Conditions in the Chicago Area Waterways
alignment with a width that varies from 80- to 120-feet and a depth from 4- to 8-feet
(MWRDGC 2001). The fenced off banks offer limited access to the river in this reach
with shoreline recreational uses restricted to some fishing and river viewing from
bridges. While there is some
natural vegetation along the banks, the majority of riparian
land consists of commercial and industrial buildings (Gobster and Westphal 1998). A
small marina is
on Goose Island, but it is primarily limited to putting in recreational
boats for storage
and launching them in early-summer. A major residential conversion
of the former Montgomery
Ward building which is part of the Kingsbury Park
development
has 2,000 residential units being planned.
This
development is
immediately adjacent to
the North Branch Canal and opposite of Goose Island.
3.1.1.7 North Shore Channel
The NSC begins at the North Branch Dam in West River Park and extends upstream for
7.7 miles,
ending at the MWRDGC Wilmette Harbor and Diversion structure. Unlike the
rest of CAWS reaches, the NSC carries
two use designations. The reach of this waterway
above the MWRDGC North Side WRP is designated by the State of Illinois as General
Use, whereas, the section of the NSC
downstream of the Northside WRP is designated
as Secondary Contact
and Indigenous Aquatic Life. The General Use portion of this
waterway receives CSO and overflows from storm sewers. Most of the time this
segment of the NSC experiences periods of
no or little flow as a result of reduced
discretionary diversion from Lake Michigan (personal communication, Dick Lanyon,
MWRDGC 2003). The lack
of flow creates a stagnant situation, resulting in low D.O.
levels
and bacteria levels exceeding General Use bacteria criteria.
The NSC is a
man-made channel and is generally straight except for four bends. From
each bank,
it has about a 10- to IS-foot wide submerged shelf which transitions into a
steep earthen side slope.
It
has a width of approximately 90-feet and a center depth that
varies from 5- to 10-feet (MWRDGC 2001). The
narrow riparian corridor in the reach is
mostly
park land, which is owned by MWRDGC and managed in some locations by the
Chicago Park District, the City of Evanston, the Village of Skokie,
and Wilmette. The
riparian area
has many older trees, picnic facilities, parks, a few launches for non-
motorized boats,
and some paved trails. Recreational uses include shore activitit;s such
as walking, fishing, biking, jogging,
and nature exploration (Gobster and Westphal
1998).
The Northside WRP discharges to the NSC
near Howard Street. The average design
flow from this facility is 333
mgd, with a maximum design flow of 450 mgd. The plant
provides wastewater treatment for approximately 1,300,000 people in the North Chicago
area. This
plant provides the primary flow for the NSC downstream of Howard
Avenue. The flow from the North Side WRP creates a backwater area upstream of the
facility
and occasionally provides a flow of wastewater upstream to Lake Michigan
during extreme wet-weather conditions. Approximately 16 reversals to Lake Michigan
have occurred at the Wilmette Pumping Station since 1985 and they have ranged in
magnitude from 9 to 774 million gallons (MWRDGC 2004).
CDM
IIStlsv,llcommonlCAWS UAAlAugusl edllslSection 3 UAA 1j18-01.07 edlts.doc
3-8
Section 3
Existing Conditions in the Chicago Area Waterways
Downstream of the North Side WRP is the Devon Avenue Instream Aeration Station.
This aeration station helps aerate the NSC
when D.O. levels fall below the water quality
criteria, as measured
by a D.O. probe at the North Branch Pumping Station. According
to the IEPA 2004 305(b) report, the NSC is impacted
by zinc, nickel, total nitrogen, D.o.,
total phosphorus, PCBs, fecal coliforms, flow alterations, physical habitat limitations and
excess algal growth. Causes of impairment include CSOs, municipal point sources,
stormwater runoff, flow regulation at Wilmette, hydro-modification of the
waterway
and channelization. Data collected during the UAA process, however, suggests some of
the 305(b) listed impairments
may no longer exist.
Like other portions of CAWS, the NSC provides habitat for belted-kingfishers, warblers,
beavers, black-crown
night herons and various types of water turtles. The black-
crowned night heron, a common resident in CAWS was placed on the illinois
endangered species list in 1977 due to their
l~ted
numbers throughout the state. The
herons are protected
under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and the lllinois
Wildlife Code of 1971. The Evanston Ecology Center
has a dock on the NSC, but it is not
open to the public. However, the Chicago River Aquatic Center will use it for launching
rowing boats (Gobster and Westphal 1998). Near Oakton Avenue the New Trier High
School Rowing Club, Northwestern University and North Park College utilize the boat
launching facilities at the Skokie Boat Dock Rowing Center. The Chicago Park District
also
has a boat launch on the NSC at Park 526 which will open spring of 2005.
3.1.2 Calumet River System
3.1.2.1 Calumet-Sag Channel
The Calumet-Sag Channel extends upstream from the Calumet-Sag - CSSC junction for
16.2 miles to the Little Calumet River. The
man-made channel consists of a trapezoidal
shape that is 225-feet wide and approximately 10-feet deep.
In
some sections, the north
bank has a vertical wall. The alignment
is
generally straight with three bends
(MWRDGC 2001). The Palos-Sag Forest Preserves, one of the largest contiguous open
spaces in Northeastern lllinois, exists along the banks of the channel. There is a nearly
continuous
narrow band of cottonwood, willow, and box elder trees along each bank of
the reach. The trees create a screen that blocks views of residential
and industrial land
uses from the waterway, although canopy and instream cover are sparse across much of
the length of the channel. The Calumet-Sag Channel is used primarily
by commercial
barge vessels
and recreational power boats (Gobster and Westphal 1998; Moore et al.
1998).
MWRDGC
has three SEPA stations along the Calumet-Sag Channel to maintain the
D.G.
levels in the waterway. The SEPA stations are discussed
in
greater detail
in
Section 3.7.
The cities of Alsip
and Worth have constructed public boat launch facilities for
recreational vehicles
on the Calumet-Sag Channel. The launches are located on land
leased by MWRDGC to the respective city. They are used heavily on summer weekends
by power boats and to a much lesser extent, jet ski users. Paddling boat activity is very
limited
on the Calumet-Sag Channel due to the heavy boat traffic by commercial and
recreational boats. The steep solid walls of the channel create a "bath-tub'effect (boat
wake bouncing off the walls) which could cause small non-motorized boats to capsize.
IISUsvr11commonlCAW5
CDM
UAAlAugust editlllSectlon 3 UAA
r~
8-01-07 edis.doc
3-9
Section 3
Existing Conditions in the Chicago Area Waterways
Additionally, the high walls and limited access points along much of the channel make it
difficult for a capsized boater to get out of the waterway safely.
The
7Ql0 for the Calumet-Sag is 259 cfs and suffers from low D.O., PCBs, and physical
habitat impairment. Causes of impairment are from CSOs, industrial sources, municipal
point sources,
urban stormwater runoff, hydro-modification, channelization, habitat
modification, removal of riparian vegetation,
and contaminated sediments (IEPA 2004).
The navigational channel is dredged periodically for maintenance and the barge traffic
contributes to the re-suspension of bottom sediments.
The
43 acre peninsula between the Calumet-Sag Channel and the Little Calumet River
will potentially
be developed with 400 upscale riverfront homes. The plans include
developing
11 acres of MWRDGC land as natural animal habitat and five acres of Blue
Island City
land along the Little Calumet River for a marina (The Star 2004).
3.1.2.2 Little Calumet River
The Little Calumet River North Leg, which is 6.9 miles in length, begins at about Racine
Avenue
and ends near the O'BrienLock and Dam. The Little Calumet River has been
altered from its
natural condition.
It
has been deepened, widened and there are several
changes
in alignment including the construction of one
full
180° bend. The width varies
from 250- to 350-feet
and the depth in the center on the channel is approximately 12-feet.
The majority of the channel banks are
earthen side slopes with a few reaches of vertical
dock walls (MWRDGC 2001). Land lise along this reach includes
heavy industry, with
some open space and forest preserve areas nearby. Other uses include active
commercial
and recreational boating, and limited shoreline fishing due to the lack of
access points
and open space (Gobster and Westphal 1998). Numerous facilities line the
Little Calumet just
south of the O'BrienLock and Dam including boat launches, taverns
and restaurants. In addition to these, there are many private docks and boat launches
along the Little Calumet River.
The Little
Calumet River (north leg) has a 7Ql0 flow of 20 cfs just downstream of its
confluence
with the GCR. The Illinois 2004 305(b) report identifies the Little Calumet
River (north leg) as being impaired
by PCBs and mercury, which result in a fish
consumption advisory for this reach. The reach is also impaired
by iron, D.O., flow
alterations
and physical habitat alterations
MWRDGC'sCalumet
WRP is situated near the Little Calumet River'sAcme Bend.
It
has
an average design flow of 354 mgd and a maximum design flow of 430 mgd. The
service area for this facility is approximately 300 square miles
and provides wastewater
treatment for approximately 1.2 million people. MWRDGC also operates SEPA Station
Number 2 on the north side of the Little Calumet River near Indiana Avenue.
It
is the
smallest of the five SEPA stations
on the Calumet System.
3.1.2.3 Grand Calumet River
The GCR in Illinois flows into the Little Calumet River just south of the O'BrienLock
and Dam. The river originates in Indiana and flows west through Illinois for
CDM
l\SlIsvr1lcommonlCAWS UAAlAugust oditslSectlon 3 UAA
r~
8-01-07
ed~s.doc
3-10
Section 3
Existing Conditions in the Chicago Area Waterways
approximately three miles before it empties into the Little Calumet River. The GCR is
very shallow, with the average depth around 2-feet (personal communication with Rob
Sulski, IEPA).
The GCR contains heavily contaminated sediments that originated from
the industrial complexes
and CSOs in Indiana.
Recreational activity
on the GCR is extremely limited due to the shallow depths
observed
in the river. The riparian vegetation along the river provide excellent habitat
for
many species of birds and mammals. The black-crowned night heron is common in
this stretch of the river. Fishing is common along the banks at the confluence of the GCR
and the Little Calumet River, where a sunken boat and barge partially blocks the
entrance into
the GCR.
3.1.2.4 Calumet River
The Calumet River extends upstream of the GC.R, through the O'BrienLock and Dam
and ends at the Calumet Harbor in Lake Michigan. The river is approximately 8 miles in
length, with an average width of 450-feet. The river'flowwas severed by the O'Brien
Lock
and Controlling Works in the mid 20
th
century to prevent pollution from entering
Lake Michigan. The Calumet River has
been heavily dredged to support barge
operations
and the industries that are found along the banks. Numerous slips and
turning basins are present to accommodate the commercial barge traffic. The average
depth in the channel is 27-feet, but the actual navigation depths may vary due to the
fluctuations
in
the level of Lake Michigan. Numerous domestic and hazardous waste
landfills
surround the Calumet River. The channel banks consist of sheet-pile, concrete
walls and rip-rap. Very little riparian vegetation exists along the Calumet River, except
in
the vicinity of the landfills. In addition to accommodating barge traffic, the Calumet
River provides access to Lake Michigan for recreational boaters. Small non-motorized
boat recreation is very limited due to the hazardous conditions created by the heavy
barge traffic and the limited access points.
MWRDGC'sSEPA Station
Number 1 is located on the north side of the Calumet River
near Torrance Avenue.
It
is the second smallest SEPA station on the Calumet System
and is adjacent to a six acre heron rookery. Water quality impairments as identified in
the illinois 2004 305(b) report indicates the Calumet River is impaired by PCBs, silver,
high pH, total phosphorus, and fecal coliform bacteria. Potential sources of impairment
include
industrial point sources, CSOs, and urban runoff during storm events
3.1.2.5 Lake Calumet
Lake Calumet located approximately 15 miles south of the City of Chicago is the last
remaining vestige of a large glacial lake that existed 13,500 years ago (Ross, et. al). The
Lake Calumet
area was originally surrounded by a series of marshes in the South
Chicago area.
As early as the mid 1800s, the marsh area underwent extensive industrial
development. A majority of the
land throughout these marshes was bought up by the
railroad industries including the
Pullman Palace Car Company. Continued economic
development brought in numerous other support industries, including steel mills and
residential development. The Calumet area also became the dumping grounds for
municipal
and industrial waste. Many contaminated sites subject to various voluntary,
\\Stlsvr1\commonlCAWS
CONI
UAAlAugust ed"slSectlon 3 UAA I]f
B-01-{)7
edlts.doc
3-11
Section 3
Existing Conditions in the Chicago Area Waterways
federal, state and local agency cleanup projects and activities over the last 30 years can
be found in and around the historical footprint of Lake Calumet. The lake is still
threatened
by these legacy landfills, through residual contamination in the lake
sediments
and man-made modifications (e.g. filling in of the lake). However, many
local citizens have banded together to help preserve what is remaining of Lake Calumet
and its surrounding wetlands.
Access to Lake Calumet is very limited
and access by boat is only through the Chicago
Park District
launch on Lake Michigan, through an access point at Stony Island Avenue
and through the O'BrienLock and Dam on the Calumet River. The Illinois International
Port District controls
much of the activities occurring in Lake Calumet.
3.1.3 Tributaries of CAWS
There are several tributary streams that contribute flow to CAWS. These include the
Little Calumet River South Leg,
the North Branch above the North Branch Dam and
numerous small watersheds along the Calumet-Sag Channel (e.g. I&M Canal,
Mill
Creek
and Tinley Creek). In addition, there are numerous small directly contributing areas
along CAWS, including areas served
by storm sewers, parking lots, street ends, and
rooftop drains.
3.1.4 Lockport Powerhouse
and Lock and Controlling
Works
The LP&L and the Lockport Controlling
Works are
the main outlet controls for
CAWS. All flow from CAWS discharges
from the CSSC into the Lower Des
Plaines River just
north of the
City
of
Joliet. The confluence of the Canal
and
the Des Plaines River is 1.1 miles
downstream of the LP&L. This reach is
the
upper end of the Brandon Road
navigation pool.
LP&L is one of the outlets for
CA
WS.
3.1.5 Treated Wastewater Sources
More than 70 percent of the annual flow in CAWS is from the discharge of treated
municipal wastewater sources from
the four MWRDGC WRPs discussed previously.
The
Hammond Sanitary District in Indiana, the Thorn Creek Basin Sanitary Treatment
Works, the NSSD Clavey
and the Deerfield POTWs also contribute treated domestic and
industrial waste effluents to CAWS via the GCR, the Little Calumet River South Leg and
the Chicago River North Branch.
3.1.6 Navigation and Leakage
This source consists of discharge that supports navigation in the operation of locks and
leakage through structures and walls separating Lake Michigan and CAWS. Navigation
CONI
\\SUsvrllcommorilCAWS UAAlAugust edilslSectlon 3 UAA
r~
8.01.07edlts.doc
3-12
Section 3
Existing Conditions in the Chicago Area Waterways
flows are seasonal and dependent on the level of Lake Michigan because flow through
the structure is by primarily gravity. Leakage has been reduced through repair of gates
and construction of new walls. Leakage at the CRCW has been substantially reduced
due to repairs to the lock and turning basin walls during the low Lake Michigan levels
in the summer of 2000. Table
3-1
details the average annual and monthly maximum
and minimum flows at each of the diversion facilities for 2001 calendar year.
Table 3-1
Delineation of Flow Characteristics at Each Diversion Facility Located on CAWS
Locka e
WPS
0
0
0
CRCW
20.5
81.7
0
OL&D
29.1
113
0
All flows reported in cfs
WPS • Wilmette Pumping Station
CRCW - Chicago River Controlling Works
OL&D • O'Brien Lock and Dam
o
10.1
17.4
o
36.3
o
0.1
2.5
o
12.1
6.8
o
18.8
10.1
o
9.1
4.4
3.1.7 Storm Runoff
Numerous storm sewers discharge to CAWS from several municipalities and IDOT
drainage facilities. Forty-one municipalities within MWRDGC'sjurisdictional area have
applied for NPDES Phase II permits.
In
addition, MWRDGC reports eight major
expressway outfalls to CAWS. These stormwater systems contribute to the pollutant
load in the waterways by collecting and directing overland flow which may contain high
levels of bacteria, oils, nutrients, pesticides, herbicides, high suspended solids and
oxygen-demanding compounds.
An
additional approximate 54 CSOs discharge into
tributaries
that drain into CAWS.
3.1.8 CSO
Combined Sewer Systems are sewers that are designed to collect rainwater runoff,
domestic sewage,
and industrial wastewater in the same pipe. During
dry
weather
periods, combined sewer systems in CAWS transport all of their wastewater to one of
MWRDGC'sWRPs,
where it is treated and then discharged to the river. During wet-
weather periods, the wastewater volume in a combined sewer system can exceed the
capacity of the sewer system and the existing TARP tunnels. For this reason, combined
sewer systems are designed to overflow occasionally and discharge diluted excess.
wastewater directly to a waterbody. The CSOs contribute to water quality degradation
by introducing high levels of bacteria from raw sewage, suspended sediment loading
and oxygen demanding substances. CSOs are regulated under the federal NPDES
permit program and the CWA. IEPA administers the program and permits the CSOs
within CAWS. Approximately 307 permitted CSOs discharge into CAWS, with the
dominant contributions coming from those permitted by the City of Chicago, MWRDGC
COM
IISllsvr11coTTVl1onICAWS UAAlAugusl edilslSection 3 UAA
I~
8-01-07 edlts.doc
3-13
Section 3
Existing Conditions in the Chicago Area Waterways
and the City of Evanston.
Table 3-2
on the following page identifies the number of CSOs
in CAWS.
Table 3-2
Number of CSOs in CAWS
IL0036536
IL0069981
IL0052434
IL0052451
IL0028088
IL0045012
IL0028053
IL0042048
IL0052418
IL0039551
Evanston
csa
Wilmette-Greenleaf
csa
Skokie
csa
Lincolnwood
csa
MWRDGC Northside WRP
csa
Chicago
csa.
MWRDGC Stickney WRP
csa
Stickney
csa
Summit
csa
MWRDGC Lemont WRP
csa
Evanston
Wilmette
Skokie
Lincolnwood
Chicago
Chicago
Chicago
Stickney
Summit
Chica
0
~,."..,--~---,;
15
3
9
182
15
4
2
IL0042901
Burnham
csa
Burnham
IL
0045063
Calumet Park
csa
Calumet Park
IL0044881
Calumet City
Calumet City
IL0028061
MWRDGC Calumet WRP
csa
Chicago
IL0043133
Posen
csa
Posen
IL0052442
Blue Island
csa
Blue Islan
IL0045098
Riverdale
csa
Riverdale
Source: USEPA: Communities with Combined Sewer Systems. Sep 2002 and NPDES permits.
* This number will be reduced pending further field investigations by the City.
3
13
5
3
Five of the CSOs are from major MWRDGC pumping stations (MWRDGC 2001).
MWRDGC'songoing TARP Project
was implemented to alleviate the polluting effects of
CSOs
and to provide relief from local flooding by providing holding capacity for
18 billion gallons of combined sewage
in its tunnels and reservoirs until it can be
pumped to the WRP for full treatment. Although Phase I of the McCook Reservoir will
not be completed until 2014 and the entire TARP McCook system will not be completed
until 2023, significant benefits have already
been realized.
It
is estimated that since the
first of the tunnels
went online
in
1985 until 2001, more than 578 billion gallons of CSOs
have been captured and conveyed to the WRPs for full treatment. Since TARP went
online, the waterways have seen an increase
in
both fish population and diversity of
species present. Basement
and street flooding have also been reduced and fewer
floodwater discharges to Lake Michigan
have occurred. To date, more than $2 billion
has been spent on the project.
MWRDGC
has implemented a CSO notification program for CAWS and surrounding
communities are
in the process of implementing their own program. The purpose of the
CDNI
IIStlsvnlcommonlCAWS UAAlAugust editslSecUon 3 UAA
1~
8-01-07 edits.doc
3-14
SEPA
#5
at Calumet-Sag Channel/CSSC is
enhancing water quality.
Section 3
EXisting Conditions in the Chicago Area Waterways
program is to notify the public when overflow events occur that may impact designated
uses
in the waterways.
3.1.9 Industrial Sources
The three major private industrial NPDES permit holders, defined as facilities that
discharge greater
than 10 mgd to CAWS, include Midwest Generation, Corn Products
Corp.
and ACME Steel. Potential pollutant waste streams from the plants include
cooling
water and waste streams generated during product processing. The NPDES
permit reporting limits and compliance schedule for each is discussed later in this
section.
.3.1.10 TARP
TARP is designed to reduce CSOs from the combined sewers into CAWS. TARP
consists of tunnels
and reservoirs which intercept CSOs and hold them until the stored
wastewater can be pumped to the treatment plants for full treatment. TARP's purpose
is to eliminate
water pollution and flooding across Cook County, which originates from
combined sewer areas. The tunnels were designed to catch the dirtiest "first flush"
portion of the CSO from entering the river and the reservoirs were intended for flood
control. TARP
has also been beneficial in protecting Lake Michigan; it has resulted in a
dramatic decrease
in the frequency and amount of river reversals to the lake, a practice
.necessary to prevent flood related property damage along CAWS and downstream
waterways.
Table
3-3 depicts the number of
reversals that have occurred to Lake Michigan
since 1985. Once completed, TARP will consist
of 109.4 miles of tunnels
and 15.65 billion
gallons of reservoir storage (MWRDGC
2000;
AquaNova and Hey and Associates 2003),
collecting the flow from 307 sewer overflow
points.
3.1.11 SEPA and In-stream Aeration
System Stations
D.O. levels in CAWS were historically low due
to point and nonpoint sources and low instream velocities. SEPA and Instream Aeration
System Stations (lASS)
were designed and installed to enhance the water quality of
portions of the
Calumet River, the Calumet-Sag Channel, the Little Calumet River, NSC
and the NBCR by adding oxygen directly into the waterways. There are five SEPA
stations along the Calumet River
system and two lASS along the Chicago River system.
The SEPA station concept involves
pumping a portion of the stream water into an
elevated pool above the channel. The water then cascades over a series of weirs to create
waterfalls
that adds oxygen to the waterway. The lASS rely on the use of submerged
porous spargers to drive air directly into the river. The program goal has been to
eliminate the
need to build costly advanced treatment plants to meet water quality
criteria
on CAWS (MWRDGC 2003; Butts, Shackleford, and Bergerhouse 2000).
3-15
IIStlsvrl1commonlCAWS UAAlAugust edttslSectlon 3 UAA
I~
8-01-07 edtts.doc
Section 3
Existing Conditions in the Chicago Area Waterways
Table
.
3-3
.
Wilmette
O'Brien
Chicago River
Pumping
Date
Lock/Dam
Controlling Works
Station
Total Volume
3/4/85
153.3
153.3
8/6/85
58.0
58.0
10/3/86
53.0
53.0
8/13-14/87
986.0
871.0
1957.0
8/25-26/87
18.0
18.0
9/3-4/89
52.0
52.0
5/9-10/90
208.0
289.0
497.0
8/17-18/90
9.5
9.5
11/27-28/90
224.0
86.0
154.0
464.0
7/17-18/96
1032.0
519.0
1551.0
2/20-22/97
1458.0
1947.0
774.0
4179.0
8/16-17/97
402.0
157.0
559.0
6/13/99
9.7
9.7
8/2/01
883.1
139.9
1023.0
8/31/01
75.3
75.3
10/13/01
90.7
90.7
8/22/02
1296.4
455.4
1751.8
3.1.12 Lake Michigan Navigational Makeup and Discretionary
Diversion Program
In the late 1800s, the flow of the Chicago and Calumet Rivers into Lake Michigan
resulted
in severe pollution and public health consequences. In response, the Illinois
State Legislature created the Chicago Sanitary District
in 1889 (now MWRDGC) to solve
the pollution issues. The Sanitary District, starting with the CSSC, constructed a system
of conveyances
and control structures to reverse the flow directions of the Chicago and
Calumet Rivers away from the lake. Flow in the rivers was maintained by diverting
large amounts of Lake Michigan
water into the rivers.
Later, the District constructed a second canal, the NSC, which extends from Lake
Michigan at Wilmette to the NBCR. The
amount of flow diverted from Lake Michigan
into the NSC is regulated
by the Wilmette Pumping Station. Finally, the Calumet-Sag
Channel
was constructed to carry sewage from South and East Chicago to the CSSe.
The O'BrienLock
and Dam, which is located on the Calumet River, regulates the flow of
Lake Michigan waters into
the Calumet-Sag Channel.
During the 1920s
and 1930s the diversion program changed significantly due to lawsuits
filed
by the Great Lakes states seeking to restrict the loss of Lake Michigan water to
CAWS. In 1967, the total illinois allotment for lake withdrawal became 3,200 cfs. The
3,200
amount includes about 2,400 to 2,600 cfs which, after domestic consumption and
treatment, enters CAWS as wastewater effluent. The remaining 600 to 800 cfs of lake
withdrawal enters CAWS directly through the controlling structures for the purposes of
water quality enhancement (dilution) and navigation maintenance (AquaNova and Hey
and Associates 2003).
CDM
IISUsvrllcommonlCAWS UMlAugusl e<frtslSectlon 3 UM
I~
8.01-07
edtls.doc
3-16
Section 3
Existing Conditions in the Chicago Area Waterways
The USACE, through provisions of the U.S. Supreme Court Decree (Wisconsin et al. vs.
Illinois
et al) 388 U.s. 426, 87 S. Ct. 1774 (1967) as modified by 449 U.S. 48, 101 S. Ct. 557
(1980)
has authority to monitor and measure the amount of diversionary flow coming
from Lake Michigan
in Illinois. The MWRDGC is responsible for managing the sluice
gates
that allow flow into CAWS. Discretionary diversion is seasonal and scheduled.
such that most of the diversion flow occurs during the warm weather, low flow, months
of June
through October. Presently and continuing through 2014, an annual average of
270 cfs of the diversion is intended for improvement of water quality. In 2015, the
annual average discretionary diversion amount is scheduled to be reduced to 101 cfs.
However,
an additional 35 cfs will continue to be allocated to the MWRDGC for
navigational purposes. This additional
amount is required to restore the water level to
that required for navigation immediately following wet-weather related draw-downs of
CAWS, necessary for flood control
purposes (MWRDGC 2001).
3.2 Chicago River Programs and Projects
3.2.1 Chicago River Corridor Development Plan
In 1993, the City Space Program was initiated by the City of Chicago to improve the
quality of life for Chicagoans, particularly children
and youth. The City of Chicago,
Chicago
Park District and Forest Preserve District of Cook County developed City Space
jointly.
It
is an intergovernmental initiative, which sets open space development goals,
policies
and priorities including two hundred specific projects to increase open spaces in
Chicago, such as neighborhood parks, community gardens, river trails, nature preserves
and new lakefront parks. The Greenways Project, which strives to increase greenway
acreage along
inland waterways, is described in the following paragraphs (Chicago
2001).
The River Corridor Plan
was designed to establish a river edge park and walkway
through downtown and a continuous greenway along the north and south branches of
the Chicago River. The City created zonirig policies that require new riverside
developments to
provide public access and landscaping in preparation for the eventual
expansion of the riverwalk along the river'sentire length. Completed projects include
the West River
Park Waterfall located at the junction of the North Branch and the NSC
and the Lathrop Homes Riverwalk along the North Branch, just north of Diversey
(Chicago 2001).
3.2.2 Greenways Project
The Greenways Project encourages businesses and neighborhood groups to work with
local governments to propose Greenways along inland waterways and abandoned rail
corridors
through intergovernmental collaboration and land donations. Capital projects
incorporated as Greenways projects are derived from the 1998 Chicago River Corridor
Development Plan
and landscape improvements initiated as part of the River Greening
Program.
CDNI
IIStlsvrllcommonlCAWS UAAlAugusl edftslSectlon 3 UAA
I~
8-01-07 edIls.doc
3-17
Section 3
Existing Conditions in the Chicago Area Waterways
3.2.3 A Vision for Lake Calumet
Lake Calumet was once one of the largest wetland complexes in the Midwest,
supporting a diversity of plant and animal life. Today, after 120 years of
industrialization, pollution
and waste disposal, the area
is
altered and bears little
resemblance to its original condition. Area organizations, such as the Lake Calumet
Vision Committee, the LMF
and the Southeast Environmental Task Force have a new
vision for the area that includes restoration of natural areas and renewed recreational
opportunities
within Lake Calumet. The new vision is the first attemptto strike a
balance between the area'seconomy
and its environment, to provide jobs, re-invigorate
neighborhoods,
and nurture its remaining complex of rare natural areas (Chicago 2002,
Pallasch 2002). The Lake Calumet area and associated wetlands are host to the largest
breeding colony of illinois endangered black-crowned night heron (Landing 1986).
The Chicago Department of
Plarining and Development'sCalumet Land Use Plan
recommends 3,000 acres for industrial redevelopment
and 3,000 acres for the Calumet
Open Space Reserve. The Calumet Area Ecological Management Strategy, prepared
jointly by the Chicago Department of Environment (CDOE) and the Illinois Department
of Natural Resources (IDNR), is the framework which will provide a unified strategy for
land managers to rehabilitate their respective parcels within the Calumet Open Space
Reserve. Parcels
that have key ecological significance will be those targeted with the
long-term goal of enhancing
them individually and in relation to each other (Chicago
2002; Pallasch 2002).
Each Calumet project involves intensive collaboration between a large
number of
government agencies, industry, environmental group representatives and local
residents. They require coordination among a range of different property owners,
including IDNR, Waste Management, Inc., MWRDGC
and Illinois International Port
District. Ultimately, IDNR will
be a major property owner for several of the open space
parcels
within the area (Chicago 2002; Pallasch 2002).
3.3 NPDES Permits issued in CAWS
There are 12 facilities that contribute discharge rates greater than 10 mgd into CAWS. A
brief
summary of the permit information, including facility flow rates, for these facilities
are included
in
Table 3-4
(USEPA 2003).
3.4 Existing Uses and Water Quality Criteria
As described earlier in this section, CAWS consists of primarily Secondary Contact and
Indigenous Aquatic Life designated uses with only three areas being designated as
General Use waterways.
CDM
IIStlsvr1Icommon\CAWS UAAlAugust
ed~!I>Sectlon
3 UAA
I~
8-01.07
ed~s.doc
.
3-18
Section 3
Existing Conditions in the Chicago Area Waterways
.
Table 3-4
•
•
I
I
Receiving
I
I
Expiral;on IFIOW Capaen,
Facility Name
Permit
#
Water
Issued Date
Date
(MGD)
MWRDGC Calumet
WRP
IL0028061
LCR
1/22/2002
2/28/2007
354
MWRDGC North Side
STP
ILL028088
NSC
1/22/2002
2/28/2007
333
MWRDGC Stickney
WRP
IL0028053
CSSC
1/22/2002
2/28/2007
1200
Midwest Generation,
LLC-Crawford
ILOO02186
CSSC
4/24/2000
4/30/2005
356.8
Midwest Generation,
LLC-Fisk
ILOO02178
SBCR
4/4/2000
4/20/2005
241.2
Midwest Generation,
LLC-Will Co.
IL0002208
CSSC
5/26/2000
5/31/2005
950
Corn Products
International
IL0041 009
CSSC
3/28/1996
3/31/2001
60
Thorn Creek Basin S.D. IL0027723 Thorn Creek 9/29/1995
9/30/2000
15.94
Hammond Municipal
STP
IN0023060
GCR
1/24/1999
6/30/1999
37.8
NSSD Clavey Road
STP
IL0030171
Skokie River
9/17/2001
8/31/2006
17.8
ACME Steel Co.-
Riverdale
ILOO02119
LCR
9/14/1999
9/30/2004
10.7
3.4.1 Waterways Listed as Secondary Contact and Indigenous
Aquatic Life
To protect these secondary contact waterways, the State of illinois has adopted water
quality criteria that are appropriate for all secondary contact uses (35
m.
Adm. Code 302
Subpart D). Such criteria are contained in
Table 3-5
and as follows:
Unnatural Sludge
- Waters will be free from unnatural sludge or bottom deposits,
floating debris, visible oil, odor, unnatural plant or algal growth, unnatural color or
turbidity.
pH -
pH will be within the range of 6.0 to 9.0, except for natural causes.
Temperature -
Temperature will not exceed 34°C (93°F) more than 5 percent of the time,
or 37.8°C
(100°F) at any time.
Cyanide
- Total cyanide will not exceed 0.10 mg/L.
CONI
IISUsvr1lcoolmonlCAWS UAAlAugust edhslSecllon 3 UAA Ijf 8-01-07 edits.doc
3-19
Section 3
Existing Conditions in the Chicago Area Waterways
Substances Toxic to Aquatic Life - Any substance toxic to aquatic life not listed in
Section 302.407 shall not exceed one half of the 96-hour median tolerance limit (96-hour
TL
m
)
for native fish or essential fish.
D.O. - D.O. shall
not be less than 4.0 mg/L at any time except for the Calumet-Sag
Channel
that shall not be less than 3.0 mg/L at any time.
Bacteria Levels - There are
no fecal coli form or E.
coli
criteria for Secondary Contact
waterways.
3.4.2 General Use Waterways
CAWS has three waterways that are classified as General Use including the:
• NSC from the
North Side WRP up to Lake Michigan
• Chicago River from the CRCW.to the junction of the NBCR
• 'CalumetRiver from the O'BrienLock
and Dam to Lake Michigan
Although there are other General Use waterbodies (e.g. Little Calumet River, South Leg,
and NBCR upstream of the confluence with NSC)contributing flows to CAWS, they are
not being addressed in this UAA.
Illinois Title
35: Part 302, Subpart B in the water quality criteria contains general use
water quality criteria which must be met for the three waterbodies being evaluated in
this UAA. The General Use criteria will protect these waters for aquatic life, wildlife,
agricultural use, most industrial uses
and ensure the aesthetic quality of the State's
aquatic environment. Primary contact uses are protected for all General Use waters
whose physical configuration permits
such use. The following General Use water
quality criteria have been adopted and promulgated by the State of Illinois to protect
those waterbodies
that are General Use:
Offensive
Conditions - Waterbodies designated for General Uses will be free from
sludge or
bottom deposits, floating debris, visible oil, odor, plant or algal growth, color
or turbidity of other than natural origin.
pH
- will be within the range of 6.5 to 9.0 except for natural causes.
D.O. - D.O. will
not be less than 6.0 mg/L during at least 16-hours of any 24-hour
period,
nor less than 5.0 mg/L at any time.
Radioactivity - Gross beta concentrations will
not exceed 100 picocuries per liter (pCi/I)
and radium 226 and strontium 90 will not exceed 1 and 2 pCi/I, respectively.
Other Toxic Substances - General use waters will be free from any substances or
combination of substances in concentrations toxic or harmful to human health, or to
animal,
plant and aquatic life.
CONI
IISUsvrllcommonlCAWS UAAlAugusl edils\Sectlon 3 UAA
r~
8.01-07 edtts.doc
3-20
Section 3
Existing Conditions in the Chicago Area Waterways
Table 3-5
Numeric Water Quality Criteria for Illinois Secondary Contact and Indigenous
Aquatic Life Waterways (35 III. Adm. Code 302.400)
*For purposes of this section the concentration of un-Ionized ammonia IS computed by the following
equation:
U=
N
where:
[0.94412(1 +1QX) +0.0559)
X= 0.09018 + 2729.92
- pH
(T
+ 273.16)
U=Concentration of un-ionized ammonia as Nin mg/L
N= Concentration of ammonia nitrogen as Nin mg/L
T =Temperature in degrees Celsius
e., 15 mg/L polar materials and 15 mg/L non-polar materials).
"Oil either of the components exceed 15 mg/L (Lnd non-polar components if the total shall be
analytically separated into polar a concentration exceeds 15 mg/L. In no case shall
Parameter
I
Concentration
(mg/L)
Ammonia Un-ionized (as N*)
0.1
Arsenic (total
1.0
Barium (total)
5.0
Cadmium (total)
0.15
Chromium (total hexavalent)
0.3
Chromium (total trivalent)
1.0
Co!'per (total)
1.0
Cyanide (total)
0.10
Fluoride (total)
15.0
Iron (total)
2.0
Iron (dissolved)
0.5
Lead (total)
0.1
Manganese (total)
1.0
Mercury (total)
0.0005
Nickel (total)
1.0
Oil, fats and grease
15.0**
Phenols
0.3
Selenium (total)
1.0
Silver
1.1
Zinc (total)
1.0
Total Dissolved Solids
1500
..
Bacteria Levels -
During the months May through October, based on a minimum of five
samples taken over
not more than a 30 day period, fecal coli form will not exceed a
geometric
mean of 200 per 100 ml, nor will more than 10 percent of the samples during
any 30 day period exceed 400 per 100 ml in those waters that presently support or have
the physical characteristics to
support primary contact and flow through or adjacent to
parks or residential areas.
Those areas that are
unsuited to support primary contact uses because of physical,
hydrologic
or geographic configuration and are located in areas unlikely to be
frequented by the public on a routine basis are exempt from the above criteria.
CDNI
3-21
IlStlsvr1\commonlCAWS UAAlAugusl edltslSectlon 3 UAA
I~
8-01-07 edlts.doc
Section 3
Existing Conditions in the Chicago Area Waterways
Temperature - There shall be no abnormal temperature changes that may adversely
affect aquatic life unless caused
by natural conditions. The normal daily and seasonal
temperature fluctuations
which existed before the addition of heat due to other than
natural causes shall be maintained. The maximum temperature rise above natural
temperatures shall not exceed 2.8°C (SOP). In addition, the water temperature at
representative locations
in the main river shall not exceed the maximum limits in Table
3-6
during more than one percent of the hours in the 12-month period ending with any
month. Moreover,
at no time shall the water temperature at such locations exceed the
maximum limits
ir't
Table 3-6 by more than 1.7°C (3°P).
Table 3-6
Temperature
Limits for Illinois General Use Waterways
•
"..
•
..
Jan.
16
60
July
32
90
Feb.
16.
60
AUQ.
32
90
March
16
60
Sept.
32
90
April
32
90
Oct.
32
90
May
32
90
Nov.
32
90
June
32
90
Dec.
16
60
Total Ammonia Nitrogen - Total ammonia nitrogen must in no case exceed 15 mg/L.
The total ammonia nitrogen acute, chronic, and sub-chronic criteria are determined by
the following equations:
1)
The acute
standard (AS) is calculated using the following equation:
AS=
0.411
+
1
+
10
7
.
204
-pH
58.4
1
+
10pH-7.204
2)
The chronic standard (CS) is calculated using the following equations:
A)
During the Early Life Stage Present period:
i)
When water temperature is less than or equal to 14.51°C:
CS
={ 0.0577
+
2.487
}(2 85)
1+ 107.688-
pH
1+ lOpH-7.688
.
ii)
When water temperature is above 14.S1°C:
CS={ 0.0577
+
2.487
}(l.45*lOO.028*(2S-T))
1+
l07.688-pH
1+
lOpH-7.688
Where T =Water Temperature, degrees Celsius
COM
IISUSVrllcommonlCAWS UAAlAugUSl ednslSec110n 3 UAA
1~
8-01-07
ed~s.doc
3-22
Section 3
Existing Conditions in the Chicago Area Waterways
B)
During the Early Life Stage Absent period,
i)
When water temperature is less than or equal to 7°C:
CS ={ 0.0577
+
2.487
}(1.45 *10°.
504
)
1+ 107.688-pH
1+ lOpH-7.688
ii)
When water temperature is greater than 7°C:
CS ={ 0.0577
+
2.487
}(1.45* 100.028(25-T))
1+ 107.688-pH
1+ lOpH-7.688
Where T =Water Temperature, degrees Celsius
3)
The sub-chronic standard is equal to 2.5 times the chronic standard.
Tables 3-7, 3-8
and
3-9
describe the water quality constituents assigned to protect
General Use waterbodies.
CDM
1\StlsvrllcommonlCAWS UAAlAuguSl edltslSection 3 UAA
I~
8.01-07 edis.doc
3-23
Section 3
Existing Conditions in the Chicago Area Waterways
Table 3-7
Numeric Water Quality Criteria for lIIinois General Use Waterways to
P
A
.
.
I
Acute Standard
I
Chronic Standard
Parameter
(",gIL)
(",gIL)
Arsenic
360
X
1.0*=360
190
X
1.0*=190
(trivalent, dissolved)
Cadmium
exp[A+Bln(H)]
X
{1.138672-
exp[A+8In(H)]
X
{1.1 01672-
(dissolved)
[(lnH)(O.041838)]}*, where A=-
[(lnH)(O.041838)]}*, where A=-3.490
2.918 and B=1.128
and B=0.7852
Chromium (hexavalent,
16
11
total)
Chromium (trivalent,
exp[A+Bln(H)]
X
0.316*,
exp[A+8In(H)]
X
0.860*,
dissolved)
where A=3.688 and
where A=1.561 and B=0.8190
B=0.8190
Copper
exp[A+Bln(H)]
X
0.960*,
exp[A+8In(H)]
X
0.960*.
(dissolved)
where A=-1.464 and
where A=-1.465 and
B=0.9422
B=0.8545
Cyanide
22
5.2
Lead
exp[A+Bln(H)]
X
{1.46203-
exp[A+8In(H)]
X
{1.46203-
(dissolved)
[(lnH)(O.145712)]}*,
[(InH)(O.145712)]}*,
where A=-1.301 and 8=1.273
where
A=-2.863 and
B=1.273
Mercury (dissolved)
2.6
X
0.85*=2.2
1.3
X
0.85*=1.1
Nickel (dissolved)
exp[A+Bln(H)]
X
0.998*,
exp[A+8In(H)]
X
0.997*,
where A=0.5173 and
where A=-2.286 and
B=0.8460
B=0.8460
TRC
19
11
Acute Standard
Chronic Standard
Parameter
(",gIL)
,
(",gIL)
Zinc (dissolved)
exp[A+Bln(H)]
X 0.978*,
Exp[A+Bln(H)] X 0.986*,
where A=0.9035 and
where A=-0.8165 and
B=0.8473
B=0.8473
Benzene
4200
860
Ethylbenzene
150
14
Toluene
2000
600
Xylene(s)
920
360
where:
Ilg!L = microgram per liter,
exp[x] =base natural logarithms raised to the x- power,
In(H) = natural logarithm of Hardness and
*= conversion factor multiplier for dissolved metals
3-24
IIStlsvr11commonlCAWS UAAlAugusl edIlslSecllon 3 UAA
I~
8-01-07
edns.doc
Section 3
Existing Conditions in the Chicago Area Waterways
Table 3-8
Numeric Water Quality Criteria in Illinois General Use Waterways
Parameter
Unit
Standard
Mercury
I.lq/L
0.012
Benzene
Ilg/L
310
where:
~g/L
=
micrograms per liter
Table 3-9
Numeric Water Quality Criteria 35 III. Adm. Code Part 302-208(9)
I
I
Parameter
Unit
Standard
I
I
I
Barium (total)
mg/L
5.0
Boron (total)
mg/L
1.0
Chloride (total)
mg/L
500
Fluoride
mg/L
1.4
Iron (dissolved)
mg/L
1.0
Manqanese (total)
mg/L
1.0
Phenols
mg/L
0.1
Selenium (total)
mg/L
1.0
Silver (total)
Ilg/L
5.0
Sulfate
mq/L
500
Total Dissolved Solids
mq/L
1000
where:
mg/L = milligram per liter
CDM
3-25
IIStlsvrllcommonlCAWS UAAlAugust
ed~slSectlon
3 UAA
r~
8.01.07 earts.doc
Section 3
Existing Conditions in the Chicago Area Waterways
3.5 References
Abedin, Z., R.I. Pietz, and P. Tata. 2002. 2000 Annual Summary Report: Water Quality
within the Waterways System of the MWRDGC Research and Development
Department: August.
AquaNova International, Ltd. and Hey and Associates, Inc. 2003. Draft Lower Des
Plaines River UAA.
Prepared for IEPA: March.
Butts, T.A, D.B. Shackleford
and T.R. Bergerhouse. 2000. SEPA (SEPA) Stations: Effect
on In-stream D.O.. illinois State Water Survey, Champaign, IL.
Chicago Tribune. 2003. Homeowners Ready to Fight for River Rights. Chicago Tribune,
December 19, 2003. Page
8.
..
City of Chicago. 2002. The Calumet Project. Department of Environment.
http://www.ci.chi.il.us/Environment/NaturalResources/LakeCalumet.html
City of Chicago. 2001. 2002-2006 CIP - CitySpace Capital Program Description. City of
Chicago Office of Budget
and Management.
http://
www.cityofchicago.org/Budget/budget/capital
I
programs
I
cityspace.html
City of Chicago. 1999. Chicago River Corridor DevelopmentPlan.
Department of
Planning
and Development.
Friends of the Chicago River (FCR).
May 2000. Waterways for Our Future:
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District Wastewater Treatment
and the Chicago River.
Friends of the Chicago River, Chicago, Illinois.
56 pages.
Gobster, P.B.
and L.M. Westphal, Editors. 1998. People and the River: Perception and
Use of Chicago Waterwasy for Recreation. (Chicago Rivers Demonstration Project
Report, 192p) Milwaukee, WI: U.S.
Department of the Interior, National Park Service,
Rivers, Trails,
and Conservation Assistance Program.
Hill, Libby. 2000. The Chicago River: a
natural and unnatural history. United Graphics,
Mattoon, illinois. 302 pages.
Landing, James
E. 1986. Conceptual Plan for the Lake Calumet Ecological Park:
Chicago, Illinois. Page
35.
Lanyon, Richard. 2000. Chicago River Reversals Solves Public Health Crisis. Wetland
Matters. Newsletter of the Wetlands Initiative. September
2000. Volume 5, Number 2.
MWRDGC 2001. Description of the Chicago Waterway System, May 2001.
MWRDGC 2004. Combined Sewer Overflow Public Notification Plan, April.
http://www.mwrdgc.dstil.us/
IISltsvr1lcommonlCAWS
CDNI
UAAlAugust edltslSecUon 3 UAA
1~
a-Ol-07 edlIs.doc
3-26
Section 3
Existing Conditions in the Chicago Area Waterways
MWRDGC 2003. SEPA (SEPA) Stations.
http://www.mwrdgc.dst.il.us/plants/sepa.htm
MWRDGC 2003. Hydraulic Calibration of an Unsteady Flow Model for the Chicago
Waterway System. Report No. 03-18.
MWRDGC2002. Maintenance
and Operating Facility Handbook. January.
MWRDGC2000. Briefing for Illinois Congressional Delegation. March.
Moore, RJ., J.D. Rogner
and D. Ullberg, Principal Authors. 1998. Nature and the River:
A Natural Resources Report of the Chicago
and Calumet Waterways. (Chicago Rivers
Demonstration Project Report,
nOp) Milwaukee, WI: U.S. Department of the Interior,
National Park Service, Rivers, Trails,
and Conservation Assistance Program.
Pallasch, A.M. 2002. Lake Calumet
Land Buy Pushed. Chicag9 Sun Times: November 5.
http://
www.ece.iit.edu/pipermail/bcnnet/2002-November
I
000283.html
Solzman, David
M. 1998. The Chicago River: an illustrated history and guide to the
river
and its waterways. Wild Onion Books, Chicago, Illinois. 288 pages.
The Star. 2004. Blue Island Focuses
on Live and Play Riverfront Community. The Star-
Thursday, September
23, 2004. Page 1.
USEPA. 2003. Enforcement and Compliance History Online.
http://www.epa.gov/echo/
CDM
IlStlsvr1lcommon\CAWS UAAlAugust editslSectlon 3 UAA
I~
8-01.07 edITs.doc
3-27
•
•
Section 4
Characterization
of Waterway Reaches
Section 4
Characterization
of Waterway Reaches
4.1 Methodology
The CAWS UAA process required an evaluation of the existing physical, chemical,
and biological conditions to support the determination of the most appropriate use
classifications for the waterways. This section describes the approach used to
evaluate CAWS such that all the critical elements of a UAA were addressed, including
how the study area was segmented and what data was used to evaluate existing and
potential conditions. Monthly Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) meetings
were
held to present the analysis of available data and solicit recommendations on
use classifications and associated water quality criteria and on UAA direction in
general. .
4.1.1 Reach
Definitions
Since the waterways
comprise a large area
with diverse
conditions,
the study
area was divided into
reach segments
allowing for more site
speciflc analysis. Reach
segments
were defined
to
have break points at
critical locations
that
contribute to their
unique characteristics
so that each reach
was
fairly homogeneous
with regard to it's
physical, chemical,
and
biological properties.
Figure 4-1
shows these
reaches geographically
and
Table 4-1
provides
a
summary description
of reach breakpoints.
Figure 4-1 - UAA Reach Segmentation was defined to have
break points at critical locations.
4.1
\\C::;tICNr1\fonmmnn\r.AW~
IIAA\Allntl~
Mits\Soctlon 4_1 UAA.leahse<frts.doc
Section 4
Characterization
of
Waterway Reaches
U er NSC
Wilmette Pum in Station to North Side WRP
Lower NSC
North Side
WRP to confluence with NBCR
U
er NBCR
Confluence with NSC to North Avenue
Lower NBCR
North Avenue to Confluence with Chica
0
River
Chica
0
River
CRCW to confluence with North Branch and SBCR
SBCR
Confluence with the Chicago River to confluence with CSSC
at the Damen Avenue Brid e
South Fork
Racine Avenue Pum in Station to Confluence with SBCR
.CSSC
Confluence with the SBCR at the Damen Avenue bridge to
LP&L
Calumet-Sag Channel
Little Calumet River
Little Calumet River
Confluence with Little Calumet to confluence with CSSC
Calumet
WRP to confluence with Calumet-Sa Channel
O'Brien Lock and Dam to Calumet WRP
GCR
Illinois state line to confluence with Little Calumet River
Lake Calumet
Lake Calumet
Calumet River
Lake Michi an to the confluence with the Little Calumet River
4.1.2
Data: Acquisition
and Gaps
The UAA process required the analysis of physical, chemical, and biological data to
characterize existing conditions
and assess use classifications. Since the waterways
were monitored extensively over the past decade by various agencies, the UAA
utilized these resources
and only collected additional field data to
fill
significant and
high priority data gaps.
Numerous agencies as listed in
Table 4-2
and the public-at-large were solicited to
provide relevant
data in the following categories, collected over the past five years,
from
Jqnuary I, 1998 to December 31, 2002.
• Water Quality
• Biological
• Aesthetics
• Waterway Use
•
Sediment Chemistry
•
Habitat
•
Hydrological
and Meteorological
•
Mapping/GIS
Table 4-2
A,gencles SI''tdf
OICI
e
or
Ot
aa
Acqulsllon
'T
MWRDGC
City of Chicaqo
IEPA
Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission
USEPA
IDNR
USACE
Midwest Generation
U.S. Geological Survey
Fish and Wildlife Service
Illinois State Water Survey
Illinois State Geoloqical Survey
Friends of the Chicaqo River
National Weather Service
Lake Michigan Federation
Local marinas
CONI
4-2
\\SlIsvr1\common\CAWS UAA\Auaust edit6\Section 4.1 UAA.leahsedlts.doc
Section 4
Characterization
of Waterway Reaches
Water Quality Data
From a water quality perspective, the UAA focused heavily on bacteria and D.O. for
the characterization of attainable uses
and therefore emphasized developing a
comprehensive dataset of these
and related parameters; including nutrients, solids,
oxygen
demand, water temperature, and photosynthesis related measures. Water
quality
data characterizing priority and 303(d) listed pollutants were also a
consideration. Specific water quality constituents of concern for the UAA
and
requested from potential data providers are listed in
Table
4-3. Requests were made
for all water quality data collected in-stream and for point and non-point sources for
the parameters listed
in Table 4-3 within CAWS over the past five years (1998 through
2002).
a er
ua
IlY
arame ers
0
oncern
D.O.
Chromium (Trivalent)
Ammonia
Nitrooen (total)
BioloQical
OxvQen Demand
Chromium (Hexavalent)
Un-ionized Ammonia
Bacteria (E. coli, fecal coliforms, total coliforms)
Copper
Nitrate NitroQen
Chlorophvll-a
Cyanide
Oil and Grease
AIQal Biomass
Fluoride
Aldrin
NitroQen (all forms)
Iron (Total)
Phosphorus (all forms)
Iron (Dissolved)
Endrin
Water Temperature
Lead
Total DDT
PH
ManQanese
Total Chlordane
Total OrQanic Carbon
Mercurv
Methoxychlor
Total Suspended Solids
Nickel
Toxaphene
Dissolved Solids
Phenols
Heptachlor
Arsenic
Selenium
Heptachlor epoxide
Barium
Silver
Lindane
Boron
Sulfate
Parathion
Cadmium
Total Residual Chlorine
2,4-0
Chloride
Zinc
. Silver
Chromium (Total)
Dieldrin
Table 4-3
UAAW t Q n P
t
f
C
Sediment Data
Although the UAA focused primarily on bacteria and D.o. in the water column in
assessing use attainability, sediment bound pollutants and their potential impact on
in-stream water quality and aquatic life populations were also considered. As a
result, all available sediment chemistry
and volume data collected in CAWS study
area over the past five years (1998 through 2002) was requested, including sediment
oxygen
demand (SOD) measurements and sediment toxicity testing measurements.
CDM
4-3
Section 4
Characterization
of
Waterway Reaches
Biological, Habitat, and Aesthetics Data
Biological and habitat data were an important resource in assessing aquatic life use
designations. As a result, all fish survey, benthic/macro-invertebrate, habitat,
aesthetics
and toxicity data collected in CAWS study area over the past ten years
(1993 through 2002) was requested from each potential data provider. Specific
parameters
of interest are listed in Table 4-4, including calculated metrics and indicies
when available.
Table 4-4
UAA Hab'
Itat,
S'
1010QICa
. I
and AesthetIcs Parameters 0fConcern
Fish Species
Fish Tissue
Benthic/Macro-invertebrate Species
Toxicitv testina (inc. WET)
Algal
Macrophytes
Phytoplankton
Ichthvoplankton
Riparian Survey
Substrate classification
Canopy Cover
Floatables/Film/OiVGrease
Odor
Color/ClaritvlTurbiditv
Debris/Obstructions/Hazards (surface/sub-surface)
Hydrologic and Meteorological Data
Hydrologic and meteorological data was collected to provide insight into the impact
of
wet weather and CSO discharges on D.O. and bacteria conditions in the waterway.
The UAA
team requested hydrologic data characterizing in-stream as well as point
and nonpoint sources, including flow, velocity, and elevation measurements.
Meteorological
data requests included rainfall, air temperature, solar radiation, and
cloud cover. Table 4-5 provides a complete list of hydrologic and meteorological
parameters requested over the
past five years (1998 through 2002).
Table 4.5
Hydrology/Meteorological Parameters of Concern
Flow Volume
Flow Velocitv
Staae Elevation
Precipitation
Air Temperature
Solar Radiation
Cloud Cover
Evaporation Rate
Waterway Use Data
Evaluations of how CAWS is being used for both recreational and commercial
purposes
were a critical component of the UAA. As a result, we requested all
qualitative
and quantitative data that might support characterization of existing and
projected uses of the waterways, including any measures of use intensity, frequency,
and duration.
GIS Data
GIS data was utilized to support UAA mapping needs, including presentation of
sampling,
waterway characterization, and use classification results. Table 4-6
outlines the project'sGIS data needs and information requested.
CONI
4-4
\\~t1l::vr1\t"Nnmnn\r.AW~
LJAA\Aunust edits\Section 4.1 UAA.leahsedits.doc
Section 4
Characterization
of Waterway Reaches
Table 4.6
GIS Data Needs
Base map - roads, political boundaries, waterways ...
SamplinQ locations/coordinates
Point sources locations (Outfalls [CSO or SW],
Recreational features (boat launches,
WWTP discharges, SEPA locations, NPDES
marinas, canoe liveries...)
permits...)
Land use
(existinQ and future)
Aerial photoqraphy
Diqital Elevation Models (DEMs)
Data Gaps
Once the data was compiled and logged into the database management system an
assessment of data gaps was performed. Specifically, the following types of data
listed in
Table 4-7
were lacking and important to the development of the UAA
process.
ata
aps
Waterway use
I Habitat
Sediment toxicity
I Lake Calumet
E.coli
bacteria, particularly characterizing wet weather, non-point sources and
CSO loadinqs.
Table 4-7
DG
To
fill the critical need for waterway use data, the project conducted numerous
surveys of the waterways as described
in Section 4.1.3.1 of this report. The habitat
data gaps were filled by USEPA and IEPA who funded and coordinated a habitat
assessment of critical locations as described
in Section 4.1.3.5. IEPA similarly
conducted
water quality sampling in Lake Calumet. Additional sediment toxicity
data was not collected and the project relied on the positive correlation between
E.coli
and fecal coliform bacteria to confirm findings from liinited instream
E.coli
data.
Additionally,
by the completion of the study in 2004, the MWRDGC provided nearly
two more years of instream
E.coli
data that is included in the final assessment of use
classifications for CAWS. The wet weather, CSO, and non-point source bacteria
loading data gap was not filled at the time of the writing of the draft report and initial
plans to develop a water quality model for bacteria were abandoned as a result.
However, MWRDGC
has undertaken such a modeling project and it is anticipated
that the results will be incorporated into the IPCB criteria rulemaking process. Since
the lack of available
data significantly limited the cost/benefit of a water quality
model, the analysis of available
instream bacteria data was used to make use
classification recommendations.
4.1.3 Data Assessment
For the purposes of this UAA, the past five years of data were used for characterizing
existing conditions
and the next ten years was set as the time frame for consideration
of future uses
and potential changes with regard to physical, biological and chemical
conditions
in the waterways. TARP for example, will have substantial effects on
water quality in the waterways, but will not be completed within the next ten years.
As a result, although TARP
plans have been considered with this UAA, the focus is
on addressing pre-TARP conditions. The past five years were defined as 1998-2002
CDNI
4-5
\\Stlsvr1IcommonlCAWS UAAlAuaust edllslSectlon 4.1 UAA.leahsedlls.doc
Section 4
Characterization
of Waterway Reaches
based on data acquisition at the on-set of the UAA in 2002, but newer critical data was
acquired and included as necessary.
In
cases where limited data was available for the
past five years or where it was important to evaluate historical trends, as with fish
community data, data collected prior to 1998 was included in data assessments.
4.1.3.1 Recreation and Navigation Uses
Since the UAA process requires the designation of use classifications and associated
water quality criteria that protect attainable uses, the waterway use data gap needed
to
be filled to satisfy a basic requirement of the study. As a result, recreation and
navigation use surveys were conducted for all reaches in the study area. Waterway
use
data was collected using four methods. First, SAC, other significant stakeholders,
and all pubic meeting attendees were asked to provide any quantitative data
characterizing waterway use. Second, a
post card survey soliciting information from
marinas along the waterways
was conducted. Third, a letter was sent to all
municipalities
and other public entities adjacent to or owning land along CAWS,
soliciting all ongoing
or near future (10 years) development plans that might affect
uses
in and along the waterways. The fourth approach was to travel each reach of the
waterway by boat. During these field visits, waterway use activities and access points
were recorded.
The
postcard survey involved weekly questionnaires sent to marinas along CAWS
during the
recre~tional
season. Participation was encouraged using a monetary
incentive for the
number of postcards returned. Postcard questions included:
•
At what marina are you operating?
•
How many boats were launched during the past week?
•
In
the past week, have you observed swimming, fishing water skiing, jet skiing,
power boating, wading, paddling boating activity, canoeing, or playing at stream
bank on the waterway you are located on?
•
How often in the last week have you observed swimming, wading, or stream bank
playing activities?
Field surveys of the
waterways were conducted during the recreational season from
July
through October 2003. Several stakeholders contributed to the effort with the
field observation teams including:
•
TEPA
•
Lake Michigan Federation
•
MWRDGC
•
CDM
•
USEPA
Each reach
was surveyed at least once, with some reaches surveyed twenty times
(includes MWRDGC
and USEPA visits). Field teams counted the number of times the
4-6
COM
Section 4
Characterization
of Waterway Reaches
following recreational categories were observed, including logging the relative
location
and documenting with photographs when appropriate:
•
Swimming, diving
or jumping
•
Wading
•
Fishing
•
Skiing
or tubing
•
Canoeing, sculling
or paddling boating activity
•
Power boating
The results of
both surveys were summarized by calculating a frequency distribution
of observed activities, including the total count for activity category and the percent of
the total
observeq. activities it comprised. Survey results are presented in Sections 4.2
through 4.5
The
waterway use data served a critical role in the UAA process, particularly for
recommending recreational use classifications. Since the UAA process dictates
protecting attainable uses
by designating appropriate use classifications, waterway
use
data was evaluated to determine routine uses for each reach. Use statistics were
presented to SAC at monthly meetings, where results were discussed to ensure that
the
data was in alignment with perceived uses and to identify any concern that the
data did not represent anticipated future uses which the UAA should consider. The
timeframe for consideration of future uses
was defined as the next ten years.
4.1.3.2 Water Quality
The past five years of available water quality data were evaluated using a use
attainment screening approach that identified CAWS reach segments currently
attaining CWA goals. Instream
water quality data was compared to General Use and
Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life water quality criteria to determine
whether recent water quality conditions justified a use upgrade. Section 3.4.2
includes a listing of the applicable General Use Water Quality Standards. Since
USEP
A's latest draft bacteria guidance recommends using
E.coli
bacteria as the
indicator organism rather
than fecal coliform as currently regulated for General Use
designated
water bodies, UAA bacteria screening criteria were established consistent
with the more recent guidance as recommended by USEPA based on protecting
recreational uses identified as existing uses
in CAWS. These criteria are further
detailed
in Section 5, but in summary an
E.coli
geometric mean criteria of 1000
cfu/100mL
was used as the screening criteria for limited contact recreation and a
geometric
mean of 2740 cfu/100mL for recreational navigation. The use attainment
screening approach identified constituents of concern that are limiting attainment of
CWA goals
and/or potential use designations developed through the UAA. The use
attainment screening results
were presented at monthly stakeholder meetings along
with waterway use, sediment quality and biological conditions and are presented in
Section 4.2 through 4.5.
4-7
CONI
Section 4
Characterization
of Waterway Reaches
Water quality data from several agencies was used to characterize existing water
quality conditions in the waterways, however, MWRDGC'scontinuous D.O.
and
temperature monitoring and monthly grab sampling programs provided by far the
most comprehensive data set. Continuous monitoring included
hourly measurements
recorded throughout the year
at 36 locations in CAWS UAA study area as shown in
Figure 4-2. Monthly grab samples analyzed for conventional
water quality
constituents
and metals were collected at 25 different locations in the UAA study area
and are also shown in Figure 4-2. Some sampling locations included on maps and
graphs are not in the UAA study area, but are included to help assess their potential
influence
on water quality in the study area.
In addition, water. quality results
were analyzed along with meteorological and point
and non-point source loading data to help understand conditions affecting water
quality. The
map shown in Figure 4-3 identifies the location of instream aeration
stations
and significant point source inputs such as WRPs, CSO pumping.stations and
power generating facilities. The impacts of wet weather and CSO discharges were
evaluated using rainfall
data from Midway and O'Hareairports and discharge
volume data provided by the MWRDGC for the CSO pumping stations. The
pumping station discharges to the waterways when the TARP CSO capture system is
near capacity. Changes in D.O. concentrations were assessed in response to rainfall
and/or CSO discharge events using continuous time series (hourly) plots of rainfall,
D.O.
and temperature data for 36 stations distributed throughout the waterways.
Similar assessments were
made using monthly grab
e.coli
bacteria data.
Since MWRDGC WRP discharge makes
up the majority of flow in the waterways,
effluent
water quality data was also compared to water quality screening criteria to
help
understand potential WRP influences. In the case of bacteria, screening criteria
followed USEPA's
recent guidance to use E.
coli
rather than fecal coliform as
explained further
in Section 5. Since MWRDGC effluent samples are analyzed for
fecal coliform and not
E.coli
bacteria, for this screening level comparison
E.
coli
concentrations were predicted from weekly fecal coliform results using E.
coli/fecal
coliform ratios developed by MWRDGC (MWRDGC, Report No. 04-10, Estimation of
the
E.
coli
To Fecal Coliform Ratio in Wastewater Effluents and Ambient Waters of the
MWRDGC, July 2004).
In cases
where water quality screening criteria are dependent on multiple parameters,
such as ammonia being dependent on pH and temperature or dissolved metals being
dependent on water hardness, actual corresponding measurements taken at the same
time
and location were applied when available. Fortunately, the MWRDGC sampling
program usually included the data necessary to make these determinations. In cases
where a different procedure was followed
it
is so noted with the presentation of
results
in Sections 4.2 through 4.5. For example, temperature data was not provided
with the WRP effluent data so ammonia criteria comparisons were applied using only
the non-temperature
dependent formula for temperatures less than 14.51°C. Chronic
metals screening
was calculated based on instantaneous monthly grab samples rather
than the arithmetic average of at least four consecutive samples collected over any
4-8
\\c:th,\lr1\....-vnmnn\r.AW~
IIAA\Alll'llld
AI1II!Cl\~Actinn
d 1
i fAA IAAhAAdH!':rloc:
Section 4
Characterization
of
Waterway Reaches
Figure 4-2 - Monitoring Stations
o
2.500 5.000 7.500 10.000
Monitoring Stations Legend
I""'aw--
,Meters
N
+
COM
\\~ILowr1\r.nmmnn\GAWS
LJAA\Auausi edlts\Secllon 4. t UAA.leahsedlts.doc
~
MNRO Continuous 00 Montoring Stations
o
MNRD Grab Sampling Stations
~
Water Redamation Plant
~
Pump Station
Cl\ IndustrialOutfalls
!lilajor Roads
/"v'Calumet River
/"v'Calumet.Sag Channel
/"V'
Chicago River
/"v'
Chicago Sanitary and Ship Can'll
Grand Calumet
Little Calumet East
/"v'
Utile Calumot Wost
/"v'Lower North Branch Chicago Ri\ter
/"v'
Lowaf North Shore Channel
/'../ South Branch Chicago River
South Fork
/"v'
Upper North Branch Chicago River
f-'."-..'./
Upper North Shore Channel
/'V Notlnduded
4-9
Section 4
Characterization
of Waterway Reaches
Figure 4-3 - CSO Outfalls and Instream Aeration Stations Legend
o
2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000
eso
Outfalls and Instream Aeration Stations Legend
,.....-
iMeters
N
+
CONI
\\~Ic:vr1'NVnmnn\r.AW~
t JAA\Anlttlm ArflIs\Sactlon 4_1 UAA.lBahsAdlts_doc
Major Roads
~
Industrial Outran
Cl\
Pump Station
"
Water Redamation Plant
a
lnstreilm
Aeration
SI.tions
o
Combined Sewer Overllow
/'./Calumet River
./V
Calumet-Sag Channel
/V Chicago Ri\llIlr
./"../ Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal
,....'.,../. Grolnd Calumet
Utile Calumet East
./'../Ultle Calumet West
/'.../Lower North Branch Chicago Rjyer
.A/ Lower North Shore Channel
.A/ South Branch Chicago River
South Fork
./"V
Upper North Branch Chicago River
.-,....." ../
Upper North Shore Channel
/'.../ Not Induded
4-10
Section 4
Characterization of Waterway Reaches
period of at least four days.
E.coli
bacteria calculations were similarly calculated as
data representing five samples collected over 30 days was not available.
4.1.3.3
Sediment Quality
Since there are no regulated sediment quality criteria for CAWS, two sediment quality
criteria guidelines were
used to evaluate sediment data
in
CAWS as described
in
Table 4-8. Both guidelines are based on two concentration thresholds that predict the
likelihood of toxicity to benthic organisms. Figure
4-4 illustrates the increase of
potential impact
with increasing concentrations. In both studies, the guidelines were
developed based on correlating available sediment chemistry data with biological
impact. The actual concentration thresholds are listed
in Table 4-9.
A
red
Table 4-8
UAAS d'
t
Q n
C't . G "d
r
..
I Agency/PubHca';on
I
I
I
Sensitive Benthic
Probable Benthic
Organism Toxicity
Organism Toxicity
,
Author
Threshold
Threshold
i
Long and
National Oceanic and
Effect Range - Low
Effect Range - Median
Morgan
1
Atmospheric
(ER-L)
(ER-M)
Administration (1990)
MacDonald"
Archives of
Threshold Effects
Probable Effects
Environmental
Concentration (TEC) -
Concentration (PEC) - is the
Contamination and
the concentration of a
concentration above which
Toxicology (2000)
contaminant in a
adverse effects are likely to
sediment sample, below
occur.
which adverse effects
are unlikely to occur
in
the bioloaical communitv.
Long, E.R., and L. G. Morgan. 1990. The potential for biological effects of sediment-sorbed contaminants tested In the
National Status and Trends Program. NOM Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 52. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. Seattle, Washington.
2
MacDonald, D.o., e.G. Ingersoll and T.A. Berger. 2000. Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality
guidelines for freshwater ecosystems.
Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.
39: 20-31.
The guidelines are intended and were
used as a screening tool to identify
potential problem areas
and
constituents. More accurate
characterizations of risk
and/or
bioavailability should be based on site
specific sediment toxicity
data such as
bioassays. Since there
was limited
sediment toxicity data available for
CAWS, accurate reach
by reach
characterizations
were not possible.
Figure 4.4 • Sediment Toxicity Thresholds
COM
4-11
Section 4
Characterization
of Waterway Reaches
Antimon
Arsenic
9.79
Table 4-9
Guideline Concentration Thresholds
33
Cadmium
Chromium
Co er
Lead
Mercu
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Total PAHs
Total PCBs
0.99
43.4
31.6
35.8
0.18
22.7
121
1.61
0.0598
5
111
149
128
1.1
49
459
22.8
0.676
5
80
70
35
0.15
30
120
4
0.05
9
145
390
110
1.3
50
2.2
270
35
0.4
CONI
In
terms of the goals for the CAWS UAA, it is important to identify how sediment
quality characterizations
should influence the use designation decision making
process. Although contaminated sediments are
an important consideration in
evaluating the health of a water resource, the goal of a UAA is to determine whether
conditions threaten.attainment of a use. Since contaminated sediments
do not pose a
significant risk of illness to recreationists, particularly for partial
body contact
activities like boating, sediment quality results were not included as criteria
in
determining use attainment for recreation.
From
an aquatic life use designation perspective, contaminated sediments can
certainly limit the diversity
of benthic organisms as well as influence the risk
associated
with fish consumption. As a result, sediment toxicity can secondarily
constrain attainment of
an aquatic life use designation. With the availability of
biological
data characterizing macro-invertebrate and fish populations in CAWS,
these more direct measures of aquatic life conditions were given precedence
in
evaluating aquatic life use attainment. Sediment chemistry data was used to help
understand cause and effect relationships that may be driving biological and/or
water quality conditions in a given reach.
With sediment chemistry
data only serving as a support tool rather than a
determinant
in assigning use designations, the collection of site specific sediment
toxicity
data to better understand bioavailability, was not planned or conducted as a
part of the UAA. Table 4-10 itemizes the sediment chemistry data obtained from
various stakeholder agencies
in the data acquisition process. Sampling locations are
shown in Figure 4-5. Since sediment studies are generally less frequent than water
quality, to get a
more complete assessment of all reaches, data from the last twelve
years
was utilized (1990-2002).
4-12
\\~tl!'>'Vr1\common\CAWS
UAA\AUllU6t edits\Section 4.1 UAA.leahsedtts.doc
Section 4
Characterization
of Waterway Reaches
Figure 4-5 - Sediment Sampling Stations Legend
Sediment Sampling stations Legend
CDNI
o
2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000
,....-_
• Meters
N
+
~ "r~_'_t
C\
,.pftlOl
~
•
•
o .....
®
...."
•
/"V
Calumet River
./'../ Calumet-Sag Channel
/V
Chicago River
/'../ Chicago Sanitary lind Ship Canal
/.~',,:,.
... Grand Calumet
Little Calumat East
./'./ Little Calumet West
/V
Lower North Branch Chicago River
/"V Lower North Shore Channel
/V South Branch Chicago River
South
FOfk
/"../ Upper North Branch Chicago River
/"-~~<.
Upper North Shore Channel
/'V Not Included
4-13
Section 4
Characterization
of Waterway Reaches
Table 4-10
Studies included in UAA Assessment
SBCR, Collateral Channel
Upper NBCR.
South Branch/Fork, CSSC, Collateral
Channel
IEPA
IEPA
IEPA
USEPA
ISGS
GCR
Calumet System, NBCR, NSC
Lake Calumet
Chicago River System, CSSC , Calumet-Sag
Channel
GCR
1997
1999,2001
2000
2000,2001
1991
4.1.3.4 Biological Conditions
The health of an aquatic community is an important parameter in determining
whether the CWA goal of "fishable" is being met for the propagation of fish and
shellfish. The aquatic community includes fish, macroinvertebrates (Le. bugs that live
in streams and lakes), algae and aquatic vegetation. The wealth of biological data to
evaluate ecological integrity of the waterways comes from the fish
and
macroinvertebrates collected in the Chicago area waterways by various governmental
agencies. Biological health for the fish
and macroinvertebrate communities are
measured by indices, consisting of a variety of metrics (e.g. number of native species,
number of sensitive species, etc) and have wide use with regulatory agencies across
the United States. illinois, Ohio, and other Midwest states in USEPA Region V
commonly use these indices to help develop
both narrative and numerical biological
criteria to protect aquatic life use designations. Narrative criteria are general
in
nature and typically state that a waterway is to be "free from" a certain harmful or
noxious substance (e.g. free from oil
and grease, odor producing materials...etc.).
Narrative criteria can also include language
such as "waterways are dominated by
fish species such as green sunfish, largemouth bass...etc." Numerical criteria are
estimations of concentrations of chemicals
and degrees of aquatic life toxicity
allowable
in a waterway without adversely impacting the water body'sdesignated
uses. Typically these criteria include acute (short-term exposure)
and chronic (long-
term exposure) criteria.
As stated previously,
the objectives of the CWA are the restoration and maintenance
of the chemical, physical,
and biological integrity of the Nation'swaters. To
accomplish
that objective, the act aimed to attain a level of water quality that
"provides for the protection
and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, and
provides for recreation in and on the water" by 1983 and to eliminate the discharge of
pollutants into navigable
waters by 1985. Since the implementation of the CWA,
much of the development in determining"attainment" has been focused on chemical
criteria. Some states, like Ohio
have implemented biological criteria in their water
4-14
CDM
Section 4
Characterization
of Waterway Reaches
quality criteria. These criteria are useful in determining
if
the biological integrity of a
waterbody is being achieved.
Biological criteria are developed to evaluate cumulative biotic responses to exposure
to contaminants or other stressors (e.g. habitat alterations)
and have been useful in
measuring attainment of designated aquatic life uses. Biological criteria can be
narrative
or numerical and are usually based upon the comparison to a reference
reach
or similar water body that receives little impact from human activities.
However,
due to the uniqueness of CAWS, there are not any waterways in illinois
that could serve as a suitable reference area. Like the federally maintained navigation
channels
in CAWS, the Cuyahoga River Ship Channel in Cleveland shares similar
characteristics such as vertical sheet piled walls, deep
dredged channels, used by
large commercial vessels and has limited contact recreation (e.g. rowing, jet skiing)
use occurring
in the channeL Water quality studies (OEPA 1999) conducted for
Cuyahoga River Ship
Channel indicates that the fish and macroinvertebrate
communities are substantially degraded. The potential for recovery is limited
due to
the irretrievable
human induced conditions.
Numerous states have developed biological criteria and many are in the process of
developing aspects of biological assessments
that will support future development of
biological criteria. The State of Illinois is currently conducting biological monitoring
to evaluate biological conditions within state waterbodies,
but are not developing
biological criteria at this time. Since there are
no biological criteria under the state's
General Use criteria to determine the attainment of a waterbody to meet biological
integrity,
and there is no suitable reference waterbody for CAWS, the attainment of a
given reach will be
based on the
/I
existing best condition" observed in the waterways.
This approach will
be discussed in greater detail in Section 5.
Biocriteria and water quality criteria to protect aquatic life in CAWS may include both
numeric and narrative criteria. Narrative biological criteria can be reflective of the
dominant fish species for a given use designation, based upon the biological
expectation of the waterway.
In
this
VAA,
numerical biological criteria were used for
screening purposes
and are defined as the
liI
score for fish. The macroinvertebrate
communities will
be included as part of the aquatic life use designation based upon
this MBI as used by the State of Illinois in the Illinois Water
Q~ality
Report 2004.
The
liI
was first developed by Karr (1981) to assess small warm water streams in
Illinois and consists of 12 metrics that reflect fish species richness and composition,
number and abundance of key species, trophic structure and function, and the
condition of the fish. Each metric either receives a score of 1, 3 or 5
depending upon
how it relates to a similar waterbody (reference stream) that has little human
influence. A score of 5 means a particular metric is very similar to that of a reference
water and a metric score of 1 means that metric departs significantly from the
reference condition.
4-15
\\~t1.c:\Irl\r.ommnn\r:AW!=:
lJAA\Au(]usI edl1s\Sedion
4.1
UAA.leahsedlls.doc
MWRDGC's electroshocking crew collected fish
from 20 different locations within CA WS.
CDNI
Section 4
Characterization
of Waterway Reaches
The IBI has now become the standard, by which the biological integrity of a fish
community can be evaluated, and many states have modified the IBI to fit their
particular ecoregion, and some states have included the IBI in their water quality
criteria.
In
this UAA, a range of IBI scores using the Ohio Boatable IBI metrics (OEPA
1987)
was to be used to define the use designations for a waterway reach. The State of
illinois does
not have an approved approach to evaluate fish communities in large,
deep man-made channels, and therefore, the Ohio IBI boatable approach was used as
a
guide or expectation as to what the use designation could support in terms of fish
community structure in CAWS.
Biological Data Set
MWRDGC has collected over 25 years worth of biological data from CAWS. The
.
primary focus has been on collecting fish and to a much lesser extent,
macroinvertebrate
data in conjunction with their water quality monitoring program.
The biological
data set used in this UAA includes fish and macroinverterbrate
~ata
collected at selected locations between 1993 and 2002 (Figure 4-6).
In
addition to
these
data sets, biological data collected by IEPA was also included in this evaluation.
Habitat analysis was conducted in April 2004 by USEPA.
Fish
MWRDGC collects fish from 20 different locations within CAWS, and the sites were
sampled at least twice a year between 1974 and 1996. The fish community was
sampled using a 230-volt alternating current boat-mounted electorshocking unit, and
the length of channel shocked was
approximately 400 meters. One pass
was made on a channel side, and then
repeated for fifty meters (MWRDGC
1998). Sampling is
conducted
downstream, from the upstream
boundary of the sampling reach along
one side of
the channel (MWRDGC
1998). Shocked fish
were netted,
brought on aboard, identified,
enumerated, weighed and measured.
Additional notes
were made of any
deformities or abnormalities on the
fish.
Once measurements are completed, the fish were typically released back into the
waterway. However, some specimens were retained and brought back to the
laboratory for further analysis, or if field identification was not possible.
Fish
data was analyzed using a variety of metrics, with the primary metric being the
Ohio Boatable IBI (OEPA 1987).
Table 4-11
outlines the IBI metrics used for
evaluating
the fish data collected by MWRDGC. IBI scores indicative of water quality
conditions are as follows (Yoder, et. al. 2003):
4-16
Section 4
Characterization
of Waterway Reaches
• 50-60
Exceptional
•
40-49
Good
•
30-39
Fair
•
20-29
Poor
•
12- 20
Very Poor
Table 4-11
Oh. EPA
181 M
t .
d S
.
C.t.
f 8
t bl S.t
SpeciesCategoryComposition
I
Metric
~
Total Species
>20
10 - 20
<10
%
R.ound-bodied Suckers
>38
19 - 38
<19
Number of Sunfish Species
>3
2.3
<2
Number of Sucker Species
>5
3-5
<3
Number of Intolerant Species
>3
2-3
<2
%
Tolerant Species
<15
15 - 27
>27
Trophic Composition
%
Omnivores
<16
16-28
>28
%
Insectivores
>54
27-54
<27
%
Top Carnivores
>10
5-10
<5
Fish Condition
%
Lithophils (clean aravel and cobble spawners)
< 600
SQ miles
>50
25-50
<25
> 600
sa miles
Varies with drainaqe area
%
DELT Anomalies
<0.5
a
0.5-3.0°
>3.0
Fish Numbers
c
<200
200.450
>450
01'>
1individual at sites with <200 total fish
or>2 individuals at sites with <200 total fish
excludes tolerant species; special scoring procedures are used when relative numbers are less than 200/0.3 km
Macroinvertebrates
In
2001, MWRDGC began a benthic sampling program as an additional component of
the evaluation of biological resources within their service area. Macroinvertebrate
data were collected at established stations in the NECR, SBCR, CSSC, Calumet-Sag
Channel and the Calumet River. Additional data was collected from the nearby Des
Plaines River.
In
addition to these data, macroinvertebrate data (ponar grabs only)
were collected by IEPA at selected locations in the CAWS.
Data
were collected in 2001 and 2002 from 35 stations within the Chicago area
waterways. Sampling
was conducted by MWRDGC laboratory staff using a
combination of
Ponar grabs and Hester-Dendy (HD) artificial substrate samplers at
each sampling station. Three HD samplers were placed near the shoreline in the
littoral
zone and the mid-channel of the waterway (MWRDGC 2004). The total plate
surface area of each
HD sample plates was 0.031 m
2
•
The HD samplers were
deployed between 30 to 60 days during the summer months.
CONI
4-17
\\C:tl.,.'r1\,..........
rnnn\r.b.Wc::.IIAA\Allrn~
RriIt1=:.\!=:iAdlon
4.1
UAAleahsedits.doc
Section 4
Characterization
of Waterway Reaches
Figure 4-6 - Biological Sampling Stations
Biological Sampling stations Legend
CONI
o
2.500 5.000 7.500 10.000
~--
iMeters
N
+
Major Roads
Miilcroinvertebr.r.tes
Habitat
Fish
'WaterReclamalion Plant
/'../ Calumet River
/V Calumet-Sag Channal
/'v'Chicago Riller
/'./Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal
.. h.,,,....
Grand Calumet
little Calumet East
A/Little Calumet West
A/
Lower North Branch Chicago River
/'./Lower North Shore Channel
A/ South Branch Chicago River
South Fork
/V'
Upper North Branch Chicago River
/",/ Upper Norlh Shore Channel
/'v Notlnduded
4-18
CONI
Section 4
Characterization
of WateIWay Reaches
In conjunction with the retrieval of the HD samplers, two ponar grab samples were
collected using a petite
ponar (PP) dredge. Each ponar sample consisted of three
grabs
within 30- to 50-feet of the HD samples. All three grabs were combined in the
field to form one sample. The PP dredge samples a surface area of approximately
6-inches
by 6-inches.
Macroinvertebrate samples
were brought back to MWRDGC'slaboratory, bugs were
separated
out and preserved in 70 percent isopropanol solution, and sent to EA
Engineering, Science
and Technology, Incorporated. EA then identified the
macroinvertebrates to the lowest taxonomic level possible
and enumerated. In
addition to collecting species abundance information, represented chironomids were
examined for a variety of
head capsule deformities (MWRDGC 2004). A high
percentage of deforrhities in specimens may indicate severe water quality problems.
In addition to the data collected by the MWRDGC, the IEPA collected
macroinvertebrate
data from selected locations in the waterways over a thirty year
period. Macroinvertebrate
data were collected from one location on the CSSC from
1974
through 1992 at Division Street, at Route 83 on the Calumet-Sag Channel from
1978 to 1992;
and four locations on the NSC and the NBCR (Oakton Ave, Peterson
Ave, Lawrence Ave
and Argyle Street) in 2001. Macroinvertebrates were collected
using
HD samplers.
Metrics
used to evaluate the health of the macroinverbrate community may include
relative abundance, total species richness, emphemeroptera+plecoptera+trichopertera
(EPT) taxa, dominant taxa composition, percent
chironomidhead capsule deformities
and the MBL The State of illinois uses the MEl as a method to rapidly assess the
biological condition of a stream. The MEl is a modification of the Hilsenhoff Biotic
Index (HEI),
and is based upon the pollution tolerance for an individual species. The
MEl is
an average of tolerance ratings weighted by species abundance, as defined in
this formula:
MEl =
I
(ni til
N
Where ni is the number of individuals in each taxon, ti is the tolerance rating assigned
to
that taxon and N is the total number of individuals in the sample.
The MEl scores range from 0 to 11, with the lower scores being reflective of higher
quality
water (i.e. <6.0=good, 6.1 - 7.5=fair, 7.6 - 8.9=poor, >9.0=very poor).
Habitat
Good quality habitat is fundamental to the existence of a diverse aquatic community
as
it provides feeding, breeding and rearing areas for resident and migratory fish and
macroinvertebrate species. A survey of the aquatic habitat at 20 of the MWRDGC's
fish sampling locations
was performed. Not only would this information categorize
4-19
Section 4
Characterization
of WateIWay Reaches
the habitat types, but also would provide useful information on what habitat features
are limiting
and could be corrected in a restoration effort to improve the fish
community at
that location or at other sites in CAWS.
To address the lack of physical
habitat data,
and to understand
what other stressors (excluding
water quality
I
quantity) could
prevent the
full
attainment of the
fish community
in CAWS, the
USEPA solicited the services of the
Center for
Applied Bioassessment
and Biocriteria (CABB) to conduct
habitat analysis using the Ohio
Qualitative
Habitat Evaluation
Mixture of sheet pile bank and overhanging
Index (QHEI) procedures. The
veqetation in the SaCR
State of Ohio uses a tiered approach to defining aquatic life uses in its water quality
criteria (Rankin 2004). This approach assumes the following:
•
Not all streams have the same capability to support aquatic life,
•
Some streams
have been so irretrievably altered to support flood control and
drainage that they cannot support the same diverse aquatic community found in
minimally impacted waters, and
•
Some of the difference in aquatic communities are due to natural features unique
to a particular ecoregion.
The aquatic life
warmwater use designations in Ohio include:
•
Exceptional
Warmwater Habitat (EWH) - reflective of high quality streams,
•
Warmwater Habitat (WWH) - most Ohio streams fit into this category,
•
Modified
Warmwater Habitat (MWH) - assigned to streams and rivers that have
had extensive and irretrievable physical habitat modifications,
•
Limited Resource Waters (LRW) - restricted to streams that cannot meet MWH
use
due to extremely limited habitat conditions resulting from natural factors or
anthropogenic origin,
and
•
Limited Warmwater Habitat (LWH) - currently being phased out by Ohio EPA,
and only served as temporary use designation for those waterways receiving
point discharges that were unable to meet water quality criteria.
CONI
4-20
Section 4
Characterization
of Waterway Reaches
The Ohio tiered aquatic life use designations were considered and compared when
conducting the habitat evaluation of CAWS. Table 4-12 shows the habitat attributes
measured
during this evaluation.
Ed Rankin from
CABB, conducted habitat analyses of CAWS with the assistance of
representatives from USEPA Region V
and IEP
A.
Habitat data were collected from
March
29 through April 3 and collected at 23 sites in the Chicago area waterways,
with focus on the 20 MWRDGC fish sampling locations (Rankin 2004).
Table 4-12
Metrics and Scorin Ran es
for Ohio QHEI
Substrate
Type
. Qualit
Instream Cover
Type
Amount
Channel Quality
Sinuosity
Development
Channelization
Stabiiity
Riparian/Erosion
Width
Floodplain Quality
Bank Erosion
Pool - Riffle
Max Depth
Current Available
Pool Morphology
Riffle/Run Depth
Riffle/Run Substrate Stability
Riffle Embeddedness
Gradient
Total Score
20 points total
0-20
-5 -3
20 points total
0-9
1- 11
20 points total
1-4
1-7
1 -6
1-3
10 points total
0-4
0-3
1-3
20 points total
0-6
-2-4
0-2
0-4
0-2
-1 - 2
0-10 oints
0-100 oints
Table 4-13 summarizes QHEI range of values describing the general ability of the
habitat to
support aquatic life. Habitat analysis was also conducted on the Lower Des
Plaines River below LP&L to serve as a "reference" comparison site to validate the
scoring for CAWS sites.
4.1.4 Stakeholder Process
An
important component of the UAA process is to involve the stakeholders who have
avested interest in the management decisions being made for CAWS. Effective and
rewarding stakeholder involvement comes not from just holding public hearings, but
providing a forum for identifying public concerns and values, developing consensus
of the
vested parties, and producing efficient and effective solutions through an open
and interactive process.
4-21
SectiQn 4
Characterization
of
Waterway Reaches
At the start of the UAA process, TEPA solicited input
from various potential stakeholders to determine their
level of involvement
and
if
interested, who would be
their representative. Approximately 15-25 stakeholders
formed SAC,
which participated in "monthly"
stakeholder meetings. These meetings were extremely
important as they were an open forum for stakeholders
to express their concerns, share data,
and provide
valuable
input to management decisions for the
waterway reaches they were concerned about. The
following is a list of stakeholders
who were routinely at
the stakeholder meetings:
•
USEPA, Region V
•
TEPA
•
MWRDGC
•
City
of Chicago
•
USACE
•
illinois International Port District
•
Friends of the Chicago River
•
Lake Michigan Federation
•
Environmental Law
and Policy Center/Sierra Club
•
Prairie Rivers
Network
•
Southeast Environmental Task Force
•
Midwest Generation
•
Chemical Industry Council of illinois
•
Com Products
•
illinois Environmental Regulatory
Group
•
illinois River Carriers Association
CONI
4-22
NSC upstream of the North Side WRP
Section 4
Characterization
of Waterway Reaches
In
addition to the stakeholder meetings, IEPA conducted public meetings twice per
year throughout the Chicago area. These meetings were held in Evanston, downtown
Chicago, the Palos Heights area, and the Southeast Chicago area. The purposes of the
meetings
were to inform and update the public on the UAA process and solicit the
concerns
and recommendations they may have regarding the uses occurring in the
Chicago area waterways.
Health Advisory for CAWS
On a parallel track with the
VAA,
representatives from USEPA-Region V, IEPA, the
Illinois
Department of Public Health, MWRDGC, the City of Chicago, and Cook
County participated in the development of a health advisory pamphlet and warning
sign that
would be distributed and posted throughout the Chicago area. The
pamphlet describes how to use the waterways safely considering the physical
constraints of the channels
and harmful bacteria levels in the water. The above
agencies will distribute the.pamphlets
and MWRDGC is in the process of posting
their
property along the waterways with health advisory signs. The City of Chicago
and Chicago Park District are in the process of developing similar signs for posting on
City property that are adjacent to the waterways.
4.2 North Shore Channel System (Upper and Lower)
The NSC begins at the MWRDGC Wilmette Pumping Station and ends at the North
Branch Dam in West River Park. It is divided into two segments, upper and lower:,
with the MWRDGC North Side WRP as the break point. The total length of both
segments is 7.7 miles. The channel consists of earthen side slopes
with an average
width and depth of 90-feet and
5- to 10-feet, respectively. The
channel'sriparian
land use
includes
parks and a few
commercial lots. The
narrow
channel has good vegetative
overhang
and habitat for
various fish, bird,
and turtle
species. Its current use
designation is Secondary
Contact
downstream of the
MWRDGC
North Side WRP
and General Use upstream of
the plant.
4.2.1
Recreation and
Navigation
Uses
Recreation and navigation use surveys of the NSC were conducted for fourteen days
between June 24, 2003 and October 1, 2003 by IEPA, CDM, MWRDGC, USEPA and
the Lake Michigan Federation. The teams counted the number of times each category
of recreational use
was observed as summarized in Table 4-14.
4-23
COM
Section 4
Characterization
of Waterway Reaches
Table 4.14
Activity Observed on NSC
I
Count of
I
%of Total
Observed
Observed
Observed Activity
Activities
Activities
SwimminQ, DivinQ or JumpinQ
0
0%
SkiinQ or TubinQ
0
0%
Wadina
1
1%
Canoeing, Sculling or Hand-powered boating
activity
16
21%
FishinQ
57
73%
Power BoatinQ
4
5%
Observed uses on the NSC were wading, fishing, canoeing/hand-powered boating
activity,
and power boating. No commercial navigation was observed. The following
additional recreation related information is
noted in the record:
•
Three canoe
launches-two from Oakton and Ladd Arboretum, and one at
Lincoln Village;
•
The Woodlands Academy, Loyola Academy, North Park College, Northwestern
University
and New Trier High School Rowing Club report recreational use from
mid-March to November at the
Oakton
&
NSC launch;
•
The Evanston Ecology Center
reported canoe launches in 2002 and 2003 at 837 and
896, respectively;
•
Recreational use
was reported at Skokie Park District Dock and Fishing Pier;
•
One private dock; and
•
Several events taking place on the channel, including: River Rescue Day, canoe
trips,
and the Chicago Rivers School Network.
4.2.2
Water Quality
The water quality of the Upper NSC is heavily influenced by the amount of Lake
Michigan discretionary diversion allowed at Wilmette, since
it
comprises the majority
of flow
in this reach. The Lower NSC starts at the MWRDGC North Side WRP whose
average
annual flow rate is 431 cfs (MWRDGC 2001) and makes up the majority of the
average flow
in the reach. During wet weather, numerous CSOs discharge along the
entire length of
both the Upper and Lower NSC reaches. There is also an instream
aeration station at Devon Avenue
on the Lower NSC. These features are all identified
on the monitoring location and CSO outfall maps in Section 4.1.
4.24
Section 4
Characterization
of Waterway Reaches
Water Quality conditions were evaluated using the use attainment screening
approach described in Section 4.1. In general, screening criteria were aligned with
existing General Use Water Quality Standards criteria as the benchmark for achieving
CWA goals. Bacteria screening criteria is the exception, where thresholds were set
using USEP
A'slatest draft bacteria guidance which differs from the current General
Use criteria. For reference, Illinois General Use Water Quality Standards are included
in Section 3.4.2. In all cases screening criteria exactly match UAA recommended
water quality criteria presented in Section 5.
4.2.2.1 Dissolved Oxygen
Figure 4-7
shows the percent of the time D.O. levels did not meet water quality
screening criteria. The
Upper NSC suffers from low D.O. levels much of the time.
These conditions
may be attributed to frequent low flow conditions coupled with
periodic surges of CSO and storm water discharges. D.O. in this reach often takes
several
days to recover, depending on the severity of the event, the amount of
discretionary lake diversion occurring
and other factors.
Figure 4-8
demonstrates this
D.o. response at Simpson Street after a large rain event in August 2002.
Figure 4-7 - The Percent Time
D.O.
Levels Were Below Criteria (General Use Standards)
o
DO <4mgll
DO<5mgll
DO < 6 mg/l more than 8 hrs/day
100
'::====-~=-~~===-::"':'::"=~-------.,---------,
90 -l-
--.l.!.IIJJ'~Lm:!:tL
I_---'L~o~we~r~N~o~rt~hl.-_1
ID
80 +---------'"!.'""'-''-=.......,''-''''-----------I-----=::.:..=..:..::...::.==---1
Shore Channel
Shore Channel
C,)
; 70
-1---------------""'-------------11---------1
1 60 +---------,----""--1
~
60 +-------,-,r--....:..:.-----==
W
40
-1---'''''''
i
30
~
20
lL
10
o
Linden Street
Sirrpson street
Main Street
Monitoring Location
Devon Avenue
The MWRDGC conducted a study of the effects of waterway operation on D.O. levels
during the period of July 10 through October 31, 2001 concluding that when
discretionary diversion at the Wilmette Pumping Station was interrupted, the D.O.
downstream at Linden, Simpson, and Main Streets on the NSC dramatically
decreased below the 5.0
mg/L D.O. screening criterion. The duration of the time for
recovery of D.O. levels
and especially the magnitude of the decrease in D.O. were
caM
4-25
Section 4
Characterization
of Waterway Reaches
••
• DOSat
~"""'Temp
-Aaln
Ill •
•
DO
Aeacl1=North Shore Channel Sequence=2 SlallonlD=Slmpson Street Year=2002 Monlh=8
Figure 4-8
- D.O.
Response at Simpson Street after
a
Larg~
Rain Event in August 2002
much greater at Simpson and
Main Streets compared to
Linden Street. This condition
may be attributed to the
higher oxygen
demand
further downstream.
(MWRDGC 2002).
The one D.O. monitoring
station on the Lower NSC at
Devon Avenue almost
always
stayed above the 5
mg/L screening criterion
during the past five years
and 13 percent of the time
dropped below 6 mg/L for
more
than 8 hours/day. The
wet weather D.O. response at Devon Avenue is much less severe than along the
Upper NSC as shown in Figure 4-9. The North Side WRP effluent flow that
dominates this reach helps
dampen the CSO impact seen on the Upper NSC.
Generally, the times D.O.
stayed below 6 mg/L for appreciable lengths of time were
during warmer summer months, particularly following larger rain events when CSOs
likely occurred.
The
Devon Avenue monitoring station is 1.2 miles downstream of the North Side
WRP
and 0.1 miles upstream of a diffused instream aeration station (MWRDGC 2002).
D.O. levels
in the North Side WRP effluent ranged from 5.3 - 9 mg/L and averaged
7.25
mg/L as calculated from daily D.O. measurements provided by MWRDGC
collected
in the years 2000
through 2002.
Reach=North Shore Channel Sequence=4 SlatlonlD=Devon Avenue Year=2000 Monlh=11
Figure 4-9 - D.O. Response at Devon Avenue after a Large
Rain Event in November 2000
••
• DOsat
, :I .:>
Tomp
-Aain
•
*_ .. 00
15
T
-,-.-
T
-r
..
T35
,
!
,
!
12
t.----l.----J-.-----J------J
I
~
I
~
't:::::-
28
c
I
1_ .
to-.
f'.....-J....
I
I
I
!
--r-"'-~
!
i
9
~----;-r.------:-.j---.\
A/~··-~f,l'W---·----l·
!
>':,./'.r\;'V
!'-.t l\;."
~~':J::N::v~~
V'V.::J'I;
!
Q'
"PO>';,,'p,,';\'
.,.
\" "". "'J
",,".~
~,,:~ ~I
I
o
6
l----·~~-'~hA.~q~;_.
,------.~-:..~fr_~t~:..-
..-.-....+
i
i:~'l;vi
'i
!
I
I .'
I
!
I
3
i--------i---.-----...;.---.---.-.-.-1-.---.----<.
, I Iii
i
! I
!
!
i
o.
'J •• '
.i
'0
240CTOO
04NOVOO
16NOVOO
2BNOVOO
09DECOO
4.2.2.2 Temperature
Water temperature in the NSC
is
recorded continuously at
Linden Street, Simpson Street,
Main Street and Devon
Avenue. Temperatures
during
the last five years exceeded
screening criteria less
than one
percent of the time
at Main
Street and Devon Avenue and
never exceeded criteria during
that period at the Linden and
Simpson Street stations,
indicating that
water
temperature is not a significant concern in this reach.
CDM
4-26
.
Section 4
Characterization
of Watetway Reaches
4.2.2.3 Bacteria
Bacteria concentrations in the NSC can be characterized using the four instream grab
sampling locations, two on each the Upper and Lower channels. Using the limited
contact recreation
and recreational navigation water quality screening criteria of 1030
and 2470 cfu/100ml, respectively, the frequency distribution for
E.coli
at each station
from March
through November are shown in
Figure 4-10.
Each station is labeled
with the number of samples included in the distribution.
Figure 4-11
shows the
March through November
E.coli
geometric mean for each station.
CSOs along the
Upper NSC, also shown in Figures 4-10 and 4-11, are the likely cause
for elevated
E.coli
levels exceeding 2470 cfu/100 ml at Central and Oakton Avenues.
There are also
numerous CSOs on the Lower NSC, which combined with the
undisinfected discharge from the
North Side WRP result in concentrations over 2470
most of the time (100 percent at Devon Ave.). The Albany Avenue station shown on
the map is on the North Branch just upstream of the confluence with the NSC and is
not in the UAA study area.
It
is included for reference only.
4.2.2.4 Metals and Other Constituents
All constituents analyzed by the grab sampling station are shown in
Table 4-15.
Figures 4-12
and
4-13
show the percent of time metals and other pollutant
concentrations exceeded
water quality screening criteria at the four grab sampling
locations along the NSC. Constituents}hat never exceeded
water quality criteria are.
not shown. The number of samples taken for each constituent with an exceedance at
all
grab sampling stations is shown in
Table 4-16.
Chronic metals screening was
calculated
based on instantaneous monthly grab samples rather than the arithmetic
average of at least four consecutive samples collected over
any period of at least four
days. Details of
pH exceedances are shown in
Table 4-17.
Only stations with pH
exceedances are shown.
4.2.2.5 Water Reclamation Plant Effluent
Since the North Side WRP
is
the primary source of flow in the Lower NSC, effluent
concentrations
were also compared to water quality screening criteria. Since
MWRDGC effluent
water quality is regulated through their NPDES permit, this
assessment does
not represent discharge compliance and is only intended to provide
a perspective regarding
the relationships between an important point source and
instream conditions.
Table 4-18
describes the percent of the time effluent
concentrations exceeded
water quality screening criteria in the past five years.
Parameters that never exceeded the criteria are
not listed. All constituents analyzed
by water treatment plant are shown in
Table 4-19.
The number of samples taken for
each constituent
with an exceedance at all treatment plants is shown in
Table 4-20.
Details of pH exceedances at wastewater treatment plants are shown in
Table 4-21.
Only treatment plants with pH exceedances are shown.
CONI
4-27
Section 4
Characterization
of
Waterway Reaches
Figure 4-10 -
E.coli
Bacteria Frequency Distribution for March through November
-
=
Proposed Bacteria Criteria (March - November)
~
..",..."
/V""""'-
caura..bg
a.-I
/'./~"-r
~~lilII'IbyR~~
./...,/O'a'MICIlumIt
"""UIhC'.:lilun'C'Ald:
.... """"''''''
"""'~NcntI~Q'oIc.ooR
....
/"t./
t-"
Hcnh stun
QwU'lIII
",...."", SGufl
"-to
~
Fthw
,,~'
bA'lf'o«
,/"'0.,/
~Hath
hdI QiQ", A__
....
/L\>pM'Hcrth~Q-..l
/'v'
Nof.Wloklct.d
I!t
w•• , RtObl'Nion Plint
C\ Pu""9
Strllon
~hd<at"..outf"lI:
•
CMnbIn..:l S_et
Ov"-OH
LUforR...ds
N
+
o
2.500 5.000 7.500 10.000
&M_
,Meters
CONI
4-28
Section 4
Characterization
of Waterway Reaches
Figure 4-11 - E. coli Geometric Mean Concentrations for March through November
~ln
..
ltl.ll_Outt.l.
0'
Coml*'ln
5_
Ow<tttlo..
~Rud5
=
Proposed Bacteria Criteria (March - November)
Geometrtc
N'Iean
.A/e-••
1I1btr
""'-"CI/l•• K;itC,aUtl
.l'\/"C'~11l11l
/'t./C.W90ml"rtallJa~C3U11
"i\-<r'~OlllGC1I"
••
t
Uhtcall••
t~
~Uhtc
.....
tWUI
""'t'lWttKDlUIIUc1Clblg)'llIIlt
/'V"~f_Itt.CI"C'.I'1
.A./illO'•••• d C\Il;ll!JIlllltl
SioUlfo*
/"v'UJ:pt:rltOlU IlIlel C,btgo "lItr
/'_~~rl'toIUCI:lIo
.. C'lIIltl
/'../ Notlld.lftd
"
W... Rlol.lm.lltieflPa..nt
~
PumpShill10n
N
•
+
o
&-.
2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000
,Meters
CONI
4-29
Section 4
Characterization
of Waterway Reaches
Table 4.15
Constituents Analyzed at CAWS Grab Sampling Sites
Constituents
Temperature
Fluoride
Iron
Dissolved Copper
pH
Silver
Lead
Dissolved Chromium
Ammonia Total
Arsenic
Nickel
Dissolved Iron
Total Dissolved Solids
Barium
Manqanese
Dissolved Lead
Phenol
Boron
Mercury
Dissolved Nickel
Sulfate
Cadmium
Selenium
Dissolved Mercury
Fats, Oils and Greases
Copper
Dissolved Arsenic
Dissolved linc
Cyanide (Total)
Chromium
Dissolved Cadmium
linc
Cyanide (WAD)
Chromium +6
Notes:
1.
Temperature, pH, Ammonia Total were not taken at Grand Calumet Station 86
2.
Fats, Oils and Greases were not taken at Chicago River Station 100, Upper North Branch Station 96, Upper
NSC Stations 35 and 102
3.
Only Temperature, pH and Ammonia Total were taken at Lake Calumet
4.
Dissolved Arsenic, Dissolved Cadmium, Dissolved Copper, Dissolved Chromium, Chromium +6, Dissolved
Lead, Dissolved Nickel, Dissolved Mercury and Dissolved linc were not measured at South Branch Station 40
Figure 4-12 - Percent of the Time Metal Concentrations Exceeded Water Quality
Screening Criteria
I
• Total Silver
o Dissolved Copper Chronic
II Dissolved Nickel Chronic
• Dissolved Zinc Chronic
I
100
."
..
..
...
c
to
..
...
><
809060
70
50
lmore
Upper
Channel
North
lmor8
LowerNorlhChannel
w
C
..
...
4030
18
~
20
0.
G
~
IV
~
~~
~
10
v" V
V
V
v ....... V
_v
_v_
0
Central Ave.
Oakton Ave.
Toughy Ave.
Devon Ave.
Figure 4-13 - Percent of the Time Other Pollutant Concentrations
Exceeded Water Qualitv ScreeninQ Criteria
100
...
II>
c
to
80
"C
II>II>
60
~
w
..
C
40
...
II>
~
20
0.
0
I
.Anmonia Chronic
DTotal Dissolved Solids
• Ammonia Subchronic
DpH
o AnYnonia Acute
I
--
--
Upper North
Lower North
lInore ,.;nannel
liinOre ,.;nannal
"':"0
8
45
24
6
0110
0 0
0
0 0
----...
2
0 0
Oil 0
COM
Central Ave.
Oakton Ave.
Toughy Ave.
Devon Ave.
4-30
Table 4-16
Number of Samples for Exceeding Constituents at CAWS Grab Sampling Stations
Section 4
Characterization
of Waterway Reaches
Calumet Saq Channel
43
Route #83
80
76
59
NE
NE
58
59
NE
NE
NE
NE
Calumet Saq Channel
58
Ashland Ave.
72
68
55
NE
NE
55
55
NE
NE
NE
NE
Calumet Saq Channel
59
Cicero Ave.
80
75
59
NE
NE
59
59
NE
NE
NE
NE
Calumet River
55
130th SI.
73
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
57
NE
22
NE
NE
Chicaao River
74
Outer Drive
57
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
22
Chicaoo River
100
WelisSI.
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
19
NE
NE
NE
NE
CSSC
41
Harlem Ave.
58
58
59
NE
NE
NE
59
NE
NE
NE
NE
CSSC
42
Route #83
58
58
59
NE
NE
NE
59
NE
NE
NE
22
CSSC
48
Stephen SI.
57
NE
58
NE
NE
NE
58
NE
NE
NE
22
CSSC
75
Cicero Ave.
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
60
NE
22
NE
22
Lockport
Powerhouse
CSSC
92
Forebay
146
146
153
NE
152
NE
154
NE
NE
154
96
CSSC
107
Westem Ave.
21
NE
22
NE
NE
NE
22
NE
NE
NE
22
GCR
86
Bumham Ave.
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
59
NE
24
NE
NE
Little Calumet East
56
Indiana Ave.
74
71
NE
NE
NE
NE
55
NE
NE
NE
NE
Little Calumet West
76
Halsted SI.
81
NE
59
59
59
59
59
NE
22
NE
22
Lower North Branch
46
Grand Ave.
NE
57
60
NE
NE
NE
60
NE
NE
NE
22
Lower NSC
36
Touhy Ave.
54
54
60
NE
NE
NE
60
NE
22
NE
22
Lower NSC
101
Devon Ave.
17
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
21
NE
22
NE
22
South Branch
39
Madison SI.
58
58
60
NE
NE
NE
60
NE
NE
NE
22
South Branch
40
Damen Avenue
31
31
32
NE
NE
NE
32
NE
NE
NE
NE
South Branch
108
Halsted SI.
20
20
NE
NE
NE
NE
21
NE
NE
NE
NE
South Fork
99
Archer Ave.
21
21
NE
NE
NE
NE
22
NE
NE
NE
22
Upper North Branch
37
Wilson Ave.
54
54
60
NE
NE
NE
60
NE
22
NE
NE
Upper North Branch
73
Diversev Ave.
54
54
60
NE
60
NE
60
NE
22
NE
22
Upper North Branch
96
Albanv Ave.
25
NE
30
NE
NE
NE
30
NE
NE
NE
NE
Upper NSC
35
Central Ave
38
37
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
18
NE
NE
NE
Upper NSC
102
Oakton Ave.
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
21
NE
NE
NE
is no exceedance
COM
4-31
\\SUsvr1\common\CAWS
UAA\August
edits\Section 4.1 UAA.leahsadils.doc
Section 4
Characterization
of
Waterway Reaches
Table 4.17
Statistics for pH Samples at CAWS Grab Sampling Sites with pH Measurements that have Exceeded Standards
South Branch
39
Madison St.
7.59
6.7
9.5
58
3.45
3.45
South Branch
40
Damen Ave
7.77
6
9.79
31
12.90
9.68
CSSC
41
Harlem Ave
7.48
6.55
9.4
58
1.72
1.72
CSSC
42
Route #83
7.47
6.5
9.05
58
1.72
.1.72
Calumet Sag
Channel
43
Route #83
7.45
6
9.65
80
10.00
5.00 .
CSSC
48
Ste hen St.
7.51
6.8
9.11
57
1.75
1.75
Calumet River
55
1301h SI.
7.94
6.4
9.55
73
5.48
4.11
Little Calumet East
56
Indiana Ave
7.91
6.7
10.09
74
6.76
6.76
Calumet Sag
Channel
58
Ashland Ave
7.58
6
9.62
72
5.56
4.17
Calumet Sag
Channel
59
Cicero Ave
7.49
5.1
9.71
80
8.75
6.25
Chica
0
River
74
Outer Drive
7.85
6.8
9.73
57
1.75
1.75
Little Calumet
West
76
Halsted St.
7.51
5
9.06
81
4.94
3.70
Lockport
Powerhouse
CSSC
92
Foreba
7.22
5.3
8.7
146
2.74
2.74
South Fork
99
Archer Ave
7.08
5.1
8.4
21
9.52
4.76
CSSC
107
Western Ave
7.08
6.3
7.9
21
14.29
0.00
South Branch
108
Halsted St.
7.15
6.2
8.1
20
5.00
0.00
U
erNSC
35
Central Ave
8.09
7.1
9.33
38
7.89
7.89
U
er NSC
36
Touh Ave
7.47
6
9.3
54
3.70
1.85
Upper North
Branch
37
Wilson Ave
7.51
6.4
9.18
54
5.56
3.70
Upper North
Branch
73
Diverse Ave
7.47
6.4
10.16
54
9.26
5.56
CSSC
75
Cicero Ave
7.51
6.1
9.69
59
8.47
5.08
Upper North
Branch
96
Alban Ave.
7.64
6.2
8.5
25
4.00
0.00
Lower NSC
101
Devon Ave
7.19
6.4
7.9
17
5.88
0.00
CONI
4-32
Section 4
Characterization
of Waterway Reaches
Table 4-18
North Side WRP Effluent Water Quali
D.O.
E.eo/i*'*
*
**
***
Since water temperature was not available, the chronic ammonia criterion for water
temperatures <14.51 °C was used because it is not temperature dependant.
Effluent was compared to use attainment screening criteria and does not represent
discharge compliance.
E.coli
concentrations estin;Jated using EC/FC ratio of 0.84 (MWRDGC, 2004)
Table 4-19
Parameters Analyzed at CAWS Wastewater Treatment Plants
Constituent
I
North I Stickney I Lemont I Calumet
:
pH
X
X
X
X
Dissolved Oxyqen
X
X
X
X
Ammonia
X
X
X
X
Fluoride
X
X
X
X
Phenol
X
XXX
Fecal Coliform
X
X
X
X
Sulfate
X
X
Total Cyanide
X
X
X
X
Arsenic
X
X
X
X
Barium
X
X
X
X
Cadmium
X
X
X
X
Chromium
X
X
X
X
Copper
X
X
X
X
Iron
X
X
X
X
Dissolved Iron
X
XXX
Lead
X
XX
X
Manganese
X
X
X
X
Mercury
X
XX
X
Nickel
X
XX
X
Selenium
X
XX
X
Silver
X
X
X
X
Zinc
X
XX
X
Chromium 6+
X
X
X
X
WAD Cyanide
X
X
Temperature
X
X
Unionized Ammonia
X
Fats, Oils and Greases
X
4-33
Section 4
Characterization
of Waterway Reaches
Table 4-20
Number of Samples for Exceeding Constituents at CAWS Wastewater Treatment Plants
,
Number of samples
, Dissolved I
I
Fecal
!
i
I
WWTP
Oxygen
, Ammonia
~
Coliform i Silver ; pH
Flouride
Iron
North
1095
972
261
1824
NE
NE
NE
Stickney
NE
NE
261
1825
730
NE
NE
Lemont
729
730
261
1826 730
226
1826
Calumet
730
NE
262
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE is no exceedance
Table 4-21
Statistics for pH Samples at CAWS Wastewater Treatment Plants with pH Measurements that have
Exceeded Standards
I
%of pH [
Samples
i
,
IExceeding
!
I
.
Number i General i
i Mean Minimum I Maximum
of
I
Use
i
WWTP I pH
------
---------
pH I pH Samples I Standard I
%ofpH
Samples
Exceeding
Secondary
Use Standard
CDM
4.2.2.6 Constituents of Concern
Table 4-22 shows the water quality use attainment screening constituents of concern
for the NSC. The
maximum percent exceedance that any sampling location in the
reach exceeded screening criteria
in the past five years is identified. Chronic metals
screening
was calculated based on instantaneous monthly grab samples rather than
the arithmetic average of at least four consecutive samples collected over any period
of at least four days. E.coli bacteria calculations were similarly calculated as data
representing five samples collected over 30 days was not available.
4.2.3
Sediment Quality
There was limited sediment quality data available for the NSC, but a recent surface
sediment
study conducted in 2001 by IEPA at five locations shown in Figure 4-5
provides a suitable synopsis of existing conditions. Metals analyses results were
compared to the TEC and PEC thresholds developed by MacDonald and the Long
Morgan Effects Range Low (ER-L)
and Effects Range Median (ER-M) described in
Section 4.1.3.3. As a reminder, the TEC represents the concentration level where toxic
effects
may start occurring, particularly for sensitive benthic organisms and the PEC
represents the concentration level
where toxic effects are probable for both sensitive
and tolerant benthic organisms. Table 4-23 summarizes locations where these
thresholds
were exceeded for heavy metals.
4-34
Section 4
Characterization
of
Waterway Reaches
Parameter
Dissolved Oxygen
TerIllerature
E.Co/i'
Total Silver
Dissolved Copper Chronic
Dissolved Nickel Chronic
Dissolved Zinc Chronic
Arrrnonia Chronic
Arrrnonia Subchronic
Arrrnonia Acute
Tatal Dissolved Solids
pH
Maximum percent exceedance at
any
sampling location il reach
_
0% c=J <=10% ..>10 and <=25% ..>25%
• Limited Contact Recreation
I
Recreational Navigation
Table 4-23
NSC S rf
Sd'
Q
r
Station
Exceeded TEC or ER.L
Exceeded PEC or
ER.M
1- NSC mouth
Copper, Zinc, Lead
Lead
2- Central St.
Copper, Lead, Mercury and Zinc
3 • Green Bay Rd.
Cadmium, Copper, Lead, Nickel, Zinc
4. Dempster St.
Cadmium, Copper, Lead and Zinc
HCCA 04 . Peterson Ave.
Copper, Cadmium, Lead
SOD data was available for one study conducted by MWRDGC in the fall and winter
of 2001 that included two locations in the Upper NSC. SOD is a measure of how
much oxygen bottom sediments consume from the water column to decompose
organic materials. SOD values
in the vicinity of a municipal sewage outfall typically
range from
2 to 10 g/m2/ day and average approximately 4 g/m2/ day at 200 C.
(Thomann 1987). The SOD
measured at Simpson Street was 3.89 g/M2/day and at
Main Street 1.85
g/M2/day.
4.2.4
Biological
Assessment
4.2.4.1 Fish
Fish sampling in the NSC was conducted at four MWRDGC locations:
•
Sheridan Road
in Wilmette
•
Dempster Street
in Skokie
c:ICIWI
4-35
Section 4
Characterization
of
Waterway Reaches
•
Touhy Avenue in Lincolnwood
•
Peterson Avenue
in Chicago
Thirty-two species of fish (excluding hybrids)
were captured in the NSC from 1993 to
2002,
with the most dominant non-game fish being gizzard shad and the common
carp (Table
4-24). Dominant game fish species included largemouth bass and bluegill.
The greatest diversity
(22 species) was observed at Sheridan Road, just downstream of
the Wilmette
Pumping Station on Lake Michigan. Pescitelli, et. al. (2001) collected ten
species in 2001 at Peterson Avenue. Eight of the ten species were native fish with the
dominant fish being gizzard shad and largemouth bass.
Fish diversity
tended to fluctuate on a yearly basis, with some species being more
dominant in one year, and not the rest (e.g. large niunber of spottail shiners captured.
in 1997 and not in other years). Temporally, species diversity showed a dramatic
decline in the NSC from 1993 to 2002 (Figure 4-14). The IEI scores for Sheridan Road
(Figure 4-15) tended to be higher than the three downstream sampling locations. The
higher the IEI score, the more diverse and healthy the fish community is for that
section of a stream.
IBI scores for this reach of the water were indicative of fair to very
poor water quality.
Figure 4-14 - Temporal Trend in Species Diversity in the North Shore
Channel 1993 - 2002
30
25
III
Ql
'0
20
Ql
Q.
-
en
0
..
Ql
15
,g
10
E
:::l
Z
5
0
CDM
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
Year
1999
2000
2001
2002
4-36
\\..<:;tlc:vr1\Nvnmnn\(;;AWR lJAA\Aumtsl: edils\Secllon 4.1 UAA.leahsedits.doc
lTable 4.24. Species Richnes and Relative Abundance of Fish Species in the North Shore Channel 1993 - 2002- All Sampling Locations
Section 4
Characterization
of Waterway Reaches
IFishSpecies
I
1993
I
1994
I
1995
I
1996
I
1997
I
1999
r
2000 .
T-
-2001
2002
.- I."
. ..
. .
..
I
Alosa pseudoharengus
- alewife
I
12.2
7.1
3.1
I
3.5
I
I
II
I
Dorosoma ceDed/anum.
aizzard shad
I
28.3
0.5
26.5
I
65.1
I
Carassius auratus
- aoldfish
2.2
..
-
.
5.3
-
.
. .
10.9
3.9
0.5
I
66.70.9
I
70.82.0
I
59.60.9
I
38.12.0
I
Cvorinus carpio
• comron carp
0.9
2.7
3.7
1.2
0.5
2.2
1.2
3.9
27.2
Notemlaonus crysoleucas
- golden shiner
1.6
3.3
2.3
0.9
2.5
0.2
0.4
1.5
11.6
Notroois hudsonius
- soollail shiner
2.7
7.1
0.6
0.3
30.2
0.3
Pimeohales notatus
- bluntnose rrinnow
38.9
40.3
5.2
1.0
9.5
0.2
0.4
2.2
P/meohales oromelas
• fathead rrinnow
1.8
0.5
0.5
0.1
Carp x Qolclfsh
1.2
2.9
5.2
1.5
0.5
0.9
0.2
0.1
. . . ..
-
Catostomus commerson/
- white sucker
I
0.5
0.2
I
1.1
I
0.3
I
I
..
'.'
I
0.3
I
M/saurnus anau/llicaudatus
• Onanlal weatherfish
I
I
0.2
I
II
I
.. '
I
I
I
Ameiurusmelas
• blackbUllhead
0.6
1.5
I
1.1
I
1.5
I
I
1.1
0.6
I
I
I
I
Ameiurusnatalis
- yellowbullhead
I
0.2
I
0.2
I
0.1
I
I
I
I
I
1.4
I
I/ctalurus punctatus
- channel catfish
I
I
I
. .. '
I
0.1
I
0.8
I
0.1
I
0.7
I
I
Esox americanus
• arass pickerel
I
I
0.2
I
I
I
I
I
I
Esoxlucius
- nor1hern pike
I
0.1
I
I
II
I
Umbra limi
• central mudrrinnow
I
.
',-
.
.
I
I
I
0.2
I
I
I
I
Oncorhynchus mvkfss
• rainbowtrout
I
. .. '
.
.-
I
I
I
0.5
I
II
I
I
I
Oncorhynchus tshalWlscha
- chinook salmon
I
0.1
I
0.1
I
I
I
Salmo trulta
• browntrout
I
0.1
I
0.1
0.2
I
II
I
I
I
Culaea Inconstans
- brook stickleback
-
.
-
.. "
I
-
..
..
.'
.
I
I
II
I
I
,Gasterosteus aculeatus
- lhreesoine sickleback
I
0.4
I
0.3
I
I
I
I
I
Pun.aitius ounqitius
• ninespine stickleback
I
0.2
I
I
I
0.1
I
I
I
.. -
.
-
: .
I
Ambloolites rupestris
• rock bass
0.2
0.6
0.3
0.2
1.9
0.7
Lepomls cyaneDus
• areen sunfish
2.9
6.4
4.0
1.8
8.5
0.7
0.8
3.7
Lepomls aibbosus
. pumpkinseed
0.6
2.6
1.1
0.3
2.1
3.3
1.2
2.0
Lepomls humUis
- orangespotEd sunfish
0.1
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.4
Leoomls macrochlrus
- blueaill
2.0
9.4
8.8
5.9
44.2-
11.9
4.7
10.6
2.0
Micropterus salmoides
- larQemoulh bass
1.6
8.3
22.8
11.0
1.0
10.6
13.5
11.4
10.2
Pomoxis niaromaculatus
- black crappie
0.3
0.2
0.8
1.7
0.8
1.2
3.4
Pumpkinseed x
BlueQiB hybrid
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
Green
sunfish x Blueaill hYbrid
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.5
0.2
0.1
Green sunfish x Pumpkinseed hybrid
0.2
0.1
1.0
0.2
0.3
'-
..
-
'.
• l-
I
Percaflavescens
• yellowperch
I
0.5
0.2
I
0.4
I
II
I
I
'-
.. -
-
' .
I
Morone americana
• while perch
I
II
..
-
I
0.7
I
~--
L_
,-
..
~:_
..
-,,-
...,. __
.
--
CONI
IIStlsv'11commonlCAWS UAAlAugust edilslSeclion 4.1 UAA.leehsedlls.doc
4-37
Taxa richness at each location ranged from
two to seventeen organisms including
Tubificid (sludae worm).
Section 4
Characterization
"of Waterway Reaches
Figure 4-15. 181 Scores for NSC Fish Sampling Locations 1992 - 2002
35
30
25
20
15
10
o+'--"+'---'i-'-
,:><$
~~~?~~~~~~ftft~ftft/~$~~~~~~~~~~~~~
cf
xi/?
,:>'" cf
x'lJ
,:>'" (J
x'lJ ':><><:'
ov~
x'lT
,:>'"
o"~
x'lT
,:>'"
o"~
x'lT
,:><$
ov~
x'lJ
,:>'" (J
x'lJ
,:><$ 0
xi/?
,:><$ 0
xi/?
,:>'"
sampling Dale
I-+-Sheridan Rd --Dempstar St
Touhy Ave .....Peterson Ave I
4.2.4.2 Macroinvertebrates
Macroinvertebrates are a group of animals without backbones that are large enough
to see
without a microscope. They are an important link in the aquatic food chain of
CAWS.
In
a typical Illinois stream, the energy stored by plants is available to animal
life either
in the form of leaves that fall in
the water or in the form of algae that grows
on the stream bottom, all of which are
consumed by macroinvertebrates and
detritivores (organisms that eat decaying
matter, e.g. bacteria). The
macroinvertebrates
in turn, are a source of
energy for larger animals
such as fish. Most
bottom-dwelling macroinvertebrates cannot
survive
in contaminated water and enriched
sediments. However,
many species can
survive
or even thrive in polluted water.
In
a healthy stream, the benthic community
will include a variety of pollution-sensitive
macroinvertebrates, while
in an unhealthy
stream, there
may be only a few types of non-sensitive and tolerant
macroinvertebrates present. The macroinvertebrate
data collected by MWRDGC
(MWRDGC 2004)
and the data provided by IEPA (Essig 2004) showed 31 taxa of
macroinvertebrates
were found at five sampling locations in the NSC (Table 4-25a
and Table 4-25b).
4-38
Section 4
Characterization
of Waterway Reaches
Taxa richness at each of these locations ranged from two to nineteen organisms, with
Peterson Avenue having the highest diversity (19) of macroinvertebrates. Data were
collected
by Hester-Dendy samplers (IEPA and MWRDGC) and the petite ponar
dredge (MWRDGC) . The HD samplers will allow colonization both by drifting
macroinvertebrates
and sediment-dwelling organisms, while the dredge will typically
sample only those organism that live
in the sediment. The most dominant sediment-
dwelling organism
in this reach was Oligochaeta, a tubificid worm that lives within
the specialized tubes they secrete. With their heads positioned at the bottom of the
tubes, the
worms extend their tails and wave them in the water column to induce
aerated
water downward where the D.O. is absorbed into the body. The red-color .
observed
in the tubificids is due to the very high concentrations of hemoglobin, which
allows
them to exist in oxygen-poor waters. The tubificids are usually indicative of
poor water quality conditions and usually exist in large numbers in waters dominated
by wastewater. The second dominant macroinvertebrate group was the dipterans
(flies), which are generally
indicativa of degraded water quality conditions when they
make
up a high percentage of the sample.
MBI scores for the IEPA
HD sampling data were generally lower than the MWRDGC
HD data for the NSC sites. Although taxa richness was low at Oakton Street, it did
have the lowest MBI score of 6.2 for combined HD plates. The Peterson Avenue site
was dominated by more pollution tolerant organisms. As stated previously, the MBI
score ranges from zero to eleven,
with the lower MBI score reflecting a population
comprised of more pollution sensitive organisms (high quality), while the higher
score indicates a predominance of species
known to occur in severely polluted waters.
Overall, the MBI scores for the NSC indicate that this stretch of the CAWS is reflective
of fair to
poor water quality.
4.2.4.3 Habitat Assessment
Based upon the habitat survey results conducted by Rankin (2004) the NSC had fair to
poor habitat conditions. The limiting factors for this site were:
•
Predominance of silty-muck
and sand substrate
•
Severe
embeddedness
•
Limited flow in the Upper NSC
•
Channelized
nature of the waterway
•
Limited instream cover and structure
The assessment concluded the NSC could potentially
support an assemblage of
tolerant organisms,
and those species reflective of high quality substrates and
structure would be absent or in limited numbers.
COM
1ISIIsvT11commonlCAWS
UMlAugusl
editslSection 4.1
UM.leahse<ms.doc
4-39
Sc
.on 4
Characterization
of Waterway Reaches
Table 4-25a - Macroinvertebrate data from the North Shore Channel
6
10
53
12
17
82
8
11
81
1
8
213
4
11
5
8
12
20
5.5
1
1
11
9
9
10
157
157
8
16
8
47
47
8
16
16
6
66
30
174
270
90
79
169
6
733
548
743
2024
445
377
822
10
8
8
16
16
66
6
3
16
362
378
3
41
252
293
8
8
6
14
205
581
786
6
88
5
47
47
6
16
16
6
16
16
7
1
2I3
4-40
S, In 4
Characterization of Waterway Reaches
Table 4-25a - Macroinvertebrate data
from the North Shore Channel
les were collected with Hester-Dendy artificial substrates.
18
18
18
21
39
33
11
Total Number
of Individuals
I
I
885
I
606
I
945
I
2,436
1,861
8,393
10,238
TaxaRichness
I
I
5
I
6
I
5
I
9
14
14
19
MBI
I
I
6.3
I
6.1
I
6.1
I
6.2
6.9
9
8.6
4-41
Table 4.25b.Maerolnvertebrlle dati from the North Shore Channel (MWRDGC Data 2001). Samples
con.cted
using Heater Dendy
(Ho)
Plates and
Petite
Ponar (PP) Dredge
10
999
37,957
16128
149274
25,656
8
lis
8
'8
8
102
14
18
7
72
93
7
'43
72
341
143
18
5311
359
288
10
484
115
Cricot
us.
slris
29
Nanoclaarus dis!inctus
1,489
43
215
NanocJadius
crasslcomuslrectinervis
sim
ani
213
9760
251
3,516
'0
377
3B
810
617
i1um nf'moenss
n
Para'sn tarsus
32
Ferrissia
90
Menetus dilatatus
8.5
7.
DreissOn3
ha
50
38
Total Number of Individuals
1474
38049
16146
149,662
48852
88168
25098
26373
Taxa RlchM"
10
2
11
10
9
"61
8.6
10
10
'0
7.5
9.5
8,6
9.9
4-'2
Table 4-26
shows those habitat attributes that define the reach of the waterway from
Sheridan Road to Peterson Avenue. The Sheridan Road fish sampling location
had
the highest QHEI score, reflecting improving conditions when compared to the other
NSC sites. This location is located closest to the Lake Michigan
and may receive some
positive
input in terms of better water quality. Overall, the NSC had poor to fair
habitat, primarily associated
with the lack of flow or current, little instream habitat,
and poor substrate. According to Rankin (2004), aquatic potential of the NSC would
support a Modified Warmwater Channelized (MWH-C) aquatic life use.
Significant habitat improvements (e.g. creating meanders, shallow shorelines)
would
have to be made to improve community structure for both fish and
macroinvertebrates and will be discussed in greater detail in Section 6.
Table 4.26
QHEI Scores for NSC Sampling Locations
Site Description
QHEI Score
Upstream/Downstream of Sheridan Road
54
Upstream of Dempster Street
47.5
Downstream of Touhy Avenue
40.0
Downstream of Peterson Avenue
49.5
4.2.5 IEPA Letter Response Request
As part of this UAA study, IEPA requested from communities along the NSC
if
they
had any plans for instream habitat improvements or the development of swimming
areas. The cities that responded did not have any long-range plans for development
in the NSC.
Back to top
4.3 Chicago River System
The Chicago River System includes the North Branch Chicago River (North Branch),
South Branch Chicago River (South Branch, the Chicago River and the South Fork of
the South Branch (Bubbly Creek). Its total length is approximately 16 miles.
The
North Branch Chicago River in this study extends from it'sconfluence with the
Chicago River to the confluence
with the North Shore Channel.
It
is divided into two
segments, upper and lower. The junction of these segments is at the Diversey
Parkway Bridge. The upper and lower segment lengths are 2.7 miles and 5 miles,
respectively. The
North Branch Canal adds an additional mile to the North Branch.
The
upper segment channel consists of earthen side slopes with an average width and
depth of 90-feet and 10-feet, respectively. The lower segment channel consists of
vertical concrete
and steel walls with an average width and depth of 150- to 300-feet
and 10- to IS-feet, respectively. The upper segment'sriparian land use includes a mix
of commercial, industrial, residential,
parks and open space. The upper segment has
4-43
\\SUsvr1\comrnon\CAWS UAA\Augusl ed1ts\Section 4.1 UAA.leahsedlts.doc
CDM
Section 4
Characterization
of Watetway Reaches
a continuous band of dense vegetation along the banks, which provides habitat for a
variety of fish, birds, and turtles. The lower segment'sriparian land use includes a
mix
of industrial, commercial and residential uses. Availability aquatic and riparian
habitat is restricted to areas around bridges and piers. The North Branch Canal's
channel consists of vertical steel walls with an average width and depth of 80- to 120-
feet
and 4- to 8-feet, respectively. The canal'sriparian land use includes a mix of
industrial!commercial and limited natural vegetation. The North Branch'scurrent
use designation is Secondary Contact.
The Chicago River begins
at the junction of the North and South Branch, and ends at
the CRCW. It is 1.5 miles in length. The channel consists of vertical concrete and
sheet pile side-walls with an average width and depth of 200- to 250-feet and
20~
to
26-feet, respectively. The channel'sriparian
land use is limited with segments
bordered by riverwalk. Its current use designation is General Use.
The
South Branch begin.s at the Chicago River and the North Branch confluence and
ends at the Damen Avenue Bridge. It has a total length of 4.5 miles. The channel
consists of vertical dock walls
with an average width and depth of 200- to 2S0-feet and
15- to 20-feet, respectively. The channel'sriparian land use is mainly commercial and
industrial. There is limited pioneer vegetation in abandoned lots. Aquatic habitat is
limited to areas under bridges. The South Branch'scurrent use designation is
Secondary Contact.
The
South Fork (Bubbly Creek) flows into the South Branch of the Chicago River near
Damen Avenue.
It
has a total length of 1.3 miles. The channel consists of steeply
sloped earth or rock and several locations have vertical dock walls. This reach has an
average width and depth of 100- to 200-feet and 3- to 13-feet, respectively. The
channel'sriparian land use is dominated by industrial and commercial uses, although
there is
an upscale single family home development being constructed. The land use
on the South Fork north of 35
th
Street is transitioning to residential and open space.
Two residential developments have been approved by the Chicago Plan Commission.
The
South Fork'scurrent use designation is Secondary Contact.
4.3.1 Recreation and Navigation Uses
North Branch Reach
Recreation and navigation use surveys of the North Branch were conducted for 16
days from June 17, 2003 through October I, 2003 by IEPA, CDM, MWRDGC, USEPA,
and the Lake Michigan Federation. The teams counted the number of times various
recreational uses
were observed as summarized in
Table 4-27.
4-44
l\Stlsvr1lcommonlCAWS UAAlAugus1 edllslSection 4.1 UAA.I..
hsed~s.doc
Section 4
Characterization
of Waterway Reaches
Table 4-27
Recreational Activities on North Branch
I
Count of
I
%ofTotal
Observed
Observed
Observed Activity
Activities
Activities
Swimminq, Divinq or Jumpinq
0
0%
Skiinq or Tubinq
2
1%
Wadinq
7
2%
Canoeing, Sculling or Hand-powered
boatinq activity
130
40%
Fishinq
80
25%
Power Boatinq
105
32%
The observed uses on the North Branch were skiing, tubing, wading, canoeing, hand-
powered boating activity, fishing and power boating. Small craft commerci9-1
navigation was observed downstream of Addison Street where the USACE maintains
the channel. The following
addition recreation related activities are noted in the'
record.
•
One boat launch at Clark Park;
•
Multiple private docks;
•
Canoes
and kayaks stored individually at various locations;
•
Chicago Chase Rowing Regatta - The Chicago Union Rowing
and Paddling
Foundation estimates 400 users in 2003 and 300 in 2204 at Wolf'sPoint (Lake
Street)/North Avenue Bridge;
•
Canoes
and kayaks available for rental- The Chicago River Canoe
&
Kayak Rental
estimates
that during the 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 (only through August 2004)
recreational seasons 200, 3000, 5000 and 5000, respectively, users launched at
Skokie
and Clark Park;
•
The Lincoln
Park Boat Club and Chicago Union Rowing and Paddling Foundation
use North Avenue Boat House at Le Moyne
&
Magnolia at the North Avenue
Turning Basin;
•
The Chicago
Union Rowing and Paddling Foundation proposed canoe access at
Lawrence/North Ave./22
nd
St. and estimated 80 users between February 21, 2004
and November 7, 2004; and,
•
Several events taking place
on the river, including: River Rescue Day, canoe trips,
Chicago Rivers School Network, Flatwater Classic, Restoration/ Beautification
Projects. The Friends of Chicago River estimate that the UCAN canoe trips
included 40, 462
and 433 users in 2002, 2003 and 2004, respectively; their field trips
included 300,
210 and 260 users in 2002, 2003 and 2004, respectively; the Flatwater
c:ICIWI
4-45
\\SIIsvrl\common\CAW5 UAAlAugusl ed1tslSecllon 4.1 UAAleahsedlls.doc
Section 4
Characterization
of Waterway Reaches
Classic included 731, 785, and 797 users in 2002, 2003, and 2004, respectively; and
740,745 and 760 users in 2002,2003 and 2004, respectively, for River Rescue Day.
Chicago River Reach
Recreation and navigation use surveys of the Chicago River were conducted for 14
days between June 24, 2003 and September 7, 2003 by IEPA, CDM and MWRDCC.
The teams counted the
number of times various recreational uses were observed as
summarized in Table 4-28.
Table 4.28
R
r
IA
r
T
Ch'
.
I
Count of
I
% ofTotal
Observed
Observed
Observed Activity
Activities
Activities
SwimminQ, DivinQ or JumpinQ
0
0%
SkiinQ or TubinQ
0
0%
Wadinq
0
0%
Canoeing, Sculling or Hand-powered
boatinq activitv
0
0%
FishinQ
2
6%
Power BoatinQ
29
94%
The observed uses on the Chicago River were fishing and power boating.
Commercial navigation
was observed in areas where the USACE maintains the .
channel. Other recreational uses contained
in the record include:
•
Boat locking
measured by the USACE was 17,372, 18,268 and 15,009 vessels in
2001,2002, and 2003, respectively;
•
Dragon Boat Races (sculling) by the Michigan Dragon Boat Association on July 24,
2004;
•
Water Trails (hand
powered boating activity) by the Chicago Area Sea Kayakers
Association at the Chicago Locks;
•
Sculling observed
by the Chicago River Rowing
&
Paddling Association;
•
Friends of Chicago River estimate their proposed canoe access along the Chicago
River will
be 1,000 users in 2004;
•
The Chicago River Schools
Network estimate their proposed canoe access on the
Chicago River System will
be 10,000 users year round;
•
The Chicago River Rowing
and Paddling Center held an Open House and Learn
to Row
Day for the on June 12, 2004;
•
Several events taking place
on the river, including: Canoe trips and Hatwater
Classic. The Friends of Chicago River estimate that the UCAN canoe trips
c:IOIWI
4-46
IIStlsvr1lcommonlCAWS UAAlAugust editslSectlon 4.1 UAA.leahsedits.doc
Section 4
Characterization of Waterway Reaches
included 46 and 32 users in 2002 and 2004, respectively; the Flatwater Classic
included 731,
785, and 797 users in 2002,2003, and 2004, respectively.
South Branch Reach
Recreation and navigation use surveys of the South Branch were conducted for 15
days between June 24, 2003 and October 1, 2003 by IEPA, CDM, MWRDGC, USEPA
and the Lake Michigan Federation. The teams counted the number of times various
recreational uses were observed. For further
study of the uses of the river, postcard
surveys were sent to
and returned from: River City Marina, South Branch Marina,
Crowley's,
and Chicago Yacht Club. The results of the survey complimented the
observed uses of the river.
Table 4-29 summarizes the teams'observations and
postcard surveys and quantifies the amount of activity observed on the South Branch:
R'
Table 4.29
S th B
AfT
h f Ch'
,
I
Count of
I
%ofTotal
Observed
Observed
Observed Activity
Activities
Activities
Swimminq, Divinq or Jumpinq
0
0%
Skiina or Tubina
5
3%
Wadinq
0
0%
Canoeing, Sculling or Hand-powered
boatina activitv
10
6%
Fishinq
66
39%
Power Boatina
89
52%
The observed uses on the South Branch were skiing, canoeing, hand-powered boating
activity, fishing
and power boating. Commercial navigation was observed in areas
where the USACE maintains the channeL The UAA record notes that the following
activities occur:
•
South Chicago Rowing Center, St. Ignatius
High School and University of Chicago
estimate that 40, 50 and 30 users, respectively, launch from Lock/Fuller,
Bridgeport, Chicago;
•
The Chicago Youth Rowing Club
and Kenwood Academy launch from mid-
March to mid-November from the Lock/Fuller, Bridgeport, Chicago launch; and,
•
Several events taking place
on the river, including: River Rescue Day and canoe
trips. The Friends of Chicago River estimate that the UCAN canoe trips included
64 and 32 users in 2002 and 2004, respectively; and their field trips included 120
users
in 2002; and 220, 220 and 240 users in 2002, 2003 and 2004, respectively, for
River Rescue Day.
CDNI
4-47
\ISUsvrllcommonlCAWS
UAAlAugust edtslSectlon
4.1
UAAleahsedlts.doc
CDM
Section 4
Characterization
of Waterway Reaches
South Fork Reach
Recreation and navigation use surveys of South Fork were conducted on July 15, 2003
by IEPA and CDM. The teams counted the number of times various recreational uses
were observed as summarized in
Table 4-30.
Table 4-30
Activities on South Fork
I
Count of
I
%ofTotal
Observed
Observed
Observed Activity
Activities
Activities
SwimminQ, DivinQ or JumpinQ
0
0%
Skiina or Tubina
0
0%
Wadina
0
0%
Canoeing, Sculling or Hand-powered
boatina
~clivitv
0
0%
FishinQ
0
0%
Power Boalina
5
100%
The observed use on South Fork was power boating. Commercial navigation was
observed in areas where the USACE maintains the channel. The UAA record notes
that the following activities occur:
•
The Chicago Youth Rowing Club
and Kenwood Academy launch from mid-
March to mid-November from the Lock/Fuller, Bridgeport, Chicago launch; ahd,
•
Several events taking place
on the river, including: River Rescue Day and canoe
trips. The Friends of Chicago River estimate
that the field trips included 80 users
in 2002; and 30, 30 and 30 users in 2002,2003 and 2004, respectively, for River
Rescue Day Canoe trips
4.3.2 Water Quality
The Chicago River System includes the waterways that flow through the downtown
Chicago area. The Chicago River proper receives fresh Lake Michigan water
diversion into the system. Significant influences on water quality in this series of
reaches includes
an instream aeration station at Webster Avenue, the North Branch
Pumping Station at Lawrence Avenue, the Racine Avenue Pumping Station that
discharges into the South Fork, the Fisk Midwest Generation
power generating
facility
on the South Branch, and numerous CSOs along
all
reaches. These features
are identified
on the monitoring location (Figure 4-2) and CSO outfall maps
(Figure 4-3) in Section 4.1.
Water Quality conditions were evaluated using the use attainment screening
approach described
in Section 4.1. In general, screening criteria were aligned with
existing General Use Water Quality Standards criteria as the benchmark for achieving
CWA goals. Bacteria screening criteria is the exception,
where thresholds were set
using USEP
A'slatest draft bacteria guidance which differs from the current General
Use criteria. For reference, Illinois General Use Water Quality Standards are included
4-48
IISIIsvr11commonlCAWS
UAAlAugust
odIls1Section 4.1
UAA.leahse,ms.doc
Section 4
Characterization
of Waterway Reaches
in
Section 3.4.2.
In
all cases screening criteria exactly match UAA recommended
water quality criteria presented
in
Section 5.
4.3.2.1 Dissolved Oxygen
There are twelve continuous D.O. monitoring stations in the Chicago River system.
Figure 4-16 illustrates the percent of the time D.O. levels fell below water quality
screening criteria from 1998 to
2002. The Chicago River clearly contributes water with
higher D.O. content to the system whereas water from the South Fork of the South
Branch typically is depressed below screening criteria.
t~~1
DO <4 mgn
DO <5 mg/f
DO < 6 mgn more than 8 hrs/day
100
90
80
..
....
70
..,ii
60
x
~
50
w
40
l
30
20
10
0
lk>per North
lower North
ChIOlgo Rinr
Soulh
Soulh Fork
Bunch
Chicago River
Br..ch Chicago
Dr.nch Chicago
7~
~.g,
~.g,
,-
e-
bl
58
571
-
_57
47
,... -----45
~
e-
-
30
li
r--~
f---25
f----- f---
I
:1
~
In
Fj
10
17
-
<
o 11
I
0'>
10
••
~
fi
1.
~
o 11
o On
O'J
I
d
Figure 4-16 - Percent of Time
D.O.
Levels Fell Below Water Quality Screening Criteria for the
Chicago River from
1998
to 2002
The South Fork generally has minimal flow except when the Racine Avenue Pumping
Station is discharging combined sewage. The 6 mg/L screening criterion for at least
16 hours per day is difficult to maintain along the North Branch.
Water quality impacts resulting from the
North Branch Pumping Station CSO were
evaluated using 2000-2002 volume
and duration data provided by MWRDCC.
Continuous time series D.O.
data was flagged six hours prior to pumping and up to
36 hours after
in
order to demonstrate impacts. Figure 4-17 shows that the percent of
time D.O. levels
dropped below water quality screening criteria in the North Branch
was significantly greater during CSO impacted periods. A review of time series plots
shows significant
wet weather D.O. sags at Lawrence Avenue just downstream of the
pumping station. Lawrence Avenue'sD.O. levels typically recovered quickly, but the
depressed D.O. levels became more severe moving
downstream with low D.O. lasting
for extended
periods of time at Kinzie Street.
In
August 2000 and 2001, fish kills were
reported
on the North Branch. The impact of CSO discharges, particularly when the
TARP system nears capacity
and the Lawrence Avenue and Racine Avenue Pumping
Stations are forced to discharge to the North Branch and South Fork of the South
Branch, are described
in
detail by the MWRDCC in a draft report titled "Effects of
4-49
lIS\lsvr11commonlCAWS UAAlAugust edIls1Sectlon 4.1 UAA.leahsed/ts.doc
CONI
Section 4
Characterization
of Waterway Reaches
Waterway Operations on D.O. in CAWS from Wilmette to Lockport during the period
July
10 through October 31,2001" (MWRDGC 2002). During this period the study
showed that storm events that did not trigger the North Branch pumping station to
discharge
and resulted in decreased D.O. at Addison and Kinzie Streets, but not
below screening criteria. The report concludes that the severity D.O. depression from
wet weather is generally more a function of the available storage capacity of the'TARP
at the beginning of the storm rather
than the amount of rainfall.
4.3.2.2 Temperature
Water temperature in Chicago River System recorded continuously at the same
twelve locations as D.O. Temperatures
during the last five years exceeded screening
criteria less
than one percent of the time from Lawrence Avenue to Division Street on
the North Branch, at Clark Street on the Chicago River and,at I-55 on the South Fork.
On the South Branch at Loomis Street, downstream of the Midwest Generation Fisk
power generating facility, temperature screening criteria were exceeded an average of
2.2 percent of the time
in the past five years. All other locations in Chicago River
System never exceeded criteria over the
past five years.
4.3.2.3 Bacteria
Bacteria concentrations in, Chicago River System were evaluated using data from the
eight monthly grab sampling locations operated
by MWRDGC. The frequency
distribution for
E.coli
results from March through November at each station using the
limited contact recreation
and recreational navigation water quality screening criteria
of 1030
and 2470
du/100ml,
respectively are shown
in
Figure 4-10. The number of
samples included
in each distribution is labeled for each station. The
E.coli
geometric
mean concentrations for each station are shown in Figure 4-11. The Upper North
Branch at Wilson Avenue is clearly still influenced by the non disinfected effluent
from the
North Side WRP. The Albany sampling location shown on the map is
located
on the North Branch outside the UAA study area just upstream of the
confluence
with the NSC and is included for reference purposes. Conditions improve
steadily moving
downstream particularly past the confluence with the Chicago River
where conditions at Outer Drive show concentrations less than 1030
cfu/100
mL 100
percent of the time
in the past five years. The South Fork adds an additional bacterial
load with concentrations above 2740
cfu/100mL
22 percent of the time.
4.3.2.4 Constituents of Concern
Table 4-31 summarizes the water quality use attainment screening constituents of
concern for CAWS. The
maximum percent exceedance that any sampling location in
the reach exceeded water quality screening criteria in the past five years is identified.
Chronic metals screening
was calculated based on instantaneous monthly grab
samples rather
than the arithmetic average of at least four consecutive samples
collected over
any period of at least four days.
E.coli
bacteria calculations were
similarly calculated as
data representing five samples collected over 30 days was not
available.
4-50
Section 4
Characterization
of Waterway Reaches
Figure 4-17 - Percent of the Time D.O. Levels Dropped Below Water Quality Screening Criteria
in the North Branch during
CSO Impacted and Non-eSO Periods
Dissolved Oxygen Secondary Use (4 mg/I)
I liB Not CSO Impacted
_ CS 0 ImpactEd I
Lavvrence
Avenue
Addison street
Fullerton
Avenue
Dwision
Street(f\BCR)
Ki reieStreet
Dissolved Oxygen General Use {5 mgtl}
ITlN at CSO Impacted
• CS 0 Impacted
Lawence Jll.enue
ftddison Sreet
F
uti
erta1 Jll.enue
Di'..4sion
Sreet(NOCR)
Kinzie Sreet
Dissolved Oxygen General Use (6mgfl16
hrslday )
mNotCSOlmpact:ed
.CSOlmpact:ed I
Law renee JWenue
AJdson street
CDM
IIStlsvr1lcommonlCAWS UAAlAugusl edltslSectlon 4.1 UAA.leahsedits.doc
Fullerton Avenue
ll'oision
Kilzie street
4-51
Section 4
Characterization
of Waterway Reaches
Figure 4-18 - Percent of time metal concentrations exceeded water quality screening criteria in the
Chica
0
River S stem
• Total Silver
•
Dissolved Zinc Chronic
o
Dissolved Nickel Chronic
100
90
~
80
c
.::
70
:
60
u
50
~
40
1:
II
30
~
20
a..
10
o
Lower
Upper North
North
Chicago
River
South Branch
South Fork
Bl'JJ1ch Chicigo River
Branch
Chicago River
Chicago
River
16
14
!I
Ii
~
II;
9
199
!i
1
!I
_Dr-!
~I
l
D_a
! 0 a
~D
__ II
II a
Wilson Ave. Dlversey Grand Ave. Outer Drive Weils St. Madison St. Halsted st. Archer Ave.
Ave .
COM
• pH
00 Ammonia
• Ammonia Acute
• Ammonia Chronic
D Ammonia Subchronic
o
Total Dissolved Solids
o
Cyanide (WAD - Acute)
1DD
9D
Lower
u
CD
c
BD
BranchUpper
ChiclllO
North
River
Branch
North
Chic110 River
ChicilloSouth
Brlnch
KIV.r
South Fork
'D
•
7D
"n,cllIo
CD
CD
&D
u
5D
~
C
4D
CD
3D
e
CD
2D
IS.
R
!
I:R ...
1D
1D
.oDlfln
"
.D~
D"'O~
"'DO UDD
OODDDD
.IT
~
___
~
-£
.DD.DD
..
"
IDO.D
..
D
D
Wilson Ave.
Diversey
Grand Ave. Outer Drive Wells St.
Madison Halsted
5t
Archer
Ave.
St.
Ave.
Figure 4-19 - Percent of time various pollutant concentrations exceeded water quality screening
criteria in
the Chicago River System
4.3.3 Sediment Quality
Several agencies identified
in
Table 4-10 collected sediment data
in
the CAWS over
the
past 12 years. Generally, sediment quality worsens
in
the Upper North Branch
from
upstream to downstream. Chicago River sediments are relatively cleaner, but
still exceeded quality guidelines for some metals as rioted
in
Table 4-32. Compared to
conditions
in
the South Branch and
in
the CSSC, South Fork sediments were not as
contaminated
with non-conventional pollutants as repudiated.
4-52
\\c:t1C>\Tl"1\r",vTunnn\r.AW~
IIAA\AlIrmClt
ACfrt~~BCtion
4_1 UAAJeah.sed.lls.doc
Section 4
Characterization
of Waterway Reaches
Parameter
Dissolved Oxygen
Temperature
E.Co/i"
Total Silver
Dissolved Nickel Chronic
Dissolved
Zinc Chronic
Total Ammonia
Ammonia Chronic
Ammonia Subchronic
Ammonia Acute
T ota! Dissolved Solids
Cyanide
C!VAD) Chronic
pH
Maximum percent exceedance at any sampling location
in
reach
_
0%
I
I
<=10% _
>10 and <=25% _
>25%
• Limited Contact Recreation
J
Recreational Navigation
Upper NBCR
Lower NBCR
Chicago River
SBCR
South Fork
Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead,
Zinc, Mercury, Nickel, Silver, PCBs,
PAHs
Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead,
Mercu ,Nickel, Zinc, PCBs, PAHs
Cadmium, Copper, Zinc, Lead, Mercury,
PCBs, PAHs
Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead,
Mercu ,Nickel, Zinc, PCBs, PAHs
Chromium, Cadmium, Nickel, Copper,
Lead, Mercu ,Zinc
Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead, Zinc,
Mercury, Nickel, Silver, PCBs, PAHs
Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead, Mercury,
Nickel, Zinc, PCBs, PAHs
Lead, Mercury, PCBs, PAHs
Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead, Mercury,
Nickel, Zinc, PCBs, PAHs
Copper, Lead, Mercury, Zinc
SOD data was available for one study conducted by MWRDGC in the fall and winter
of
2001 that included five locations in CAWS.
Table 4-33
shows the results of SOD
measurements
conducted on CAWS sediments in 2001.
4-53
IIStlsvnlcommonlCAWS UAAlAugusl editslSection 4.1 UAA.leahsedlls.doc
Section 4
Characterization
of Waterway Reaches
Upper North Branch at Belmont
Lower North Branch at Grand Avenue
Chicago River at LaSalle
South Branch at Congress
South Branch at Halstead
3.1
1.8
0.77
1.93
3.32
4.3.4 Biological Assessment
4.3.4.1 Fish
North Branch
Fish sampling in the North Branch was conducted at two MWRDGC locations in
Chicago:
.
•
Wilson Avenue
•
Grand Avenue
Twenty-five species of fish (excluding hybrids)
were captured in the North Branch
from 1993 to 2002,
with the dominant non-game fish species consisting of common
carp, gizzard shad,
and goldfish (Table 4-34). Dominant game fish species included
largemouth bass, green sunfish and bluegill. The greatest species diversity
(19 species) was observed at Wilson Avenue, just downstream of the confluence with
the NSC. Like the NSC, species diversity showed a dramatic decline in the North
Branch from 1993 to 2002 (Figure 4-20). IBI scores tended be higher at the Wilson
Avenue sampling location with IBI scores ranging from 14 to 32 (Figure 4-21), where
as the
IBI scores for Grand Avenue ranged from 16 to 28. IBI scores for both locations
fluctuated
on a yearly basis but no temporal trend could be identified. Water quality
as defined
by the IBI scores for this reach show fair to very poor conditions at Grand
Avenue and fair to very poor conditions at Wilson Avenue.
Chicago River
Between 1993 and 2002 twenty-seven species of fish (excluding hybrids) were
collected at four different locations in the Chicago River as it flows through
downtown. The four sites were:
•
Inner
harbor area near the old Coast Guard station
•
Loop area
near the North and South Branch confluence
•
Lake Shore Drive (2002 only)
•
Wells Street (2002 only)
CONI
4-54
IIStlsvr1\CommonlCAWS UAAlAugusl edilslSection 4.1 UAA.I..
hsed~s.doc
:Table 4.34 Species Richnes and Relative Abundance of Fish Species in the North Branch 1993 -2002, all Sampling Locations
Alosa pseudoharen.Gus
-
alewife
I
3'.14
3.51
Dorosoma cepedianum
-
gizzard shad
/
13.45
.
',"
1.32
I
29.01
I
10.33
14.80
17.98
9.56
10.00
1.85
1.37
3.85
4.30
T
7.14
21.52
29.39
12.97
11.67
27.78
9.25
20.51
38.17
I
42.86
4.93
16.23
2.05
2.67
0.54
0.90
1.00
1.08
0.34
2.69
-
1.03
5.13
0.54
T
3.57
atostomidae: Suckers
--- --
Gatostomus commersoni
-
white sucker
Misgurnus anguillicaudatus
-
Oriental weatherfish
Am"e-iu'-ru-s
Ameiurus nataDs
m--e-/as-
--
bla"c'k-
yellow
bu--Uh-e-ad-
bullhead
, ". -------------.'--1-
0.45""'
f$ffl
/cta/urus punctatus
-
channel catfish
Salvelinus fontina/is
•
brook
trout
Gasterosteus acu/eatus
-
threespine sickleback
I
" .
. .. -
".,
, .
."
:~
0.33
1.28
T
1.08
13.45
2.19
3.41
2.33
5.56
7.19
15.38
r 6.45
0.45
0.44
0.33
0.68
I
1.08
T
7.14
0.34
1.85
1.03
1.28
6.28
6.58
10.58
16.67
40.74
18.49
25.64 1
5.38
4.48
7.02
27.30
23.00
5.56
10.62
.14.10
I
10.75
I
3.57
1.32
0.34
I
0.54
0.45
COM
4-55
I\sUsvrllcommonlCAWS
UAAlAugust
edilslSection 4.1
UAA.leahsedils.doc
Figure 4.20. Temporal Trend in Species Diversity for North Branch 1993 - 2002
20
18
16
14
en
'0
I1l
12
I1l
C.
Ul
'0
10
~
I1l
.c
E
z
:J
8
6
4
2
0
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
Year
1999
2000
2001
2002
Figure 4.21. IBI Scores for North Branch Fish Sampling Locations 1992 - 2002
30
25
en 20
l!!
u
o
Ul
19 15
10
5
04='-=-"'+"-="+-'-='=r-'--'-'-=
Jun.
Jan. Aug-
Mar-
Oct-
May- Dec-
Jul-
Feb- Sap-
Apr-
Nov- Jun. Jan-
Aug-
Mar-
Oct-
May-
~
ro
ro
w
w
~
~
00
~
~
99
99
99
00
00
~
~
~
Year
I-Wilson Avenua --Grand Avenue I
CDM
\\Stlsvr1\common\CAWS UAAlAugusl edilslSection 4.1 UAAleahsedns.doc
4-56
Section 4
Characterization
of Waterway Reaches
Dominant non-game fish species included gizzard shad, common carp, bluntnose
minnow and goldfish (Table 4-35). Abundant game species included: rock bass,
largemouth bass
and bluegill. The largest diversity of fish (19) was observed at the
Inner Harbor location, which is adjacent to the CRCW on Lake Michigan. As was
observed in the North Branch, species richness showed a decreasing trend from 1993
to 2002 (Figure 4-22).
IBI values for the Inner Harbor area ranged from 14 to 36, while in the Loop area, the
IBI values ranged from 12 to 24 (Figures 4-23). The large difference may be attributed
to the bettet water quality
in the Inner Harbor area, slightly better habitat arid the
periodic ingress of lake species during lockage and lake diversion. Game fish
diversity was greatest in the Inner Harbor area.
South Branch and South Fork
Twenty species of fish (excluding hybrids) were collected at one location in the South
Branch as
it flows out of Chicago. The sampling location was at the junction of the
South Branch
and the North Branch. MWRDGC also conducted sampling at Archer
Avenue
on the South Fork (Bubbly Creek).
Dominant non-game species included goldfish
and
common carp (Table 4-36). Dominant game species
included largemouth bass
and bluegill. Four species
'. of fish were collected in Bubbly Creek in 2002, and
they include: common carp (4), gizzard shad (9),
emerald shiner (2) and largemouth bass (3).
South Branch lookin.q north.
No distinct trend in species richness could be
ascertained over the last
10 years (Figure 4-24) for
the South Branch. The
IBI values have slightly
increased over
the last ten years, but remain very
similar to the
North Branch (Figure 4-25). The
South Branch
has similar habitat characteristics as
the lower
North Branch and the Loop area of the
Chicago River. The channel is primarily sheet-piled
and concrete-lined, with little instream habitat.
Limited habitat
in the form of overhanging
vegetation
and instream structure occurs near the confluence with Bubbly Creek.
South Branch channel significantly widens at
the turning basin just above the CSSe.
4-57
l\Stlsvrl\commonlCAWS UMlAugusl adI1slF1NAL SECTION 4.doc
Table 4.35 • Species Richness and Relative Abundance of Fish Species in the Chicago River 1993 - 2002 all Sampling Locations
6.96
1.20
9.64
20.95
3.39
0.63
1.35
3.80
0.63
0.16
3.21
13.91
4.07
4.10
63.86 36.76
12.71
2.53
0.80
1.78
1.63
0.37
0.85
1.27
1.44
31.36 42.68 18.28
3.61
18.18
16.95
21.62
8.86
2.77
2.54
1.35
0.63
0.32
0.30
0.41
0.37
0.30
0.30
-_.,......,.... ,......., ... .._..-> ........
:."""C .... AI
~t:f"'TIf"ltJA"""""'
4-58
Section 4
Characterization
of Waterway Reaches
Figure 4-22. Temporal Trend in Species Diversity in the Chicago River Reach 1993 - 2002
20
18
16
14
IJ)
Q)
12
'u
Q)
a-
U>
'0
10
:;;
.0
E
z
"
8
6
4
2
0
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
Yeer
1998
1999
2000
2002
Figure 4-23. 161 Scores'for Selected Fish Sampling Locations in the Chicago River
40
35
30
25
2!
0
l.>
U>
20
1f!
15
10
5
o
~~~~~~~»~~~~~~~~~~
92
93
93
94
94
95
95
96
97
97
98
98
99
00
00
01
01
02
Date
1.....
lnner Harbor
~The
Loop
I
CDM
I\sUsvr1lcommonICAWS UAAlAugusl edllslRNAL SECTION 4,doc,
4-59
i,Table 4-36 Species Richnes and Relative Abundance of Fish Species in the South Branch 1993 - 2000
0.88
I
1.16
I
I
1.16
1.30
0.88
I
65.67
0.68
1.16
1.30
0.88
I
5.66
I
I
I
I
0.93
6.98
I
23.38
15.93
4.48
20.75
3.27
CDIII
IlStlsvrllcommonlCAWS UAAlAugust edlts\FINAL SECTION 4.doc
4-60
Figure 4-24. Temporal Trend in Fish Species Diversity in the South Branch 1993 - 2000
16
14
12
" 10
U
'"
'"
0.
(J)
'0
.8
E
z
"
1993
1994
1995
1996
Year
1997
1998
1999
2000
COM
25
20
o
l!!
~
15
i!!
10
Figure 4-25. IBI Scores of SBCRlNBCR Fish Sampling Location 1993 - 2000
Jan-93 Aug-93 Mar-94 Ocl-94 May-95 Dec-95 Jul-96 Feb-97 Sep-97 Apr-98 Nov-98 Jun-99 Jan-oo Aug-oo
Date
4.61
\lStlsvr1\commomCAWS UAAlAugust odIts\RNAl SECTION 4.doc
COM
Section 4
Characterization
of Waterway Reaches
4.3.4.2 Macroinvertebrates
North Branch
MWRDGC and IEPA sampled macroinvertebrates at five locations in the North
Branch.
•
Argyle Street
•
Wilson Avenue
•
Lawrence Avenue
•
Diversey Parkway
•
Grand Avenue
Tables 4-37a and 4-37b shows the species richness and associated MBI score for both
IEPA and MWRDGC HD and PP dredge sampling methods. Forty macroinvertebrate
taxa were collected
at the five above stations in the North Branch. Species richness
was highest at Lawrence Avenue (23 species) and Argyle Street (21 species).
Dominant species included oligochaeta,
Turbellaria,
the isopod
Caecidotea
and
chironomids.
Dicrotendipes simpsoni
was the dominant dipeteran collected at the five
locations. IEPA
HD MBI scores for the North Branch shows that the water quality is
good at Lawrence Avenue and Argyle Street (Table 4-37a), while the MWRDGC MBI
scores are reflective of
poor water quality at Wilson Avenue, Grand Avenue and
Diversey Parkway (Table 4-37b).
Chicago River
MWRDGC sampled macroinvertebrates at two locations in the Chicago River during
2002.
•
Lakeshore Drive
•
Wells Street
Table 4-38 shows the species richness and associated MBI score for both HD and PP
dredge sampling methods. Twenty-two species of macroinvertebrates were collected
in the Chicago River. Species richness was highest at Lakeshore Drive (18 species) and
Wells Street (12 species). Dominant taxa included Oligochaeta, the amphipod
Gammarus fasciatus,
dipterans including
Cricotopus bicinctus, Dicrotendipes simpsoni,
Parachironomus sp.
and
Polypedilum halterale.
Zebra mussels
(Dressiena polymorpha)
were also dominant at this site. The Chicago River and the CSSC have served as the
primary
conduit for zebra mussels and other exotics to the Mississippi River system.
MBI scores for
the HD sampling data are indicative of good water quality at the Lake
Shore Drive site to
very poor at the Wells Street sampling location.
4-62
\\StIsvr1\commornCAWS UAAlAugusl editslflNAL SECTION 4.doc
ClIVI
Table 4-37a - Macroinvertebrate data from the North Branch Chicago River (IEPA Data 2001). Samples
were collected with Hester-Dend artificial substrates.
7
6
14
10
68
61
62
3
.5
34
4
4
2
84
3.5
6
51
5
23
10
4
84
83
64
6
28
41
.6
4
3
102
18
3
20
12
8
28
3
6
12
12
6
12
3
5
28
9
6
12
6
16
3
2
28
28
64
7
4
44
Total Number of Individuals
384
315
Taxa Richness
23
21
MBI
5.1
5.8
4-63
IlStlsvr1lcommonlCAWS UAAIAUQUSl oditslRNAL SECTION 4.doc
Table 4-37b. Macroinvertebrate data from the North Branch Chicago River (MWRDGC Data 2001). Samples collected
using Hester-Dendy (HD) Plates and Petite Ponar (PP) Dredge.
7
6
2,296
215
915
90
7
10
16,424
36,027
8,442
,124,371
23,897
12,050
8
18
8
36
72
6
377
287
18
3
54
180
6
215
574
1,005
115
8
50
3
18
6
484
753
10
54
14
8
7
36
18
6.5
47
Total Number of
Individuals
19,617
36,457
10,649
125,017
25,190
12,250
Taxa Richness
5
3
11
3
5
7
MBI
9.4
10
9.2
10
9.8
9.9
4-64
\\StlsvrllcoounonlCAWS UAAlAugusl ed1tslFlNAL SECTION 4.doc
COM
Section 4
Characterization
of Waterway Reaches
South Branch and South Fork
MWRDGC sampled macroinvertebrates at two locations in the South Branch and at
one location
on the South Fork during 2002.
•
Madison Street
•
Loomis Street
•
Archer Avenue (South Fork only)
Tables 4-39a and 4-39b shows the species richness and associated MBI score for both
HD and PP dredge MWRDGC sampling methods. Twenty-three species of
macroinvertebrates were collected
in the South Branch. Species richness was highest
at Madison Street (19 species) and Wells Street (16 species). Dominant taxa included
Oligochaeta,
the amphipod
Gammarus fasciatus,
dipterans including
Dicrotendipes
simpsoni
and
Nanocladius distinctus.
Zebra mussels
(Dressiena polymorpha)
were also
dominant in the South Branch. MBI scores for the HD sampling data set was 7.3 at
Madison Avenue
and 6.9 at Loomis Street which is indicative of fair water quality.
HD MBI scores for the South Fork are reflective of poor water quality.
4.3.4.3 Habitat Assessment
North Branch
The habitat survey conducted by Rankin (2004) for the North Branch showed poor
aquatic life potential
at Wilson Avenue and very poor at Grand Avenue. Table 4-40
summarizes the limiting habitat attributes (channelization, low gradient, no riffles) for
this reach. Rankin (2004) characterized this section of the
North Branch similar to
Ohio'sLimited Resource Water aquatic life
use (lowest quality). He further
characterized the lower reach as
not having habitat to support sensitive species, but
capable of supporting fish species that are accustomed to open water environments.
The
upper portion of the North Branch has some shallow water areas and provided
more edge habitat and structure than the downstream section.
The
upper section of the North Branch could support a more permanent assemblage
of fish
and aquatic life, but mostly by fish who can adapt to a variety of conditions
and are tolerant to water pollution. The higher QHEI scores reflect the improved
habitat conditions in this reach of the North Branch. The aquatic potential for the
upper reach would be equivalent to the Ohio MWH-C aquatic life use.
4-65
IIStlsvr1lcommonICAWS UAAlAugusl editslRNAl SECTION 4.doc
Table 4-38 - Macroinvertebrate data from the Chicago River (MWRDGC Data 2001). Samples collected using Hester
Dendy (HD) Plates and Petite Ponar (PP) Dredge.
4
2
10
256
7,952
2,086
2,505
3
502
95
62
22
6
4
10
20
11
9
7
11
69
85
62
3
72
C
82
6
4
2
6
9
43
10
7
2
62
8
16
11
4
32
21
5
4
2
19
93
7
Total Number
of Individuals
902
8080
2,264.3
2,511.8
Taxa Richness
18
5
12
2
MBI
5.6
9.9
9.5
10.0
CDM
\\Stlsvr1IcommonICAWS UAAlAugust editslRNAl SECTION 4.doc
4-66
Table 4-39a - Macroinvertebrate data from the South Branch Chicago River (MWRDGC Data 2002). Samples collected
using Hester Dendy (HD) Plates and Petite Ponar (PP) Dredge.
H dras .
7
2
Turbellaria
6
639
57
1,290
10
2,074
1,586
2,036
2,914
82
Helobdella triserialis
8
18
9
Caecidotea s .
6
504
7
135
Gammarus fasciatus
3
135
81
42
55
45
8
7
43
Nanocladius distinctus
3
79
1,154
6
14
6
2544
21
7
10
18
5
4
18
5
18
7
13
7
6
14
Menetus dilatatus
6.5
72
Corbicula f1uminea
4
72
Musculium transversum
5
7
Pisidium nitidum
5
7
32
2,067
2
36
Total Number of Individuals
6,174
3,780
4,739
3,079
Taxa Richness
15.0
10.0
13.0
6.0
MBI
7.3
9.7
6.9
9.8
CDM
4-67
\\stlsvrtlcommonlCAWS UAAlAuguSl edltslRNAL SECTION 4.doc
Section 4
Characterization
of Waterway Reaches
Table 4-39b - Macroinvertebrate data from the South Fork of the South Branch Chicago River
(MWRDGC Data 2002). Samples collected using Hester Dendy (HD) Plates and Petite Ponar (PP)
Dred
e.
67
10
7,578
2,813
84
6
36
8.
29
6
4,282.
10
4
8
4
Ph sella
s .
9
18
Total
Number of Individuals
11,946
2,849
Taxa
Richness
8
3
MBI
8.5
10.0
Table 4-40
QHEI Scores for the North Branch
Chicago River
The habitat survey conducted by Rankin (2004) for the Chicago River had very poor
aquatic life potential in the river as it flows through the heart of Chicago. His findings
revealed
that the Chicago River had the most limited habitat of all surveyed sites in
the Chicago area waterways. Limiting habitat features included:
•
Channelization of the
waterway
•
No sinuosity (no meanders)
•
No instream cover, mostly sheet-pile walls
•
No riffles or fast current
The only positive feature of the Chicago River was the water depths were greater than
15-inches, which are a weak attribute for big rivers (Table 4-41). There is very limited
riparian vegetation along the shoreline
and the channel consists primarily of concrete
bulkhead walls and sheet pile. The heart of Chicago'sbusiness district borders the
CDNI
4-68
\lStfsvrllcommonlCAWS UAAlAugust e<frtslANAL SECTION 4.doc
Section 4
Characterization
of Waterway Reaches
Chicago River leaving practically no instream habitat for aquatic life. Rankin (2004)
compared the Chicago River as being functionally similar to the Cuyahoga River ship
canal
in Cleveland.
Table 4-41
QHEI Scores for the Chicago River
Site Description
QHEI
Inner Harbor
28
Loop Area
22.5
Chicago River Junction with NBCRlSBCR
28
South Branch
The South Branch was not analyzed for habitat conditions. However, the South
Branch is
very similar to the lower reaches of the North Branch and would carry the
same aquatic life potential
(Le. MWH-C). The South Fork is also similar to the South
Branch,
but has more overhanging vegetation on the channel'ssouth bank. Cursory
analysis from the recreational use survey indicated that the
waterway is limited by
severe channelization, silting sediments and lack of instream structure.
4.3.5 IEPA Letter Response Request
As part of this UAA study, IEPA requested from communities along the North Branch
and the Chicago River system if they had any plans for instream habitat
improvements or the development of
swimming areas. The cities that responded did
not have any plans for improvements to the waterways.
4.4 esse Reach
The CSSC begins at its confluence with the Des Plaines River (near LP&L) and ends at
the
Damen Avenue Bridge. It has a total length of 31.1 miles. The canal consists of
vertical concrete walls
and steep rockfill embankments with an average width and
depth of 200- to 300-feet and 27-to 50-feet, respectively. The canal'sriparian land use
is
dominated by industrial and commercial use. Its aquatic habitat is limited to areas
under bridges and piers. Its current use designation is Secondary Contact.
4.4.1 Recreation and Navigation Uses
Recreation and navigation use surveys of the CSSC were conducted for 28 days
between June 17,2003 and August 28, 2003 by IEPA and MWRDGC. The teams
counted the
number of times various recreational uses were observed as summarized
in Table 4-42.
4-69
\\~t1<:.'Vr1\r:tvnmnn\r.AW~
LJAA\Auoust edlts\FINAl SECTION 4.doc
COM
Section 4
Characterization
of Waterway Reaches
Table 4.42
Recreation Activities Observed on the CSSC
I
Count of
I
%
ofTotal
Observed Activity
Observed
Observed
Activities
Activities
SwimminQ, DivinQ or JumpinQ
0
0%
Skiina or Tubina
0
0%
Wadinq
0
0%
Canoeing, Sculling or Hand-powered
boatinq activity
1
2%
FishinQ
23
37%
Power Boatina
38
61 %
Observed uses on the CSSC were canoeing, hand-powered boating activity, fishing
and power boating. Commercial navigation was observed in areas where the USACE
maintains
the channel. The team also observed the following notable activities:
•
The Chicago Youth Rowing Club
and Kenwood Academy launch from mid-
March to mid-November from the Lock/Fuller, Bridgeport, Chicago launch; and,
•
The City of Chicago conducts
student activities (field trips, studies, survey) at
Western Avenue;
• A
boat launch will be constructed in 2004-2005 at Western Avenue by the Chicago
Park District; and,
•
The Friends of Chicago River estimates
80, 35 and 35 users in 2002,2003 and 2004,
respectively, for River Rescue Day.
4.4.2 Water Quality
The CSSC is comprised principally of upstream flow from Chicago River System and
WRP effluent from the Stickney plant. Stickney'saverage annual flow rate is 1200 cfs
(MWRDGC 2001).
Midwest Generation'sCrawford power generating facility is along
the CSSC
and utilizes the majority of CSSC flow for cooling water resulting in a
significant thermal
input to the system. Downstream of its confluence with Calumet-
Sag Channel, the Lemont WRP discharges into
CSSC with an average annual flow
rate of 3.4 cfs (MWRDGC 2001).
Downstream further at Romeoville is Midwest
Generation'sWill
County power generating facility which contributes another
thermal
input to the CSSe. These and other features are identified on the monitoring
location
and CSO outfall maps in Section 4.1.
Water Quality conditions
were evaluated using the use attainment screening
approach described
in Section 4.1. In general, screening criteria were aligned with
existing General Use Water Quality Standards criteria as the benchmark for achieving
CWA goals. Bacteria screening criteria is the exception,
where thresholds were set
4-70
IlStlsvrllcommonlCAWS UAAlAugust ednslFlNAl SECTION 4.doc
Section 4
Characterization
of
Waterway Reaches
using USEPA'slatest draft bacteria guidance which differs from the current General
Use criteria. For reference,lllinois General Use Water Quality Standards are included
in Section 3.4.2. In all cases screening criteria exactly match UAA recommended
water quality criteria presented in Section 5.
4.4.2.1 Dissolved Oxygen
MWRDGC operates seven continuous D.O. monitors along the CSSe. Figure 4-26
summarizes the percent of the time water quality screening criteria are exceeded at
each location from 1998 to 2002. The D.O. levels are fairly consistent
in this reach
with the exception of relatively higher concentrations just downstream of the Stickney
WRP. The Stickney WRP effluent over the
past five years had an average D.O.
content of 8.6
mg/L, whereas the average D.O. concentration 1.9 miles upstream at
Cicero
was 5.29 mg/L. For reference, the average D.O. at the next downstream
station, B&O Central Railroad,
was 6.37 mg/L.
hi~1;;::,g,;fitil
DO < 4 mgll
_
DO<6mgll
~
DO < 6 mgll more than 8 hrstday
100 --.---------..-------.-----------------------------------
90 +-
CblcllllD..S.anltaL>:-
--I
and Ship Canal
8O+-------------~---------------__I
71
Jeff. rson
St.
43
MW Genetatlon
Will COUnty
Facility
Cal-Sag COnfluence
/SEPA
MW Generation
Crawford Fac/Diy
stickney WRP
70 +---r-r----------,6=3----------.",,-----65------i
~
~
..
~
60
50
-t----j-t----j
w
E 40
~
: 30
10
20
o
Figure 4-26 - Percent of the Time D.O. Levels Fell Below Water Quality
Screening Criteria for the CSSC from 1998 to 2002
The difference in average temperature between the Cicero and B&O Central Railroad
stations
was 2.6°e. Higher temperatures decrease the amount of oxygen that can
dissolve
in water. This difference in average temperature, results in approximately a
0.5
mg/L difference in D.O. saturation. Although thermal inputs from the upstream
Midwest Generation facility can contribute to lower D.O. content, an analysis of the
continuous time series
data for D.O., water temperature, D.O. saturation, and rainfall
show that wet weather impacts resulting in discharges from the Racine Avenue
Pumping Station and the many upstream CSOs are the primary factor contributing to
CONI
4-71
\\Stlsvr1IcommonICAWS UMlAugust edltslFINAL SECTION 4.doc
Section 4
Characterization
of Waterway Reaches
appreciable D.O. sags. Figures 4-27 and 4-28 on the following page demonstrate this
effect.
Although not appreciable, it is noteworthy that D.O. conditions improve downstream
of the confluence
with the Calumet-Sag Channel where a SEPA station is located.
However, further downstream at Romeoville, D.O. conditions revert back to slightly
worse
than what they were upstream of the confluence. Warmer water temperatures
resulting from Midwest Generation'sWill County Facility
may contribute to lower
D.O.
in this section.
Reach=CSSC Sequenco=1 SlallonlD=Clcero Avenue(CSSC) Year=2002 Montl,=?
Reach=CSSC Sequence=1 SlalionlD=Clcero Avenue(CSSC) Year=2000 Monlh=9
o
. OSSEPOO
13SEPOO
22SEPOO
O1OCTOO
0-l:l====;=:;=\===~~::;:::::;:=~o;:::f'~===;::::j:t
27AUGOO
.:r
.~
i>
Temp
-
Rain
o ;:\ .;
Tomp
-
Rain
••• 00
••• DOsat
••• DO
••• DOSat
Figure 4-27 - D.O. Wet Weather Response at Cicero Avenue
on the CSSC
Figure 4-28 - D.O. Wet Weather Response at Cicero
Followed by Warm Water Temperatures
4.4.2.2 Temperature
Water temperature in the CSSC is recorded continuously at the same seven locations
as
D.o. Temperatures during the last five years exceeded water quality screening
criteria less
than one percent of the time from B&O Central Railroad to Romeoville
Road. Water temperatures
at Cicero Avenue and LP&L exceeded criteria an average
of
15 percent and 3 percent of the time, respectively. Cicero Avenue is one mile
downstream from the Midwest Generation Crawford power generating station's
cooling
water discharge and LP&L is the nearest station downstream of the Will
County generating facility. Figure 4-29 shows box and whisker plots of temperature
data collected over the past five years at the seven monitoring locations on the CSSe.
The
shaded region of the box represents the range from the 25
th
to 75
th
percentile and
the connected asterisks show the mean temperature for each station. Since
temperature screening criteria differ
by season, data are tabulated from April through
November and December through March separately with the corresponding criteria
shown as red reference lines.
In
each case the lower criterion (32°C and 16°C) is not to
be exceeded more than ten percent of the time and the upper criterion (33.7°C and
17.7°C) is never to be exceeded. Exceedances at Cicero and LP&L are more common
4-72
IIStlsvr1lcommonlCAWS UAAlAugusi edtlslRNAL SECTION 4.doc
Section 4
Characterization
of Waterway Reaches
in the winter months of December through March. At Cicero in the winter,
temperatures exceed 16°C
(60
0
P) more than 25 percent of the time. The water quality
standard allows for a 10 percent exceedance.
50
45
40
35
!J
Q/30
5
til
25
~
E20
.~
15
10
5
MWGen
April. November
MWGen
-- 33.7
-- 32
StIckney WRP
LemontWRP
25
5
December -
March
e
8
§
o
o
-- 17.7
- 16
CDNI
Figure 4-29 - Temperature Data Collected Over the Past Five Years
4.4.2.3 Bacteria
Bacteria concentrations in the CSSC can be characterized using data from the seven
instream grab sampling locations. The frequency distribution for
E.coli
results from
March through November at each station using limited contact recreation and
recreational navigation water quality screening criteria of 1030 and 2470 cfu/100ml,
respectively are
shown in Figure 4-10. The number of samples included in the
distribution is also labeled for each station. Figure
4-11 shows the
E.coli
geometric
mean concentrations. The influence of non-disinfected wastewater entering at the
Stickney WRP is evident as is the die off as the
water moves down the CSSe.
4-73
IlStlsvr1lcommonlCAWS UAAlAugust
edllslANAL
SECTION 4.doc
Section 4
Characterization
of Waterway Reaches
4.4.2.4 Metals and Other Constituents
All constituents analyzed by grab sampling station are shown in Table 4-15. Figures
4-30
and 4-31 show the percent of the time that metals and other pollutant
concentrations exceeded
water quality screening criteria at the seven grab sampling
locations along the CSSe. Constituents that never exceeded criteria are
not shown.
The
number of samples taken for each constituent with an exceedance at all grab
sampling stations is
shown in Table 4-16. Chronic metals screening was calculated
based on instantaneous monthly grab samples rather than the arithmetic average of at
least four consecutive samples collected over
any period of at least four days. Details
of pH exceedances are shown in Table 4-17. Only stations with pH exceedances are
shown.
4.4.2.5 WRP Effluent
Since the Stickney WRP is a primary source of flow
in
the CSSe, effluent
concentrations were also
compared to water quality screening criteria. This
assessment does
not represent discharge compliance and is only intended to provide
a perspective regarding the relationships between
an important point source and
instream conditions.
I
• Silver
• Manganese
o
Dissolved Nickel Chronic
o
Dissolved Zinc Chronic
I
ID 100
u
Chicago SanltlllY
Ii
80
and Ship Canal
1i
60
S
40
I
20
3
a
a a
_a an
.a~
':'a
a a
~a a~
':"a a
~
.:.. 1
a
1
D-
O
Damen
WestemAve. ClceroAv.
H.lemAv.
Route #83
stephen
51.
Lockport
Avenue
Figure 4-30 - Percent of the Time Metal Concentrations Exceeded Water Quality
Screening Criteria in the CSSC
o pH
0
Ammonia Acute
[B
Ammonia Subchronic
• TOS
GI
100
u
•
C
SO
1
60
~
40
C
GI
..
u
Gl
20
D-
O
Chicago Sanitary
and Ship Canal
...
....
14
~
nOD D":
~1I523
7
7
20110':'
.---
2020.
2 02°.
3 010.1
7
COM
Damen
Western Ave. Cicero Av.
Harlem Av.
Route #83
stephen st
Lockport
Avenue
Figure 4-31 - Percent of the Time Various Pollutant Concentrations Exceeded Water Quality
Screening Criteria
in the CSSC
4-74
IIStlsvr11commonlCAWS UAAlAugust ednslFlNAL SECTION 4.doc
Section 4
Characterization
of Waterway Reaches
Table 4-43 describes the percent of the time effluent concentrations exceeded water
quality screening criteria
in the past five years at the Stickney WRP. Parameters that
never exceeded the criteria are
not listed. All constituents analyzed by the water
treatment
plant are shown
in
Table 4-19. The number of samples taken for each
constituent
with an exceedance at all treatment plants is shown
in
Table 4-20. Details
of
pH exceedances at wastewater treatment plants are shown
in
Table 4-21. Only
treatment
plants with pH exceedances are shown.
The Lemont WRP discharges
into the CSSC downstream of the confluence with the
Calumet-Sag Channel
and has an average annual flow rate of 3.4 cfs (MWRDGC
2001).
Table 4-44 describes the percent of the time effluent concentrations exceeded
water quality
scr~ening
criteria in the past five years at this facility.
E.coli"
100%
96%
Effluent was compared to water quality screening criteria and does not represent discharge
compliance.
E.coli
concentrations estimated using EC/FC ratio of 0.84 (MWRD, 2004)
S
Table 4-44
L
WRP Effl
W
Q
r S
.
Parameter
I
%
Exceedance of Water Quality Screening Criteria"
H
0.17%
0.8%
0.1%
2.2%
Fluoride
0.9%
Iron
0.4%
Total Silver
1.0%
E.coli'"
99%
93%
*
**
Since water temperature was not available, the chronic ammonia criterion for water
temperatures <14.51 °C was used because it is not temperature dependant. Acute and
chronic percent exceedances are shown.
Effluent was compared to water quality screening criteria and does not represent discharge
compliance.
E.coli
concentrations estimated using EC/FC ratio of 0.84 (MWRDGC, 2004)
CDNI
4.4.2.6 Constituents of Concern
Table 4-45 shows the water quality use attainment screening constituents of concern
for the CSSe. The
maximum percent exceedance that any sampling location
in
the
4-75
1\s11svr1lcommonICAWS UAAIAUQUSl edllslF1NAL SECTION 4.doc
Section 4
Characterization
of
Waterway Reaches
reach exceeded water quality screening criteria in the past five years is identified.
Chronic metals screening
was calculated based on instantaneous monthly grab
samples rather than the arithmetic average of at least four consecutive samples
collected over any period of
at least four days.
E.coli
bacteria calculations were
similarly calculated as
data representing five samples collected over 30 days was not
available.
Table 4-45
CSSC Water Quality Constituents of Concern
Parameter
Dissolved Oxygen
Temperature
E.Co1i*
Total Silver
Total Manganese
Dissolved Nickel
Dissolved Zinc
Arrmonia Chronic
Ammonia Subchronic
Ammonia Acute
Total Dissolved Solids
Cyanide (lNAD) Chronic
pH
3.2
3.2
7.2
0.7
Maximum percent exceedance at any sampling location In reach
_
0% I
I <=10% _
>10 and <=25% _
>25%
T
Limited Contact Recreation
I
Recreational Navigation
4.4.3 Sediment Quality
Several agencies collected sediment data in the esse over the past 5 to 10 years that
were identified in Section 4.1. Table 4-46 summaries concentrations compared to
sediment quality guidelines. Metal concentrations generally increase going
downstream on the esse, with the exception of lead.
CDM
CSSC
Collatoral
Channel
Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead,
Mercury, Nickel, Zinc, PCBs, PAHs
Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead,
Mercury, Nickel, Zinc
Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead, Mercury, Nickel, Zinc,
PCBs, PAHs
Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead, Mercury, Nickel, Zinc
4-76
l\StIsvr1lcommonlCAWS UAAlAugusl edilsIFlNAL SECTION 4.doc
Section 4
Characterization
of Waterway Reaches
SOD data was available for one study conducted by MWRDGC in the fall and winter
of
2001 that included three locations along the CSSe. Measurements performed on
sediments at Cicero, I-55, and Lockport were 1.71,3.64, and 2.71 g/m
2
/
day
respectively.
4.4.4 Biological Assessment
4.4.4.1 Fish
Chicago Sanitary Ship Canal
Fish sampling in the CSSC was conducted at five MWRDGC locations:
•
DamenAvenue
•
Cicero Avenue
•
Harlem Avenue
•
Willow Springs
•
LP&L (16th Street)
Twenty-seven species of fish (excluding hybrids) were
captured in the CSSC from
1993 to 2002,
with the dominant fish species being common carp, gizzard shad,
goldfish,
and bluntnose minnow (Table 4-47). Dominant game fish species included
largemouth bass, pumpkinseed and bluegill.
The greatest species diversity
(19 species) was observed at Cicero Avenue, with
lowest diversity being at Damen Avenue. Species diversity showed a general decline
in the 1990s, and began to rebound in 2001 (Figure 4-32). illI scores ranged from 12 to
24
and were fairly uniform throughout the CSSC (Figure 4-33). The median illI score
for the
CSS fish sampling sites was 18. These illI scores are reflective of poor to very
poor water quality conditions in the CSSe.
4.4.4.2 Macroinvertebrates
MWRDGC sampled macroinvertebrates at six locations in the CSSC during 2001 and
2002.
•
Damen Avenue
•
Cicero Avenue
•
Harlem Avenue
•
Route 83
•
Stephen Street
•
LP&L (16
th
Street)
4-77
IlStlsvr1lcommonlCAWS UMlAugust edhsIRNAl SECTION 4.doc
.I;l~
--
~
". -
:F.l
1.48
0.32
1.09
0.34
0.15
1.42
0.84
0.30
0.65
0.34
2.53
4.42
6.52
7.73
0.23
1
0.09
1
0.45
1.78
2.02
0.30
1.13
1.18
0.86
I
2.55
I
11.72
9.55
12.02
1.69
2.38
3.21
0.57
1.01
0.32
O.H
Carassius aura/us.
qoldfish
8.85
10.04
12.31
4.69
0.55
1.35
0.57
0.84
Cyprinella spilop/era
• spotfin shiner
0.15
0.28
1.01
Cyprinus carpio
- common carp
14.33
23.50
49.26
49.03
68.31
16.69
20.12
46.59
38.24
32.10
No/emigonus crysoleucas
. golden shiner
1.25
0.53
0.74
0.55
1.18
3.70
No/ropis a/herinoides
• emerald shiner
0.08
0.09
0.15
0.55
0.30
0.85
2.52
No/ropis hudsonius
- spottail shiner
0.23
0.09
_.
-
-
Notropis volucellus
- mimic shiner
I-
0.17
Pimephales no/a/us
- bluntnose minnow
34.93
31.69
8.01
0.49
2.19
60.88 1
29.51
I
I
3.97
I
6.72
Pimephales promelas
- fa1head mnnow
3.13
25.70
1.63
0.67
0.30
Carp x goldfish
0.78
0.88
1.48
1.29
0.55
I
I
0.40
I
0.85
I
0.17
lTable 4.47 Species Richnes and Relative Abundance of Fish Species in the esse 1993.2002, All Sampling Locations
COM
4-78
IISU6\lr1lcommonICAWS
UAAlAugusl
edtlslFINAL SECTION 4.doc
Figure 4-32. Temporal Trend in Fish Species Diversity in the esse 1993 - 2002
16
14
.,
<II
1
12
(JJ
'0 10
~
.c
E B
::J
Z
4
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
Year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Figure 4-33.
181 Scores for Fish Sampling Locations on the esse 1992 - 2002
25
20
15
10
o
~~~~~~~~~~~***~~~~~~~~~~~ft~~~~~~
~#####~##~##~##~##~##~#~~##~##~#
Samplln9 Dale
I-+-Damen Ave ..... Cicero Ave
Harlem Ave
~
Willow Springs
-+-
Lockport I
Tables 4-48 shows the relative abundance, species richness and associated MBI score
for
both MWRDGC HD and PP dredge sample collection methods. Thirty-one
species of macroinvertebrates
were collected in the esse. Species richness for the
MWRDGC
HD data set was highest at the Lockport sampling location (14 species).
4-79
\\~<wr1\l"'nmmnn\CAWS
UAA\Auaust edits\FINAL SECTION 4.doc
Section 4
Characterization
of Waterway Reaches
Dominant taxa in the CSSC was Oligochaeta (82%), followed by Turbellaria and
Dicrotendipes simpsoni.
MEl scores for HD sampling data ranged from 6.4 at Damen
Avenue to 9.6 at Cicero Avenue, and the PP dredge MEl scores ranged from 7.0 at
Damen Avenue to 10.0 at Lockport. Additional data collected in 2001 by MWRDGC
at Lockport, showed three caddisfly taxa present. The
high MEl scores are reflective
of a
poor to very poor water quality conditions in the CSSe.
4.4.4.3 Habitat
Rankin's (2004) habitat evaluation showed that the CSSC instream habitat ranged
from
poor to very poor. The habitat at L, Romeoville and Willow Springs Road was
canal-like with steep sides and little functional cover for fish (Table 4-49). Limiting
factors for the
CSSC include:
•
Silty substrates
•
Poor substrate material
•
Little instream cover
•
Channelization
•
No sinuosity
The stretch of waterway
between Harlem and Cicero avenues had some shoreline
shallows
that provided suitable habitat to support a slightly better community than
found in the remainder of the CSSC channel (Rankin 2004). Rankin categorized the
Harlem to Cicero street section as MWH-C, while the other portions of the CSSC were
considered a LRW according to Ohio EPA'sclassification system.
4.4.5 IEPA Letter Response Request
As part of this UAA study, IEPA requested from communities along the CSSC if they
had plans for instream habitat improvements or the development of swimming areas.
There
were no responses back to IEPA from the municipalities contacted.
4.5 Calumet System
The Calumet System consists of the Calumet-Sag Channel, the east and west segments
of the Little Calumet River,
North Leg, the GCR, the Calumet River and Lake
Calumet. The total segment
length is 26.2 miles.
4-80
Table 4-48 - Macroinvertebrate data from the Chicago Sanitary Ship Canal (MWRDGC Data 2002). Samples collected using Hester Dendy (HD) Plates and Petite
Ponar lPP) Dredae.
2
6
831
7
317
3,696
230
737
I
21
10
4862
26,338
15,537
660
18,348
3,438
5,761
I
63,549
8
18
82
8
18
82
67
3
92
I
I
I
II
I
86
6
12
6
36
I
I
21
6
14
I
I
-I
I
847
6
18
10
8
3
108
J
J
I
I
108
3
6
1024
861
1
1
265
I
I
123
10
72
8
72
90
1
14
CDfJI
4-81
1\SlIsvr1\commonlCAWS UAAlAugust ediisIFINAL SECTION 4.doc
S...
.;n 4
Characterization of Waterway Reaches
Table 4-48 - Macroinvertebrate data from the Chicago Sanitary Ship Canal (MWRDGC Data 2002). Samples collected using Hester Dendy (HD) Plates and Petite
Ponar (PPl Dredae.
6
I
I
I
I
I
I
14
6
7
I
I
I
I
9
6.5
23
9
18
4
6,825
26,503
13
14
5
I
72
2
13,651
52,999
17,309
688
22,348
3,682
6887
63642
10
6
11
3
5
3
14
3
MBI
I
I
6.4
7
9.6
9.8
9.3
9.7
9.3
10
4-82
CONI
Table 4-49
QHEI Scores for the esse
Site Description
QHEI
Damen Avenue
32
Cicero Avenue
33.5
Harlem Avenue
38.5
Willow Springs Road
40.5
16
th
Street- LP&L
40.5
Romeoville
27
The Calumet-Sag Channel extends upstream from the junction of the Calumet-Sag
and the CSSC and ends at the Little Calumet River.
It
has a total length of
approximately 16.2 miles. The channel consists of trapezoidal rock banks
and has an
average width and depth of 225-feet and 10-feet, respectively with portions of the
north bank being concrete wall. The riparian area of the channel is lined with dense
trees
and a small portion is comprised of commercial and industrial land. Aquatic life
has refuge along some banks of the channel where the rock walls have crumbled. Its
current use designation is Secondary Contact.
The Little
Calumet River begins at Ashland Avenue and ends at the GCR. It has a
total length of
about 6.9 miles. For the purpose of the
VAA,
it is divided into two
segments: the east reach, upstream of the Calumet WRP effluent; and the west reach
downstream of the Calumet WRP. The river consists of earthen side slope
with a few
reaches that
have dock walls. It has an average width of 250- to 350-feet and average
depth of 12-feet. The Little Calumet River has a semi-continuous band of shoreline
vegetation
that provides habitat near the channel side. The river'sriparian land use
includes heavy industrial and commercial facilities, marinas, forest preserves and
some additional1imited open space.
4.5.1 Recreation and Navigation Uses
Grand Calumet River
Recreation and navigation use surveys of the GCR were conducted on August 13,
2003 by IEPA and CDM. The teams counted the number of times various recreational
uses were observed as
summarized in Table 4-50. The only observed use on the
Grand Calumet was fishing and the only observed fishing location was at the mouth
of the river.
4-83
1\sIIsvrl1commonlCAWS UAAlAuoust editslFINAL SECTION 4.doc
Section 4
Characterization
of Waterway Reaches
Table 4-50
Observed Activities on Grand Calumet
I
Count of
%ofTotal
Observed
Observed
Observed Activity
Activities
Activities
Swimminq, Divinq or Jumpinq
0
0%
Skiinq or Tubinq
0
0%
Wadinq
0
0%
Canoeing, Sculling or Hand-powered
boatinq activity
0
0%
Fishinq
2
100%
Power Boatinq
0
0%
Other notable activities on the Grand Calumet include:
•
Little Calumet River
Trail/Calumet Park Trail Loop at East 130
th
Street and
Indiana State Line; and,
•
Proposed canoe
and power boat dock at East 142nd Street in 2004.
Little Calumet River
Recreation and navigation use surveys of the Little Calumet River were conducted for
11 days between June 18,2003 and August 27, 2003 by IEPA, CDM, MWRDGC and
the Lake Michigan Federation. The teams counted the number of times various
recreational uses
were observed. For further study of the uses of the river, postcard
surveys were sent to
and returned from: Pier 11, Lake Calumet Boat Club, and
Skipper'sMarina. The result of the survey complimented the observed uses of the
river as
summarized in Table 4-51.
Table 4-51
Observed Activities Little Calumet River
I
Count of
I
%ofTotal
,
Observed
Observed
Observed Activity
Activities
Activities
Swimminq, Divinq or Jumpinq
1
0%
Skiinq or Tubinq
6
3%
Wading
6
3%
Canoeing, Sculling or Hand-powered boating
activity
0
0%
Fishinq
145
64%
Power Boatinq
68
30%
Observed uses on the Little Calumet River were swimming, diving, skiing, tubing,
wading, fishing and power boating. Commercial navigation was observed in areas
where the USACE maintains the channeL The UAA record also contains the
following notable activities:
CONI
•
Numerous private boat launches;
4-84
\\sllsvrl1common1CAWS UMlAugusl edllslFINAl SECTION 4.doc
Section 4
Characterization
of Waterway Reaches
•
Numerous marinas;
•
Poker
Fun Run;
•
Canoe trips;
•
Marinas;
•
Lincoln
Park Juniors Crew launches at Ashland Avenue;
•
Little
Calumet Canoe Access at Ashland Avenue/Princeton Avenue; and,
•
Little
Calumet North Bank Trail at South Indiana Avenue/Beaubien
Woods/East 130th Street.
Calumet-Sag Channel
Recreation and navigation use surveys of the Calumet-Sag Channel were conducted
for 17
days between June 25, 2003 and August 28, 2003 by the IEPA, CDM, MWRDGC
and the Lake Michigan Federation. The teams counted the number of times
recreational uses
were observed as summarized in Table 4-52.
Table 4.52
Ob
dR
f I ArT on Cit Sa
.
Ch nnel
I
Count of
I
%ofTotal
Observed
Activity
Observed
Observed
Activities
Activities
Swimming, Divina or Jumping
1
0%
Skiina or Tubina
7
3%
Wading
6
3%
Canoeing, Sculling or Hand-powered
boating activity
0
0%
Fishina
69
34%
Power Boatinq
119
59%
Observed uses on the Calumet-Sag Channel were swimming, diving, skiing, tubing,
wading, fishing
and power boating. Commercial navigation was observed in areas
where the USACE maintains the channel. The UAA record also includes the
following notable activities:
•
Two boat launches - The Village of Alsip estimates 7,000 launches per season and
the Village of Worth estimates 4,000 launches per season;
•
Poker
Fun Run; and,
•
Recreational
use at Little Calumet River North Bank Trail at South Peoria Street.
Lake Calumet
Recreation and navigation use surveys of Lake Calumet were conducted on
July 6, 2003 and August 27, 2003 by IEPA, CDM, and the Lake Michigan Federation.
4-85
CDM
Section 4
Characterization
of Waterway Reaches
The teams counted the number of times recreational uses were observed as
summarized in Table 4-53. The observed use on Lake Calumet was fishing. In
addition, CDOE estimates that the Canoe Lake Calumet Event launched 14, 13
and 11 canoes on June 7,2003, August 16, 2003 and June 13, 2004, respectively,
from Stony Island Avenue on the north side of the Lake Calumet Shipping
Canal.
Table 4.53
Observed Recreational Activities on Lake Calumet
I
Count of
I
%ofTotal
Observed
Observed
Observed Activity
Activities
Activities
Swimminq, Divinq or Jumpinq
0
4%
Skiinq or Tubinq
0
0%
Wadinq
0
0%
Canoeing, Sculling or Hand-powered
boatinq activity
O.
0%
Fishinq
9
100%
Power Boating
0
0%
Calumet River
Recreation and navigation use surveys of the Calumet River were not conducted due
to the dangers of traveling the area. However, fishing, power boating and
commercial navigation were observed.
4.5.2
Water Quality
The influences on the Calumet System'swater quality are diverse. Some fresh Lake
Michigan
water is allowed to enter the system at the O'BrienLock and Dam. The
GCR brings
water from the Indiana border, and one major and several minor
tributaries enter the Calumet-Sag Channel. There are a
number of CSOs along these
reaches
and five SEPA stations. The MWRDGC Calumet WRP and 125th Street
Pumping Station enter the system at the upstream end of the Little Calumet River
West/East breakpoint. The WRP discharges an average annual flow rate of 417 cfs
(MWRDGC,2001). Some of these features are identified on the monitoring location
and CSO outfall maps in Section 4.1.
Water Quality conditions
were evaluated using the use attainment screening
approach described
in Section 4.1. In general, screening criteria were aligned with
existing General Use Water Quality Standards criteria as the benchmark for achieving
CWA goals. Bacteria screening criteria is the exception,
where thresholds were set
using USEP
A'slatest draft bacteria guidance which differs from the current General
Use criteria. For reference, Illinois General Use Water Quality Standards are included
in
Section 3.4.2. In all cases screening criteria exactly match UAA recommended
water quality criteria presented
in
Section 5.
4-86
IIStlsvrllcommonlCAWS UAAlAugust editsIFlNAL SECTION 4.doc
Section 4
Characterization
of Waterway Reaches
4.5.2.1 Dissolved Oxygen
There are twelve continuous D.o. monitoring locations in the Calumet system.
Figure
4-34 shows the percent of the time levels fell below water quality screening
criteria from 1998 to
2002. Little Calumet (South) data shown in the chart is not in the
UAA
study area but is included for reference only. Lake Calumet data shown in the
chart
was collected by IEPA during sampling surveys conducted in 1999,2000, and
2004. The Calumet River clearly contributes water with higher D.O. content whereas
the GCR does
not meet the 6 mg/L level for at least 16 hours per day almost half the
time. Both contribute to the Little Calumet (East) reach which has relatively few
deviations
from water quality criteria. Conditions deteriorate in the Little Calumet
(West)
downstream of the Calumet WRP and worsen further downstream at Division
Street which is
downstream of the confluence with the Little Calumet South Leg.
Although
not in the UAA study area, the Ashland Avenue station is shown in the
chart to recognize the condition of
water entering from this tributary and its impact
on D.O. at Division Street. Levels stay fairly steady in the rest of the Calumet-Sag
Channel until Route
83 where conditions may be influenced by the CSSe.
1i~1£)~!1
DO < 4 mgll
_
DO<5mgll
[=:=J
DO < 6 mgtl more than 8 hrs/day
100
90
60
:
70
..,..
"
60
!
x
50
w
C
40
•
~
30
0-
•
20
10
,-_
....
"",,~.t
L1tlo
l!~!!~---
Calumot.Sag
I
RIYor
r~a".
Calumot
~C!llum~t
Ch.,nol
Lob
Lillo
~.S<>UIh-
•.
I
Calumot
lllumet
_milt
S
-West-
I
47
51
I
42
..
I
32
31
J'
~
27
27
20
~
-
I
1!
20
ffi
fti
..
9
~
I---
-
~
F;I
~:
:.1
~
9
8
2:fI
~
I
7
2£
","
-
g..'
o0':'
.I~
",.
«-«-
«-«-
~
".
"',
~",
o
CO'
1
f1l
c--oj
hi
""
'\
~4,'
~.
'0'0
~
<t
<t
<t
-t
'v
:,.,v
,,'O~
",CO<:'
"CO
C.P
~"
it
,,0
'.flJ'
~""
0-'li
~~
~
t§'0
Q'
,;.,'if
6'
~
J>'Y
.
(lX'
,0
«-¥
.,.'0"
~*
,p
"
~
:.<:-'?'
«-0'::>
"co
,,(;)
,,0
~'I.
~'"
0.)
c,'b-
Cj
SEPA
SEPA
SEPA
CalUmetWRP
SEPA
SEPA
Figure 4-34 - Percent of the time D.O. levels fell below water quality screening criteria
CONI
\\Stlsvr1IcommonlCAWS
UAAlAugust
editslANAL SECTION 4.doc
4-87
4.5.2.3 Bacteria
Bacteria concentrations in
the Calumet System were
evaluated
based on the
seven
instream grab
sampling locations
operated
by MWRDGC
and IEPA sampling
conducted
in Lake Calumet
in 2004. The map at right
shows the IEPA 2004 Lake
Calumet sampling
locations (Figure 4-35). The
frequency distribution for
E.cali
results from March
through November at each
station for limited contact
recreation
and recreational
navigation
water quality
screening criteria
of 1030
and 2470 efu/100mL,
respectively are
shown in
Figure 4-10. Figure
Section 4
Characterization
of Waterway Reaches
Figure
4-35 -
20041EPA Lake Calumet sampling locations
COM
4-11 shows the
E.cali
geometric mean at each station. The influence of non-disinfected
wastewater entering from the Calumet WRP at the upstream
end of the Uttle Calumet
(West) reach is evident. The
Uttle Calumet South Leg also contributes a significant
bacteria load. The bacteria concentrations decline fairly quickly as one moves
down
the Calumet-Sag. At Cicero,
E.cali
concentrations are less then 1030 efu/100mL more
than
75 percent of the time.
4.5.2.2 Temperature
None of the twelve continuous temperature monitoring locations in the Calumet
System
recorded levels above screening criteria over the past five years.
4.5.2.4 Metals and Other Constituents
All constituents analyzed by grab sampling station are shown in Table 4-15. Figures
4-36 and 4-37 show the percent of the time that metals and other pollutant
concentrations exceeded
water quality screening criteria at the seven monthly grab
sampling locations operated
by MWRDGC in the Calumet System. The data shown
for Lake Calumet was collected by IEPA in 1999, 2000, and 2004. MWRDGC's
monthly
sampling program does not include Lake Calumet. Constituents that never
exceeded screening criteria are
not shown. The number of samples taken for each
constituent
with an exceedance at all grab sampling stations is shown in Table 4-16.
Chronic metals screening
was calculated based on instantaneous monthly grab
4-88
l\StlsvrllcommonlCAWS UAAlAugust edllslANAL SECTION 4.doc
Section 4
Characterization
of Waterway Reaches
samples rather than the arithmetic average of at least four consecutive samples
collected over
any period of at least four days. Details of pH exceedances are shown
in Table 4-17. Only stations with pH exceedances are shown.
• Silver
• Dissolved Nickel Chronic
o
Dissolved Zinc Chronic I
100
CD
90
Ii
111
i
70
CD
&a
~
50
i ;:
a-
~
20
10
o
Little
Little
Grand
Lakl!
Calumet
Calumet
Cllumet
Calumet Saa Channel
Calumet
Calumet
River
River
River
RIver
~
..t
We.t
17
11;
~u
ft
!;
A
a !; ..
"
7
u
u
u
..-u
_u u
__ I
!
u
u
_u u
_u u
Burnham
Lake
130th St. IndianaAv. Halsted
It.
Ashland
Cicero Av. Route 183
Ave.
Calumet
Av.
Figure 4-36 - Percent of the time metal concentrations exceeded water quality screening
criteria
in the Calumet River System
100
CD
u
Ii
ao
'a
II
CD
60
~
-
w
C
40
II
20
a-
~
0
DpH
o
Ammonia Acute
• Ammonia Chronic
o Ammonia Subchronic
.TDS
• Phenol
I
I!I WAD Cyanide Chronic
• Aouride
Grand
Lakll
Calumet
Utile
Littl..
ClIIumet Sag Channel
CahMnet
Calumet
River
Cllumet
CalL.mllt
~Iv
...
DIu••
D ....
East
Welt
..
1000
1";0000000
~~ooooo
1,,;00D2222
6
1
1
9
1
lU 1 1
0000
nO 3 oiID o.
flO
10.0 03 n1.1.i.o 0':
ClIVI
Burnham
Lake
130th St. Indiana Av. Halsted Sl
Ashland
Cicero Av. Route 183
Ave.
Calwnet
Av.
Figure 4-37 - Percent of the time various pollutant concentrations exceeded water quality
screening criteria in the Calumet River System
4.5.2.5 WRP Effluent
Since the Calumet WRP is a primary source of flow
in
the Little Calumet (West) reach
and the Calumet-Sag, Calumet plant effluent concentrations were also compared to
water quality screening criteria in order to help characterize the influence of this
important point source. Note that this assessment does not represent discharge
compliance
and is only intended to provide a perspective regarding the relationships
between an important point source and instream conditions. Table 4-54 describes the
percent of
the time effluent concentrations exceeded water quality screening criteria
in the past five years. Constituents that never exceeded screening criteria are not
listed. All constituents analyzed
by the water treatment plant are shown in Table 4-
19. The
number of samples taken for each constituent with an exceedance at all
4-89
\\sUsvrllcommonlCAWS
UAAIAugust
edltslFINAL SECTION 4.doc
COM
Section 4
Characterization
of
Waterway Reaches
treatment plants is shown in Table 4-20. Details of pH exceedances at wastewater
treatment
plants are shown in Table 4-21. Only treatment plants with pH exceedances
are shown.
Table 4-54
Calumet WRP Effluent Water Quali
Ecoli"
99%
91%
Effluent was compared to water quality screening criteria and does not represent discharge
compliance.
E.coli
concentrations estimated using EC/FC ratio of 0.84 (MWRD, 2004)
4.5.2.6 Constituents of Concern
Table 4-55 summarizes the water quality use attainment screening constituents of
concern for the Calumet System
and lists the maximum percent that any sampling
location
in the reach exceeded water quality screening criteria in the past five years.
Chronic metals screening
was calculated based on instantaneous monthly grab
samples
rather than the arithmetic average of at least four consecutive samples
collected
over any period of at least four days. E.coli bacteria calculations were
similarly calculated as
data representing five samples collected over 30 days was not
available.
4.5.3
Sediment Quality
Several agencies identified in Table 4-10 collected sediment data in the Calumet
System
over the past 5 to 10 years. Table 4-56 provides a summary of conditions in
the Calumet System reaches. The data was compared against the TEC and PEC
thresholds developed
by MacDonald and the Long and Morgan ER-L and ER-M as
described
in Section 4.1.3.3. GCR concentrations were generally substantially higher
than the rest of the Calumet System. Within the GCR, concentrations at the
downstream end were generally lower than further upstream.
In
general, Calumet-
Sag
sediment quality is better than that of the Little Calumet. Lake Calumet results
are
based on one sample collected by IEPA in June 2000.
SOD data was available for one study conducted by MWRDGC in the Fall and Winter
of
2001 that included six locations in the Calumet System. SOD is a measure of how
much oxygen bottom sediments consume from the water column to decompose
organic materials. SOD
values in the vicinity of a municipal sewage outfall typically
range from 2 to 10
g/m
2
/day and average approximately 4 g/m
2
/day. (Thomann,
1987)
Table 4-57 shows the results of SOD measurements conducted on Calumet
System sediments
in 2001.
4-90
11S11svr1lcommon1CAWS UAAlAugust edilslFlNAL SECTION 4.doc
Section 4
Characterization
of Waterway Reaches
Table 4.55
Calumet
5
stem Water Quali Constituents of Concern
Parameter
Dissolved Oxygen
ECo/i*
T
ota! Silver
Dissolved Nickel
Dissolved Zinc
Ammonia Chronic
Arrrnonia Subchronic
Arrrnonia Acute
T
ota! Dissolved Solids
Cyanide
CNAD)
Chronic
pH
Phenol
Flouride
Grand
Calumet
Calumet
River
Little
Calumet
River East
Little
Calumet
River West
Cal Sag
Channel
Maximum percent exceedance
at any sampling location In reach
_
0%
c=J <=10% _
>10 and <=25% _
>25%
LC....;.'----'-'------'
No data
• Limited Contact Recreation I Recreational Navigation
GCR
Calumet River
Lake Calumet
Little Calumet (East)
Little Calumet (West)
Cal-Sag Channel
CDM
IIStlsvrl1commonlCAWS UAAlAugusl editslFlNAL SECTION 4.doc
Mercury, Cadmium, Chromium,
Copper, Lead, Nickel, Zinc
Cadmium, Chromium, Copper,
Lead, Mercury, Zinc, PCBs
Cadmium, Chromium, Mercury,
Nickel, Zinc, PCBs, Copper,
Lead
Mercury, Cadmium, Chromium,
Copper, Lead, Nickel, Zinc,
PCBs
Chromium, Copper, Nickel,
Cadmium, Lead, Zinc
Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead,
Nickel, Zinc
Copper, Lead, Zinc, PCBs
Copper, Lead
Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead,
Nickel, Zinc, PCBs
Cadmium, Lead, Zinc
4-91
Section 4
Characterization
of Waterway Reaches
Table 4-57
Calumet S stem SOD Measurements
~.
Little Calumet River (East) at Conrail
Little Calumet River (East) at Indiana Avenue
Little Calumet River (West) at Halstead
Calumet-Sag at Division
Calumet-Sag at Southwest Hwy.
Calumet-Sag at Route 83
0.59
1.25
1.14
1.07
0.8
0.63
COM
4.5.4
Biological
Assessment
4.5.4.1 Fish
Calumet-Sag Channel
MWRDGC collected fish from the Calumet-Sag
Ch:mnel at two primary locations:
•
Cicero Avenue
•
Route
83
The fish community in the Calumet-Sag Channel was also sampled at SEPA Stations
3,4 and 5; upstream and downstream at SEPA Stations 3 and 4; and upstream at
SEPA Station
5. This work was done in the late 1990s with an intended purpose of
evaluating the response of the fish
community to improvements in water quality after
the SEPA stations came
on line.
Twenty-six fish species
were collected between 1993 and 2002 at
all
the sampling
locations identified
in Table 4-58. Species diversity was fairly uniform between the
Cicero
Avenue and Route 83 sampling locations with the dominant species consisting
of
gizzard shad, common carp, emerald shiner and bluntnose minnow. Common
game fish included green sunfish, bluegill, pumpkinseed and largemouth bass. The
fish assemblage
in the Calumet-Sag Channelwas very similar to the rest of Chicago
River System,
with the exception that more emerald shiners were captured in the
Calumet-Sag ChanneL
Species richness
ranged from 9 to 18 from 1993 to 2002 (Figure 4-38), varying over the
years.
IBI scores generally increased at the Cicero Avenue sampling location from 12
to 24
and decreased at the Route 83 sampling location from 22 to 18 (Figure 4-39).
Water Quality based upon the IBI would rate poor to very poor in the Calumet-Sag
ChanneL
4-92
l\Stlsvr1lcommonICAWS UMlAugusl edlts\FINAL SECTION 4.doc
Table 4-58 Species Richness and Relative Abundance of Fish Species in the Calumet-Sag
Channel 1993
- 2002
13.33
15.86
13.33
16.67
3.03
23.56
1.52
2.87
21.35
I
10.61
I
7.88
I
3.71
5.23
10.00
4.97
3.97
3.94
I
5.17
0.91
J
0.22
I
1.15
0.14
23.44
T
10.61
T
6.06
2.86
3.49
0.56
2.34
0.99
0.79
I
0.57
0.30
0.29
0.44
0.33
5.73
T
3.03
T
26.67
2.57
5.66
1.11
7.60
7.95
16.54 1 17.82
0.14
0.14
0.56
0.29
0.33
wI.:
CDIII
1\SlIsvrllcommonlCAWS UAAlAugusl edilsIFlNAL SECTION 4.doc
4-93
Figure 4-38. Temporal Trend in Fish Species Diversity in the Calumet-Sag
Channel 1993
- 2002
20
on
oS!
15
(J)
8-
'0
,Q
"
§
10
z
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
Year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
35
30
25
l!!
20
(J)
8
§
15
10
Figure 4-39. IBI Scores for Fish Sampling Locations for the Calumet System 1992 - 2002
Average IBI Scores
Cal Sag Channel,
Cicero Ave= 17
Rt. 83= 22
Calumet
River> 130th St= 26
O'Brien UD= 26
Little Calumet
River, Halsled Rd= 19 Route 1-94= 24
,,,qp'O
<&41'
~"",
,,,#
",,,#
/
_",cS''' ,
",,,
~"
,,<f
l'
'>(~
,;,"
01"'11.
~"
Date
4-94
l\Stlsvr1lcommonlCAWS UAAlAugust editslFINAL SECTION 4.doc
Section 4
Characterization
of
Waterway Reaches
Calumet River
MWRDGC collected fish from the Calumet River from two primary locations:
•
l30th Street
•
O'BrienLock
and Dam
The fish community in the Calumet River was also sampled upstream and
downstream of SEPA Station 1. The work was done
in
the late 1990s to evaluate the
response of the fish community
to improvements in water quality after the SEPA
stations came
on line.
Thirty-two species of fish
were collected between 1993 and 2002 at the sampling
locations identified
in Table 4-59. Dominant species were gizzard shad, common
carp,
emerald shiner and bluntnose minnow. Common game fish included green
sunfish,
pumpkinseed, bluegill, smallmouth bass and largemouth bass. As with the
Calumet-Sag, more emerald shiners
were captured in the Calumet River than in the
other Chicago waterways. Also,
more smallmouth bass were captured in the Calumet
River
than in any other parts of CAWS.
Species richness decreased from
21 to 12 from 1993 t() 2002 (Figure 4-40). IEI Scores
increased from
22 to 32 at the l30th Street sampling location over three years (1993 to
1996) and ranged from 24 to 28 over two years (1994 to 1996) at the O'BrienLock and
Dam location Figure 4-39, which are indicative of fair to poor water quality.
Figure 4.40. Temporal Trend in Fish Species Diversity in the Calumet River 1993 - 2002
25
20
.!115
U>
i
'0
.8
E
:i 10
COM
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
Year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
4-95
IlStlsvr1\commorl.CAWS UAAlAugUSl edIlslRNAL SECTION 4.doc
Table 4-59 Species Richnes and Relative Abundance of Fish Species in the Calumet River 1993.2002
CDM
.
1~97"
I •
I
AIosa PS8udoharenqus
• alewitl
t-
t.-
0.37
0
• 0
..
. ..
I
I
I
0.22
I
2.37
I
I
I
Dorosoma cepedianum
. qizzard shad
39.44
. .. '
10.11
.
,
10.93
.
•
29.81
I
2.20
I
38.70
I
63.68
31.19
47.13
I
15.33
I
0
Carassius auratus
' qoldfish
0.56
1.80
0.91
0.21
0.21
0.22
CtenophafVT]qodon nella.
qrass carp
0.64
ClfJrinus eamio
• corrrron carp
2.41
2.47
4.37
10.35
3.96
6.49
5.25
2.71
7.64
5.75
Notemiqonus cryso!eucas
. qolden shiner
2.41
1.12
0.31
0.21
Notropls atherinokles
. emerald shiner
1.48
0.22
2.37
15.73
0.88
25.73
9.41
10.85
9.55
Pimephaies notatus
. bluntnose rrinnow
15.56
37.08
34.97
14.80
67.25
7.11
1.09
12.88
3.18
55.17
Pimephales promelas
.
fa~ead
rrinnow
0.19
0.18
Carp x Goldlsh
0.19
0.22
0.21
','
IletaJurus punctatus
• channel catlsh
I
I
I
0.21
I
I
I
I
Ameiurus meJas
. blackbullhead
I
I
0.18
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
Carpiodes eyprinus
• QuDlback
I
, . .
.,'
I
0.10
I
I
0.21
0.22
I
0.34
I
0.64
I
I
I
Catostomus commersoni
• whiia sucker
I
0.56
1.80
I
2.19
I
1.24
I
0.22
I
0.63
I
1.09
I
1.69
I
I
0.77
I
•
t." •
•
Esox americanus
. grass pickerel
I
0.18
I
I
I
I
Oncorhynchus
mvkiss • rainboW b'out
I
.
','
0
.'
I
0.22
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
Oncorhynchus tshafWIscha
. chinook salroon
I
,
,
I
..
•
to"
.. ,
,
.
.'
0
I
,
0.64
I
I
I
Gasterosteus aculeatus
. flreespine stickleback I
I
I
0.44
I
I
.. .. '
.
to. -: •
I
I
I
Marone mlss/ssippiensis
. yellow bass
I
I
I
I
0.63
I
I
I
I
I
Marone chrysops
• whlia bass
I
I
I
I .
I
0.68
I
I
I
I
Sb'iped bass x Wllia bass hvbrld
I
I
I
0.10
I
I
I
II
,,'
..
. -
:.
Amblopfites ruoestris
• rock bass
0.37
0.67
1.09
0.93
0.44
1.88
1.09
3.05
1.91
1.92
Lepomls cyanellus
• qreen sunfish
5.37
3.15
1.64
1.14
1.54
1.67
1.09
6.78
0.77
Lepomis qibbosus
• pUlJllkinseed
4.81
3.60
3.10
1.55
2.20
1.26
1.53
2.71
0.38
Lepomis humllis
. oranqespotled sunfish
0.18
022
Lepomis macrochirus
. blueqHI
4.26
1.57
6.74
3.00
3.14
1.75
5.08
0.64
1.15
Mlcrooterus dolomieu
• smallrooufl bass
0.19
0.67
5.10
4.55
0.66
5.65
2.63
5.42
11.46
5.75
Mlcrooterus saJmoides
• laraerrouttl bass
19.07
33.71
21.31
14.18
11.65
5.65
9.19
12.20
14.65
11.11
Pomoxls annuJaris
. whiia crappie
0.19
0.22
Pamaxis
n~romacuJatus
. black crappie
0.22
0.18
0.31
0.22
0.34
Green sunfish x PUlJllkinseed hybrid
0.19
0.34
Green sunfish x Biueqill hybrid
0.18
0.10
7.69
0.21
0.22
"
t.- e.
. .
• I .
.
I
Perea fJavescens
. yellow perch
I
0.37
I
II
I
I
I
I
Aplodlhotusgrunniens
. freshwaiar drum
I
0.93
0.36
,
0.10
,
,
I
I
0.34
I
0.64
I
0.38
I
'.
'.'
. t".
. '.
f
Marone americana
• Wlile Perch
1.11
I
0.90
I
0.73
I
1.24
I
I
I
0.44
I
1.02
I
1.27
I
I
II' •
t.-
.. '
I
Neogobius
.,
meJanostomus
.' .
O' ,
. Round goby
I
0.67
I
3.10
0.21
I
I
0.44
I
0.21
I
0.44
:
I
:
1.53
I
4-96
\\Stlsvrl\common\CAW5 UAA\August edits\ANAl SECTION 4.doc
Little Calumet River
MWRDGC collected fish from the LCR from two primary locations:
•
Halsted Street - Little Calumet (West)
•
Route
1-94 - Little Calumet (East)
The fish
community in the Calumet River was also sampled upstream and
downstream of SEPA Stations 2 and 4;. The work was done in the late 1990s to
evaluate the response of
the fish community to improvements in water quality after
the SEPA stations came
on line.
Twenty-nine fish species
were collected between 1993 and 2002 at the sampling
locations identified
in Table 4-60. Dominant species were gizzard shad, common
carp,
emerald shiner and bluntnose minnow. Common game fish included
pumpkinseed, bluegill and largemouth bass. More golden shiners were caught in the
. Little
Calumet River than in the Calumet-Sag channel or the Calumet River. As with
the other branches of the Calumet River system, more emerald shiners were captured
in this section of the waterway section as compared to Chicago River System.
Species richness generally rose over 1993 to
2000 (Figure 4-41) from 16 to 24. Richness
decreased from 2000 to 2002, from
24 to 17. At the Halsted Street location, IB1 Scores
overall increased
from 18 to 24 from 1993 to 2002, but showed declines from 1998 to
2000, and went as low as 16 in 1999. IB1 scores at Route 94 ranged from 12 to 28,
fluctuating
up and down over the 1993 to 2004 sampling period (Figure 4-39)
indicating
poor to very poor water quality.
Figure 4-41. Temporal Trend in Fish Species Diversity in the Little Calumet River 1993 - 2002
30
25
20
ill
~
til
'015
.tl
"
E
:>
z
10
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
Year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
4-97
IIStlsvrllcommonlCAWS UAAlAu9ust edHslFINAL SECTION 4.doc
Table
4-60
Species Richnes and Relative Abundance of Fish Species in the Little Calumet River
1993 - 2002
IFish Species
1993 1 1994 .1
1
1996 T
1997
1
1998
1
1
20001
-
.
~
.. '
.
,.
, .
1995
, ,.
1999
2001
2002
I
AJosa chrvsochloris
" skipjack herrinQ
I
I
I
0.61
I
I
Alosa pseudoharenQus
" alewife
1.34
J
0.63
I
0.27
I
2.61
I
I
I
I
Dorosoma cepedianum
" gizzard shad
71.84
22.26
I
42.50
I
55.76
25.60
35.29
43.41
31.74
29.05
I
20.25
I
Carassius auratus
- aoldfish
7.09
,
.,'
19.93
.
, .
2.50
, .
1.82
0.53
1.55
2.44
0.87
3.33
0.61
Gyprinus carpio"
corn:non carp
6.51
12.29
15.94
7.39
6.13
14.86
11.71
16.96
18.57
21.47
Notemiaonus crvsoleucas
" aolden shiner
3.07
1.00
3.44
1.09
0.27
1.24
0.49
0.43
0.61
Notropis atherinoides
" emerald shiner
1.15
8.97
7.50
14.55
31.73
10.22
15.85
0.95
3.68
Notropis hudsonius
" spotlail shiner
0.53
0.31
0.24
0.87
Pimephales notatus
- bluntnose rrinnow
0.77
4.98
0.94
4.24
18.93
9.60
4.15
1.74
0.95
2.45
Pimephales prome/as
• la!1ead mnnow
0.19
0.24
0.27
0.43
Carp x Qoldfish
0.19
2.66
2.19
0.48
0.27
0.31
0.24
0.43
, . .
','
I
Gatostomus commersoni
" white sucker
0.77
0.33
0.31
0.61
I
0.53
0.62
I
0.98
I
2.17
I
6.13
I
I
Erimyzon oblonaus
" creek chubsucker
I
I
I
I
I'
I
1.74
I
I
I
,,'
Ameiurus melas
• black bullhead
0.19
0.24
Ameiurus natalis
- yellow bullhead
0.27
0.73
1.30
1.90
Icta/urus punctatus
" channel catfish
0.31
0.24
Oncorhynchus
Noturusgyrinus
mykiss
• tadpole
• rainbowmadklmtrout
I
.
,,'
.
.'
I
I
I
0.43
I
0.87
I
I
[
, .
. t.-
Gasterosteus aculeatus
" Ihreespine stickleback
'"
, .
0'
I
.
0.12
I
I
II
[
o.
','
, "
o'
:.
I
Morone mississippiensis
• yellow bass
-,
0.33
1.21
I
0.80
I
0.31
I
0.73
I
I
2.38
I
0.61
I
',"
, .
, '
"
Lepomis cyanellus
" Qreen sunfish
0.19
0.33
1.25
0.97
3.73
0.62
0.73
5.65
1.90
1.23
Lepomis gibbosus
• pumpkinseed
1.34
9.30
7.81
6.55
3.47
4.02
3.90
5.65
3.33
12.27
Lepomis huml1is
• oranaesootted sunfish
0.87
Lepomis macrochirus
" blueQili
0.38
1.00
2.50
0.73
0.53
6.19
1.95
13.48
6.19
3.07
Micropterus dolomieu
• smallmoulh bass
0.27
0.73
0.48
1.23
Micropterus satmoides
"larQemoulh bass
2.49
5.98
5.63
2.30
4.53
6.19
8.54
7.83
24.29
19.02
Pomoxis niQromaculatus
"black crappie
0.12
0.43
Pumpkinseed x Blueaill hybrid
0.31
0.43
Green sunfish x Blueaill hYbrid
0.24
0.43
.,'
"
, .,
Aplodinotusarunniens
" freshwaterdrum
.,
','
o •••
' "
0.31
I
I
I
1.43
2.45
I
I
Morone americana"
W1ite Perch
2.49
10.63
6.88
I
1.82
I
0.80
5.57
I
2.44
I
1.74
I
4.76
3.07
J
'1'
••• "
., '
I
Neogobiusmelanostomus
" Round goby
J
1
J
J
I
0.53
I
2.17
I
I
0.87_
I
(l.48 _
1_
1.23
I
COM
\\SUsvr1\common\CAWS UAA\Augusl edits\FINAL SECTiON 4.doc
4-98
Lake Calumet
IEPA collected fish from Lake Calumet from 1990 to
1996.
Table 4-61
shows the total
number of species ranged from 8 to 12. Dominant species included gizzard shad and
carp, and game species included pumpkinseed, bluegill and largemouth bass.
4.5.4.2 Macroinvertebrates
MWRDGC and IEPA sampled macroinvertebrates at six locations in the Calumet
River system:
•
Ashland Avenue
•
Indiana Avenue
•
Western Avenue
•
130th Street
•
Halsted Street
••
Cicero Avenue
Species Richness and Relative Abundance of Fish Species in Lake Calumet, 1990-1996
Cyprinus carpio
- common carp
Notemigonus crysoleucas
- golden shiner
Notropis atherinoides
- emerald shiner
Pimephales notatus
- bluntnose minnow
Shiner sp.
Carp X Goldfish hybrid
12.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
14.1
0.9
1.8
2.6
1.3
0.2
0.2
1.8
1.0
1.2
0.2
1.9
Pomoxis nigromaculatus
- black crappie
Lepomis gibbosus
- pumpkinseed
Lepomis cyanellus
- green sunfish
Pumpkinseed X Green sunfish hybrid
Lepomis macrochirus
- bluegill
Micropterus salmoides
- largemouth bass
4-99
CDM
Section 4
Characterization
of Waterway Reaches
Tables 4-62a and 4-62b shows the species richness and associated MBI score for both
HD and PP dredge sampling methods. Over 65 macroinvertebrate taxa of were
collected within the Calumet-Sag system.
IEPA sampling (Table 4-62a) showed species diversity
was highest at Ashland
Avenue
in the Little Calumet River with forty taxa, followed by sixteen taxa in the
Calumet-Sag channel
at Cicero Avenue. The lowest diversity (9) was in the Little
Calumet River
at Indiana Avenue. The MWRDGC HD data set (Table 4-62b) showed
the highest diversity at the Cicero Avenue site (15) in the Calumet-Sag Channel and
the lowest diversity (5) in the Calumet River at BOth Street.
Oligochaetes
and dipterans were the dominant organisms in the IEPA data set. In
the MWRDGC data set, oligochaetes,
Gammarus, andDicrotendipes
were dominant at
BOth Street, Halsted Street,
and Cicero Avenue.
Z~bra
mussels were extremely
numerous at all the MWRDGC sampling sites. MBI scores for the MWRDGC HD
sampling data ranged from 5.8 at Halsted Street to 8.0 at BOth Street. PP dredge MBI
scores
ranged from 9.4 at BOth Street to 9.7 at Halsted Street. IEPA HD MBI values
ranged from 5.2
in the Little Calumet River at Indiana Avenue to 6.3 at Halsted Street
in the Little Calumet River. Based upon the HD MBI scores from both agencies, the
water quality in the Little Calumet River and the Calumet-Sag Channel was good to
fair.
In the CAWS, the Calumet-Sag Channel system had the best diversity of
macroinvertebrates,
and this is most likely due to the diversity of habitat types within
the waterway.
4.5.5 Habitat Assessment
Calumet-Sag Channel
Based upon the habitat survey results conducted by Rankin (2004) the Calumet-Sag
Channel
had fair habitat conditions. Limestone rubble and coarse materials were left
behind during channel construction along the littoral areas. The littoral habitat is also
found along
most of the shoreline. The limiting factors for this site were:
•
Predominance of silty-muck
and sand substrate
•
Channelation
•
No sinuosity
•
Little
Instream cover
•
Deep center region
•
Lack of flow
Important positive attributes included substrates, shoreline structure and maximum
depth. The Calumet-Sag Channel was recommended as a MWH-C Category by
Ohio'scriteria (Rankin 2004).
4-100
I\sUsvr1lcommonICAWS UAAlAugusl edllslANAL SECTION 4.doc
Table 4-62..
u.CC'oln~rtebrJIte
data from the South Fork of the C-alumtt.Slg Sysl.m (IEPA Oalll 2001). Sarnpl.. collected uslng Hesler Dendy (HO) P'-Iea. haind picking: or t-ba.
~~~_
L'llIe Calumet S
L,ttle Calume' S
L,ttle Calumet S.
L,ttle Calumet R"e, N
L,ttle Calume' R,v", N
Calumet Sag Chann.'
Calumet Sag Channel
_
@ Ashland Ave.
@ Ash/and Ave
@ Ash/and Ave.
@ 'nd..na Ave.
@ Hal"ed St
@ Wes'em Ave.
@ Coce,o Ave
~
HB.01
HB.01
HB.01
HA.05
HA.04
H.04
H.02
~
..,",'" "_B2il
Plates A.B
Hand Pock
20./ab (Bank Zone only)
Plates B.C
Plales A.B.C
Plates A.B
Plat" A.B
SQl
tf~~~~
•
~~fII.~.""-t=r;~f<'-}l""'·'''~''··''''J;l7Y?'''''~Fm~~~''''''''"o/-WlBi~
~"
ilDii
ttt1f~ar.mill'iffi~~r~
~~'ili1M\{~~~ilifiul
~
TumeUaria
6
I
lJuoMIa/larin.
6
6
9
10000000""ola
10
1
454
223
, EmobdeJla mJIlCtata
B
1
Moorfobdetla feMda
B
5
_1Ja
""""'''''''''
B
4
Helobde/lasMtJrlilis
B
1
HeJobdetla
lriserialis
8
4
CaecidotH
in~mredius
8
1
8
Ca«idola.
(1ITIm,
1em>Jes
6
4
Gammarus
fasciahJs
3
16
'9
4'
2
13
7
Gamma""so.
3
3
I
HvaJe//a
iJzteci
5
3
4
,
4
7
12
Butis
nne.
EI
4
1
Atf"iIJ&lrWJttis
5
3
I
Arai.
so. /ftC
EJ
5
3
~~gma
spp.
(inc..
6
2
1
IscMura
vertic:alis
6
2
fschnu"!In.
tnC••
EJ
6
2
unid.
COClf1aariOnid
EI
5.5
1
1
UbeIIula~.
B
1
Piathemis IvdIi
3
5
l":vrnIll1tJsfralermJS
5
1
107
2
1
51..,..,.._.11.
7
1
Ablabeetm.U
mallodli
6
1
_besm"'"
moniIis
6
1
2
Ablabesmyia
rh.1l'Iph&-
I M.
B
2
1
Chironomus
~.
11
1
CricoIopus (G.)
b/cinc1U$
10
4
7
,
11
~(l)
82
Crir;;o1IYVK_<Zn.
8
1
1
Dictoterlctloes
h.tc;fM
6
20
4
7
25
45
""""",,,",IUS
{);crof_
8
6
,
,
Dictote~~onI
6
1
'0
28
'7
l);aol""""""=.
8
81
2
6
18
90
87
("~oten~
....
'0
,
21
7
3
,
HaV8_~a
SMata
6
2
,
Nanocladivs distinctus
3
26
1
10
22
19
4-101
Section ..
Characterization
01 Waterway
Reaches
Nanodadius
crassJcomusltadlnervis
NanocJadius
nus
NanodadlU5
.8
PilfBchironornus
tenuiuudltus
lex
8
ParaJdefferieKa$
.
5
Pva
fSlJ$$
.
a
Pol
flavum
a
Ill_
s
56
23
scal.tenum
a
m
a
Proc/edIu$
a
29
Psectrodadius
_It>
a
5
Rh<tocrlcot
us_
a
Tan
no
....
a
Tanytarsus gJabraSUtU-gr.
.1
7
Ferrissiarivularis
7
FerrissJas
.
7
F05san.
..
7
1
Ph
as
•
25
Ph
•
12
Menetes
dilalatus
7
Bi
tonIacuiota
4
AmnoicoIa
limc>sa
4
4
Musclium
tTi1nsve~um
5
71
-
PEsidium
55
24
unJd.
enid inc..imm.
5
5
PisJcikJa8
5
P8Uodyte3
<Iuodedm
talUS
Pe
edentulus
lota'
Dre/ssifla
Number
rna
of
h.
m
208
29
..
lndlvlduals
242
666
283
35.
286
243
282
l.xa Richne••
I.
18
"
6
11
I.
'2
"91
5.3
8.7
9.2
5.2
6.3
5.5
5.7
CD.'
4-'02
_~~
__MGflOOl'_
Table 4-62b - Macroinvertebrate data from the Calumet-Sag System (MWRDGC Data 2002). Samples collected using
Hester Dendy (HD) Plates and Petite Ponar (PP) Dredge.
18
6
359
18
10
1,435
811
126
602
1,442
847
69
5
36
36
3
520
7
54
7
5
36
9
67
6
179
7
90
7
6
54
4
21
8
14
8
14
3
54
492
36
6
14
6
538
1,561
21
2,336
10
36
50
67
47
6
7
143
6.5
359
9
4
43
18
21
143,882
316
23,520
7,580
93
146,213
1,197
26,840
680
12137
1011
5
8
12
5
15
6
8.0
9.7
5.8
9.4
6.9
9.5
CDNI
IIStlsvrllcommonlCAWS UAAlAugust edilslRNAL SECTION 4.doc
4-103
CONI
Section 4
Characterization
of Waterway Reaches
Calumet River
Rankin's (2004) habitat evaluation classified the two sites of the Calumet River as fair
and poor. Limiting factors for the Calumet River include:
•
Silty substrates
•
Little instream cover
•
No sinuosity
•
Overall embeddedness
•
No fast current
Positive habitat attributes included riffle development, moderate cover, depth, and
boulder and cobble substrates (Table
4-~3).
However, mixed silt-sand surrounding
coarser substrates near the O'BrienLock and Dam limited the habitat functionality.
The Calumet River
was recommended as a MWH-C Category by Ohio'scriteria
(Rankin 2004).
It
should be noted that the rest of the Calumet River, north and east of SEPAl
resembles the Chicago River.
It
is a deep draft shipping channel with no riparian
vegetation,
and vertical or near vertical sheet pile, concrete and rock walls.
Table 4-63
QHEI Scores for the Calumet System
Site Description
QHEI
Calumet-Sag Channel Cicero Avenue
37.5
Calumet-Sag Channel Route 83
42
Little Calumet River Halsted Road
48.5
Little Calumet River 1-94
48.5
Calumet River 130
th
Street
47
Calumet River O'Brien Lock/Dam
43
Little Calumet River
Rankin's(2004) habitat evaluation classified the two sites of the Calumet River
similarly as fair
and both sites were similar. Limiting factors for the Little Calumet
River include:
4-104
IISllsvrllcommonlCAWS UAAlAugusl edllslFINAL SECTION 4.doc
COM
Section 4
Characterization
of Waterway Reaches
•
Silty substrates
•
Little sinuosity
•
Overall embeddedness
•
No fast current
Positive habitat attributes included riffle development, moderate cover,
and
maximum depth. The moderate cover was mostly low quality. The Calumet River
should support MWH-C Category and may be able to support MWH-Impounded
use, which includes more non-tolerant species according to Ohio'scriteria (Rankin,
2004).
Lake Calumet
Limited habitat studies have been conducted in Lake Calumet, and the area is
generally off limits to shoreline fishing. However, boat fishing can
be conducted in
the lake, and access is via the Calumet River from Lake Michigan, or from the public
and private boat launches on the other side of the O'BrienLock/Dam.
Lake
Calumet is the only inland lake in Illinois hydrologically connected to Lake
Michigan via the Calumet River. Lake Calumet provides migratory
bird habitat as
well as feeding
and spawning habitat fish species. Sections of the Lake Calumet
shoreline
have limited wetland systems that are dominated by canary reed grass
(Phragmites sp.)
and cat-tail
(Typha spY.
Lake Calumet currently hosts a number of
Illinois state
endangered bird species, including the black-crowned night-heron, the
little
blue heron, and the yellow-headed blackbird.
The
southern portion of the lake consist of primarily deep-draft channels, while the
northern portion of the lake is shallow (2-6 feet) with a clay bottom. Based upon site
visits
by IEPA and CDM, there were very little instream structure and emergent
aquatic
plants for fish habitat and foraging. Some of the slip channels on the eastern
side
of the lake contain rip-rap and debris material along the banks.
Although Lake Calumet has limited fish habitat, it has the potential through
restoration efforts to provide diverse aquatic habitat for fish and wildlife. Aquatic
habitat could be created to
support many of Lake Michigan fish species, as well as
many warm-water game species.
4.5.6 IEPA Letter Response Request
As part of this UAA study, IEPA requested from communities along the CSSC if they
had any plans for instream habitat improvements or the development of swimming
areas. There
were no responses back to IEPA from the municipalities contacted.
4-105
IISllsvrllcommonlCAWS UAAlAugusI edllslANAL SECTION 4.doc
Section 4
Characterization
of Waterway Reaches
4.6 References
Essig, Howard. 2004. Macroinvertebrate data from the North Shore Channel (HCCA)
and N. Br. Chicago River (HCC), 2001. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.
FOCR. 2000.
Waterways for Our Future: Metropolitan Water Reclamation District
Wastewater Treatment and the Chicago River.
IDEM. 1988.
Northwest Indiana Environmental Action Plan. Indiana Department of
Environmental Management and the United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Region V.
IEPA. 1986. The Southeast Chicago Study: An Assessment of Environmental
Pollution and Public Health Impacts. IEPA/ENV/86-008.
IEPA. 2003.
Interpreting illinois Fish - IBI Scores DRAFT: September 2003. Bureau
of Water, Surface Water Section.
.
Long, E.R., and L.G. Morgan. 1990. The potential for biological effects of sediment-
sorbed contaminants tested in the National Status and Trends Program. NOAA
Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 52. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Seattle, Washington.
MacDonald, D.o., e.G. Ingersoll and T.A. Berger, 2000. Development and evaluation
of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems.
Arch.
Environ. Contam. Toxieol.
39: 20-31.
MWRDGe. 2000. Continuous D.O. Monitoring from Wilmeette to Lockport in the
Chicago Waterway System During August 1998 through July 2000, Nov. 2002).
Report No. 02-11.
MWRDGe. 2002. 2000 Annual Summary Report: Water Quality Within the
Waterways System of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater
Chicago. Report
No. 02-9.
MWRDCe. 2002. Draft Report, "Effects of Waterway Operations on D.O. in the
Chicago Waterway System from Wilmette to Lockport During the Period July 10
through October 31, 2001". February 2002.
MWRDCe. 2002. Results of Ten-Day Chironomus Tentans Toxicity Test with Whole
Sediment Samples from the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Creater
Chicago. ASci Corporation, Environmental Resting Laboratory.
MWRDCe. 2003. Characteristics of Stormwater Runoff Sampled at Two Storm
Sewers in Evanston and Crestwood, illinois. Report No. 03-25.
COM
\\sUsvr1lcomm<>n\CAWS UAAlAugusl edilslFINAL SECTiON 4.doc
4-106
Section 4
Characterization
of Waterway Reaches
MWRDGC. 2003. Comparison of Fecal Coliform Concentrations and Trends in Two
Urban Rivers: The Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal and the Des Plaines River.
Report No. 03-20.
MWRDGC. 2003. Hydraulic Calibration of
an Unsteady Flow Model for the Chicago
Waterway System. Report No. 03-18.
MWRDGC. 2003. Sensitive Area Considerations for Outfalls Designated
in NPDES
Permits for
the Calumet, North Side and Stickney Water Reclamation Plants. Report
No. 03-3-A. Volume
1.
MWRDGC. 2003. Sensitive Area Considerations for Outfalls Designted in NPDES
Permits for the Calument,
North Side and Stickney Water Reclamation Plants. Report
No. 03-3-A. Volume
2.
MWRDBC. 2003. Hydraulic Model Study of Chicago River: Density Currents,
Progress Report. Report No. 03-26.
MWRDGC.
2003. Bubbly Creek Water Quality Improvement: A Demonstration
Project
in 2002. Report No. 03-1.
MWRDGC. 2004. A
Study of the Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community in Selected
Chicago Metropolitan Area Waterways
DUring 2001 and 2002. Report No. 04-4.
MWRDGC. 2004. Estimation of
Escherichia Coli
to Fecal Coliform Ratio in Wastewater
Effluents
and Ambient Waters of the MWRDGC. Report No. 04-10. July 2004.
Murphy, Thomas, D. Galinis, C. Arnold. 1989. The Activity of PCBs
in Sediments
and Water from Lake Calumet and Waukegan Harbor. DePaul University, Chicago,
IL.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA). 1987. Biological Criteria for the
Protection of Aquatic Life: Volume II. Users Manual for Biological Field Assessment
of Ohio Surface Water. Div. Water Qual.
Plan
&
Assess., Ecol. Assess. Unit,
Columbus, Ohio.
OEPA. 1989. The Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI): Rationale, Methods
and Application. Ecological Assessment Section. Division of Water Quality. 51 pages.
OEPA.
1999. Biological and Water Quality Study of the Cuyahoga River and Selected
Tributaries. Volume
1: Geauga, Portage, Summet and Cuyahoga Counties (Ohio).
August IS, 1999. Ecological Assessment Unit Division of Surface Water. Columbus,
Ohio.
Pescitelli, Stephen,
S. Bums and
R.
Rung, 2001. Fish Community Survey of Lake
Michigan Basin,
Cook County, Illinois. Illinois Department of Natural Resources.
COM
IlStlsvrl\commonlCAWS UAAlAugUSl editslRNAL SECTION 4.doc
4-107
CDNI
Section 4
Characterization
of Waterway Reaches
Rankin, Edward. 2004. "Analysis of Physical Habitat Quality and Limitations to
Waterways
in the Chicago Area.
Ross, Philippe
E.,
L.
Burnett, and M. Henebry. 1989. Chemical and Toxicological
Analyses of Lake Calumet (Cook County, illinois) Sediments. illinois State Natural
History Survey.
Hazardous Waste Research and Information Center. 63 pages.
Souther, William
E. 1983. Habitat Evaluation of Lake Calumet Harbor Area Road
and Site Development: Phase II. Final Report. EnCap, Inc.
Thomann, Robert
and Mueller, John. 1987. Principals of Surface Water Quality
Modeling
and Control. Harper Collins Publishers Inc.
USEP
A.
2003. October 2000 and August 2002: Survey of Sediment Contamination in
the Chicago River, Chicago, illinois. .
Yoder,
e.O. and E.T. Rankin. 1996. Assessing the Condition and Status of Aquatic
Life Designated Uses
in Urban and Suburban Watersheds. Pp. 201-227 in Roesner,
Ecosystems, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York,
NY.
Yoder, e.O., E.T. Rankin and J. Deshong. 2003. National Biological Assessment and
Criteria Workshop. Advancing State and Tribal Programs. Coeur d' Alene, Idaho.
March
31 - April 2003.
4-108
l\Stlsvr1lcommonlCAWS UAAlAugust editslFINAL SECTION 4.OOC
•
•
Ji
I
',
R~,~
Use Classifications and
andards for CAWS Reaches
Section
5
Proposed Use Classifications and Water
Quality Criteria for CAWS Reaches
5.1 Approach
The integrated assessment of the physical, chemical, biological, and waterway use
conditions
in
CAWS has resulted in recommendations documented herein for revised
use classifications and water quality criteria. The recommendations were developed
using
the UAA process approach described in Section 2.1 and through collaborative
stakeholder involvement as described
in Section 4.1. The assessment followed USEPA
UAA guidelines (USEPA, 1983, 1984a, b,)
and procedures outlined in both
"A
Suggested Framework for Conducting UAAs and Interpreting Results"
by
~chael
and
Moore (1997) for the Water Environment Federation, and the USEPA's
"Water Quality
Standards Handbook"
(USEPA 1994). The six factors that the state must take ihto
consideration
when conducting a UAA in order to demonstrate that the attainment of
a CWA goal
use is not feasible were specifically included in the stakeholder
involvement process. The CAWS UAA differs from most UAAs
in that improving
conditions are
prompting a potential use upgrade for most reaches rather than the
typical scenario
where existing conditions are not supporting an existing designated
use
and are prompting consideration of a use downgrade.
In
either case, the criteria
are still applicable.
In
the case where a use upgrade is being considered, the criteria
were applied in evaluating the feasibility of potential future use designations rather
. than ones that are already in place. The approach is consistent with the intent of the
UAA process and the CWA goals. Summarized below are the six factors including
relevant discussion of specific circumstances
and conditions affecting the ability to
attain general use
in various reaches of CAWS.
Factor
1- Naturally occurring pollutant concentrations prevent the
attainment of the use.
•
Lake Calumet supports an abundant breeding population of gulls and is
surrounded by remnant wetlands that support other breeding and foraging
shore
bird activities. Further, the stakeholders have expressed a desire to further
promote wildlife use in Lake Calumet. Research has shown that levels of
E.
coli
in lakes and streams are highly influenced by localized contamination by birds
and may not always be reflective of man-made pollution, such as CSOs or
sewage discharges (Hager 2001), (Fleming and Fraser 2001),(McLellan and
Salmore 2003). Data collected by IEPA in the summer of 2004 indicate that E.
coli
levels (>126 cfu) were highest in
the
areas of active gull and waterfowl use and
lowest in
the
areas of non-waterfowl use. High bacterial counts due to natural
sources
may prevent Lake Calumet from becoming a whole-body contact
recreation waterbody.
CDM
l\StIsvr11commonlCAWS UAAlAugust edltslSectIon 5 UAA 8.7.07edlts2007.doc
5-1
Section 5
Proposed Use Classifications
and Water Quality Criteria for CA WS Reaches
Factor
2- Natural, ephemeral, intermittent or low flow conditions or water
levels prevent the attainment of the use, unless these conditions may be
compensated for by the discharge of sufficient volume of effluent
discharges without violating State water conservation requirements to
enable uses to be met.
•
The upper reach of the NSC contains the Wilmette Pumping Station. The
structure is used to divert Lake Michigan
water into the NSC to improve water
quality
in the channel and to provide navigational makeup for CAWS. On an
annual basis, flow through this structure can range from 0 cfs to 115 cfs,
depending upon the discretionary needs of MWRDCC. (Dick Lanyon, UAA
Stakeholder Meeting Presentation, June
24, 2003). Due to the limitations on the
quantity of discretionary diversions from Lake Michigan, extended periods of
low flow
in the channel can create adverse water quality conditions (e.g. low
D.O.) that
can prevent the attainment of a higher aquatic life designated use.
Factor
3- Human caused conditions or sources of pollution prevent the
attainment of the use and cannot be remedied or would cause more
environmental damage to correct than to leave in place.
•
Most of the Chicago area has extensive residential, commercial and industrial
development
that has occurred on the waterways. Reducing or eliminating
many of these structures (e.g. Chicago area buildings, bulkheads, sheet-piled
walls, bridges) to attain a higher aquatic life use could cause significant
and
Widespread economic and social hardship to the city'senvironment. The City of
Chicago,
has a long-term plan to develop parks and recreational facilities along
the waterways,
and is dependent upon the residential and commercial business
to
support the economic vitality of the city. Much of CAWS are man-made
canals that were constructed to convey stormwater, wastewater
and provide for
navigation. These man-made canals
have steep sides, are deep draft, and have
very little shallow shoreline areas
that provide adequate habitat for a high
quality fishery. Such conditions prevent CAWS from attaining a high quality
aquatic life use.
COM
•
Many of the physical features identified above also prevent primary contact
recreation
in the form of swimming. As discussed previously, CAWS was
designed to support wastewater and stormwater conveyance and commercial
navigation.
Due to the many physical limitations to access the waterbodies, the
access limitations placed
upon most of the waterways by MWRDCC and other
riparian
land owners, the physical hazards in the waterways and the high use of
commercial navigation traffic,
the attainment of primary contact recreation is not
feasible at this time. Additionally, no communities along CAWS have plans to
establish recreational facilities along
the waterways to support swimming. The
attainment of secondary contact forms of recreation, like
hand-powered boating
activity, canoeing, jet-skiing
and recreational boating are not, for the most part,
limited
by human caused conditions and are attainable. Due to commercial
navigation,
hand powered watercraft recreation is limited
in
some waterway
5-2
IIStlsvrllcommonlCAWS UAAlAugust e,lnslSec!lon 5 UAA IH-07 edits.2007.doc
Section 5
Proposed Use Classifications
and Water Quality Criteria for
CA WS
Reaches
reaches. Existing water quality conditions (high bacterial levels) can be corrected
by implementing appropriate available technology.
Factor
4- Dams, diversions or other types of hydrologic modifications
preclude
the attainment of the use and
it
is not feasible to restore the water
body to its original condition or to operate such modifications in such a way
that would result in the attainment of the use.
•
The flows in the Chicago area waterways are highly regulated and original flows
were diverted
through man-made canals to reduce contamination to Lake
Michigan
in the early 1900s. Additionally, the original waterbodies that make up
CAWS have been highly modified to support navigation, stormwater and
wastewater conveyance and public use, and can not be restored to their original
nature. These modifications along
with flow regulation through the Wilmette
Pumping Station, CRCW, O'BrienLock and Dam and the LP&L prevent the
attainment of a
high quality aquatic life designated use. Improvements tp water
quality
through various technologies, like re-aeration may not improve the fish
communities
due to the lack of suitable habitat to support the fish populations.
Unless habitat improvements are
made in areas like the CSSC, additional
aeration
may not result in the attainment of a higher aquatic life use.
•
As discussed
in Factor 3, the hydrologic modifications and sources of pollution
can affect the attainment of primary contact recreation due to the flow regimes in
CAWS.
Factor
5- Physical conditions related to the natural features of the water
body, such as the lack of a proper substrate, cover, flow, depth, pools, riffles,
and the like, unrelated to water quality, preclude attainment of aquatic life
protection
uses, (may be used for determining aquatic life use, but may not
be used solely to determine recreational use).
•
Chicago area waterways were artificially created to protect the health of the
citizens of Chicago, save Lake Michigan from Chicago'swaste and develop a
navigable link to the Gulf of Mexico,
with little,
if
any consideration given to
creating suitable aquatic habitat to
support a diverse fish and macroinvertebrate
community. According to the State of Illinois, the following Chicago area public
bodies of
water are navigable in their natural condition or were improved for
navigation
and opened to public use (TITLE 17: Conservation: Chapter I:
Department of Natural Resources: Subchapter h: Water Resources: PART 3704:
Regulation of Public Waters):
1) Lake Michigan
2) Chicago River: Main Branch
3) NBCR to NSC
4) SBCR
5) Chicago River: South Fork of South Branch
5-3
IISIIsvr11commonlCAWS UAAlAugust OOilslSection 5 UAA 8-7-07 ootto.2oo7.doc
COM
Section 5
Proposed Use Classifications
and Water Quality Criteria for
CA
WS Reaches
6) Chicago River: East and West Arms of South Fork of South Branch (no
longer exist)
7) Chicago River: West Fork of South Branch to CSSC
8) Calumet River
9) Lake Calumet and entrance channel to Calumet River
10) GCR
11) Little Calumet River
Since these waterways are considered state
and federal navigable waterways,
they can be modified and dredged to meet navigable requirements.
Modification
and dredging can affect aquatic habitat (Le., sediment and in-
stream debris removal) that may naturally develop in these waterways.
In
CAWS, the re-suspension of potentially contaminated sediments from
commercial
and recreational activity can contribute to water quality
impairment, as well as causing shoreline scouring
and erosion. Since these
waterways are maintained for navigational uses critical to the economic
vitality of the City, the potential for dramatic improvements
to create aquatic
habitat to support a higher designated use would likely be unproductive, and
would severely conflict with important navigational uses. Such conditions
preclude the attainment of high quality aquatic life uses in CAWS.
Factor
6- Controls more stringent than those required by Sections 301(b) and
306 of the CWA would result in substantial and Widespread economic and
social impact.
.
•
Economic and social factors must be taken into consideration during the UAA
process
in
proposing water quality criteria to protect proposed designated uses.
In
the case of those areas in CAWS where a use designation may be lowered (Le.
Chicago River), it must be shown that the designation is necessary to
accommodate
important social and economic factors. IEPA is responsible for
ascertaining
where substantial and widespread economic and social impacts may
occur as a result of theUAA. Factors IEPA must take into consideration include:
1)
Financial analysis of the necessary pollution controls and their
economic impacts
on publicly owned pollution control discharge
facilities (e.g.
wastewater plants, CSOs).
2)
The adverseimpacts the affected community will bear if the
entity is
required to meet existing or proposed water quality
criteria.
MWRDGC
and Midwest Generation are conducting feasibility studies to determine
the costs
they would incur if they have to make modifications to their existing
facilities
to meet water quality criteria recommended in the UAA. Such information,
5-4
I\sUsvrllcommonlCAWS UAAlAugusl editslSectlon 5 UAA 8-7.07 edits2007.doc
COM
Section 5
Proposed Use Classifications
and Water Quality Criteria for CA
WS
Reaches
along with potential impacts for upgrading the City of Chicago'sCSOs to meet water
quality criteria
needs to be considered in the overall economic evaluation.
Given
that more than one of the six criteria is applicable, certain uses cannot be
attained
in CAWS. Factors 2, 3, 4 and 5 prevent the consistent attainment of a high
quality aquatic life
that would meet the goals of the CWA. Good quality aquatic
habitat
in CAWS is limited and the waterways would need to undergo major habitat
restoration to
improve the fish and macroinvertebrate assemblages. Despite the
physical limitations observed
in the CAWS, there are reaches that have experienced
dramatic
improvements in water quality since the original Secondary Contact and
Indigenous Aquatic Life Use criteria were established. Such improvements must be
recognized
through an upgrade in water quality criteria where appropriate.
The recreational use
data demonstrates that secondary contact forms of rec!eation
(e.g. hand-powered boating activity, canoeing, fish and recreational boating) are
occurring
in the waterways and these uses need to be protected. The physical ahd
institutional limitations, along with periodic impairments to water quality from CSOs
and stormwater in CAWS, prevent the attainment of primary contact recreation (e.g.
swimming) for the next ten years. Technological
improvements in capturing CSOs and controlling
stormwater runoff have improved water quality in
CAWS. Local governments are
making steady progress
toward the reduction of overflows under USEPA's CSO
policy.
Most communities with CSOs are in the process
of
implementing basic control measures and funding
the
long term control measures by completing TARP.
5.2 Development of Use Designations and Water
Quality Criteria for CAWS
Since the current regulatory framework in Illinois is limited to two use designations
with limited flexibility for addressing unique water body characteristics, one goal
IEPA established for the CAWS
UAA was the development of recommended use
designations
and associated water quality criteria to achieve the highest attainable
uses consistent
with CWA goals and Chapter 2 of USEPA's Water Quality Standards
Handbook (40 CFR 131.10). Achieving this goal requires the development of use
designations
and a regulatory framework that flexibly adapts to the diverse nature of
our water bodies. For instance, the two current use designations in Illinois, General
Use
and Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life, collectively address aquatic
life
and recreational uses without providing the possibility that a water body may be
suitable for one, but not the other. Creating sub use categories and designating them
independent from one another is one way of making the framework more specific to
local conditions and will aid in designating the highest attainable uses consistent with
CWA goals. The development of the proposed designated uses for CAWS utilized the
experience of the Lower Des Plaines
UAA which is
in
the process of finalizing
5-5
IlStlsvrllcommonlCAWS UAAlAugusl editslSec:tion 5 UAA a.H)7
ed~s.2007.doc
CDNI
Section 5
Proposed Use Classifications
and Water Quality Criteria for CA
WS
Reaches
regulatory language. The CAWS UAA also borrowed from other states in the
Midwest that have implemented similar frameworks (e.g. Ohio).
Aquatic Life Use Classifications
Since the General Use .and Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life use
designations
do not contain biological criteria or a limited discussion on how aquatic
communities are protected
in illinois, this UAA has developed proposed aquatic life
use designations that are specific to CAWS. The State of lllinois is
in the process of
developing biological criteria for streams
and rivers and in the meantime has been
evaluating biological integrity based
upon a regional reference reach approach (IEPA
2004). IEPA uses habitat,
water chemistry data and biological indices for fish and
macroinvertebrates when determining the attainment of a water body under the
states 305(b) reporting procedures (Figure
5-1) (IEPA 2004). The narrative biological
criteria
used in the State's305(b) report are not enforceable, but are used as a
screening tool to assess
tile attainment of a specific waterbody to meet CWA goals. In
this UAA, biological indices were used as screening tools to define the different use
categories for aquatic life
in CAWS. The CAWS UAA utilized the Ohio Boatable IBI
and the Ohio QHEI as screening tools to determine the aquatic life use designations
for
the Chicago area waterways. Since the state has not developed an IBI
methodology for large boatable waterways, it was agreed among stakeholders that
Ohio'sboatable methodology (Ohio EPA 1989)
would be suitable for assessing
biological integrity
in CAWS. The Ohio boatable IBI approach was used in the recent
Lower Des Plaines UAA (Aqua
Nova 2003).
These IBI indices are composed of measurements,
or metrics, of the fish community
and habitat found in CAWS. Metrics are measured attributes of the ecological
community found in high quality or least impacted reference streams or rivers, and
these reference waterbodies serve as "yardsticks" to measure biological health in
similar or regional waterbodies.
Since the Chicago area waterways are a unique system of man-made canals
and
modified rivers, there are no regional high quality reference waterbodies that have
similar characteristics as CAWS. The "yardstick" utilized
in this UAA was selecting a
site-specific reference site
within CAWS that had a combination of good habitat and
fish community structure, as defined by the QHEI and the IBI. This site potentially
represents the optimal ecological conditions
that are currently being attained in
CAWS or could ever be attained without significant habitat modification. Although
this approach differs from the regional
IBI approach originally developed by Karr
(1981)
and modified by others (Fausch et. a11984; Karr, et. al1986; Ohio EPA 1989;
Yoder 1989; Hughes 1995; Barbour et. al1999, and, McIninch and Garman 2002), it
does provide the best basis for which to measure biological potential in CAWS.
5-6
I\sUsvrllcommonICAWS UMlAugust edltslSectlon 5 UM 8-7.07 edtts.2007.doc
Section 5
Proposed Use Classifications
and Water Quality Criteria for
CA
WS Reaches
Figure 5-1
Flow Chart for Assessing Aquatic Life Use In illinois Streams and Rivers
Yes
Partial Support
Yes
1-----------------t~~U
Full Support
I--
Y_e_s
---\I
Nonsupport
~
'-----r--------'
Full SUPPOIt
Full SUPPOIt
Nonsupport
tial Suppott
Pattial Suppott
Pattial Support
Partial SUPPOIt
No
Yes
Yes
6) Is fish IEI <41, or
is MBI>5.9?
5) Are both biological
No
indexes available?
----. '---,----..,r-------'
No
Yes
9) Does water chemistty indicate
severe impaill11ent?
4) Does water chemistry
indicate impainuent?
Source:
EPA
305(bI200~
Repon
Final review considering site-specific knowledge and
other available data.
5-7
\\StlsVr1\commonlCAWS UAAlAugus1 editslSection 5 UAA 8.7.07 edits2007.doc
Section 5
Proposed Use Classifications
and Water Quality Criteria for
CA
WS Reaches
Minimum value
50th
perc=tile
25th percentile
75th percentile
.- Ma.ximum value
Whisker box plot definitions
Figure 5-2 shows the results of the IEI analysis for
twenty fish sampling locations in CAWS. The whisker-
box plots of the IEI represent all the fish data collected
at MWRDGC'sfish sampling locations from 1992
through 2002. Whisker box plots are a way of
summarizing a distribution of IEI scores. By
portraying the IEI values for more than one group next
to each other, one can compare sampling sites in the
dataset. The "box" in a box plot shows the median
score as a line and the first (25th percentile) and third
quartile (75th percentile) of the score distribution as the
lower and upper parts of the box. The median is the
score
at the 50 percentile: half of all IEI values are
scored higher than the median, and half are scored lower. The 25th percentile is the
point at which 25 percent. of the IEI values score lower (and 75 percent score higher).
The 75th percentile is the point at which 75 percent of the IEI values score lower (and
25 percent score higher). The "whiskers" shown above and below the box represent
the maximum and minimum observed scores.
The QHEI values (green
round dots) shown in Figure 5-2 represent only one data
point for the sampling that was conducted in March 2004. The QHEI data was
collected
at the MWRDGC fish sampling locations by USEPA'scontractor. For .
comparison purposes, QHEI data for the Cuyahoga River Navigation Channel .
(CRNC), the Lower Des Plaines River (LDPR) (upstream of I-55),
and the Fox River
(flowing
and impounded) were gathered from the literature. The CRNC and LDPR
share similar biological and physical characteristics with selected reaches within
CAWS.
Based
upon existing water quality and biological data, along with existing and
proposed uses, tiered aquatic life and recreational use designations are being
proposed for CAWS.. Tiered use designations allow for appropriately varying levels
of protection according to the uses currently being attained
and uses that could occur
within the next ten years. Three tiered aquatic life use designations are being
proposed for CAWS. They include GWAL, MWAL and LWAL. The 75
th
percentile of
the
data set for the optimal site was used to set the upper boundary for a MWAL use,
while the 75
th
percentile of all IEI data for CAWS was used to set the lower boundary
for
this
use classification. Sheridan Road in the NSC had the best overall IEI and
QHEI scores for all sites in CAWS and was used to set the upper boundary for
MWAL. Using the
75
th
percentile of the IEI for the optimal site and the IEI for all sites
has no immediate regulatory implication. This approach was used only as a screening
method to delineate the aquatic communities based upon the fish community and the
QHEI values. The use of the MBI
was not included to screen and develop aquatic life
use designations, due to the limited data set available for benthic macroinvertebrates
in CAWS. The MBI was used, as discussed in Section 4, to describe the
macroinvertebrate community structure for each of the
waterway reaches in CAWS.
CDM
5-8
\ISUsvr1IcommonlCAWS UAA\August 8,mslSectlon 5 UAA 8-7-07
ed~s.2007.doc
Sec•.
.
5
Proposed Use Classifications and Water Quality Standards for CAWS Reaches
Figure 5-2. Use Designation Categories Defined by Whisker Box Plots of Ohio Boatable IBI Scores (1993 - 2002)
vs.
QHEI Scores (2004) for the Chicago Area Waterways and Reference Waterbodies
181
NSCh= North Shore Channel ChiR= Chicago River CSSC= Chicago Sannary Ship Canal CaIR= Calumet Rivet "OCR= North Branch Chicago River
lCal= Lillie Calumet River CSCh= Cal-Sag Channel
Reference WaterbQdies.
Cuyahoga tlC= Cuyahoga Navigational Channel, Ohio LDP-Upstreilm
1-55= Lower Des Plaines upstream of I-55 Highway FOil
~"=
Fox River, Illinois, Impounded FOil Flowug= Fox River, Illinois, Flowing
•
=
IndMdualQHEI SmmQlanJen2004,
~~~_)
(44)
QHEI
limited
Modified
~
I 7ffh percentile 181 of all data sets within CAWS
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
"t:l
-
CIl
CIl
CIl
!
...
til
c::
CIl
CIl
CIl
"CI
-
-
.¥
c::
Vl
"'"
-
CIl
~
U
It'l
c..
~
~
~
~
Q
~
~
...
..c
...
...
CIl
U
~
a::
(I)
~
Vl
~
Vl
Q
C.l
C"/
r.n
:>
CCl
It'l
E
::::
"t:l
til
::::
-
(I)
CIl
.:
>.
::::Q
::::Q
"CI
::::
::l:
til
«
C.
cc
Vl
::::
...
Q
E
::::
til
U:l
....
Q
~
...J
::::
~
,
-
"t:l
CIl
«
Q
or
-
CIl
z
til
-
(I)
...
-
...
.~
0
Co
f!l
..!!!
til
C2
CIl
";::
...
...
Q
E
fl
CIl
';:
1::
U
J!!
...
~
c.
Q)
u::
~
Q)
Q)
.:
::J
:>
E
0
C)
i:
Co
--I
til
0
Q)
Q)
~
CIl
0
U
.=
CIl
1-7
-
c:::
::::
-r
cc
Qtil
0
til
(/'J
C.
0
cc
";::
5:
0
u
Vl
U
.=
c-
c:
CIl
...
V}
l:jl
.:
Q)
c::
U
::::
c::
Z
U
::l:
3:
.¥
~
C?
,
U
>.
til
Q
x
:>
.:
.:
u
Vl
.:
Co:-
U
z
tc
c::
:c
c::
r.n
u
Vl
Vl
u
0
C.l
U
til
.:
...J
0
c:
~
0
c::
u
u
U
N
U.
U
U
Z
U
cc
.:
U
:E
VI
VI
VI
...J
~
...J
~
~
'"
x
VI
Vl
Z
U
U
0
z
z
z
Vl
U
U
U
U
u
(/'J(/'J
Vl
U
1
OEPA1999
'"
u.
U
~
• Midwest Generation 2004
Location
I Aqua Nova International, Ltd 2003
CONI
5-9
l\Stlsvr1lcommonlCAWS UAAlAugusl
ed~s\Secllon
5 UAA 8-7.07 edils.2007.doc
CONI
Section 5
Proposed Use Classifications
and Water Quality Standards for CA WS Reaches
Recreational
Use Classifications
In May 2002, USEPA published the draft "Implementation Guidance for Ambient
Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria" which may supersede the current"Ambient
Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986 (USEPA, 2002; USEPA, 1986). The newer
guidance was used in developing new recreational use classifications and associated
water quality criteria for CAWS. USEPA UAA SAC representatives affirmed that
although the guidance is still in draft form, they strongly support its application to the
UAA process at this time. The guidance includes recommendations for designating
use categories as well as appropriate
water quality criteria for each use type.
In terms of designating recreational use categories, the guidance supports the CWA
goals emphasizing that states
"should designate primary contact recreation and ad,opt
water quality criteria to support that use, unless shown to be unattainable..."
Pursuant to 40 CFR 131.10(d) "At a minimum, uses are deemed attainable if they can
be achieved by the impositj.on of effluent limits required under sections 301(b) and
306 of the Act and cost-effective and reasonable BMPs for nonpoint source control."
The
option of adapting subcategories of recreational uses through a UAA is also
discussed to "allow states
and authorized tribes to better tailor the level of protection
to
the waterbody where it
is
needed most, while maintaining some protection for
unanticipated recreation in waters where primary contact recreation is unattainable."
Recreational uses can
be removed if it can be shown that they are not an existing use
as
defined in 40 CFR 131.3(e):
"Existing uses
are those uses actually attained in the:
water body on or after November 28, 1975, whether or not they are included in the
water quality standards." Variations can include designation of intermittent,
secondary or seasonal recreation uses.
In the case of the CAWS UAA, recreational use surveys showed that primary contact
recreation (i.e.: swimming)
was not an existing use in the waterways. SAC reached a
consensus
on this conclusion and further agreed that swimming was not an
anticipated or desired use within the next ten years. As a result, one outcome of this
UAA is to not recommend a primary contact recreation classification.
Recreational surveys did, however,
show that significant secondary contact
recreational activities
were occurring in some reaches. Summarizing the results from
Section 4,
hand-powered boating activity, canoeing, sculling, power boating, and
fishing were regularly observed. SAC developed two secondary contact
subcategories designed to
protect these uses: Limited Contact Recreation use and
Recreational Navigation use. Limited Contact Recreation protects for incidental or
accidental
body contact, during which the probability of ingesting appreciable
quantities of
water is minimal, such as, recreational boating (hand-powered boating
activity, canoeing, jet skiing),
and any limited contact incident to shoreline activity,
such as wading and fishing. Recreational Navigation protects for non-contact
activities including,
but not limited to pleasure boating and commercial boating traffic
operations. Stakeholders
agreed that the recreation season should be extended from
March 1 through November 30 and that these recreational uses only required
protection
during that period.
5-10
\\S~svr1IcommonlCAWS
UAAlAugusl edilslSection 5 UAA 8-7-07 edIIs.2007.doc
Section 5
Proposed Use Classifications
and Water Quality Standards for CA WS Reaches
USEPA's draft bacteria guidance was also used as the basis for establishing water
quality criteria protective of these
new secondary use recreation subcategories.
USEPA encourages the use of
E.coli
as the indicator.organism in response to studies
showing that it is a better means of protecting recreators from contracting
gastrointestinal illness. Epidemiological studies
that examined the relationship
between
E.coli
bacteria and gastrointestinal illness in swimmers serve as the basis for
recommended
water quality criteria. The risk-based approach results in criteria
recommendations for
primary contact recreation with a specified illness rate no
greater than 14 illnesses per 1000 swimmers (1.4 percent). However, USEPA suggests
considering more conservative criteria
based on 8 illnesses per 1000 or 0.8 percent.
Additionally,
both a geometric mean and single sample maximum criteria are
recommended for
primary contact recreation.
USEPA
found that the epidemiological studies used to derive primary contact
recreation criteria
were not suitable for developing secondary contact criterion, but
nonetheless believe that secondary contact waters should still be protected with .
numeric
water quality criteria. USEPA as a result, suggests adopting criteria equal to
5 times
that of the geometric mean component recommended for primary contact
recreation using the illness rate
no greater than 14 illnesses per 1000. A single sample
maximum is not recommended for secondary contact. The majority of UAA SAC
reached a consensus
on establishing a Limited Contact Recreation water quality
criteria of 1030 cfu/100
ml
E.coli
as a geometric mean based on 5 times the 10 illness
per 1000 rate, and a Recreational Navigation criteria of 2470 cfu/100 ml, based on 5
times the 14 illness
per 1000 rate.
5.3 Proposed CAWS Use Classifications and Water
Quality Criteria
The use designations and water quality criteria to protect the beneficial uses of the
waters in the open channels that flow through the Chicago metropolitan area apply to
the following waterbodies:
•
NSC from Lake Michigan to the confluence
with the North Branch of the Chicago
River
•
NBCR from it'sconfluence
with the NSC to its confluence with the South Branch,
including the
North Branch Canal
•
The Chicago River
•
SBCR, including the South Fork and navigation slips
•
CSSC, including the Collateral Channel
•
Lake
Calumet and Lake Calumet Entrance Channel
•
The Calumet River from Lake Michigan to the confluence
with the GCR
•
GCR
CONI
5-11
IIStIsvr11commonlCAWS UAAlAugust edi1s1Sectlon 5 UAA 8-7.fJ7 edtts.2007.doc
Section 5
Proposed Use Classifications
and Water Quality Standards for
CA WS
Reaches
•
The Little Calumet River from its junction with the GCR to the Calumet-Sag
Channel
•
The Calumet-Sag Channel
Aquatic Life
Beneficial uses and the applicable sections of the 35IL Adm. Code Part 302 include the
following:
• General
Warm-water Aquatic Life (GWAL)
- These waters are capable of
supporting a year-roUnd balanced, diverse warm-water fish and macroinvertebrate
community. The fish community is characterized
by the presence of a significant
proportion of native species, including mimic shiner, spotfin shiner, brook
stickleback,longnose dace,
hornyhead chub, smallmouth buffalo, rock bass and
smallmouth bass. Water quality criteria as identified in 35IL Adm Code Part 302,
Subpart
B: Sections 302.2Q1 - 302.213 or more appropriate criteria based upon
recent guidance shall be applied to protect the GWAL use designation.
• Modified
Warm-water Aquatic Life (MWAL)
- These waters are presently not
capable of supporting and maintaining a balanced, integrated, adaptive community
of a
warm-water fish and macroinvertebrate community due to significant
modifications of the channel morphology, hydrology
and physical habitat that may
be recoverable. These waters are capable of supporting and maintaining
communities of native fish
and macroinvertebrates that are moderately tolerant,
and may include desired sport fish species such as channel catfish, largemouth
bass, bluegill,
and black crappie. Water quality criteria as identified in 35IL Adm.
Code
Part 302, Subpart B: Sections 302.201 - 302.213 or more appropriate criteria
based upon recent guidance shall be applied to protect the MWAL use designation.
•
Limited Warm-water Aquatic Life
(L
WAL)
- These surface waters are not presently
capable of sustaining a balanced
and diverse warm-water fish and
macroinvertebrate community due to irreversible modifications that result in poor
physical habitat and stream channel morphology. Such physical modifications are
of long-duration (i.e.
twenty years or longer) and may include artificially
constructed channels consisting of vertical sheet-pile, concrete
and rip-rap walls
designed to support commercial navigation and the conveyance of stormwater and
wastewater. Hydrological modifications include locks and dams that artificially
control
water discharges and levels. The fish community is comprised of tolerant
species, including central
mudminnow, golden shiner, white sucker, bluntnose
minnow, yellow bullhead and green sunfish. These waters shall allow for fish
passage. Water quality criteria as identified
in 35IL Adm. Code Part 302, Subpart B:
Sections 302.201 - 302.213 or more appropriate criteria based upon recent guidance
or habitat limitations shall be applied to protect the LWAL use designation.
On
a
parameter-by-parameter basis,
with consideration of economic factors, General Use
water quality criteria may be modified to protect the existing aquatic life
assemblages.
-
5-12
IlStlsvr1lcommonlCAWS UAAlAugu&t editslSection 5 UAA 8-7-07 edits.2007.doc
Section 5
Proposed Use Classifications
and Water Quality Standards for CA WS Reaches
Recreational Use
•
Limited Contact Recreation
- The surface waters shall protect for incidental or
accidental
body contact, during which the probability of ingesting appreciable
quantities of water is minimal, including recreational boating (hand-powered
boating activity, canoeing, jet skiing),
and any limited contact incident to shoreline
activity, such as
wading and fishing. Protection would require attainment of 30-
day geometric mean 1030 cfu E.
coli
standard
1
based on 10 illnesses per thousand
contacts. Such limited contact recreation criteria shall
apply only during the
defined recreational
period of March 1 through November 30.
•
Recreational Navigation
- These surface waters shall protect for non-contact
activities including,
but not limited to, pleasure boating and commercial boating
traffic operations. Protection
would require attainment of a 30-day geometric
mean 2740 cfu E.
coli
standard
2
is based on 14 illnesses per thousand contacts.
Recreational Navigational criteria shall
apply only during the defined recreatio:q.al
period of March 1 through November 30.
5.4 Proposed CAWS Reach Use Designations
In developing use designations for CAWS reaches, stakeholders were asked how they
perceived each reach of the
waterway designations. This discussion was held at the
end of each meeting where the physical, chemical, biological, and waterway use data
were presented for a group of reaches. Stakeholders were asked to take into
consideration uses that are anticipated
within the next 10 years and the feasibility of
restoration actions
that might be required to attain such a designation. Section 6
presents a
summary of these restoration options proposed for each reach. Since
feasibility studies will
be required to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-benefit of
these options,
in the absence of that knowledge, stakeholders were encouraged to
exercise optimism
with their use designation recommendations consistent with
IEPA's goal to achieve the highest attainable uses consistent with CWA goals. Tables
5-1 and 5-2 summarize the consensus of SAC recommendations.
1
E.
coli
standard 1030 per m1 (MPN or MF) is based upon the thirty-day geometric mean of four or more sampling events
representatively spread over a thirty-day period.
2
E.
coli
standard 2740 per m1 (MPN or MF) is based upon the thirty-day geometric mean of four or more sampling events
representatively spread over a thirty-day period.
CONI
IlStlsvr1\canmonlCAWS UAAlAugusl edI1s1Sectlon 5 UAA 8-7.07 edits.2007.doc
5-13
Section 5
Proposed Use Classifications
and Water Quality Standards for CAWS Reaches
Table 5-1: Recommended Use Designations for the NSC and Chicago River System
Limited Contact
•••
•
•
Recreation
•
•
Recreational
Navigation
General Use
Warm-Water
Aquatic Life
Modified Warm.
Water
LifeAquatic
•
••
•
Limited Warm-
Water Aquatic
•
•
Life
•
•
Table 5.2: Recommended Use Designations for the CSSC and Calumet.Sag System
I
I
I
I
Little
I
Little
I
Calumet.
I
Proposed
I
Lake
Calumet
Calumet
Calumet
Sag
Designated Use
CSSC
GCR
Calumet
River
East
West
Channel
Limited Contact
••
•
Recreation
•
•
Recreational
Navigation
•
•
General Use
Warm-Water
Aquatic Life
Modified Warm.
Water Aquatic
•
•
•
•
Life
•
Limited Warm-
Water
LifeAquatic
•
•
COM
\\Stlsvr11comrnorl.CAWS UAAlAugust editslSectlon 5 UAA 8-7-07 ed!Is.2007.doc
5-14
COM
Section 5
Proposed Use Classifications
and Water Quality Standards for CA WS Reaches
5.5
References
AquaNova International, Ltd. and Hey and Associates, Inc. 2003. Draft Lower Des
Plaines River UAA.
Prepared for IEPA: March.
Barbour, M.T.,
J. Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder and J.B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid Bioassessment
Protocols for Use
in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic
Macroinvertebrates,
and Fish. Second Edition. EPA 841-B-99-002. United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
Fausch, K D., J.R Karr,
and P.R Yant. 1984. Regional Application of an Index of
Biotic Integrity Based
on Stream Fish Communities. Transactions of the American
Fishery Society 113:39-55.
Fleming, Ron
and H. Fraser. 2001. "The Impact of Waterfowl on Water Quality: .
Literature Review." University of Guelph, Canada.
14 pages.
Hager, Mary Catherine. 2001. "Detecting Bacteria
in Coastal Waters." Stormwater.
Volume 2, Number 4.
Hughes, RM. 1995. Defining Acceptable Biological Status by Comparing with
Reference Conditions. Davis and Simon, Eds. Biological Assessment and Criteria:
Tools for Water Resource
Planning and Decision Making. Lewis Publishers, Boca
Raton, IL. Pages 31-47.
.
IEPA
2004. "Illinois Water Quality 305(b) Report 2004." illinois Environmental
Protection Agency. Bureau of Water. IEPA/BOW/04-006.
IEPA
2003. Interpreting lllinois Fish - illI Scores, Draft: September 2003. lllinois
Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Water, Surface Water Section.
28 pages.
Karr, J.R 1981. Assessment of Biotic Integrity Using Fish Communities. Fisheries
6(6): 21-27.
Karr, J.R,
KD. Fausch, P.L. Angermeier, P.R Yant, and LJ. Schlosser. 1986. Assessing
Biological Integrity
in Running Waters: A Method and its Rationale. lllinois Natural
History Survey Special Publication No.5, 28 pp. Champaign,lllinois.
McIninch, S.P.
and
G.c.
Garman. 2002. Pilot Study to Develop Technical Standards
and Procedures for Stream Reference Reach Establishment in Virginia'sCoastal Zone.
Center for Environmental Studies
and Department of Biology, Virginia
Commonwealth University. Final Report: September
2002.
McLellan, S.L and AK Salmore. 2003. "Evidence for localized bacterial loading as
the cause of chronic beach closings in a freshwater." Water Res. June: 37(11), page
2700-2708.
5-15
IIStlsvrllcommonlCAWS UMlAugusl e<!ilslSection 5 UM 8.7-07 edils.2007.doc
Section 5
Proposed Use Classifications
and Water Quality Standards for
CA WS
Reaches
Midwest Generation. 2004. Upper Illinois Waterway Mean IBI Scores for 2001, 2000
and 1999. Figures 2 through 6, pages 55 through 59. Data sheets submitted to CDM
by J. Wozniak.
Ohio EPA. 1999. Biological
and Water Quality Study of the Cuyahoga River and
Selected Tributaries. Volume 1. Ecological Assessment Unit. Division of Surface
Water.
August 15, 1999.
Ohio EPA. 1989. "Biological Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life: Volume
II:
Users Manual for Biological Field Assessment of Ohio Surface Waters." Doc.
0048e/0014e, October 30,1987. Table 4-1,
page 4-5.
Rankin, Edward. 2004. "DRAFf: Analysis of Physical Habitat Quality
and Limitations
to Waterways
in the Chic!'lgoArea. Prepared for USEPA, Region V.
USEPA. 2002. "Implementation Guidance for Ambient Water Quality Criteria for
Bacteria." Office of Water, Washington,
D.e.
USEPA. 1986. "Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria -1986." Office of Water
Regulations
and Standards, Washington, ne.
USEPA. 1984a. "Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys and Assessments
for
Conducting Use Attainability Analysis." Volume II-Estuarine Systems. Office of
Water Regulations
and Standards, Washington, D.e.
USEPA. 1984b. "Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys and Assessments
for
Conducting Use Attainability Analysis." Volume III- Lake Systems. Office of
Water Regulations
and Standards, Washington,D.e.
USEPA. 1983. Technical Support Document for Waterbody Surveys and Assessments
for
Conducting Use Attainability Analysis. Office of Water Regulations and
Standards, Washington, D.e.
Yoder, e.O. 1989. The Development and Use of Biocriteria for Ohio Surface Waters.
In:
Gretchin H. Flock, Ed. Water Quality Standards for the 21
st
Century. Proceedings
of a National Conference,
u.s. EPA, Office of Water, Washington, D.e.
Yoder, e.O., and E.T. Rankin, 1995. The Role of Biological Criteria in Water Quality
Monitoring, Assessment
and Regulation. Ohio EPA Technical Report MAS/1995-1-3.
Yoder,
e.O., and E.T. Rankin, 1995. Biological criteria program development and
implementation in Ohio, pp. 109-144 (Chapter 9).
In
W.s. Davis and T. Simon (eds.).
Biological Assessment
and Criteria: Tools for Water Resource Planning and Decision
Making. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.
5-16
IIStlsvr1lcommonICAWS UAAlAugusl adils\Sectlon 5 UAA 8-7-07 edlts.2007.doc
•
•
i-
•
Section 6
Strategic Plan
The Chicago area waterways form a complex hydrologic system of artificially created
channels, modified rivers
and open water areas. These waterways are the arteries
that
provide life and growth to the Chicago area and the nation as a whole. The
system:
•
Keeps wastewater from flowing into Lake Michigan.
•
Provides a navigational conduit between the Mississippi River
and the Great
Lakes.
•
Is a recreational source for fisherman
and boaters.
•
Provides riparian habitat to wildlife, including a State endangered species.
•
Contributes to the aesthetic
charm of downtown Chicago and surrounding
communities.
As the various reaches of CAWS
wind their way through the metropolitan Chicago
area,
they are also subject to impacts from CSOs, stormwater runoff, habitat
degradation, sediment contamination, undisinfected wastewater effluent
and flow
regulation. These impacts to
water quality are currently being addressed by a
concerted effort from USEPA, IEPA, local governmental agencies, environmental
organizations, community
groups and the public to ensure the public welfare is
protected
and that the goal of "fishable/swimmable" is achieved where possible,
consistent
with the requirements of the CW
A.
Shared Commitment
MWRDGC has made significant improvements to their wastewater reclamation
plants including investing large sums of
money to understand the water quality
dynamics of the system
and contributing
financially to the construction
and
implementation of the TARP system.
Their role as the local agency to ensure
the waterways are
managed to support a
variety of uses will take
on new emphasis
as the Chicago area moves
ahead in this
century.
MWRDGC and the City of Chicago are studying
CA
WS to reduce contaminants coming from
CSOs.
COM
l\Stlsvr1\commonlCAW5 UAAlAugust edtlslSection 6 UAA 8-1-07IP e<frts.doc
MWRDGC and the City of Chicago are
undertaking detailed studies to reduce
the contaminants coming from their
6-1
Section 6
Strategic Plan
CSOs and to provide regional development strategies to enhance the waterways for
recreational purposes. Friends of the Chicago River, The LMF, Sierra Club, Southeast
Environmental Task Force
and other groups have long supported the improvements
in water quality in CAWS to provide viable aquatic ecosystems by providing healthy
habitats for fish and wildlife, to protect human health, and to support economic and
recreational activities.
These agencies
and organizations have a shared vision of protecting the public,
enhancing recreational opportunities,
and decreasing environmental pollution
through appropriate water quality criteria. How these goals for the waterways are
addressed varies
with stakeholder interest. The purpose of the UAA is to develop.
appropriate use designations and applicable water quality criteria for CAWS that
achieve the highest attainable use consistent
with the CWA goals. This is to be
accomplished through stakeholder involvement in identifying attainable uses and
developing management strategies to correct any water quality deficiencies that may
prevent the attainment of such uses.
6.1 Proposed Use Designations for the Chicago Area
Waterways
The UAA process identified new water use designations for CAWS. The new use
classifications are
to replace the existing General Use and Secondary Contact and
Indigenous Aquatic Life use designations that ar:e currently in place for CAWS. The
new aquatic life and recreational use designations are based upon the existing and
potential uses, those currently being attained and those that could be attained if
limiting factors are rectified. The
proposed water quality criteria to protect the
proposed designated uses include those adopted and promulgated for General Use
waterbodies
in
Illinois, with the exception of bacteria. Bacterial criteria to protect the
new recreational use categories will be based upon the concentration of
E.
coli
in
surface water. Currently the state uses the concentration of fecal coliforms in surface
waters to protect General Use waterbodies. The USEPA is urging
all
states to update
their bacteriological criteria designed to protect surface waters for swimming and
other forms of water recreation..IEPA is proposing to replace the current fecal
coliform
standard with an E.
coli
standard based on an EPA's1986 recommended
bacteria criteria.
During the stakeholder process, valid concerns were presented
by several
stakeholders
regarding the level of effort and costs to provide disinfection to the
Stickney,
Calumet and North Side WRPs. These concerns include:
•
The
waterways will still be contaminated by CSOs and stormwater runoff, so why
spend hundreds of millions of dollars to disinfect the three major WRPs.
•
Expenditures to MWRDGC
and resulting rate increases to the public to protect a
few users of the waterways, is
not economically sound.
CONI
6-2
IISUsvrl\commonlCAWS UMlAugusl edilslSection 6 UM 8-1-07
r~
edns.doc
CDM
Section 6
Strategic Plan
•
Current levels of risk and gastrointestinal illnesses rates are unknown among
waterway users.
•
Other stakeholders have expressed concern about
upgraded temperature criteria.
Addressing these issues should
be included in any long term strategy for CAWS.
Strategic Plan
The Strategic Plan sets the overall priorities and associated goals and strategies for
CAWS.
It is based on the long-term vision shared by many of the stakeholders in the
Chicago area.
It does not provide an exhaustive list of
all
the strategies to achieve
water quality goals,
nor does it provide a complete summary of accomplishments to
date. The
plan is designed to be concise and include only essential information and
viable options to support the strategic actions that can be accomplished over roughly
the next ten years. The
intended audiences are governmental agencies, environmental
organizations, general public
and specific constituent groups. The plan incorporates
strategies to address
the attainment of each of the use designations proposed for
CAWS reaches
through selected management options. These options are subject to
rigors of the six factors listed
in 40 CFR 131.10(g).
Table 6-1
identifies management
options to address impairments that prevent the attainment of a designated use
in a
given
waterway reach.
The management alternatives were reviewed
with and in most cases devised by, the
UAA stakeholder group. Implementation strategies were discussed
with the agencies
or organizations responsible for ensuring the management alternatives are acted
upon.
In
the strategic plan for CAWS, the goals, objectives and strategies for
implementing the
management alternatives for aquatic life and recreational use
designations are discussed
with specific goals, objectives and strategies. As the water-
based recreational
and aquatic life opportunities continue to expand in CAWS, it is
imperative that these uses be protected
and where possible enhanced so that the
waterway system can truly become the "second shoreline" for the City of Chicago and
the surrounding communities. The following strategies are being recommended to
ensure a safer
environment for water-based recreation and an enhancement of aquatic
communities
in CAWS.
Back to top
6.2 Limited Contact Recreation
The number of recreational boaters utilizing the Chicago waterways is increasing and
the added emphasis from the City of Chicago in embracing the Chicago waterways as
the City's "second-shoreline" continues to encourage more users. After surveying
government agencies
with properties adjacent or having direct access to CAWS, by
mail, at public meetings and at SAC meetings, none of the agencies or the public
responded that full body contact was an existing use or that they had detailed plans
or were aware of anyone
that had such plans for establishing primary contact facilities
or other
such opportunities in CAWS
in
the foreseeable future. However, many
6-3
\\SUsvr1lcommonICAWS UMlAugust edits\Sectlon 6 UM 8-1-Q7ljf edits.doc
Section 6
Strategic Plan
Chicagoans are taking to the waterways to paddle, power boat and fish and such uses
need to be protected through appropriate water quality criteria.
Goal
Protect recreational users and improve the existing water quality in the Chicago area
waterways to
support limited contact recreation consistent with the requirements of
theCWA.
Objective
Work closely with MWRDGC, the City of Chicago and other CAWS communities to
control site-specific
point sources of bacterial pollution and develop a plan to address
CSO events until the remaining portions of TARP come
on line.
Strategies
a) Complete the engineering studies already begun by MWRDGC to determine
the costs of disinfection at the Stickney, Calumet and North Side WRPs.
b) Determine the costs for implementing CAWS-wide disinfection of MWRDGC
and surrounding community CSOs.
c) Conduct an economic analysis of implementing water quality improvements
to protect recreational uses
in CAWS.
d) Prepare a construction schedule for
the implementation of disinfection at the
North Side, Stickney and Calumet WRPs to meet appropriate bacteria criteria,
provided that these controls do not result in substantial and Widespread
economic
and social impact.
e) Conduct detailed
E.
coli
sampling in CAWS during dry-weather and wet-
weather periods (using various rainfall events) to determine the nature and
extent of bacterial contamination from CSOs.
f)
Require MWRDGC to complete TARP and evaluate the economics of
MWRDGC's
and others'submissions on additional end-of-pipe treatment of
CSOs.
g) Evaluate the feasibility of wet-weather exclusions in the water quality criteria.
h)
Conduct a detailed engineering review of the Chicago area "sewershed" to
evaluate the feasibility of maximizing the use of the TARP system for CSO
pollution control, as opposed to solely flow capture mechanisms
during wet
weather events, provided that these controls do not result in substantial and
Widespread economic and social impact.
6-4
IlSlIsvrllcommonlCAWS UAAlAugust edllslSection 6 UAA
B+071~
ed~5.doc
Section 6
Strategic Plan
i) Continue to educate the public on the environmental hazards in the
waterways and continue the already implemented CSO notification plan.
j)
Develop additional data to determine the nature and extent of pathogens
residing
in the sediment since sediments can be a reservoir to harmful bacteria
and could prevent the attainment of a designated use when disturbed
sediments are re-suspended.
6.3 Recreational Navigation
Many portions of CAWS are still used by commercial barge traffic and recreational
pleasure boats. The heavy uses occur
on the CSSC and in the Calumet System. The
exposure to
high levels of bacteria
from these uses is minimal,
but
water quality criteria need to be in
place to protect against accidental
exposure
(Le. worker falling into the
water
and water splashing).
Goal
Protect commercial and recreational
users of the waterways from
accidental exposure to high levels of
bacteria.
Tour Boat on the NBCR
Objective
Identify treatment technologies that
can be
implemented at the Calumet and Stickney WRP to achieve a lower level
bacterial quality
in the effluent during the recreational time period March 1 through
November 30.
Strategies
a) Prepare a construction schedule for the implementation of disinfection at the
MWRDGC WRPs to meet appropriate bacteria criteria,
provided that these
controls
do not result in substantial and Widespread economic and social
impact.
b) Require
the City of Chicago and surrounding communities to treat their CSOs
to reduce
or eliminate bacterial loading to the waterways during wet weather
events,
provided that these controls do no result in substantial and
Widespread economic and social impact.
c) Evaluate the feasiblity of wet-weather exclusions in the water quality criteria.
6-5
\\S1IsVr1\comnlorf,CAWS UAA\Augusl edIlslSection 6 UAA 8-1.071jf ed!s.cIoc
Section 6
Strategic Plan
d) Conduct a detailed engineering review of the Chicago area"sewershed" to
evaluate the feasibility of maximizing the use of the TARP system for CSO
pollution control, as opposed to solely flow capture mechanisms
during wet
weather events.
e) Continue to educate the public on the environmental hazards in the
waterways
and continue the already implemented CSO notification plan.
f) Develop additional data to determine the nature and extent of pathogens
residing
in the sediment since sediments can be a reservoir to harmful bacteria
and could prevent the attainment of a designated use when disturbed
sediments are re-suspended.
g) Develop additional data to determine the nature and extent of pathogens
residing
in the sediment since sediments can be a reservoir to harmful bacteria
and could prevent the attainment of a designated use when disturbed
sediments are re-suspended.
6.4 General Warm-Water Aquatic Life
None of the Chicago area waterway reaches possessed the necessary characteristics to
support a GWAL use designation. The primary constraints to preventing the
attainment of this use
were the lack of suitable habitat to support a diverse fish and
macroinvertebrate community.
Goal
Create favorable habitat in selected reaches of CAWS to support a diverse aquatic and
wildlife community. Ensure water quality is sufficient to support a viable and
productive fish and macroinvertebrate community.
Objective
To upgrade selected reaches in the Chicago area waterways to GWAL through habitat
enhancement
and water quality improvements
Strategies
a) Develop a stakeholder group to study habitat issues.
b) Develop a habitat restoration
plan and guidelines for the waterway reaches.
c) Determine the costs for implementing temperature control at the Midwest
Generation's
Crawford and Will County power generating stations.
d) Complete the MWRDGC engineering studies to determine the costs of flow
augmentation
in the Upper NSC and the South Fork.
COM
IlStlsvrllcommonlCAWS UAAlAugust
.d~slSectlon
6 UAA
8-1·071~
edlts._
6-6
Flow Augmentation
to Address Low
Dissolved Oxygen
Levels
Instream Habitat
Enhancement to
Improve Fish
Communities
Sediment Removal
to Improve Aquatic
Life Conditions
Disinfection to
Protect for Water
Recreation
COM
IISlIsvr11commonlCAWS UAAlAugust edllsl5ection 6 UAA
8-1-O71~
edits. doc
Table 6-1
ies to Address New Use Sub-cate
6-7
Section 6
Strategic Plan
e) Conduct an economic analysis of implementing water quality improvements
for aquatic life
in CAWS.
f) Identify areas for potential restoration that could allow the waterbody to
achieve a higher aquatic life designated use. These could include selected
areas
on the NSC, NBCR, South Fork (Bubbly Creek), the Little Ca.lumet River,
GCR and Lake Calumet.
g) Complete the water quality modeling already begun by the MWRDGC to
demonstrate measures needed to
meet General Use D.O. criteria.
h) Install
appropriate supplemental aeration technology in those reaches not
meeting D.O. criteria provided
that these controls do not result in substantial
and widespread economic and social impact.
i) Create flow augmentation in the upper reaches of the NSC and the South Fork
to create a flow regime that will enhance D.O. levels
provided that these
controls
do not result in substantial and widespread economic and social
impact.
j)
Remove contaminated sediments from the South Fork, Collateral Channel and
the GCR.
k) Conduct additional studies on fish in CAWS to determine if endocrine
disruptors are
having an impact on the fish community.
1) Develop a comprehensive educational outreach program for the general public
and local governmental agencies.
6.5 Modified Warm Water Aquatic Life
Most of CAWS has been designated this use classification as a result of significant
modifications to channel morphology, hydrology
and physical habitat that may be
reversible to some extent.
Goal
Create favorable habitat and water quality conditions at selected locations in the
waterways
to support a diverse aquatic and wildlife community.
Objective
Identify those areas where habitat enhancement is feasible and develop a long term
plan to implement habitat improvements in CAWS. Eliminate water quality
impairments
through BMPs or Best Practicable Technology.
6-8
IISUsvrllcommonlCAWS UAAlAugust edltslSection 6 UAA
8-1-O71~
e<frts.doc
Section 6
Strategic Plan
Strategies
a) Develop a stakeholder group to study habitat issues and form a technical team
to evaluate aquatic habitat restoration technologies applicable
in a highly
urbanized environment that does not adversely impede drainage or
navigation.
b) Identify practical restoration technologies and plans for such areas as the
turning basins on the North and South Branch, the inner harbor area of the
Chicago River, slip channels
on the CSSC and the SBCR and the stretch of
river
between Cicero Avenue and Harlem Avenue on the CSSe.
c) Construct in-stream aquatic habitat in the non-navigable portions of CAWS
(e.g. Christmas tree "reefs") to
provide habitat for warm-water fish.
d) Install appropriate supplemental aeration technology
in those reaches not
meeting D.O. criteria provided that these controls do not result in substantial
and widespread economic and social impact:
6.6 Limited Warm Water Aquatic Life
Selected reaches of CAWS have been designated LWAL due to irreversible
modifications that result
in
poor physical habitat and stream hydrology. The Chicago
River as
it flows through the city has been highly developed and the existing
structures
will not be modified or removed to accommodate aquatic life habitat
improvements. The
CSSC and the Calumet River are deep-draft channels that have
steep walls,
are heavily industrialized in the upper reaches and are host to significant
numbers of large commercial barge vessels and recreational pleasure boats.
Goal
Maintain water quality to meet general use criteria, where attainable and allow for
navigation
and fish passage.
Objective
To ensure D.O. and temperature criteria are met, and if unattainable, identify a
treatment alternative to increase D.O. levels
and reduce temperature levels.
Strategies
a) Evaluate the feasibility of aerating and lowering temperature in selected areas
in the CSSC provided that these controls do not result in substantial and
widespread economic and social impact.
b)
Continue the MWRDGC water quality, temperature and D.O. monitoring
programs and fish and macroinvertebrate sampling programs throughout
CAWS.
c) Develop site-specific water quality criteria for D.O. and temperature to
support existing fish communities.
caM
I\sUsvr1IcommonlCAWS UAAlAugust ednslSectlon 6 UAA 6-1-071jt edits.doc
6-9
Section 6
Strategic Plan
d) Install appropriate supplemental aeration technology in those reaches not
meeting D.O. criteria provided that these controls do not result in substantial
and widespread economic and social impact.
e) Augment flow in the upper NSC provided that these controls do not result in
substantial and widespread economic and social impact.
6-10
\\Stlsvr1\common\CAW5 UAAlAugUlil editslSection 6 UAA 8-1-07
1~
edits.doc
