Meeting Minutes from the Lower Des Plaines River
Workgroup and the CAWS Stakeholders Group
Minutes
Lower Des Plaines River Use Attainability Analysis (UAA)
Workgroup
December 15, 2000
ATTENDANCE:
Name:
Toby Frevert
Irwin Polls
Bernard Sawyer
Prakosam Tata
Dick Laynon
Lou Kollias
Bill Constantelos
Julia Wozniak
Dave Pfeifer
Vladimir .Novotny
Neal O'Reilly
Agency:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District
Chicago
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District
Chicago
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District
Chicago
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District
Chicago
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District
Chicago
Midwest Generation EMC, LLC
Midwest Generation EMC, LLC
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
AquaNova International, Ltd.
Hey and Associates, Inc.
of Greater
of Greater
of Greater
of Greater
of Greater
* A list of all of the Lower Des Plaines River Use Attainability Analysis (UAA)
Workgroup members, including names, address, phone numbers, and email addresses,
is attached.
STATUS OF CURRENT MONITORING
1.
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) has completed the
macroinvertabrate and stream chemistry sampling outlined in the agreed upon
monitoring plan. Macroinvertabrate samples still need to be analyzed. Water
chemistry data is available from IEPA.
2.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) was unable to complete their
sediment sampling work due to problems with their sampling boat. Sampling will be
attempted again in the spring of 2001.
3.
Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) completed their spring of 2000.
fishery sampling. Status of the August sampling is unknown.
4.
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (MWRDGC) has
conducted water chemistry sampling at 5 sites. MWRDGC has also sampled 10 sites
for macroinvertabrates. The Mmacroinverteabrate samples are currently being
processed. In addition to species identification MWRDGC will also be looking for
deformities.
5.
Midwest Generation EMC, LLC conducted fishery sampling during the months of
June through September 2000. Sampling for temperature and dissolved oxygen was
collected at Interstate 55. Midwest Generation has been collecting data from 1996
through 2000.
INTRODUCTION OF PROJECT TEAM AND PROJECT APPROACH
Dr. Vladimir Novotny from AquaNova International, Ltd. introduced the project team and
provided an overview of the process that would be used in the Use Attainability Analysis
(UAA). Copies of the overheads used, and a narrative outlining the UAA process are
attached.
There was discussion on what criteria would be used to assess a change in the current
designated use. Dr. Novotny provided an overview of the USEPA criteria. What was unclear
to many was what would be the criteria for "widespread adverse social and economic
impact". To address this issue, the consulting team will bring Dr. John Braden, from the
University of Illinois to the one of the next meetings of the workgroup in early 2001.
A question was asked whether or not IEPA would accept data provided by outside sources
such as MWRDGC or Midwest Generation in the UAA process. Toby Frevert (IEPA)
assured the workgroup that field data collected by local agencies and private corporations
would be used in the UAA process.
It was decided that Neal O'Reilly from Hey and Associates would be the consulting teams
contact person for receiving data. Neal requested that where ever possible-data be provided
in a spreadsheet format to reduce the time for keypunching of the data. Excel was selected as
the preferred format for data transfer. Neal address is located on the attached workgroup list.
Neal will be contacting those workgroup members that were unable attend the meeting to
arrange acquisition of available data.
NEXT MEETING
The exact date for the next meeting was not set. Toby Frevert suggested end of January for
the next meeting. Prior to the meeting the project team will propose an agenda item to be
presented at the meeting for a discussion. One of the agenda items to be discussed at the next
meeting will be the time schedule of deliverables.
Minutes
Lower Des Plainer River Use Attainability Analysis (UAA)
Workgroup Meeting
February 20, 2001
ATTENDANCE:
Name:?
Agency:
Toby Frevert?Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Robert Schacht?
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Deborah Williams?
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Scott Twain
?
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Dick Lanyon
?
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
Irvin Polls
?
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
Susan O'Connell?
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
Ram Kopuri?
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
Greg Cargill
?
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
Lou Kollias?
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
Bernard Sawyer?
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
Clint Beckert?US Army Corps of Engineers
Harry Walton?
IL Environmental Regulatory Group
Richard Monzing?
EA Engineering, Inc.
Julia Wozniak
?
Midwest Generation, EMC, LLC
Jack Darin?
Sierra Club
Rob Moore
?
Prairie Rivers Network
Laurene von Klan
?Friends of the Chicago River
Chris Bianco
?
Chemical Industry Council
Marcia Jimenez?
City of Chicago-Environment
Dave Pfeifer
?
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ed Hammer?
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Vladimir Novotny
?Aquallova International, Ltd.
Lynn Novotny
?
Aquallova International, Ltd.
Neal O'Reilly
?
Hey and Associates, Inc.
1.?
Review of Available Data Source and Identification of Missing Sources
Neal O'Reilly presented the list of data sources that includes:
U.S. Geological Survey
?
- 5 stations
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago - upstream CSSC
Illinois EPA - water chemistry, macroinvertebrates, GIS data on point sources
Illinois DNR - Fishery data (45-years at two station), muscle data
Midwest Generation/Com Ed - DO, temperature, fishery, and macroinvertebtate
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - bathymetric data, limited sediment quality
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-sediment chemistry
Source added: Upper Midwest Environmental Science Center - Jim Wiener (data on
macrophytes)
2.
Outline of the Historic Overview Study
Dr. Novotny presented an outline of the historic overview. This will be the first deliverable
document produced by the team. The overview will have four sections :
Brief historical development of water quality
Water quality management - Des Plaines River and Chicago Ship and Sanitation Canal
Legislative mandates for use designation and use attainability analysis
History of the use designation of the Des Plaines River
Scott Twain of I EPA will prepare a summary of the legislative records of hearing laying the
groundwork for the present designated use.
3.
Review of Water Body Assessment Methodology for Ascertaining the Chemical
Integrity of the Lower des Plaines River
Neal O'Reilly and Dr. Novotny introduced and outlined the document that was mailed or
distributed to the members of the committee.
Questions and Comments:
The team and Illinois EPA will work with existing Illinois and federal standards.
The evolving nutrient standards will be addressed at the time they are officially
issued.
The length of the record of water quality data for the analysis should be more than
3 years to establish the frequency of once in three years excursions. However, the
record should not be too long (max 5 years) so that it would not include past water
-quality problems that have been remedied.
The team needs information on "milestones" in water quality abatement that lead
to dramatic improvement and/or changes in water quality.
The water quality analysis is focusing on extremes and averages are of lesser
importance.
The database includes monthly data taken at more-or-less regular intervals
throughout the year, with possible exceptions of winter ice conditions.
Simpler Tier I sediment assessment in lieu of sediment partitioning between total
and pore water concentrations was suggested as the most efficient evaluation of
impairment.
The work product will provide a comprehensive scientific UAA study that will
have three parts:(1) Water Body Assessment; (2) Modified abbreviated TMDL;
and (3) Socio-economic assessment of cost of implementing the proposed higher
use. The team will propose and evaluate higher uses than the secondary recreation
and indigenous aquatic life, which is the present designated use. Once the use is
established the UAA will propose corresponding standards. The workgroup will
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
be actively involved in this process. The standards regulations list six reasons for
a change of the designated use and standards that will be considered in the
evaluation. The Illinois EPA will use this document to petition the Illinois
Pollution Control Board for potential changes of the designated use and potential
adoption of proposed, possibly site-specific standards. Changes adopted by the
Illinois Pollution Control Board will be forwarded to USEPA for approval under
the Federal Clean Water Act.
Members of the committee expressed a need to further study the methodology and provide
comments and feedback. These comments will be submitted to the Aquallova/Hey Associates
team prior the next workgroup meeting on March 20. A portion of the meeting will be devoted to
building a consensus on the methodology and answering comments.
4.
Review of the Work Schedule
Neal O'Reilly presented and distributed a spreadsheet chart of the work schedule. The upcoming
workgroup meetings are scheduled for March 20, June 19, September 11, and October 30. Two
meetings are scheduled for 2002. The entire project is scheduled to last 18 months.
5.
Biological Methodology
Neal O'Reilly distributed a draft of the methodology for the biological assessment. Members of
the committee were requested to review the document and prepare questions and comments for
the next meeting.
NEXT MEETING
The next meeting will be on March 20, 2001 at the MWRDGC Chicago (100 East Erie Str.,
Chicago). The meeting will begin at 12:30. The focus of the meeting will be continuation of
discussion on the chemical and biological methodologies and a presentation by Dr. John Braden
on the fundamentals of the socio-economic component of the UAA. -
Minutes
Lower Des Plaines River Use Attainability Analysis (UAA)
Workgroup
April 11, 2001
ATTENDANCE:
Name:
?
Agency:
Toby Frevert
?
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Dick Laynon
?
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
Bernard Sawyer
?
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
Prakasam Tata
?
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
Howard Essig
?
Illinois. Environmental Protection Agency
Mike Cochran
?
Illinois Department of Natural Resources
Scott Twait
?
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Bob Schacht
?
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Lou Kollias
?
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
Harry Walton
?
IL Environmental Regulatory Group
Irwin Polls
?
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
Chris Bianco
?
Chemical Industry Council
Paul Pederson
?
Stephan Company
Steven Murawski
?
Gardner, Carton, & Douglas
Gregory Chodil
?
BP Amoco
Susan O'Connell
?
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
_ Dr. Richard MonzingoEA Engineering, Science & Technology
Julia Wozniak
?
Midwest Generation EMC, LLC
Robert Moore?
Prairie Network
Vladimir Novotny Aquallova International, Ltd.
Neal O'Reilly
?
Hey and Associates, Inc.
Mike Mischuk
?
Hey and Associates, Inc.
John Braden
?
University of Illinois
CONTINUED REVIEW OF "WATER BODY ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY FOR ASCERTAINING
THE CHEMICAL INTEGRITY OF LOWER DES PLAINES RIVER"
1.
Vladimir Novotny handed out a response to comments provided by e-mail from Irwin
Polls. A copy of the Dr. Novotny's memo is attached to this e-mail.
2.
Irwin Polls offered to provide sediment chemistry data from three sites from 1995
through 2000. IDNR also stated that they had sediment data that would be provided.
3. The committee brought up nutrient standards. This topic will be agenda item for a
future meeting of the workgroup as IEPA reviews the federal EPA proposed criteria.
4.
The committee agreed to use the log-normal probability plots method outlined in the
proposed methodology for the initial screening of the chemical parameters. For
parameters that are close to the 99.8% probability (acute standard) and the 99.4%
probability (chronic standard), the consultant team will come back to the workgroup
to discuss parameter specific methodologies for further analysis.
5.
Sediment methodology was not agreed upon and will be discussed at a future meeting
of the workgroup.
METHODOLOGY FOR ASSESSMENT OF AQUATIC LIFE USE FOR THE LOWER DES PLAINES
RIVER
1.
Mike Mischuk presented the current IEPA methodology for stream assessment
outlined in the state's 305(b) report. The methodology relies on the use of
Index of
Biological
.
Integrity
(IBI) and the
Macroinvertabrate Biotic Index
(MBI).
Considerable discussion took place as to the appropriateness of themethodology
for large streams. Dick Laynon suggested that due to the complexities of the issue,
that a biological sub-committee be formed to resolve the issue. The workgroup
agreed to establish the committee.
2.
As a follow-up, the biological sub-committee met on May 17, 2001. Minutes of
the meeting are attached to this e-mail.
SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS IN
UAA
1.?
John Braden made a presentation on how socioeconomic impacts are assessed in
the UAA process. A copy of Dr. Braden's PowerPoint is attached to this e-mail.
NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the workgroup will be on June 19, 2001 at the Metropolitan Water
Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, at 100 E. Erie, Chicago. The agenda for the
meeting is attached to this e-mail.
IA) dtx
j
°5
?
COM Pte.11-
?
b
?
ialled
Draft Minutes
Lower Des Plainer River Use Attainability Analysis (UAA)
Biological Sub-committee Workgroup Meeting
April 3, 2002
ATTENDANCE:
Name:
Toby Frevert
Howard Essig
Roy Smogor
Scott Twait
Rob Sulski
Mike Cochran
Ed Hammer
Chris Yoder
Irvin Polls
Harry Walton
Bill Constantelos
Julia Wozniak
Greg Seegert
Lisa Frede
Neal O'Reilly
Mike Mischuk
Tim Ehlinger
Vladimir Novotny
MEETING SUMMARY:
Agency:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Illinois Dept.. of Natural Resources
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
MBI/CABB
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
IL Environmental Regulatory Group
Midwest Generation, EMC, LLC
Midwest Generation, EMC, LLC
EA Engineering, Inc.
Chemical Industry Council of Illionis
Hey and Associates, Inc.
Hey and Associates, Inc.
University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee
Aquallova International, LTD.
- I.?
Review of Summary Memo of Previous Committee Discussions by Greg Seegert
Generally the committee found the memo to be good representation of the discussions that have
taken place to date by the Biological Subcommittee. The following changes to the memo were
recommended:
■
A date should be placed at the top of the memo.
■
That the first two bullets on page one be modified to state that the charges of the
committee are to evaluate current use and identify potential use based on available
habitat, and identify the limiting factors for not meeting potential use.
■
Irwin Polls requested that on page 2, that the Brandon Pool be classified as having "poor
habitat, not the "poor to fair" as written.
•
On page 2 it is stated that "water temperature, ammonia, and water column toxicity were
not examined in detail by the committee but none appear. . ." Roy Smogor pointed out
that Aquallova had looked at water column toxicity in its evaluation and none was found.
■ The last sentence of the memo was changed from
"Recent comprehensive sediment data
is needed to aid in the decision making process."
to
"Recently generated data may aid in
the decision making process."
A copy of the revised memo is attached to this e-mail. (Need to attach revision) The changes are
highlighted in blue.
II.?
Review of Fishery Biological Matrices and Discussion on their Meaning.
Tim Ehlinger made a presentation of an analysis of the fishery data provided by IDNR and
Midwest Generation. The presentation done in Microsoft PowerPoint is attached. (Please attach
it!) The following is a summary of discussion on the presentation:
■
It was discussed that the Ohio IBI values were adjusted for low-end data and DELT
anomalies. A previous version of the presentation did not include these adjustments.
■ Tim's presentation showed a comparison of results using both the Illinois and Ohio IBI.
Tim felt that the Ohio Boatable River IBI provided the best resolution of the data, was
better suited to the impounded conditions in the study area, and should be used for the
analysis.
■
Mike Cochran noted that IDNR data was only sampled using electroshocking methods,
which may not represent the true community structure. The IDNR data may affect MI
results on large rivers. (I believe that Mike Cochran also stated that he did not feel that it
was appropriate to apply IBI to large rivers, since this index has not been calibrated in
Illinois for anything but wadeable streams). It was concluded that the Midwest
Generation data better represented the fishery community in the study reach.
■
It was suggested by Roy Smogor, that before we agree to use the Ohio 1BI, a comparison
between the Ohio IBI and Illinois IBI should be done for a series of impounded
reference sites. Sites recommended were the Illinois River at Marseillies, Rock River,
and Kaskaskia River. Harry Walton offered to find out if Illinois Power (IP) has
conducted a comprehensive fishery survey on the Kaskaskia River. If available he
would forward the information to IEPA. Howard Essig stated he would look for data for
the other river reference sites.
■
Tim presented that several of the metrics (native species, darter species, sucker species,
sunfish species, intolerant species, insectivores, and hybrids) did show good correlation
by river mile. Tim recommended that the analysis be fleshed out by also using Midwest
Generations data for 1999 and 2001. Midwest Generation agreed to provide that data.
EA Engineering, Inc., Midwest Generation's consultant, will provide the data.
■
Consensus of the committee was reached in stating that the Brandon Pool is habitat
limited. The pool is limited by a lack of spawning habitat, lack of diverse aquatic
structure, and disturbance by barge traffic. It was felt that even with water quality
improvements the Brandon Pool could never meet a General Use biological community.
■
Irwin Polls discussed the presence of contaminated sediments in the Brandon Pool. He
stated that most of the sediments were located behind the dam and below 1-80. In the
navigation channel most of the sediments are scoured.
■
Chris Yoder mentioned that some improvements might be seen by control of
contaminated sediment. Chris mentioned the Black River in Ohio where contaminated
sediment removal resulted in the IBI scores improving from 10-20 to 20-30. (Note that
these scores are still not representative of a "General Use" type condition).
■
It was proposed by the committee that an intermediate classification between Secondary
Use and General Use be considered for the Brandon Pool. The Consultant was asked to
bring to the next meeting draft language for a proposed intermediate classification.
■
The committee requested that the Consultant prepare a narrative statement of the
biological integrity of the Brandon Pool.
■
Discussion of the Dresden Pool was identified as a agenda item for a future meeting.
III.?
Review of Macroinvertabrate Biological Matrices and Discussion on their Meaning.
Mike Mischuk made a presentation of the macroinverbrate data collected by TF,PA and the
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (MWRDGC). Data was presented
using both the Illinois MBI and the OHIO ICI for comparison. A copy of the PowerPoint
presentation is attached to this e-mail (Please attach!). The following are comments of the
discussion:
■
It was requested that a date (and page numbers?) be placed on all of the slide
presentations for future reference.
■ It was noted that the data from river mile 291.0 is for the Des Plaines River upstream of
the Sanitary and Ship Cannel and is not in the study area.
■
Howard Essig handed out a comparison of other 1EPA sampled sites in Northeastern
Illinois.
■
Irwin felt that some of the individual metrics did show some potential relationships.
These included %Chironomidae, % oligochaetes, taxa richness, number of intolerant
taxa. Other metrics did not show any strong signals.
■
Chris Yoder made the point that Ohio does not do macroinvertbrate sampling in
impoundments, and that the use of the ICI index in impounded conditions is not a proper
use of the tool.
■
Irwin Polls felt that the macroinverbrate data does say something and should be included
in the analysis.
■
Roy Smogor stated that the MBI and ICI might be telling us different things. The MBI is
an index used to measure the impacts of organic pollution. The ICI is a measure of
community structure. The data may be saying that organic pollution is not a problem but
other factors are affecting the community.
■ Chris Yoder warned the committee that the data may be saying nothing and that signals
people are seeing are just noise in the data.
■
The committee requested that the consultant plot the individual metrics scores for the ICI
and present them to the committee.
IV.
?
Agenda Items for Next Meeting(s)
■ Continued review of fishery data.
■
Continued review of macroinverbrate data.
■ Review of proposed intermediate classification for Branon Pool.
■ Review of thermal issues in the waterway?
■ Preperation of outline of Biological Integrity Report.
■
Classification of Dresden Pool.
MEMORANDUM
Date: 5/29/02
To: Lower Des Plaines River UAA Biological Sub-committee Work Group
From: Howard Essig
Subject: Comments on Draft minutes – Lower Des Plaines River Use Attainability Analysis (UAA),
Biological Sub-committee Workgroup Meeting April 3, 2002.
Review of Fishery Biological metrics and Discussion on their meaning
Second bullet:
Tim's presentation showed a comparison of results using both the Illinois and
Ohio IBI. Tim felt that the Ohio Boatable River IBI provided the best resolution of the data, was
better suited for the impounded conditions in the study area, and should be used for the analysis.
Comment:
During the meeting I.pointed out that the Illinois IBI values for the study area were
obviously not correct (e.g. IBI values >50 in the Dresden Pool below 1-55 and >40 above 1-55).
Tim indicated that individual samples might have been pooled together before Illinois IBI values
were calculated. Illinois IBI values should be recalculated properly for a true comparison between
Illinois and Ohio boatable IBIs. While the Illinois IBI is not used on great rivers (Mississippi,
Illinois, Ohio), the Illinois IBI was developed using both wadable and non-wadable (boat) sites up
to 7th
order streams (e.g. Kankakee and Rock Rivers).
In addition I think the use of the term "impounded" should be used with caution. People not
familiar with the study area might interpret it to be essentially an artificial lake/reservoir with little
or no velocity. There is sufficient velocity in the study area so that it is not limited to only pooled
habitats.
Sixth Bullet: Consensus of the committee was reached in stating that the Brandon Pool is
habitat limited. The pool is limited by a lack of spawning habitat, lack of diverse aquatic structure,
and disturbance by barge traffic. It was felt that even with water quality improvements the
Brandon Pool could never meet a General Use biological community.
Comment:
I don't recall there being a consensus on this point. While I agree that habitat is poor
there are other problems such as contaminated sediments that if mitigated may result in some
improvement in the biology.
Review of macroinvertebrate Biological Metrics and Discussion on their Meaning.
Third Bullet:
Howard Essig handed out a comparison of other IEPA sampled sites in
Northeastern Illinois.
Comment:
Rivers were from northern Illinois and included the Mississippi, Rock, Fox, upper and
lower Des Plaines, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal and Cal Sag Channel. Most of the original
metrics (except intolerant taxa and % tolerant) that the work group recommended along with a
few others (MBI, % Tanytarsini) were compared between these rivers. Total taxa, EPT taxa, MBI,
and percent Tanytarsini seemed to perform better in discriminating among sites.
Fourth Bullet:
Irwin felt that some of the individual metrics did show some potential
relationships. These included % Chironomidae, % Oligochaeta, taxa richness, number of
intolerant taxa. Other metrics did not show any strong signals.
Comments:
The number of intolerant taxa and the percent tolerant individuals were based on
IEPA MBI tolerance values. However, in the analysis intolerant taxa included organisms with a
1
tolerance value of <6 and tolerant organisms with a tolerance of >6. IEPA considers organisms
with a tolerance value of <5 as intolerant and >9 as tolerant (tolerance values 6 – 8 are
considered moderate). Recalculating these two metrics excluding moderate taxa (tolerances 6 -
8) may help to better discriminate among the stations in the study area.
Fifth Bullet:
Chris Yoder made the point that Ohio does not do macroinvertebrate sampling in
impoundments, and that the use of the ICI index in impounded conditions is not a proper use of
the tool.
Comment:
According to Ohio EPA (1987) the current should be no less than 0.3 ft/sec in order
to properly use the ICI. For streams with currents <0.3 ft/sec or in streams with only pooled
habitats some interpretation of the ICI value may be necessary. I had indicated at the meeting
that most of the locations where IEPA deployed artificial substrates had estimated velocities well
above 0.3 ft/sec and were probably closer to 1 ft/sec. Habitats included primarily main channel
and main channel border areas. Only the sample in the Du Page Delta would have been close to
or below 0.3 ft/sec. According to Irwin's description of the study area the Brandon and Dresden
Pools have an average velocity of about 0.75 ft/sec and 0.65 ft/sec, respectively. Therefore I feel
the use of the ICI in the study area is valid.
Sixth Bullet:
Irwin Polls felt that the macroinvertebrate data does say something and should be
included in the analysis.
Comment:
I agree with Irwin. Part of the problem with seeing definite or easily identifiable
trends in the macroinvertebrate data may be due to the way the data was presented. Individual
samples were graphed by river mile and in several cases there were several stations located
within a navigation pool. Macroinvertebrate populations tend to be patchy and artificial substrates
are generally monitoring microhabitats. There can be quite a bit of variability depending on where
the substrates are located relative to velocity. Fish data were combined by navigation pool and
were presented using box and whisker plots. In addition the fish analysis included data from the
Marseilles Pool. Macroinvertebrate data from the Illinois River (Dresden and Marseilles pools)
were provided but were not included in the analysis. If macroinvertebrate data were presented in
a similar manner as fish, trends would be more apparent. Both the MBI and ICI indicate
improving trends from the Lockport Pool to the Marseilles Pool (see attached figure). Other
individual metrics may also indicate similar trends if analyzed the same way.
Seventh Bullet:
Roy Smogor stated that the MBI and ICI might be telling us different things.
The MBI is an index used to measure the impacts of organic pollution. The ICI is a measure of
community structure. The data may be saying that organic pollution is not a problem but other
factors are affecting the community.
Comment:
I disagree that MBI values may indicate that organic pollution is not a problem in the
study area. MBI values indicate possible problems in the Lockport, Brandon and Dresden
(upstream of 1-55) pools (see attached figure). Conditions appear to improve in the Dresden Pool
downstream of 1-55 and into the Marseilles Pool. ICI values also show a similar improving trend
from Lockport to the Marseilles pool.
2
Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index (MBI) and Invertebrate Community Index (ICII) values for the lower Des Plaines and upper
Illinois Rivers 1999 and 2000. Samples were collected with artificial substrates by MWRDGC and IEPA.
River
1.
Des Plaines River upstream CSSC, Lockport (2 samples).
2.
Chicago Sanitary & Ship Canal, Lockport (1 sample).
3.
Des Plaines River Brandon Pool, Joliet (2 samples).
4.
Des Plaines River Dresden Pool upstream 1-55 (8 samples).
5.
Des Plaines River Dresden Pool downstream 1-55 (5 samples).
6.
Illinois River Dresden Pool (3 samples).
7. Illinois River Marseilles Pool (5 samples).
00
50
40
CII
I
•
3
?
4?
5?
(3?
7
RIVER
IT
3?
4?
5?
0?
7
RIVER
Minutes
Lower Des Plainer River Use Attainability Analysis (UAA)
Biological Sub-committee Workgroup Meeting
May 17, 2001
ATTENDANCE:
Name:
Toby Frever•
-Howard Essig,
• Roy Smogor
•
Mike Cochran
--Ed Hammer
Irvin Polls
•
Harry Walton ;CA
Julia Wozniak
Greg Seegert
Neal O'Reilly r
ocz,
Vince Mosca
Tim Ehlinger
Agency:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Illinois Dept. of Natural Resources
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
IL, Environmental Regulatory Group
Midwest Generation, EMC, LLC
EA Engineering, Inc.
Hey and Associates, Inc.
Hey and Associates, Inc.
University of Wisconsin — Milwaukee
MEETING SUMMARY:
The meeting was opened with a discussion of the values of using the assessment methodology
developed by Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) as part of the state's 305(b)
report. The methodology relies on the use of
Index of Biological Integrity
(IBI)
and the
Macroinvertabrate Biotic Index
(MBI). Issued discussed included the appropriateness of the IBI
and MBI for large rivers, needs for state wide consistency, appropriateness of reference sites, and
the need to have a methodology that not only documents the current and potential conditions, but
also allows the evaluators to identify the causes of any identified impairments.
After considerable discussion, the biological sub-committee reached consensus on the following
items:
•
The assessment methodology should be based on an evaluation of a series of biological
matrixes that allow the evaluators to identify the existing biological conditions, potential
biological use, and the causes for any impairment.
•
The number of biological matrices should be limited to 6 to 7 for fish,
macroinvertabrates, and habitat.
•
The matrices may need to be supplemented with other information such as data from
Habitat Suitability Indexes (HSI) for selected reference species.
•
Reference sites will be selected from the Upper Illinois River to represent a large river
system. The Marseilles reach on the Illinois River was selected to be the reference site.
•
The committee selected the following biological matrices for evaluation:
Fish
1. Total number of species
2.
Percent anomalies
3. Percent Lithophiles (gravel spawners)
4.
Number of sucker species (including number of intolerant species)
5. Number of intolerant and tolerant species
6.
Trophic guilds
■ benthic feeders
■
carnivores
■ omnivores
Macroinvertabrates
1. Total number of taxa
2. Midge head capsule deformities (% of total midges)
3.
Percent composition of major groups (ie. worms, midges, tricops, isopods, etc)
4. EPT Taxa
percent composition
• number
5.
Midges (percent by major group)
6.
Percent tolerant individuals
Habitat
1. QHEI
The next step in developing the assessment methodology is to identify threshold values for the
above matrices. Irvin Polls agreed to contact a series of national experts that he has been
working with to get their opinions on appropriate values.
The Biological Sub-committee has scheduled a follow-up meeting for June 26, 2001, to be held
in the Green Room at Bicentennial Park in Joliet, IL. Bicentennial Park is located just north of
Jefferson Street (STH 52) and east of North Broadway Street on the west bank of the Des Plaines
River (see attached map). The meeting will start at 10:00 AM.
::::W:861ittili St
tc,53')
7 1Z
touisjoiiet-
' Renaissance
r
S
Mia
& Corripny,
JQIit
Restaurant
8iCk1TrEt.:1N14,?jolret
,
homy
S
andwiches
- Salads "
METRA•Jolietrd
Station-,
I.N:Washinc
Nancis
Mexican
Restaurant
3
iTitc?
frie.:roz•Cir'g•!,rptfieanttil
Final Minutes
Lower Des Plainer River Use Attainability Analysis (UAA)
Biological Sub-committee Workgroup Meeting
April 3, 2002
ATTENDANCE:
Name:?
Agency:
Toby Frevert
?
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Howard Essig?
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Roy Smogor?
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Scott Twait
?
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Rob Sulski
?
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Mike Cochran?
Illinois Dept. of Natural Resources
Ed Hammer?
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Chris Yoder
?
MBI/CABB
Irvin Polls?
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
Harry Walton
?
IL Environmental Regulatory Group
Bill Constantelos
?
Midwest Generation, EMC, LLC
Julia Wozniak
?
Midwest Generation, EMC, LLC
Greg Seegert
?
EA Engineering, Inc.
Lisa Frede
?
Chemical Industry Council of Illionis
Neal O'Reilly?
Hey and Associates, Inc.
Mike Mischuk
?
Hey and Associates, Inc.
Tim Ehlinger?
University of Wisconsin — Milwaukee
Vladimir Novotny
?
Aquallova International, LTD.
MEETING SUMMARY:
I.?
Review of Summary Memo of Previous Committee Discussions by Greg Seegert
Generally the committee found the memo to be good representation of the discussions that have
taken place to date by the Biological Subcommittee. The following changes to the memo were
recommended:
■
A date should be placed at the top of the memo.
■
That the first two bullets on page one be modified to state that the charges of the
committee are to evaluate current use and identify potential use based on available
habitat, and identify the limiting factors for not meeting potential use.
■
Irwin Polls requested that on page 2, that the Brandon Pool be classified as having "poor
habitat, not the "poor to fair" as written.
1
■
On page 2 it is stated that "water temperature, ammonia, and water column toxicity were
not examined in detail by the committee but none appear. . ." Roy Smogor pointed out
that AquaNova had looked at water column toxicity in its evaluation and none was found.
■ The last sentence of the memo was changed from
"Recent comprehensive sediment data
is needed to aid in the decision making process."'
to
"Recently generated data may aid in
the decision making process."
A copy of the revised memo is attached to this e-mail. The changes are highlighted in blue.
.
?
II.?
Review of Fishery Biological Matrices and Discussion on their Meaning.
Tim
Ehlinger made a presentation of an analysis of the fishery data provided by IDNR and
Midwest Generation. The following is a summary of discussion on the presentation:
■ It was discussed that the Ohio IBI
values were adjusted for low-end data and DELT
anomalies. A previous version of the presentation did not include these adjustments.
■
Tim's presentation showed a:comparison of results using both the Illinois and Ohio IBI.
Tim felt that the Ohio Boatable River IBI provided the best resolution of the data, was
better suited to the impounded conditions in the study area, and should be used for the
analysis. Howard Essig pointed out that the Illinois IBI values for the study area were
obviously not correct (e.g. IBI values >50 in the Dresden Pool below 1-55 and >40
above 1-55). Tim indicated that individual samples might have been pooled together
before Illinois IBI values were calculated. Illinois IBI values should be recalculated
properly for a true comparison between Illinois and Ohio boatable IBIs. While the
Illinois IBI is not used on great rivers (Mississippi, Illinois, Ohio), the Illinois IBI was
developed using both wadable and non-wadable (boat)_sites up to 7
th order streams (e.g.
Kankakee and Rock Rivers).
■ Mike Cochran noted that IDNR data was only sampled using electroshocking methods,
which may not represent the true community structure. The IDNR data may affect IBI
results on large rivers. Mike Cochran also stated that he did not feel that it was
appropriate to apply IBI to large rivers, since this index has not been calibrated in
Illinois for anything but wadeable streams. It was concluded that the Midwest
Generation data better represented the fishery community in the study reach.
■
It was suggested by Roy Smogor, that before we agree to use the Ohio IBI, a comparison
between the Ohio IBI and Illinois IBI should be done for a series of impounded
reference sites. Sites recommended were the Illinois River at Marseillies, Rock River,
and Kaskaskia River. Harry Walton offered to find out if Illinois Power (IP) has
conducted a comprehensive fishery survey on the Kaskaskia River. If available he
would forward the information to IEPA. Howard Essig stated he would look for data for
the other river reference sites.
2
■
Tim presented that several of the metrics (native species, darter species, sucker species,
sunfish species, intolerant species, insectivores, and hybrids) did show good correlation
by river mile. Tim recommended that the analysis be fleshed out by also using Midwest
Generations data for 1999 and 2001. Midwest Generation agreed to provide that data.
EA Engineering, Inc., Midwest Generation's consultant, will provide the data.
■
General consensus by several committee members was reached in stating that the
Brandon Pool is habitat limited. The pool is limited by a lack of spawning habitat, lack
of diverse aquatic structure, and disturbance by barge traffic. It was felt that even with
water quality improvements the Brandon Pool could never meet a General Use
biological community. Howard Essig disagreed that consensus was reached, however
did agree that the habitat is poor there are other problems such as contaminated
sediments that if mitigated may result in some improvement in the biology.
■
Irwin Polls discussed the presence of contaminated sediments in the Brandon Pool. He
stated that most of the sediments were located behind the dam and below 1-80. In the
navigation channel most of the sediments are scoured.
■
Chris Yoder mentioned that some improvements might be seen by control of
contaminated sediment. Chris mentioned the Black River in Ohio where contaminated
sediment removal resulted in the IBI scores improving from 10-20 to 20-30. (Note that
these scores are still not representative of a "General Use" type condition).
■
It was proposed by the committee that an intermediate classification between Secondary
Use and General Use be considered for the Brandon Pool. The Consultant was asked to
bring to the next meeting draft language for a proposed intermediate classification.
■ The committee requested that the Consultant prepare a narrative statement of the
biological integrity of the Brandon Pool.
■ Discussion of the Dresden Pool was identified as a agenda item for a future meeting..
III.?
Review of Macroinvertabrate Biological Matrices and Discussion on their Meaning.
Mike Mischuk made a presentation of the macroinverbrate data collected by IEPA and the
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (MWRDGC). Data was presented
using both the Illinois MBI and the OHIO ICI for comparison. The following are comments of
the discussion:
■
It was requested that a date and page numbers be placed on all of the slide presentations
for future reference.
■
It was noted that the data from river mile 291.0 is for the Des Plaines River upstream of
the Sanitary and Ship Cannel and is not in the study area.
■
Howard Essig handed out a comparison of other IEPA sampled sites in Northeastern
Illinois. Rivers were from northern Illinois and included the Mississippi, Rock, Fox,
upper and lower Des Plaines, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal and Cal Sag Channel.
Most of the original metrics (except intolerant taxa and % tolerant) that the work group
recommended along with a few others (MBI, % Tanytarsini) were compared between
these rivers. Total taxa, EPT taxa, MBI, and percent Tanytarsini seemed to perform
3
better in discriminating among sites. The number of intolerant taxa and the percent
tolerant individuals were based on IEPA MBI tolerance values. Howard Essig pointed
out that in the analysis intolerant taxa included organisms with a tolerance value of <6
and tolerant organisms with a tolerance of >6. IEPA considers organisms with a
tolerance value of <5 as intolerant and >9 as tolerant (tolerance values 6 – 8 are
considered moderate). Recalculating these two metrics excluding moderate taxa
(tolerances 6 - 8) may help to better discriminate among the stations in the study area.
■
Irwin felt that some of the individual metrics did show some potential relationships.
These included %Chironomidae, % oligochaetes, taxa richness, number of intolerant
taxa. Other metrics did not show any strong signals.
■
Chris Yoder made the
point
that Ohio does not do macroinvertbrate sampling in
impoundments, and that the use of the ICI index in impounded conditions is not a proper
use of the tool. According to Ohio EPA (1987) the current should be no less than 0.3
ft/sec in order to properly use the ICI. For streams with currents <0.3 ft/sec or in streams
with only pooled habitats some interpretation of the ICI value may be necessary. I had
indicated at the meeting that most of the locations where IEPA deployed artificial
substrates had estimated velocities well above 0.3 ft/sec and were probably closer to 1
ft/sec. Habitats included primarily main channel and main channel border areas. Only
the sample in the Du Page Delta would have been close to or below 0.3 ft/sec. According
to Irwin's description of the study area the Brandon and Dresden Pools have an average
velocity of about 0.75 ft/sec and 0.65 ft/sec, respectively. Therefore it was felt that the
use of the ICI in the study area is valid.
■
Irwin Polls felt that the macroinverbrate data does say something and should be included
in the analysis. Howard Essig agreed with Irwin. He stated that part of the problem with
seeing definite or easily identifiable trends in the macroinvertebrate data may be due to
the way the data was presented. Individual samples were graphed by river mile and in
several cases there were several stations located within a navigation pool.
Macroinvertebrate populations tend to be patchy and artificial substrates are generally
monitoring microhabitats. There can be quite a bit of variability depending on where the
substrates are located relative to velocity. Fish data were combined by navigation pool
and were presented using box and whisker plots. In addition the fish analysis included
data from the Marseilles Pool. Macroinvertebrate data from the Illinois River
.
(Dresden
and Marseilles pools) were provided but were not included in the analysis. If
macroinvertebrate data were presented in a similar manner as fish, trends would be more
apparent. Both the MBI and ICI indicate improving trends from the Lockport Pool to the
Marseilles Pool (see attached figure). Other individual metrics may also indicate similar
trends if analyzed the same way.
■
Roy Smogor stated that the MBI and ICI might be telling us different things. The MBI is
an index used to measure the impacts of organic pollution. The ICI is a measure of
community structure. The data may be saying that organic pollution is not a problem but
other factors are affecting the community. Howard Essig disagreed that MBI values may
4
indicate that organic pollution is not a problem in the study area. MBI values indicate
possible problems in the Lockport, Brandon and Dresden (upstream of 1-55) pools (see
attached figure). Conditions appear to improve in the Dresden Pool downstream of 1-55
and into the Marseilles Pool. ICI values also show a similar improving trend from
Lockport to the Marseilles pool.
■
Chris Yoder warned the committee that the data may be saying nothing and that signals
people are seeing are just noise in the data.
■
The committee requested that the consultant plot the individual metrics scores for the ICI
and present them to the committee.
IV.
Agenda Items for Next Meeting(s)
■
Continued review of fishery data.
■
Continued review of macroinverbrate data.
■
Review of proposed intermediate classification for Branon Pool.
■
Review of thermal issues in the waterway?
■
Preperation of outline of Biological Integrity Report.
■
Classification of Dresden Pool.
5
Data Summary from Howard Essiqn, IEPA:
Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index (MBI) and Invertebrate Community Index (ICII) values for the lower Des Plaines and upper Illinois
Rivers 1999 and 2000. Samples were collected with artificial substrates by MWRDGC and IEPA.
River
1.
Des Plaines River upstream CSSC, Lockport (2 samples).
2.
Chicago Sanitary & Ship Canal, Lockport (1 sample).
3.
Des Plaines River Brandon Pool, Joliet (2 samples).
4.
Des Plaines River Dresden Pool upstream 1-55 (8 samples).
5.
Des Plaines River Dresden Pool downstream 1-55 (5 samples).
6. Illinois River Dresden Pool (3 samples).
7.
Illinois River Marseilles Pool (5 samples).
6
r'
7
A Summary of the UAA Biological Subcommittee Activities
April
4,
2002
Currently, the UIW within the Brandon Pool is classified as Secondary Use as is the portion of the
river between the Brandon Lock and Darn and 155. The lower Des Plaines River downstream of 155
is classified as General Use. The Biological Subcommittee had two principal charges:
•
Determine the existing and potential biological uses within the Study Area.
•
If the Study Area in not meeting potential'use, determine what factor(s) are limiting the
use and if these factors are controllable.
If the committee found that the current aquatic life use (ALU) designations for all or a portion of the
study area were not appropriate, then it could make recommendations for either upgrading or
downgrading the uses (i.e., making them realistic and attainable). To address these issues, the
committee has spent more than a year reviewing biological, chemical, and habitat data collected from
the Brandon and Dresden Pools. These areas have been studied on a nearly annual basis for more
than 20 years so considerable data are available, principally from EA Engineering, MWRD, IDNR,
and IEPA.
Based on a review of these data, the committee has concluded that the fish and benthic communities
of the Brandon Pool are below what would be expected for an unimpacted, warm water river of
similar size. In narrative terms, the aquatic community of Brandon Pool is poor to fair and thus
below the goals of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Committee's characterization is consistent with
that of other assessments of the Brandon Pool (EA 2001).
The Committee found that aquatic communities in Dresden Pool, though better than those in Brandon
Pool, were nonetheless somewhat below expectations. Dresden Pool can be characterized as
fair/good. Again, this characterization is consistent with that of other assessments (EA 2001).
In summary, the Committee concluded that aquatic communities throughout the study area were
below expectations with the deviation being greatest in the Brandon Pool. Aquatic communities in
Brandon Pool were below the goal established in the CWA (balanced, indigenous community) and
therefore not consistent with Illinois General Use classification. Brandon Pool's aquatic life is more
consistent with that expected in water bodies classified as Secondary Use:the current classification of
Brandon Pool.
After determining that aquatic communities
within
the study area, but especially within Brandon
Pool, were below expectations, the committee turned its attention to the second question...i.e., what
are the cause(s) of the poorer than expected biota. If it could be determined that the current
conditions were the result of reversible limitations (e.g. poor water quality), then upgrading of all of
the study area to General Use would be appropriate. However, if it was determined that the poor
condition of the biota was due to irreversible conditions (e.g., channelization) then an upgrade of the
use would not be appropriate.
It quickly became apparent that habitat is a significant limiting factor in Brandon Pool, and less so in
Dresden Pool. Thus, much effort was focused on evaluating the role habitat plays in determining the
quality of the biota in the Study Area. In addition to habitat, the committee has also considered a
number of other factors that might limit the aquatic biota. These other factors include dissolved
oxygen (DO), sediment contamination, water temperature, ammonia, barge traffic and toxicants in
general. Detailed assessments of these other factors were not performed by the Committee, but the
groups consensus was that DO and sediment contamination were the two factors most likely to affect
the quality of the biota.
Low DO levels below 4 mg/ are periodically observed in Brandon Pool 1 and likely play a role in. the
quality of the community. On the other hand, DO does not appear to be the sole or principal
determinant of community quality. Exceedances of the DO criterion in Dresden Pool are rare (EA
2001), and thus the Committee believes DO is not limiting in Dresden Pool.
Sediment quality is also likely a contributing factor. Previous studies of the system have found that
pockets of toxic sediments occur in both the Brandon and Dresden Pools (ComEd 1996). With
regard to sediment, it is difficult to distinguish physical effects (i.e., poor substrates for spawning,
burying of fish eggs and/or macroinvertebrates) from toxic effects. It is the Committees preliminary
assessment that both kinds of effects are likely present, however, methods are not available to
separate the two kinds of effects or to quantify the effects. Suffice it to say that the Committee
believes poor sediment quality is a factor that affects the quality of the biota. Sediment will be
discussed at a future meeting of the Biological Subcommittee.
Water temperature, ammonia, and water column toxicity were not examined in detail by the
committee but none appear, at least by themselves, to be significant factors affecting the quality of
the aquatic biota in the Study Area. Water Temperature will be discussed in further detail at a future
meeting of the Biological Subcommittee.
Although water quality and sediment quality affect the quality of the biota in the Study Area, the
effect of habitat quality is more significant. Habitat quality has been assessed throughout the Study
Area in conjunction with studies sponsored by Exelon and Midwest Generation. Habitat, has not
changed appreciably since the studies were conducted; thus the earlier conclusions should still apply.
These studies demonstrated that habitat quality is poor in Lockport Pool (immediately upstream of
the Study Area), poor to fair in Brandon Pool, and fair in Dresden Pool (ComEd 1996). The previous
study evaluated habitat quality based on Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI) scores.
According to Rankin 1989, sites with QHEI scores greater than or equal to 60 have the capacity to
attain CWA goals (i.e., have good aquatic communities). However, sites with scores less than 60
sometimes do not meet these goals and those with scores less than 45 rarely meet these goals. Based
on QHEI scores, the Committee concludes that habitat is limiting in Brandon Pool but probably not in
Dresden Pool.
As an additional approach to considering what variables are affecting the quality of the biota, the
Committee examined the resident fish and benthic communities to see what they might reveal about
which factor(s) might be affecting the health of these communities. The Committee found that
aquatic communities, especially in Brandon Pool, are dominated by species tolerant to a variety of
chemical and habitat stressors. Furthermore, we found that the communities were dominated by
habitat generalists rather than habitat specialists. For example, fish species that have pelagic
lifestyles (e.g. gizzard shad, emerald shiner) and those that build nests and provide parental care (e.g.
sunfish) generally do well in the system. Conversely, those that require clean substrates for spawning
(simple lithophiles) or require fast water and hard substrates (many darters) are either absent or rare
(EA 2001). Domination of the community by habitat generalists is an indication that habitat is poor
(i.e., limiting). Previous studies of the system have shown that the species that do best in the Study
Area are generalists particularly those that have modifications or adaptations to keep their eggs/larvae
out of contact with bottom sediments (UIW 1996). The predominance of fishes with such
adaptations suggests that sediment quality is poor, that excessive amounts of fine substrates are
present, or both. Most of the successful fish species in the Study Area have larvae with adaptations
that allow them to do well under low DO conditions suggesting that DO may also be a limiting factor,
at least in terms of reproduction.
Given the habitat limitations and the role that
contaminated
sediments likely play, the Committee
concludes that it is not possible for the biota of Brandon Pool to attain General Use. Therefore, the
committee recommends that Brandon Pool either stay as Secondary Use or it should be assigned an
ALU intermediate between General Use and Secondary. Such intermediate uses are often referred to
as "modified" uses, however, the terminology is not important. The important point is that the area
will not attain General Use due to pre-existing, irreversible limitations and therefore a lower, less
restrictive use should be assigned.
Although biological and physical conditions in Dresden Pool are less than ideal, habitat in this pool is
less of a factor. Therefore, an upgrading of the use from Secondary to General for this portion of the
lower Des Plaines River between 155 and the Lock and Dam may be appropriate.
Recently generated
data may aid in the decision making process.
The results of recent sampling by USEPA need to be
reviewed to see if it helps fill this data gap.
References
Commonwealth Edison Company. 1996. Aquatic Ecological Study of the Upper Illinois
Waterway. Final Report. Volumes I and II. Editor Commonwealth Edison. Chicago, IL.
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. 2001. 2000 Upper Illinois Waterway
Fisheries?
Investigation RM 270.4-296.4. Report by EA to Midwest Generation,
Chicago, IL.
Rankin E.T. 1989. The qualitative habitat evaluation index (QHEI): rationale, methods,
and applications. OEPA, Div. Water Quality Planning and Assess., Ecological Assess. Sect.,
Columbus, OH.
Draft
Minutes
Lower Des Plaines River Use Attainability Analysis (UAA)
Workgroup
May 16, 2002
ATTENDANCE:
Name:
Toby Frevert
Scott Twait
Rob ScdskiSulski
Debra Williams
Mike Cochran
Dave Pfeifer
Dick Lanyon
Bernard Sawyer
Prakasarn Tata
Susan O'Connell
Lou Kollias
Dennis L. Duffield
Harry Walton
Lisa Frede
Mark Frick
Gregory Chodil
Kevin M. Bennett
Bob Elvert
Bill Simon
John Petro
Bill Constantelos
Julia Wozniak
Dr. Richard Monzin
Susan Franzetti
Laurene Van Klan
Robert Moore
Jack Darin
Michele Gurgas
Vladimir Novotny
Neal O'Reilly
Agency:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Illinois Department of Natural Resources
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
City of Joliet
IL Environmental Regulatory Group
Chemical Industry Council
Stephan Company
BP Amoco
Caterpillar, Inc.
Exxon/Mobil
Exxon/Mobil
Exelon
Midwest Generation EMC, LLC
Midwest Generation EMC, LLC
go EA Engineering, Science & Technology
Sonnschein Nath & Rosenthal
Friends of the Chicago River
Prairie Network
Sierra Club
Sierra Club
Aquallova International, Ltd.
Hey and Associates, Inc.
(COMMENT: Why
are there different fonts/sizes scattered through the document?)
an der
7c:
K. Vv.."
by
?
;
et)Ot
DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL RECREATIONAL USE CLASSIFICATION OF THE LOWER DES
PLAINES RIVER
Vladimir Novotny presented a slide presentation summarizing the draft material that was
sent out prior to the committee meeting. The purpose of the material was to stimulate
discussion of the various options available under USEPA guidelines. The following are
discussion items during the presentation:
1.
MWRDGC staff pointed out that based on their research of comparing fecal coliform
densities to Escherichhia coli densities, they have not found the same positive
relations that ?
was were seen by Torrio, as presented in Figure 6.1 of the handout.
2. On page 11 of the handout material, a list is-was provided of cases where
"recreational uses may be removed altogether". Two of the cases,
"water access is
prevented . . ."
and ". .
.water body serves as a shipping lane."
are highlighted. It was
questioned why ". . .
primary recreation is not an existing use"
was not highlighted.
It was agreed that this would be highlighted in the next draft.
3. On pages 14 and 27, the presentation handouts-it references state-that the Combined
Sewer Overflows (CSO's) in Joliet will be eliminated by November 30, 2003. Dennis
Duffield pointed out that this date has recently been revised to November 30, 2006.
4. The draft document makes reference to an approximate number of Combined Sewer
Overflows from MWRDGC. It was requested that the actual number by year be
included in the report and that the consultant contact MWRDGC for this information.
5.
It was noted that Joliet still has CSO's discharging into the Brandon Pool and that the
wastewater treatment plants are not the only source of potential fecal bacteria.
LT
believe what Dennis Duffield said was that there would still continue to be
intermittent runoff/overflow issues after the proposed treatment plant improvements
are completed).
•-
?
;?
-
?
-
?
• : -
•
?
-
The consultants were asked to check into this with USEPA.
On page 16, there was discussion as to whether the level of primary,
contact activities reported by the consultants was sufficient to constitute
an existing use. Susan Franzetti commented that there are statements in
USEPA guidance documents to support a finding that the limited nature of
such activities does not rise to the level of an "existing use". The USEPA
representative commented that the question of what is an "existing use" is
an issue being discussed internally at USEPA. The consultants were asked
6.
to check into this issue further.
7.
On page 16 under the section titled "Water Quality Potential – TMDL Issue", it was
asked requested that the word
"is"
in the last sentence of the first paragraph be
changed to
"ma} _be"
achievable. In the same paragraph
.
, MWRDGC staff would like
the discussion to state that, based on a study by Hass, they are not a source of bacteria
to the Lower Des Plaines River due to die off of bacteria upstream. Copies of the
study were provided to the consultant.
8.
Page 16, Toby Frevert requested the consultant do a comparison of low-flow versus
high-flow bacterial counts to see if we can document if CSO's are the issue, or
whether or not it is the discharge from the sewerage treatment plants.
9.
Page 17, MWRDGC questions the use of the 95 percentile for setting the standards,,-;
they feel that the correct interpretation of the USEPA guidelines is to use 5-times the
primary standard.
10.
Page 21, it was pointed out that there is a private boat access point in Joliet at Ruby
Street. It was also pointed out that the City of Joliet has recently applied for a U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers 404 permit and state grants to install a public boat launch
on the Brandon Pool. (It should be noted that these are for boat access only, and NOT
public swimming areas).
11.
There was considerable discussion on the potential recreational use of the Brandon
Pool. Several people raised the point that barge traffic makes swimming dangerous. It
was pointed out that access to the water is limited and once in the river opportunities
to get out of the water are also very limited.
12.
Page 25, Table 6-1. It was requested that data for the MWRDGC North Side Water
Reclamation plant be added to the table.
13.
Page 26, MWRGC requested that the data from the Hass study be incorporated in the
analysis illustrated in the graph.
14.
Toby Frevert requested that the consultant try and distinguish between the upstream
and downstream sources of bacteria. He stated that we need to look at the effects of
the Des Plaines River and other upstream treatment plants that discharge to the
system.
15 On Page 29, it was requested that the consultant contact the barge terminal operators
to see if they have additional information on barge traffic on the river. It was also
requested that these terminal operators also be questioned about recreational boat use
on the river.
16.
Page 32, Recommendations, Option 1, it was suggested by Susan Franzetti that this
option be rcmaned renamed "Navigational Use".
17.
Page 33, first paragraph under section titled "Dresden Island Pool". Richard
Monzingo requested that the second and third sentences that discuss that there is "no
sharp boundary" between upstream and downstream of 1-55 be removed as this
determination has not been made.
18.
Page 34, Item 5, Recreational Facilities, the consultant was asked to check the
reference of a nature preserve in the area.
19.
Page 35, it was asked that the reference to "above 1-55" be added to where ever the
Dresden Island Pool is mentioned in the three options presented.
20.
It was asked that a discussion be added to the report as to how many locations there
are in the waterway points where barges unload and tie-up.
21.
The consultant was requested to contact the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to see
what restrictions they have in place, or generally endorseor encourage for regarding
recreational use in Federal Navigational Channels.
22.
The consultant was requested to acquire information from the U. S. Coast Guard on
rule governing recreational boat use near barge traffic.
23.
Toby Frevert pointed out that the workgroup needs to first answer the question of
what should be the appropriate use of the study area before we answer the question of
whether we can
?
we
achieve that use.
24.
It was stated that Rust Infrastructure Engineering did a navigation study of large
recreational boats on the Illinois River (where in the Illinois River?--comparisons
with downstream reaches may not be appropriate, since the channel is much wider as
you move downstream), and may be a source of information.
25.
The group reached no consensus as to the recommended recreational use for the
Lower Des Plaines River r ached no consensus. A follow up meeting will be
scheduled to continue discussion of this topic.
BIOLOGICAL SUB-COMMITTEE
A brief status report was made of the activities of the Biological Subcommittee, the The
committee has reached consensus on the methodology as to how the fishery and
macroinvertabratemacroinvertebrate date should be analyzed. The subcommittee will be
meeting again on June 4, 2002.
NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the workgroup has not been scheduled pending follow-up work by the
consultant.
General Comment: Nowhere in the minutes did I see anything regarding whether or not the
subcommittee had come to any consensus regarding whether or not the applicable fecal-
coliform limits could be met for primary contact purposes. There are a lot of statistics in the
draft report that would indicate this to be true, and yet there are also conflicting
statements/information that would suggest that the UAA area would not be able to attain the
proper bacterial standards to allow for primary contact recreation. I do not believe that the
group concurred with the position that fecal limits would be met in the waterway if all of the
point sources of bacteria are controlled, since there are so many non-point sources of
contamination.
?
Perhaps this will be addressed as members begin to comment on the
draft chapter regarding pathogens and recreation. Midwest Generation will be submitting
specific comments as soon as we have the opportunity to review the follow-up information
promised by the consultants.
Draft Minutes
Lower Des Plainer-Plaines River Use Attainability Analysis (UAA)
Biological Sub-committee Workgroup Meeting
June 4, 2002
ATTENDANCE:
Name:
Toby Frevert
Howard Essig
Roy Smogor
Scott Twait
Mike Cochran
Ed Hammer
Chris Yoder
Irvin Polls
Harry Walton
Bill Constantelos
Julia Wozniak
Greg Seegert
Lisa Frede
Bob Elvert
Faith Bugel
Cindi Skrukrud
Neal O'Reilly
Mike Mischuk
Tim Ehlinger
Vladimir Novotny
MEETING SUMMARY:
Agency:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency—Note that Toby DID
NOT attend the June 4th meeting!
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Illinois Dept. ofNatural Resources
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
MBI/CABB
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
IL Environmental Regulatory Group
Midwest Generation, EMC, LLC
Midwest Generation, EMC, LLC
EA Engineering, Inc.
Chemical Industry Council of Illionis
Exxon/Mobil
Environmental Law & Policy Center
Sierra Club
Hey and Associates, Inc.
Hey and Associates, Inc.
University of Wisconsin — Milwaukee
Aquallova International, LTD.
OACref 1‘..i
5rt■
iLeThreoy
.37-'n°•
0 0 ,,;‘, IC
1.?
Review of minutes from April 3, 2002 meeting
■ Written comments from Julia Wozniak of Midwest Generation and Howard Essig
from IEPA were sent out prior to the meeting. It was agreed that these comments
would be integrated into the final draft of the minutes.
■
Irwin Polls asked if we could revisit the summary memo prepared by Greg
Seegert. Irwin asked if on page two on the memo in paragraph two the first
sentences be modified to read
"Low DO levels below 4 mg/1 are periodically
observed in Brandon Pool 1 and likely play a role in the quality of the
community."
?2.?
Continued review of fishery biological metrics and discussion on their meaning
1
Tim Ehlinger made a presentation of the revised fishery data analysis sent out prior to the
meeting. The purpose of the additional analysis was to:
a. Incorporate the 1999 and 2002 2001 data for Lower Des Plaines River from
Midwest Generation. (data is not yet available for 2002, nor was it requested).
b.
Provide a comparison of Ohio and Illinois
IBI's
for large river reference streams.
c. Demonstrate the potential use of reference streams for establishment of biological
criteria for Lower Des Plaines River.
The following are comments during the presentation:
■ The question was asked what each bar on the plot of Ohio Boatable Fish IBI by
River Mile represented. It was pointed out that each bar represented eight
samples collected in each river mile. All sample zones are about 500 meters in
length. Sampling was conducted in July, August and September. Each bar
represents a summary of one year's data.
■ Tim pointed out that there is a lot of variability in the data at individual sites,
indicating possible ecological disturbance of the sites.
■
A general trend of increasing IBI scores is observed as you move down stream
from the Lockport Pool to the Dresden Pool. This tread trend is observed for
1999, 2000, and 2001.
■ It was pointed out that there is variability from year to year from 1999 through
2001, indicating that we have both variation from site to site and year to year
within the same site.
■
All of the Ohio IBI values are below Ohio's state criteria of 30 for Modified
Warmwater Habitat (impounded-boat sites).
■
An analysis of the data did show a statistically significant difference between the
Brandon, Upper Dresden, and Lower Dresden Pools. There was no statistically
significant difference between the Lockport and Brandon Pools. This analysis did
take into account differences by year.
■
Roy Smogor raised the concern that because of the spatial locations of the sample
sites, do the pooled data actually represent the complete waterway pool. Irwin
Polls pointed out that one area of the Dresden Pool near Treats Island was not
sampled; however, he felt this likely does not affect the database. Greg Seegert
agreed that the spatial distribution was the least uniform in the Upper Dresden
Pool.
■ Irwin Polls pointed out that the Lower Dresden Pool is classified as general use,
and according to the
FBI
values would be considered by Ohio's biological criteria
to be impaired.
■
Roy Smogor Pointed pointed out that based on the literature, differences of 4-7
IBI points may not be meaningfully different. Chris Yoder stated that State of
Ohio concluded that for the Ohio MI greater than 4 IBI points was considered
significant.
■
Tim Ehlinger pointed out that the trends from upstream to downstream are
2
repeated year after year.
3
■
Tim Ehlinger presented data for reference sites on the Fox, Green and Rock
Rivers. A graph was presented that illustrated that there is a good correlation
between the Illinois and Ohio D3I's for the same stream reaches.
■ It was pointed out that BSC on the graphic comparing the Ohio index to Illinois
index should read Illinois IBI.
■ Mike Cochran restated his concern that all of the IDNR ad USEPA fishery data
was collected using electrofishing techniques and does not characterize the full
fish community. Chris Yoder stated that Ohio's research showed that
electrofishing as a single technique collects most fish species. Tim Ehlinger and
Chris felt that if you are using a repeatable methodology you could use the data
for comparison purposes. Roy Smogor stated even Can Karr today feels we do
not have to sample every species, but we need to look for signals that represent
the community.
■
Greg Seegert pointed out that for all of the reference sites we are getting less than
1% round bodied suckers, and this number appears to be too low compared to
similar sites on other rivers he has sampled. Tim Ehlinger stated he would check
if the graduate student that calculated the data did so correctly.
■ With regards to capture rates, Tim Ehlinger pointed out that because of the
differences in sampling technique between 1DNR and the Ohio methodology, he
converted time into distance to determine capture rates.
■
It was discussed that the Green River is channelized system, with municipal
discharges, has no sediment contamination, no barge traffic, and chemically good
water quality.- Additional information as to whether the Green River is subject to
frequent flow fluctuations, as is the lower Des Plaines, will need to be factored
into the decision-making process to determine whether it can be used as a valid
reference site, as well as how it's habitat compares to the UAA study reach.
■
Ed Hammer stated that USEPA does have QHEI values for the Fox River sites
and will provide them to the consultant to add to the analysis.
■
Greg Seegert and Chris Yoder stated that for non-wadable rivers many of the
habitat issues tend to be flattened out by the biology. This statement is not
accurate or reflective of what was trying to be conveyed. The discussion centered
around the fact that large rivers are not constrained by ecoregion boundaries in the
same way that small streams are. This means that you could theoretically have a
reference site for a large river that is not necessarily in the same ecoregion as the
one you are studying, as long as they are similar in characteristics.
■
The question was asked what is the definition of a large river. It was pointed out
that John Lyons in Wisconsin defines a large river as any system that needs to be
sampled by a boat.
■
The committee asked that the Kaskaskia River data be included in the reference
site analysis. The consultants asked if the data could be provided electronically to
facilitate the analysis. Harry Walton stated he would check into the availability of
electronic data.
■
The committee agreed that for the use classification process, they would use the
Ohio D3I for the analysis of the fishery community.
4
What happens next, as far as the UAA analysis process goes? The minutes should
include some summary statement here as to what tasks the subcommittee and/or
consultants will be required for the overall fisheries analysis (using the Ohio IBI).
3.
Continued review of fffac-r-einver-tabfate-macroinvertebrate biological
matrices and discussion on their meaning
Mike Mischuk made a presentation of the ICI plots requested at the April 3, 2002
meeting. The plots were forwarded to the committee prior to the meeting via e-mail. The
following is a summary of the discussion:
■
Mike Mischuk provided an overview of the discussion that took place at the
April 3, 2002 meeting. Mike then presented the plots of the individual ICI
matrices metrics scores for each of the matrices metrics used in the Ohio ICI.
■
Chris Yoder stated that the ICI is used in Ohio to classify canalized rivers but
not impounded waters de-due to concerns about too low of velocity for
colonization.
■
It was stated that sediment deposition was an issue on some of the plate
samplers that may have effected their colonization.
■
Mike Mischuk stated that where there were two samples collected at the same
site, the two values were averaged to get a mean for the river mile. The data
tables should indicate which data are based on a single sample and which
represent means of 2 or more samples.
•
The committee requested that the axis on the graphieS
. be : changed so that each
slide showed the range i'rorn
.
0:tO;64sed:in the ICI index:: Note that the 0 to 6
range applies to scores for individual metrics, NOT the ICI itself.
•
On the percent mayfly 'composition. slidethe
- ValUe-at river `
.mile 277.6 should
be changed froni.Vto 2. Thefe
.
iSn6 "
.
1 value; in this index.; the value was an
average of a O
.
and:2 value for the same river Mile.
■
Roy
Sniogor stated
.
that
with
regards -16-individual :Matrices metrics--Weneed to
look.dt -Mk) the players`
?
and understand
I theirindifidal tolerances.
■
Greg Seegert stated that he feels that the zero scores for the % Tanytarsini
indicate that for all of the study area, macroinvertabrates macroinvertebrates
indicate poor conditions.
It was: suggested that the consultant look at what percent of the
macroinvertebrates are representative cisf a free flowing river versus a
big.river
or impoundment.
-8-Once the above-mentioned tasks/corrections (highlighted in yellow) are
complete, tThe committee has authorized the consultant to proceed with the
write up of the existing macroinvertbratcmacroinvertebrate data into a draft
report for their review. It was felt no additionalrnere data analysis was
needed. warranted.
4.
Presentation by Midwest Generation, EME, LLC on temperature issues in the
Lower Des Plaines River
5
Midwest Generation and EA Engineering, Science & Technology presented a slide
presentation on temperature issues in the Lower Des Plaines River. Midwest Generation
sent handout material for the presentation to the committee prior to the meeting. A
handout of the slide presentation was also distributedhandout at the meeting. The
following is a summary of the discussion during the presentation.
■
Julia Wozniak presented the existing water quality standards for temperature
in the Lower Des Plaines River and the history of the alternate thermal limit
variance that is in place at the 1-55 Bridge in the Upper Dresden Pool. The
current secondary contact thermal WQSstandard is 93° F, which can only be
exceeded 5 times per year5% of the time within any 12-month rolling period,
and cannot exceed 100° F at any time at the edge of the allowable mixing
zone. General use thermal WQSstandards apply downstream of the 1-55
Bridge.
■
Chris Yoder asked how much of the river water the two Joliet power plants
use during peak periods. It was stated that at times the entire river flow is
used, depending on the river flow rate relative to the station's circulating
water flow rate. River flow past the station is controlled by the U.S. Army
Corps. of Engineers through the operation of the Brandon Lock and Dam.
■
It was stated discussed that because of the nature and volume of the
MWRDGC discharge at Stickney, it serves to -generally lowers the
temperature of the river during summer months, and keep temperatures
slightly elevatedraises it in the winter.
■
Greg Seegert made a presentation on the biological impacts of the thermal
discharges from Midwest Generation. Much of the material was taken from
the UIW Studies performed for Commonwealth Edison Company (1991-
1995), as well as currently conducted studies for Midwest Generation (1997
through present).thcir 1996 reports for Commonw lth Edison Company.
■
It was stated that there was little thermal stratification in the river, especially
during the summer period, in part -due to the mixing of the barge traffic on the
river.
■
Tim Ehlinger asked is anyone had looked at the effect of temperature and
relative weight on metabolic rates of fish and how it may affect relative
weights. Greg Seegert stated no. Greg stated that relative weights of most
species in the system were good, but acknowledged that they were below
average for a few species (e.g. smallmouth bass).may decrease as you move
.
There was no discussion regarding any possible
spatial patterns regarding relative weights.
■
Irwin Polls pointed out that he feels habitat is the most important limiting
factor for biological life. Water level fluctuations are also an important issue
for both the Brandon and Dresden Pools. As you move downstream-in the
system (i.e. below Dresden Lock and Dam)
‘water level fluctuations are
dampened out. I believe that Irwin brought out this point to use caution when
6
trying to compare data from the Illinois River below Dresden Lock and Darn
with lower Des Plaines data, since there are significant differences in the
overall effect of frequently manipulated upstream flows on the biological
community, depending on where you are in the waterway.
■
It was stated that while we may be meeting the water quality standards for the
limited parameters for which there are numeric standardswe have standards,
we may not be achieving biological use de-due to other factors.
■
It was suggested that the workgroup rank the identified stressors to better
understand the system.
5.
?
Agenda items for next meeting
■
Review of modified stream use for Brandon Pool.
■
Sediment contamination in the Lower Des Plaines River.
■
Continued discussion on biological potential of Upper Dresden Pool (I don't
think the group has come to consensus on this matter yet).
■
Establishment of report outline for biological chapters.
■
Continued discussion on thermal issues presented by Midwest Generation
Next meeting is scheduled for July 16, 2002???
7
PROJECT MEETING NOTES
PROJECT:
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA
MEETING DATE:
30 January 2003
MEETING PLACE:
Thompson Building, Room 2-025
MEETING TIME:
10:00 – 11:10 am
SUBJECT:
Chicago Area Waterways: Waterborne pathogens, wastewater treatment
plant upgrades for disinfection and public recreational exposure
Toby Frevert and Rob Sulski from IEPA started off the meeting with a quick introduction
about the meeting's goals and then asked Ron French from CDM to give an introduction
of the firm and who was present.
The meeting goals are as follows:
1) Public notification of health and safety risks associated with waterway
usage.
Lack of disinfection at treatment facilities and CSO constitutes a
sources of infectious disease organisms that individual citizens may not be
aware of or fully appreciate. I would like to discuss the various roles of
government agencies in providing appropriate and credible public advisories
on the issues and risks associated with recreational endeavors in the
Chicago waterway system. The district is obligated to provide public notice of
CSO overflow events under its recently reissued NPDES permits, but I.
believe there is a broader need to educate the public on health (and safety)
risks inherent to the waterway and its various competing functions. This is
truly a public health issue and I am looking forward to the expertise and
assistance of the public health agencies in this area.
2)
Treatment Plant Disinfection
Although the determination of need for disinfection at MWRD's three main
treatment facilities will certainly be a major aspect of the UAA, engineering
planning and cost estimates for disinfection will be necessary to complete
that assessment. In light of the increased public activity in and along the
waterway and therefore increased health exposure to the public, I believe it is
appropriate to initiate the engineering work at an early date.
3)
Documentation of current recreational activity within the waterway.
We will be seeking input from MWRD, the City and other attendees on data
sources and approaches to assessing both current and projected future
recreational activity along various sectors of the waterway as well as
competing or incompatible uses, such as navigation and flood control.
Ron French introduced himself and the CDM Team that was present. Ron French will
be the Project Manager for CDM, and he will be working closely with his staff in the
Chicago office. Colleen Hughes will be responsible for data management. Other
members of the project team include Hydroqual, who will be responsible for the
modeling effort and Hill and Knowlton, the Public Relations firm for the project. Chris
Varones and Brian Kiefer from Hill and Knowlton were present at this meeting. The
CDM Team will be responsible for the overall preparation of the UAA and will work
closely with IEPA, the regulatory agencies and stakeholders
General introductions were made by all attending this meeting (see attached attendance
list).
Public Notification of Health and Safety Risks Associated with Waterway Usage
Janet Pellegrini gave a PowerPoint presentation of USEPA's trip on July 6, 2002 on the
Calumet-Sag Channel and the Little Calumet River. The presentation included pictures
of recreational uses occurring on those two waterbodies, including short video takes of
interviews with several citizens. She also showed some of MWRD's fecal coliform and
E.coli
data, that was included in her handout, as well as locations of major WWTPs and
CSOs. USEPA presented MWRD's 2001 ambient water data for fecal coliform and
E.
coli
from sampling points within the Chicago area waterways, as well as bar graphs
depicting the impact on pathogen concentration of the three North Side, Calumet &
Stickney Water Reclamation Plants (WRPs) that do not disinfect. Other GIS maps
presented included: MWRD's WRP locations, MWRD's 37 combined sewer overflow
(CSO) locations, the City of Chicago 231 CSO locations, MWRD's
M
sampling locations,
and public boat and canoe launch locations.
There is an issue with barge traffic contributing to the resuspension of sediments in the
waterways.
Alsip and Worth Public Boat Launch areas were discussed. USEPA presented
recreational data from the Villages of Alsip and Worth, as an example of the available
information verifying the increased public usage of the waterway. There is a need to
educate those who use these launch areas about the water quality conditions of the
waterway. This was followed by a short Illinois Department of Public Health discussion
on beach closings, and the level of
E.coli
to cause a beach closing (235 CFUs). It was
mentioned that there are no advisories on other than licensed swimming beaches.
Bathing beaches must be licensed in Illinois and the license require routine testing.
Cook County Forest Preserve District has a no swimming rule outside of their public
pools, and some no swimming signs, however, a health and safety message needs to be
communicated to the public. This could be done by placing signs in appropriate places
and/or handing out pamphlets to users of the waterways and boat launch facilities.
MWRD's proposed notification program is restricted to web-site announcements of CSO
events. IEPA has not yet approved this program.
Some short term goals are: informing the public of exposure/risk during recreational use;
exploring the cost and logistics of disinfecting MWRD effluent; and, verifying
recreational activity in the waterways.
There is a need to get recreational use data from the various public agencies in the area.
We will need to know who owns the lands along the waterways. MWRD's holdings are
available on their web site at www.mwrd.orq.
We also discussed public safety concerns in the waterways, i.e. floating logs,
concrete/rebar, debris, etc. This type of information should also be included in any public
health advisories. It seems that a handout(s) or some sort of mechanism needs to be
prepared using the PR folks to address the immediate concerns about health threats
using the waterways. There was a consensus among those attending that this should be
a priority. A handout could be put out by the same Inter-agency group (Illinois Depts. of
Public Health, Natural Resources and Agriculture and IEPA) that created the fish
consumption advisory and it could be distributed to local marinas, boat launch operators,
outdoor sporting goods stores and ski and boat shops.
Treatment Plant Disinfection
Toby asked the MWRD to start working parallel to the UAA, on the
engineering/economic considerations of putting in chlorination/dechlorination facilities in
at the three big treatment plants to look at the technologies that are available for their
facilities and the cost and schedule to implement these technologies. The MWRD said
they could only perform preliminary engineering and cost estimates on this matter.
USEPA agreed that actual design and construction was not being looked for at this time,
that preliminary planning and engineering was appropriate concurrent with the UAA
development.
Documentation of Current Recreational Activity within the Waterway
There is a need to know what type of data collection has already been done on the river,
particularly water quality and recreational use. Suggestions were made with regard to
obtaining data from the Coast Guard, ACOE, USGS, IEPA, IDNR the carrier association
and MWRD debris boat crews. Also it was brought to everyone's attention the need to
document conflicting and competing uses in the waterways. Were do we get barge
traffic
.
data, etc?
Friends of the Chicago River will be contacted for all of their documentation on water
quality and recreational usage info.
Action Items
It was recommended that a slide show presentation be put together outlining the UAA
program. Ron French will work on this with Hill and Knowlton.
IEPA will prepare a draft public advisory pamphlet and send it Illinois Public Health Dept
for their review and final preparation.
Ron French and the CDM Team will meet with key regional representatives to discuss
recreational activities within the waterways. Various folks at the meeting identified
themselves as being contacts for this type of information. Ron French asked them to
leave behind their business card, so that he could follow up with the project.
Toby adjourned the meeting at 11:10.
Memorandum
To:
?
Toby Frevert, Illinois EPA
Rob Sulski, Illinois EPA
From: Ron French, CDM
Date:
?
April 28, 2003
Subject: Meeting Minutes for Chicago River. UAA Health Advisory Pamphlet
Attendees:
Name
?
Organization
Toby Frevert?
Illinois EPA
Rob Sulski?Illinois EPA
Scott Twait
?Illinois EPA
Ron French
?
CDM
Stephanie Brock?
CDM
Jessica Harker?
Primera
Ed Hammer?
USEPA
Janet Pellegrini
?
USEPA
Peter Swenson?
USEPA
-Dick Lanyon?
MWRD
Bill Masri?CDOW
Bob Foster
?
Chicago Park District
Sid Osekada
?
CDOW
Nelson Chueng?
Chicago Department of Planning
Lane Drager?
IDPH
Joel McCullough
?
CDPH
Brian Kiefer?
Hill & Knowlton
On Monday, April 21, 2003 CDM held a meeting to discuss a pamphlet and on-shore signage
to raise public awareness of the current health risks associated with the Chicago Area
Waterway System (CAWS). The agenda of the meeting consisted the following items:
■ Purpose for the Health Advisory
P:\16811EPA\38099UAAVneetingminutesk2_11_03MeetingMinutes.doc
Chicago UAA Health Advisory Meeting
April 28, 2003
Page 2
■
Comments on sign and pamphlet
■
Course of Action for Advisory Committee
■
Obstacles and Other Considerations
■
Action Items
Each agenda item is discussed in detail in the sections to follow. The agenda was established
to receive feedback from the Health Advisory Committee on the public notification pamphlet
and on-shore signage regarding the potential health risks associated with CAWS.
Purpose of Health Advisory
Rob Sulski of Illinois EPA explained the purpose of the health advisory is to educate the
public on the potential health risks associated with contact with the waters of the CAWS. The
Health Advisory Committee was initiated after the UAA meeting held on January 30, 2003
explored the possibility that individual citizens may not be aware of or fully appreciate the
physical obstacles and infectious disease organisms within the Chicago Area Waterway
System. Participants of the January 30
t4,
meeting concluded that the public should be notified
of the potential health and safety risks associated with waterway usage. As a result, the
Illinois EPA prepared a sign and pamphlet for distribution to users of the CAWS.
Sign and Pamphlet
Sign Comments and Suggestions
The Health Advisory Committee provided the following suggestions and comments
regarding the sign verbiage:
■
Keep jargon/regulatory language off signs,
■
Use international symbols to convey message to all users, and
■
Use primary language of area in which the sign is posted.
Suggestions and comments resulted in changes and clarifications to the verbiage of the sign.
The international symbol for "No Swimming" will be used to represent the general message
of the sign. The Chicago Park District has many of the standard international symbols
available. Finally, the sign was changed to read:
CAUTION
This waterway is not suitable for:
WADING
SWIMMING
PA16811EPA\38099UAAVneetingminutes\2_11_03MeetingMlnutes.doc
Chicago UAA Health Advisory Meeting
April 28, 2003
Page 3
JET SKIING
WATER SKIING/TUBING
OR ANY OTHER BODY CONTACT
Pamphlet Comments and Suggestions
The purpose of the pamphlet is to provide the public with further details on the potential
health and physical risks associated with contact with waters of the CAWS. The intended
audiences of the pamphlet are the recreational users of the waterways. The double-sided
pamphlet conveys two important messages to the public. The primary message is that health
risks exist due to the presence of bacteria (or germs) in the water. The secondary message,
communicated on the flip side, is that the CAWS are currently being evaluated to determine
how the waterways can best be used in the future.
The Health Advisory Committee provided comments and suggestions regarding the
pamphlet. Please note comments reference Page 1 and Page 2. Page 1 refers to the side of the
pamphlet with the map of the Chicago Area Waterways and Page 2 refers to the flip side.
■
Message should be positive.
■
Add "germ" graphic to pamphlet to convey primary message.
■
The following sentence should be added to the end of the last paragraph on panel 1 of Page
1: "These waters have discharges from a sewage treatment plant, industry, and other
sources and may contain bacteria (germs)."
■
Move bullet
2
nd
bullet ("Wash hands thoroughly...") under "Fishing Safety Precautions" to
"Swimming, Skiing, and Wading."
■
Change the first 2 bullets under "Swimming, Skiing, and Wading" to read "Avoid all
contact with water, including ingestion."
■
Change the
2
nd
bullet under "Boating Safety Precautions" to read, "Survey water for
hazardous obstacles (i.e. rocks, driftwood, etc.) before operating boat."
■
The headings on panel 2 of Page 1 should be changed from "Swimming, Skiing, and
Wading," "Boating Safety Precautions," and "Fish Consumption Precautions" to "General
Precautions," "Safety Precautions," "Fish Consumption Precautions," respectively.
■
Change "Locks" to "Lock" under "The Calumet River" on panel 3 of Page 1.
■
Change text under "Des Plaines River" to read, "From its confluence with the Chicago
Sanitary & Ship Canal to the Interstate 55 bridge, southwest of Joliet"
PA16811EP/0,38099UM\meetingminutes12_11_03MeefingMlnutes.doc
Chicago UAA Health Advisory Meeting
April 28, 2003
Page 4
■
Change "North Side Sewage Treatment Works" under "North Shore Channel" to "Skokie-
Swift Bridge."
■
Change the title and legend of the map on panel 3 of Page 1 to read "Restricted Waterways
of the Chicagoland Area."
■
The Bubbly Creek segment on the map on panel 3 of Page 1 should be marked in red.
■
The first paragraph on panel 1 of Page 2 should be split into two sentences.
■
Remove "in the coming months" from the 1
st
sentence of the 4
th
paragraph on panel 1 of
Page 2.
■
Change the 4
th
bullet on panel 2 of Page 2 to read, "Illegal discharges to drains and sewers."
■
Add a bullet under "How do harmful germs get in the water?" which reads, "Treated, but
nondisinfected wastewater effluent."
■
Change text under "What organization(s) is responsible for issuing a fish advisory?" on
panel 3 of Page 2 to read, "The state of Illinois routinely monitors and annually updates a
fish advisory for commercial and recreational fishermen...."
■
Delete Illinois Department of Natural Resources and website under "Additional
Resources" on panel 3 of Page 2.
■
Add the Center for Disease Control (CDC) as a contact for information on healthy
swimming.
Comments will be incorporated and a new version will be distributed to the Health Advisory
Committee for final approval.
Course of Action
Principle Contact
Illinois EPA will continue as the principle contact for information on the UAA.
Distribution
The campaign to educate waterway users of the potential health risks associated with contact
with the CAWS will be communicated to the public with the sign, pamphlet, Chicago
Waterways UAA website (www.ChicagoAreaWaterways.org), radio and newspaper
advertisements, and a press release. The sign will be posted in areas with a high probability
of recreational users, such as boat launches, park access points, and along certain river
P:\161311EPA \ 38099UAA meetingminutes12_11_03MeetingMlnutes.doc
Chicago UAA Health Advisory Meeting
April 28, 2003
Page 5
stretches with high activity. The pamphlets will be distributed to user groups at boat
launches, Coast Guard meetings, and fishing group meetings such as Perch America.
Cost
Cost issues, such as responsible agencies, distribution, posting, and maintenance, will be
discussed once the final version of the sign and pamphlet has been approved.
Obstacles and Issues
One potential obstacle of the campaign was eliminated when the sign and pamphlet verbiage
was changed from "Health Advisory" to "Caution." All other considerations, such as
identification of responsible agencies and distribution of the materials, were addressed
during the previous sections of this memorandum.
Finally, MWRD has proposed a program for notifying the public of combined sewer overflow
(CSO) events. The Health Advisory Committee discussed the possibility of combining the
CSO notification program, which is an event based notification system, with the health risk
notifications, which is an ongoing education program. However, each program serves a
different purpose; therefore, to keep these separate issues clear for the public the two
programs will not be combined.
Action Items
Illinois EPA
■ Revise sign and pamphlet and distribute to the Advisory Committee for final approval.
cc: Scott Twait, Illinois EPA
Ed Hammer, USEPA -
Janet Pellegrini, USEPA
Peter Swenson, USEPA
Brian Kiefer, Hill & Knowlton
Ron French, CDM
Stephanie Brock, CDM
Jessica Harker, Primera
Dick Lanyon, MWRD
Bill Masri, CDOW
Bob Foster, Chicago Park District
Sid Osekada, CDOW
Nelson Chueng, Chicago Department of Planning
Lane Drager, IDPH
Joel McCullough, CDPH
John Mickle, CCDPH
P:\16811EPAI.38099UAAVneetingrninutes12_11_03MeetingMinutes.doc
Memorandum
To:
?
Toby Frevert, Illinois EPA
Rob Sulski, Illinois EPA
From: Ron French, CDM
Date:?
November 24, 2003
Subject: Safety and Navigational Constraints on Designated Uses in the
Chicago Area Waterway System
Attendees:
Name
Organization
Name
Organization
Rob Sulski
Illinois EPA
Nelson Chueng
CDOP
Ron French
CDM
Michelle Woods
CDOT
John D'Aniello
CDM
Cameron Land
USCG
Jeff Wickenkamp
CDM
Bob Balamut
USACE
Colleen Hughes
CDM
Sgt. Rick Erbacci
Police Marine Unit
Stephanie Brock
CDM
A. Tanen°
IIPD
Jessica Harker
Primera
Frank Kudrua
IIPD
Joe Deal
Chicago's Mayors Office
On
Wednesday, November 19, 2003 the Illinois EPA and CDM held a meeting to discuss the
safety and navigational issues applicable to the Chicago Area Waterway System (CAWS). The
Illinois EPA, CDM and the Stakeholders Advisory Committee (SAC) need to establish current
and anticipated uses of the CAWS for the next ten years. Therefore, safety and navigational
restrictions/constraints need to be incorporated into the decision making to create
appropriate designations. The attendees discussed the following items in detail:
■
Navigational vs. Recreational Use
■ Water Level and Bank Disturbances
■
Water Quality Safety Issues
■ Recreational Uses
■
Homeland Security
CADocurnents and Settings epausenLocal Settings \Temporary Internet FileMOLK95 \ 031119 SAFETY MEETING NOTES.doc
Navigational vs. Recreational Use
Navigable Areas
Historically, the navigational and recreational users of the CAWS have peacefully shared the
river without regulation. The entire CAWS is labeled as a navigable waterway. However, the
North Branch of the Chicago River is not actively maintained for navigation. The United
States Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) considers the end of the navigable waterway to
occur at Addison Street, and the City of Chicago at Fullerton Street.
Enforcement
Non-motorized boating in some sections along the CAWS is dangerous because of high barge
traffic and lack of access points. The US Coast Guard has the authority to set rules and
regulations concerning non-motorized recreation along sections of the waterway. The City of
Chicago Police and US Coast Guard are responsible for enforcement of the laws. The Illinois
EPA is responsible to protect the water quality standards applicable to the assigned use of the
waterway.
Currently, the police can ticket non-motorized boaters along the CSSC for reckless behavior.
However, the Coast Guard and the Police Marine Unit is not large enough to prohibit all non-
motorized boating along the CSSC. The Illinois EPA encouraged the US Coast Guard to
explain to SAC members the dangers of non-motorized boating along particular reaches of
the CAWS during discussion at the December 16, 2003 SAC meeting.
Water Quality Safety Issues
Because of the diversity of wildlife that exists in and along the CAWS, the sediments must not
be at toxic levels. The water quality parameters of concern are salt, dissolved oxygen (DO),
and bacteria. The Police Marine Unit has regular body contact with the CAWS on rescue
missions and would like to know about health precautions that the Police Marine Unit should
take to protect themselves from the CAWS. Rob Suski of the Illinois EPA offered to have a
separate meeting with the Police Marine Unit to discuss heath issues and precautions
associated with body contact with the CAWS and suggested contacting Dick Lanyon of the
MWRD for water quality data on the CAWS.
Homeland Security
The Illinois International Port District is currently identifying all vulnerable spots in the port.
The study will be completed during the last week of December 2003.
The US Coast Guard implements homeland security controls during emergency situations.
There is no blanket homeland security regulations applied to the CAWS.
Water Level and Band Disturbances
The main branch of the Chicago River, several bridges, and areas near marinas are designated
as no wake zones. However, up to seven foot elevation changes occur in the water during
C:\Documents and Settings \epauseALocal SettingslTemperary Internet Files \OLK95 NO31119 SAFETY MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago UAA Safety Meeting
November 24, 2003
Page 3
wet weather events. Therefore, enforcing wake zones or creating more will create only
marginal protection.
The City of Chicago encourages the creation of bio-engineered banks. However, due to
dynamic flow changed in the CAWS, such banks are frequently washed away. This issue
may increase in severity as the MWRD is considering dropping the CAWS three feet, instead
of only two feet, in anticipation of a storm event.
Sheet pile walls are desirable by developers because they maximize the square footage of the
land. However, such walls along the waterway are discouraged by the Mayor and are
allowed only where necessary.
Recreational Uses
Zoning
The Chicago Department of Planning wants to control waterway use by zoning the
riverbanks and controlling access points. The Chicago Park District is also working with the
CDOP on the Chicago River zoning plan. CDOT announced the t the legislation for the
building of a river walk passed. Therefore, CDOT needs to know what activities to promote
along the river walk.
Swimming in the CAWS is not encouraged in any zone. Lake Michigan beaches and City
pools provide adequate sources for swimming in the Chicago area.
Speeding is a possible issue when zoning the waterway. If only motorized boats are allowed
in the area, they will be tempted to speed and be more likely to have an accident.
Bubbly Creek is currently labeled as an Urban Waterffont Zone in the City's draft zoning
plan. The area plans to have a dock and growth in residential development with in the next
five to ten years. To achieve these goals, water quality needs to be improved possibly by
moving the pump station to create more flow in the Creek.
Safety
Non-motorized boating along the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Channel is not appropriate
because of heavy barge traffic and because of lack of access points.
The main branch of the Chicago River is not an appropriate place for river bikes, gondolas, or
non-motorized boating because of heavy barge traffic and lack of access points. CDOT and
the Velope Center are currently studying the traffic on the main branch of the Chicago River.
The O'Brien Lock is a gateway for many barges. The recreational and commercial uses have a
good record of coexistence. However, people have died while waiting for the Locks to open
because barges cannot move or turn quickly. Commercial uses have many rules and
C:\Documents and Settings \epauser1Local SettIngskTemporary Internet Files \OLK95\031119 SAFETY MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago UAA Safety Meeting
November 24, 2003
Page 4
regulations and are upset that the recreational users are not expected to uphold the same
standards.
CC:
Ron French
CDM
Michelle Woods
CDOT
John D'Aniello
CDM
Cameron Land
USCG
Jeff Wickenkanip CDM
Bob Balamut
USACE
Colleen Hughes
CDM
Sgt. Rick Erbacci
Police Marine Unit
Stephanie Brock
CDM
A. Ianello
IIPD
Nelson Chueng
CDOP
C:\Documents and SettIngslepausenLocal Settings\ Temporary Internet Files \OLK95 \031119 SAFETY MEETING NOTES.doc
Page
1 of 1
Diers, Stefanie
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Su!ski, Rob
Friday, February 29, 2008 8:51 AM
Diers, Stefanie
Twait, Scott
CAWS UAA Stakeholder Meeting Minutes
Attachments:
030130 HAC MEETING NOTES.doc; 030421 HAC Meeting Notes.doc; 031119 SAFETY
MEETING NOTES.doc
Here is a list of all the stakeholder meetings for which we have notes:
Jan. 30, 2003 meeting - Health AC
April 21, 2003 meeting - HAC
April 22, 2003 meeting - Stakeholders AC
June 24, 2003 meeting - SAC
July 22, 2003 meeting - SAC
Aug. 26, 2003 meeting - SAC
Oct. 28, 2003 meeting - SAC
Nov. 19, 2003 meeting - Safety and Navigational Constraints
Dec. 16, 2003 meeting - SAC (2) don't know which is final. One may be incomplete (Final is attached)
Jan. 27, 2004 meeting - SAC
Feb. 24, 2004 meeting - SAC
April 27, 2004 meeting - SAC (These are final, although we forgot to remove "Draft" from the header.)
I just realized that all the SAC meeting notes are posted on www.chicagoareawaterway.org
The attached are notes from two HAC meetings and one Safety meeting, which are not posted on the website.
2/29/2008
Memorandum
To:?
Toby Frevert, Illinois EPA
Rob Sulski, Illinois EPA
From: Ron French, CDM
Date:?
April 30, 2004
Subject: Minutes for the April 27, 2004 Stakeholder Advisory Committee
. Meeting
Attendees:
Rob Sulski
Illinois EPA
Dick Lanyon
MWRDGC
Toby Frevert
Illinois EPA
Albert Ettinger
ELPC/Sierra Club
Scott Twait
Illinois EPA
Nick Menninga
Greeley
&
Hansen
Colleen Hughes
CDM
Ed Hammer
USEPA
Ron French
CDM
Susan O'Connell
MWRDGC
Stephanie Brock
CDM
Linda Holst
USEPA
Lisa Frede
CICI
Steve Pescitelli
IDNR
Beth Wentzel
Prairie River Network
Howard Essig
IEPA
Janet Pellegrini
USEPA
Jeff Covinsky
IRCA/HMC
Fred Axley
FOCR
George Braam
Kudrna/IIPD
Nelson Chueng
Chicago - Planning
Sergio Serafino
MWRDGC
Todd Wildermuth
FOCR
Eleanor Roemen
FOTP
Julia Wozniak
Midwest Gen.
Joe Deal
City of Chicago
Brenda Carter
IERG
Aaron Rosinski
SE
11-,
Mardi Klevs
USEPA
Cathy Mudzik
Chicago Mayor's Office
On Tuesday, April 27, 2004 the Illinois EPA and CDM held a Stakeholder Advisory
Committee (SAC) meeting to discuss the progress of the Chicago Area Waterway System Use
Attainability Analysis (CAWS UAA). The meeting covered the following items:
■
Update on the QHEI habitat survey and IBI Analysis
■
Proposed Use Classifications and Standards
Q:\Meetings\SACW42704 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA April 27, 2004 SAC Meeting
April 30, 2004
Page 2
■
Letter to Municipalities and other groups soliciting information on projects affecting the
CAWS
■
Calumet-Sag Channel, Little Calumet River East, Little Calumet River West, Calumet River,
Lake Calumet and Grand Calumet Data and Uses Presentation and Discussion of
Attainable Uses and Management Options
■
Discussions on Lake Calumet, Bubbly Creek, North Branch Canal, various Slips and the
Grand Calumet River
■
Update on the Health Advisory Pamphlet and Sign Posting
■
Update from MWRD on analysis of various management options
Each agenda item is discussed in detail in the sections to follow. Individual presentations and
finalized meeting minutes are or will be posted on the project website at
www.chicagoareawaterways.org.
QHEI Habitat Survey and IBI Analysis
Overview of Habitat Surveys
Ed Rankin of the Center for Applied Bioassessment and Biocriteria and representatives of
USEPA and Illinois EPA conducted a QHEI habitat survey, which utilizes 25 habitat metrics,
at 23 sites along the CAWS between March 29 and April 2, 2004. The surveys were conducted
to supplement missing habitat data for the purposes of designated the aquatic life uses of the
CAWS. The following table outlines the narrative QHEI ranges and metrics that were used to
categorize CAWS reaches. Narrative ranges of the QHEI are helpful in understanding and
communicating the condition of the physical habitat of a waterbody and the ability of that
habitat to support aquatic life, especially fish assemblages.
Narrative ranges
of the QHEI based on a general ability of that
habitat to
suvnort a
q
uatic life.
Range
of
QHEI values
Narrative Description
75
Excellent
60-74
Good
46-59
Fair
30-45
Poor
<30
Very Poor
The following figure presents a box and whisker plot of QHEI scores by waterway reach
along with the narrative ranges for context. Ed Rankin concluded the following regarding the
habitat surveys:
QAMeetings \SAC \ 042704 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Excel wit
Very Poor
441
20
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA April 27, 2004 SAC Meeting
April 30, 2004
Page 3
"It is clear that the Chicago River and the North Branch of the Chicago River are the
most habitat limited of the waters we surveyed followed by the CSSC. In general, the
physical habitat quality of these waterways is reduced by lack of consistent flowing
water habitats, straight morphology of waterways (reduces habitat heterogeneity) and
the large scale of modifications throughout this system. This is above the influence of
any additional chemical stressors due to discharges, overflow, or urban runoff
events."
CIE? SL
?
Scares from Chica
' ea:Waterways
The following sections discuss the conclusions drawn from the QHEI habitat surveys for each
CAWS segment separately.
QAMeetings \SAC \ 042704 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA April 27, 2004 SAC Meeting
April 30, 2004
Page 4
Chicago River and South Branch Chicago River
■
Most limited habitat of all reaches
■
QHEI scores at all sites were very poor
■
No functional substrates
■
Cover or structure for critters nonexistent
■
Similar to the Cuyahoga River Ship canal in Ohio
■
In Ohio, would be classified as Limited Resource Water (LRW)
North Branch
of the Chicago River
■
Lower section similar to the Chicago River
■
Aquatic potential low
■
In Ohio, the Lower NBCR would be designated LRW
■
Upper NBCR similar to North Shore Channel
■
Limited littoral areas, more edge habitat and structure
■
In Ohio, the Upper NBCR would be classified as Modified Warmwater Habitat-
Channelized (MWH-C)
North Shore Channel
■
Poor to fair habitat conditions
■
Potential to support a tolerant assemblage of organisms adapted to non-flowing habitats
■
In Ohio, would be classified as MWH-C aquatic life use
Cal-Sag Channel
■
QHEI scores in the fair range
■
Leftover construction rubble contributed to littoral areas and instream structure
■
In Ohio, would be designated as MWH-C aquatic life use
Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal
■
Habitat ranged from very poor to poor
■
Capable of supporting tolerant species
■
Between Harlem and Cicero some shoreline shallows that support an Ohio MWH-C
■
Lower reaches are indicative of Ohio LRW
Calumet River and Little Calumet River
■
Habitat in the lower range of fair
■
These waterways had more variation in channel morphology than other CAWS reaches
■
Sites had limited substrate types
■
In Ohio, would be characterized as MWH-C
Ed Rankin developed the following summary conclusions of the CAWS reaches:
■
Waterways are limited by physical habitat, but the biological community is the ultimate
deciding factor in aquatic life use designations
Q:\Meetings\SAC1042704 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA April 27, 2004 SAC Meeting
April 30, 2004
Page 5
■
Major commercial uses, such as navigation, can add limiting influences
■
Urbanization and the permanent alteration of waterways have contributed to the physical
limitations of the CAWS
SAC members had the following comments regarding the QHEI habitat surveys:
■
Friends of the Chicago River and the City of Chicago established a wetland area at Lathrop
Homes and Diversey Avenue. They are thinking of performing similar habitat
enhancements on the North Branch Canal beside Goose Island. Illinois EPA is collecting
more information on these plans -and the timeframe of implementation in order to assess
the potential impacts on the UAA.
■
Illinois EPA pointed out that the QHEI habitat survey report does not mean there is no
potential for improving the existing habitat in the CAWS. In fact, there is potential for
habitat enhancement in the North Shore Channel as well as other reaches in the CAWS.
■
There were 23 habitat sample sites. Several SAC members felt this was a limited number of
sites for the CAWS area and wondered if the selected sites were representative of the
whole system. Illinois EPA and USEPA are confident that the sites are fairly
representative of the system. In fact, they feel that the sites may be better quality than the
entire reach.
■
A map of the QHEI sample sites will be developed and distributed with the final report.
Update on IBI Analysis
Based on comments received during the February 2004 SAC meeting the IBI scores were
recalculated using the Ohio boatable waters methods. Toby reiterated that IBI scores would
be used as a screening tool and not for regulatory enforcement. The following figure
illustrates the IBI scores and the QHEI habitat scores for CAWS sampling stations. The left
axis is the IBI score and the right axis is the QHEI score. There is no mathematical correlation
between the IBI scale and the QHEI scale. The figure also illustrates the location of several
significant point sources and the aeration stations.
SAC members had the following comments regarding the IBI analysis:
■
The Ohio Boatable IBI scores are lower than the Illinois IBI scores. However, interpretation
of the Ohio IBIs yields the same conclusions regarding aquatic life use designations.
■
The Ohio Boatable IBI methods were used to recalculate the IBI scores for the CAWS
reaches because the Illinois IBI methods are not appropriate for deep waterways over 100-
feet in width. Where as Ohio Boatable methods were developed specifically to address
deep waterways.
QAMeetings \SAC \ 042704 SAC MEETING NOTF_S.doc
E
a)
to
Northside WRP
IBI
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
75th :
Oercentile IBI
lot all sites
Median IBI of all sites
Fisk Stickney WRP
1?
1?
1
General
—75
—25
50
(x)
2=
N
2
-
E. O-
W, 8
75 ---;-- _.
6
cf)
cn C), =?
o
à
CI)
CO
0 6
u) u)
3
(5
li
To
co
0
CO
0
u)
0
u)
0 co
u)
0
(..)
Location
0
cc
0
ca
c
C
th
L
0.
00
a
Calumet WRP
QHEI
co
0
To
IL
•
rn
O
as
—J
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA April 27, 2004 SAC Meeting
April 30, 2004
Page 6
■ The Ohio IBI is adjusted for low-end scoring. Illinois EPA/CDM will clarify how the delt
anomalies are calculated.
Ohio Boatable Streams IBI (1993 – 2002)
and QHEI Scores (2004)
?
04)
The aquatic life use designation definitions were considered and altered slightly based on the
results of the habitat survey and recalculation of the IBIs using the Ohio Boatable Methods.
Details of the changes are provided in the following section.
Proposed Use Classifications and Standards
Proposed aquatic life use and recreational use classifications and standards were originally
presented during the December SAC meeting. Since that meeting the proposed classifications
and standards have undergone a series of 3 revisions based on comments received from
members of the SAC (see December, January and February SAC meeting minutes for a full
summary of comments).
Q:\Meefings\SAC1042704 SAC MEETING NOTF_S.doc
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA April 27, 2004 SAC Meeting
April 30, 2004
Page 7
Aquatic Life Use Designations
The
3
rd
Draft of the CAWS Water Quality Classifications and Standards still propose the
following three Aquatic Life Use designations:
■
General Use Warm-water Aquatic Life
■
Modified Warm-water Aquatic Life
■
Limited Warm-water Aquatic Life
The classification attributes of species composition, diversity, and functional organization are
measured using the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI). The IBI was used to evaluate the ecological
health of a stream. Metrics used to calculate the IBI include species richness, reproduction,
and tolerance measures. IBI scores are calculated by ecoregion and stream wetted width.
Ohio EPA currently utilizes a system similar to these proposed designations.
Each of the aquatic life use classifications includes narrative biological criteria such as species
composition and an IBI score. Biological criteria are based on diversity and abundance of
aquatic organisms found to inhabit a particular river sampling location (e.g. dominance of
native sunfish and minnow species) and reflect the health of a river when compared to a
similar unimpacted river in the same geographical region (e.g. IBI). They are used as a tool by
which state regulatory agencies can evaluate the biological health of a river and measure the
effectiveness of any management strategy to restore water quality and habitat. Additionally,
biological criteria compliment chemical criteria to protect designated uses.
Aquatic Life Use Classification definitions and corresponding IBI scores are provided below:
■
General Warm-water Aquatic Life - 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. The attributes of species
composition, diversity and functional organization will be measured using the Index of
Biotic Integrity (IBI)1
. The biological integrity of these waters are typically reflected by IBI
scores ranging between 29 and 45. Water quality standards as identified in 35IL Adm
Code Part 302, Subpart B: Sections 302.201 - 302.213 or more appropriate standards based
upon recent guidance shall be applied to protect the General Warm-water Aquatic Life
use designation.
■
Modified Warm-water Aquatic Life - These water are presently incapable 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
Q: \Meetings \ SAC\ 042704 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA April 27, 2004 SAC Meeting
April 30, 2004
Page 8
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. The
attributes of species composition, diversity and functional organization will be measured
using the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI)1
. The biological integrity of these waters are
typically reflected by IBI scores between 22 and 28. Water quality standards as identified
in 35IL Adm Code Part 302, Subpart B: Sections 302.201 - 302.213 or more appropriate
standards based upon recent guidance shall be applied to protect the Modified Warm-
water Aquatic Life use designation.
■
Limited Warm-water Aquatic Life - 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
hydrology. 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 common carp, central mudminnow, golden shiner, white
sucker, bluntnose minnow, yellow bullhead and green sunfish. These waters shall allow
for fish passage. The attributes of species composition, diversity and functional
organization can be measured by the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI)
1
. The biological
integrity scores for these waters typically range from 12 to 21. Water quality standards as
identified in 35IL Adm Code Part 302, Subpart B: Sections 302.201 - 302.213 or more
appropriate standards based upon recent guidance or habitat limitations shall be applied
to protect the Limited Warm-water Aquatic Life use designation. On a case-by-case basis,
General Use water quality criteria may be modified to protect the existing aquatic life use
designation.
1 The Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) shall be calculated using the Ohio IBI boatable water method
SAC members had the following comments during the meeting regarding the proposed
aquatic life use designations:
■
The Sierra Club is concerned that the aquatic life designated uses define what is currently
there and not what should be there. They are concerned that the use designations don't
describe the potential. CDM explained that the species listed in the designations are
based on the species that should be present in waters with the defined IBI ranges. They
are also based on the potential improvements from various proposed management
options.
■
SAC member would like clarification on the rule making process. Toby Frevert explained
that the use designations would be drafted based on the relative quality of the waters.
Q: \Meetings \SAC \ 042704 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA April 27, 2004 SAC Meeting
April 30, 2004
Page 9
There will be no IBI ranges in the proposed rule. The rules will simply explain the
qualifications a water body required to be listed in a particular category/designated use.
■
IBI ranges for the 3 aquatic life use designations are based on history (the 75
th percentile
and median of all the fish data collected from 1993-2003).
■
USEPA noted that waterbodies designated as Modified Warm-water Aquatic Life (MWAL)
and Limited Warm-water Aquatic Life (LWAL) must be evaluated every 3-years.
■
USEPA pointed out that the proposed rule will need to contain language which provides a
description of how and when the LWAL designation is violated because as it is currently
written (the low IBI score is 12) waters designated as LWAL would never register
impairments.
■
Toby Frevert reiterated that the IBI is a screening tool, but will not specifically list IBI scores
in the final proposed use designations.
■
There is a big debate between using the Ohio Boatable IBI and the Illinois IBI methods.
CDM/Illinois EPA will carefully consider the benefits and negatives of each method
before settling on a screening method for the designated uses.
Recreational Use Designations
The proposed recreational use designations did not change since the last draft. SAC members
had the following comments on the proposed recreational use designations:
■
SAC members wanted to clarify that disinfection would be necessary to meet the 2740 cfu
E. coli standard. At this point, it is unknown whether disinfection would be required at all
times for this standard.
■
The biggest issue governing the proposed E. coli standards is the cost of implementation of
disinfection. This will be evaluated and discussed in depth in the draft report.
Existing Recreational and Navigational Uses
Stephanie Brock of CDM presented the observed recreational and navigational uses of the
Grand Calumet, Little Calumet East, Little Calumet West, Calumet-Sag Channel, Lake
Calumet and the Calumet River.
Field observations; taken by Illinois EPA, CDM, Lake Michigan Federation, USEPA, and
MWRD were collected from June to October of 2003. Post card surveys were returned from 3
marinas/boat launches located on the Little Calumet East reach: The following table
summarizes the findings of the recreational use surveys.
Observed Grand Calumet Little Cal East Little Cal West
?
Cal-Sag
?
Lake Calumet
Q: \Meetings \SAC \ 042704 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA April 27, 2004 SAC Meeting
April 30, 2004
Page 10
Activitiy
Count
Percent Count Percent
Count
Percent Count
Percent
Count Percent
Swimming
0
0%
1
2%
0
0%
1
1%
1
4%
Jet Skiing
0
0%
5
7%
1
1%
7
4%
0
0%
Wading
0
0%
3
4%
3
2%
6
4%
0
0%
Canoeing
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
Fishing
2
100%
47
67%
89
61%
57
33%
22
96%
Power
Boating
0
0%
14
20%
54
36%
100
58%
0
0%
The postcard surveys returned for the Little Calumet East reach confirm the uses observed
during the field surveys.
There are no formal observations taken on the Calumet River. However, observations in
conjunction with the Calumet system indicate that existing activities include fishing, power
boating, and commercial navigation.
Water and Sediment Quality
Colleen Hughes of CDM presented the water and sediment quality data for Grand Calumet,
Little Calumet, Calumet-Sag Channel and Lake Calumet. A copy of this presentation is
available upon request and will be posted on the project website. Water and sediment quality
data were compared to proposed water quality standards for the proposed recreational and
aquatic life use classifications (General Use Standards) to identify constituents of concern and
resulted in the following use attainment screening summary.
Water Quality Use Attainment Screening
E. coli concentrations usually exceeded the proposed standards for Whole-Body Contact
Recreation in the Little Calumet East and exceeded both Whole-Body Contact Recreation and
the Limited Contact Recreation for the Cal-Sag Channel and LittleCalumet West. There is no
bacteria data available for the Grand Calumet or Lake Calumet. Dissolved oxygen, pH, total
silver, and dissolved nickel (chronic) are the constituents of concern for the Calumet River.
The constituents of concern for Little Calumet East include dissolved oxygen, ammonia
(chronic), total silver, and dissolved iron. The constituents of concern for Little Calumet West
include dissolved oxygen, pH, total silver, dissolved iron, dissolved nickel (chronic),
dissolved zinc (chronic), TDS, WAD cyanide (chronic), phenol, and fluoride. Dissolved
oxygen, ammonia (chronic, subchronic, acute), pH, total silver, dissolved iron, TDS, and
fluoride are the constituents of concern for the Cal-Sag Channel. High fluoride levels in the
Cal-Sag and Little Calumet West are attributed to high background groundwater levels.
Sediment Quality Criteria Guidelines
Sediment quality criteria guidelines were used to evaluate sediment quality data in the CAWS
as listed below.
Q:\MeetingslSAC \ 042704 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA April 27, 2004 SAC Meeting
April 30, 2004
Page 11
MacDonald (2000) Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology was used.
■
Threshold effects concentration (TEC) - Toxic to sensitive benthic organisms
■
Probable effects concentration (PEC) - Toxic to most benthic organisms
These guidelines are based on two concentrations that provide guidance regarding the
potential impact to aquatic organisms. The figure below illustrates the increase of potential
impact with increasing concentrations. The guidelines were used to screen sediment chemical
parameters. If chemical concentrations frequently exceeded both guidelines further
investigation such as bioassays are recommended to better understand the potential toxicity
of contaminated sediments to aquatic life.
Presumed
Toxic
PEC ER-M
Possibly
Toxic
TEC
/
ER-L
Presumed
Nontoxic
Sediment Quality Assessment
The following conclusions were drawn from the sediment chemistry analysis:
■
Metal concentrations are generally higher in the Grand Calumet than the Little Calumet
and Calumet-Sag Channel
■
Metal concentrations are generally lower at the mouth of the Grand Calumet compared to
the rest of the Grand Calumet system
■
Chromium, Copper, and Nickel concentrations are between the PEC and TEC guidelines at
most stations along the Cal-Sag Channel
■
Zinc and Lead concentrations exceed TEC and PEC guidelines at most stations along the
Cal-Sag
■
Cal-Sag metal concentrations are generally lower than Little Calumet
Q: \Meetings \SAC \ 042704 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Increasing
Concentration
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA April 27, 2004 SAC Meeting
April 30, 2004
Page 12
■ Lake Calumet sediments exhibit elevated levels of metals and PAHs likely due to historic
industrial activities
Several SAC members indicated that there may be more sediment data available for Lake
Calumet.
Biological and Habitat Conditions
Ron French of CDM presented biological data for the Calumet River, Little Calumet River,
Cal-Sag Channel, and the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. The following table summarizes
macroinvertebrate data for the selected segments from August 2001 and September 2002. •
Reach
Location
Number
of Species
Dominant Species
Calumet River
130th Street
18
Gammarus and chironomids
Little Calumet River
Halsted Street
14
tubificids,
Chironomids,
,
Gammarus
Cal-Sag
Channel
Cicero Avenue
16
Tubificids, leeches, chironomids
Chicago
Sanitary
an
and
Ship
Canal
Damen. Avenue
12
Tubificids and chironomids
Cicero Avenue
12
Tubificids
Harlem Avenue
7
Tubificids and leeches
The following table summarizes fish data for the selected segments.
Reach
Location
Number
of
Species
Dominant
Species
Cal-Sag/CSSC
Junction
U/S SEPA 5
8
gizzard shad, largemouth bass
D/S SEPA 5
15
gizzard shad, yellow bass, carp,
channel catfish
Cal-Sag at Worth
U/S
SEPA 4
11
Emerald shiner, carp.
(emerald shiner= 27)
D/S SEPA 4
16
Emerald shiner, gizzard shad, carp
and bluegill
(emerald shiner 229)
Cal-Sag at
Blue
Island
U/S SEPA 3
10
Carp, bluntnose minnow, emerald
shiner
D/S SEPA 3
15
emerald shiner, carp, yellow bass,
gizzard shad
Little Cal at 127th
Street
U/S SEPA 2
15
Emerald shiner, gizzard shad,
pumpkinseed, bluntnose minnow
D/S SEPA 2
17
Emerald shiner, bluegill, gizzard
shad, green sunfish, round goby
QAMeetings \SAC \ 042704 SAC MEETING NOTES.dcc
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA April 27, 2004 SAC Meeting
April 30, 2004
Page 13
There is no fish sample data on the Grand Calumet or Lake Calumet.
A copy of the biological and habitat presentation is available upon request and will be posted
on the project website.
Designated Use Classifications and Management Alternatives for
Bubbly Creek and the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal
There wag
a lengthy discussion regarding the purpose of the current analysis of designated
uses. Most SAC members believe that as the designated uses are defined at this time the
definition describes what is attained, not what is attainable. Ron French of CDM consented
that at this time the SAC is designating existing uses. After evaluation of management
options, it will be possible to designate proposed uses for the CAWS reaches. The following
table outlines the existing aquatic life and recreational use designations for the Chicago
System.
Existing
Designated
Use
Upper
North
Shore
Channel
Lower
Nort
.
h
Shor
Channel
Upper
North
Chicago
Branch
.
River
Lower
Chicago
Branch
North
.
.
River
Chicago
River
South
Branch
Chicago
River
Bubbly
.
Creek
CSSC
Whole-Body
Contact
Recreation
Limited
Contact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Recreation
Recreational
Navigation
X
General Use
Warm-Water
Aquatic Life
Modified
Warm-Water
Aquatic Life
XX
X
Inner
Harbor X
Cicero to
Harlem X
Limited Warm-
Water Aquatic
X
X
X
X
X
Life
X represents designations which changed after the Ohio Boatable IBI and QHEI data was analyzed
* Time Frame: 5- 10 years
Q:\Meetings\SAC1042704 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA April 27, 2004 SAC Meeting
April 30, 2004
Page 14
The following table outlines the existing aquatic life and recreational use designations for the
Calumet System.
Existing
Designated
Use
Grand
Calumet
Calumet-
East
Little
Calumet
West
Cal-Sag
Channel
Lake
Calumet
Calumet
River
Whole-Body
Contact
Recreation
Limited
Contact
X
X
X
X
X
X
Recreation
Recreational
Navigation
General Use
Warm-Water
Aquatic Life
Modified
Warm-Water
?
X
X
Aquatic Life
X
X
X
Limited Warm-
Water Aquatic
Life
SAC members had the following comments regarding designated uses:
■ The Chicago River is unlike other reaches because of its connection to Lake Michigan.
Although, the QHEI habitat survey results rank the Chicago River as the-reach with the
lowest habitat scores, the IBI scores for the sampling site in the Inner Harbor indicate that
the Chicago River has a diverse population of fish species. SAC members believe that
because the connection to the lake is essentially a permanent subsidy, it should be
recognized. At this point CDM/Illinois EPA has classified the Chicago River Reach as
LWAL. They suggested designating the reach as MWAL to acknowledge the connection
to the lake and the effect on fish species diversity. However, MWAL may not apply to the
entire Chicago River reach. CDM/Illinois EPA will evaluate the potential of splitting the
reach in two.
■ SAC members do not want the final report to characterize the designations as a consensus
decision because at this point the designated use classifications are indicative of what is
attained, not what is attainable. Illinois EPA/CDM will utilize the data on management
alternatives and upcoming projects scheduled for the CAWS to determine the attainable
use classifications for each reach.
QAMeetings \ SAC \ 042704 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA April 27, 2004 SAC Meeting
April 30, 2004
Page 15
■
Some SAC members suggested defining a 4 th aquatic life use designation to classify the
reaches connected to Lake Michigan (North Shore Channel at Sheridan, Chicago River
Inner Harbor, and the Calumet River). Illinois EPA/CDM will consider this in their
analysis; however, it may be more appropriate to split these reaches into smaller segments
to recognize the impact of their connection to Lake Michigan.
■
Ed Rankin's QHEI report suggested two habitat uses for the CSSC due to overhanging
vegetation/cover in the segment between Harlem and Cicero. He suggested that because
the IBI scores in this segment are very low and the habitat is adequate that there is some
influence besides habitat limiting fish species.
■
Lake Calumet consists of a blue-clay bottom with no structure. It is on average 6-inches
deep with the exception of a deep channel connecting the north end of the lake with the
Calumet River. There is no recent, reliable fish or macroinvertebrate data. However,
there is substantial projects planned which would influence the habitat. Based on CDM's
experience, it may be appropriate to designate Lake Calumet as MWAL and LCR.
The following management measures are proposed for the Chicago System reaches:
Management
Alternatives
Upper
North
Shore.
Channel
Lower
North
Shore
Channel
Upper
North
Branch
Chicago
River
Lower
North
Branch
Chicago
River
c_
a
River
ver
South
Branch
Chicago
River
Bubbly
Creek
CSSC
Flow
Augmentation
X
X
Aeration
X
X
X
X
X
X
Instream Habitat
Enhancement
Floatable
Control
REQUIRED
Sediment
Removal
?
Disinfection
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Other
The following management measures are proposed for the Calumet System reaches:
QAMeetings \SAC \ 042704 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA April 27, 2004 SAC Meeting
April 30, 2004
Page 16
Management
Alternatives
Grand
Calumet
Little
Calumet
East
Little
Calumet
West
Cal-Sag
Channel
Lake
Calumet
Calumet
River
Flow
Augmentation
Aeration
X
X
X
Instream Habitat
Enhancement
X
Floatable
Control
REQUIRED
Sediment
Removal
X
Disinfection
X
X
Other
The project team will include these management alternatives in the letter to MWRD.
SAC members had the following suggestions regarding management options:
The North Branch Canal, Collatoral Channel, and various slips will be handled as
addendums to other reaches. They will each be addressed in the final report.
■ USEPA suggested including sediment removal on various reaches in the final report
because this action will make it easier to negotiate funding for such activities.
Update on the Health Advisory Pamphlet
Janet Pellegrini of USEPA and Rob Sulski of Illinois EPA provided a summary of the current
status of the Health Advisory Pamphlet and Signage. Signs will be posted this summer on
properties owned/managed by MWRD. Comments from the City of Chicago caused a few
minor modifications to the signs. Additionally, MWRD will ask each of the tenants to
provide the pamphlet to users. A press release regarding the signage and pamphlets will be
published in May.
The distrubution plan for the pamphlets is still being developed. At this time, distribution
locations have been identified. MWRD has approximately 30 tenants that have agreed to
distribute the pamphlets. The Friends of the Chicago River will be distributing the pamphlet
to participants of the River Rescue Day on May 8. Illinois EPA plans to deliver pamphlets to
the private marinas located along the CAWS. The City of Chicago also plans to distribute
pamphlets through city events such as city meetings. Illinois EPA will also solicit assistance
from attendees of the upcoming public meetings.
Q:\ Meetings \ SAC 042704 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA April 27, 2004 SAC Meeting
April 30, 2004
Page 17
Update from MWRD
MWRD received the letter from Illinois EPA on March 12, 2004 outlining the various
management options which need to be considered on the CAWS. The management options
were outlined for the reaches from the North Shore Channel down to the South Branch of the
Chicago River. Illinois EPA is currently drafting a letter regarding the remaining reaches.
MWRD will submit a response letter with a schedule of deliverables to Illinois EPA by the
end of May.
MWRD plans to perform the following task related to the evaluation of disinfection at the
plants:
■
Conduct Risk Assessment (for this task they will need all of the use data collected on the
CAWS)
■
Collect additional fecal coliform data
■
Include fecal coliform in the water quality model (Marquette University)
■
Evaluation of EPA bacteria guidance
■
Investigate alternative technologies for disinfection - determine the residual effects of
chemical disinfection and the energy costs
MWRD will develop RFPs for the following tasks:
■
Risk assessment,
■
EPA guidance evaluation
■
Investigation of alternative technologies
MWRD expects these deliverables to be completed in mid-2005.
MWRD will perform the following tasks related to evaluation of aeration and flow
augmentation alternatives:
■
Construct additional model elements (Marquette University)
■
Investigate the impacts between alternative technologies for DO and chemical treatments
MWRD expects these deliverables to be completed by summer 2005.
Q:\Meetings\SAC\042704 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA April 27, 2004 SAC Meeting
April 30, 2004
Page 18
Announcements
The next SAC meeting will be held August 24, 2004. This meeting will cover an overview of
the draft report. An agenda will be developed and distributed to SAC members prior to the
next meeting. Please note the CAWS UAA web site, www.chicagoareawaterways.org, is
operational
Public meetings will be held on May 10 in Evanston at the Evanston Ecology Center, on May
11 at 12:00 p.m. at the State of Illinois Building in downtown Chicago, on May 11 at 7:00 p.m.
at the Thompson Center in downtown Chicago, and on May 13 at the Southeast
Environmental Task Force offices in the Lake Calumet area. The recommended use
designations and suggested water quality standards, including incorporation of SAC
comments and suggestions, will be presented.
CC:
Scott Twait
Illinois EPA
Nick Menninga
Greeley
&
Hansen
Colleen Hughes
CDM
Ed Hammer
USEPA
Lisa Frede
CICI
Susan O'Connell
MWRDGC
Beth Wentzel
Prairie River Network
Linda Hoist
USEPA
Janet Pellegrini
USEPA
Steve Pescitelli
IDNR
Fred Axley
FOCR
Howard Essig
IEPA
Nelson Chueng
Chicago - Planning
Jeff Covinsky
IRCA/HMC
Todd Wildermuth
FOCR
George Braam
Kudata/IIPD
Julia Wozniak
Midwest Gen.
Sergio Serafino
MWRDGC
Brenda Carter
IERG
Eleanor Roemen
FOTP
Mardi Klevs
USEPA
Joe Deal
City of Chicago
Dick Lanyon
MWRDGC
Aaron Rosinski
Sblb
Albert Ettinger
ELPC/Sierra Club
Cathy Mudzik
Chicago Mayor's Office
QAMeetingskSACI042704 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
April 16, 2004 Draft
Memorandum
To:
?
Toby Frevert, Illinois EPA
Rob Sulski, Illinois EPA
From: Ron French, CDM
Date:?
April 14, 2004
Subject: Minutes for the February 24, 2004 Stakeholder Advisory Committee
Meeting
Attendees:
Rob Sulski
Illinois EPA
Paul Zwijack
Corn Products
Toby Frevert
Illinois EPA
Julia Wozniak
Midwest Gen.
Scott Twait
Illinois EPA
Brenda Carter
IERG
•
Colleen Hughes
CDM
Bill Constantelos
Midwest Gen.
Ron French
CDM
Mardi Klevs
USEPA
Stephanie Brock
CDM
Dick Lanyon
MWRDGC
Lisa Frede
CICI
Albert Ettinger
ELPC/Sierra Club
Beth Wentzel
Prairie River Network
Nick Menninga
Greeley
&
Hansen
Janet Pellegrirui
USEPA
Ed Hammer
USEPA
Fred Axley
FOCR
Dave Pfeifer
USEPA
Nelson Chueng
Chicago - Planning
Susan O'Connell
MWRDGC
Todd Wildermuth
FOCR
Sid Osakada
Chicago - DWM
On Tuesday, February 24, 2004, the Illinois EPA and CDM held a Stakeholder Advisory
Committee (SAC) meeting to discuss the progress of the Chicago Area Waterway System Use
Attainability Analysis (CAWS UAA). The meeting reviewed data presented during the
January SAC meeting on three CAWS reaches at the northern end of the project area;
presented data on three additional reaches; and covered the following items:
■
IBIs and UAAs in Boatable Waters
■
Update on Proposed Use Classifications and Standards
Q: \ Meetings \ SAC \ 022404 SAC MEETING NOTES final. doc
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA February 24, 2004 SAC Meeting
April 16, 2004 Draft
Page 2
■
Data, Current Uses Presentation and Discussion of Attainable Uses and Management
Options for South Fork of the South Branch and Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal
Each agenda item is discussed in detail in the sections that follow. Individual presentations
and finalized meeting minutes are or will be posted on the project website at
www.chicagoareawaterways.org.
IBIs and UAAs in Boatable Waters
Overview
Chris Yoder from the Midwest Biodiversity Institute and Center for Applied Bioassessment
and Biocriteria presented an overview of UAA considerations for non-wadeable rivers and
streams. A copy of the presentation can be downloaded from the CAWS UAA website, and
a summary of the presentation's main points follows here.
The goal of the Clean Water Act (CWA) is the restoration of the chemical, physical and
biological integrity of degraded waters. Water quality standards are the basis for the water
quality management strategies of the CWA, and they provide the basis for implementing
controls and management procedures such as UAAs and total maximum daily loads
(TMDLs).
Chris Yoder outlined Ohio's Water Quality Standards, which are based on narrative uses and
chemical and biological criteria. The uses are established by demonstrating potential
attainment of biological criteria through a comparison of habitat assessments and regional
reference condition. In this comparison "potential" means potential under restored
conditions.
Ohio has four aquatic life use designations:
■
Exceptional Warmwater Habitat (EWH): preserve and maintain existing high quality
■
Warmwater Habitat (WWH): basic restoration goal for most streams
■
Modified Warmwater Habitat (MWH): best attainable conditions for streams under
drainage maintenance or other essentially permanent hydromodifications (e.g.
impoundments).
■
Limited Resource Waters (LRW): essentially irretrievable, human induced (e.g. widespread
watershed modifications) or naturally occurring conditions (e.g. ephemeral flow).
The use system was developed in 1978 as a customized and cost effective water quality
management tool and addresses 6 UAA non-compliance conditions except human induced
conditions and hydromodifications.
Q:\Meetings\SAC\022404 SAC MEETING NOTES final.doc
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA February 24, 2004 SAC Meeting
April 16, 2004 Draft
Page 3
Biological criteria consist of narrative ratings or numerical values and are based on the
numbers and assemblages of aquatic organisms found to inhabit a particular stream or river
sampling location. They are indexed to the reference assemblage of aquatic organisms within
a particular geographic region (i.e., ecoregion), taking into consideration stream and river
size. Finally, they represent a calibrated assessment tool that fosters an organized goal setting
process that can be used to reconcile human impacts and guide restoration efforts. J.R. Karr
developed the IBI in 1981.
The Ohio IBI calibration and biocriteria derivation process adheres to the following steps:
I. Select sample and reference sites
II.
Calibrate IBI metrics
III.
Modify calibrated IBI for Ohio waters
IV.
Establish ecoregional patterns and expectations
V.
Derive numeric biocriteria (codify in water quality standards)
VI.
Use Numeric biocriteria in bioassessrnents
To assess impounded sites, Ohio utilized local knowledge and regional experience to guage
potential. Their calibration references only the least impacted sites.
SAC members made the following comments to Yoder's presentation.:
■
There are very few cold water designated uses in Ohio.
■
SAC members asked if Ohio has developed recreational use designations. Ohio has three
recreational use designations. Bathing applies to sanctioned bathing areas only, primary
protects against full body emersion for children, and secondary safeguards areas where
wading is possible.
■
Concerns were raised about how riparian vegetation is evaluated or accounted for (e.g.,
scaled or weighted) and to what extent it is a factor in the study. Riparian condition is one
of the eight factors evaluated in a QHEI habitat analysis.
Proposed Use Classifications and Standards
Proposed aquatic life use and recreational use classifications and standards were originally
presented during the December SAC meeting. The initial proposed classifications and
standards have since been updated to include comments provided during and following the
meeting (see December and January SAC meeting minutes for a full summary of comments).
QAMeetings \ SAC \ 022404 SAC MEETING NOTES final.doc
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA February 24, 2004 SAC Meeting
April 16, 2004 Draft
Page 4
Aquatic Life Use Designations
At this time, three Aquatic Life Use designations are proposed:
■
General Use Warm-water Aquatic Life
■
Modified Warm-water Aquatic Life
■
Limited Warm-water Aquatic Life
Each of the aquatic life use classifications includes narrative biological criteria such as species
composition and an IBI score. Biological criteria are based on diversity and abundance of
aquatic organisms found to inhabit a particular river sampling location (e.g. dominance of
native sunfish and minnow species) and reflect the health of a river relative to a minimally
impacted river in the same geographical region (e.g. IBI). These criteria are used as a tool by
which state regulatory agencies can evaluate the biological health of a river and measure the
effectiveness of any management strategy to restore water quality and habitat. Additionally,
biological criteria compliment chemical criteria to protect designated uses.
Aquatic Life Use Classification definitions and corresponding IBI scores are provided below:
■
General Warm-water Aquatic Life - The level of protection necessary to protect surface
waters for the year-round maintenance of balanced and diverse warm-water fish and
macroinvertebrate communities. A significant proportion of the fish community consists
of native species dominated by intolerant and moderately intolerant sunfishes, minnows
and suckers. This community may include mimic shiner, spotfin shiner, brook
stickleback, longnose dace, hornyhead chub, smallmouth buffalo and smallmouth bass.
The attributes of species composition, diversity and functional organization will be
measured using the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI)
1
. Water quality standards (as identified
in 351L Adm. Code Part 302, Subpart B: Sections 302.201 - 302.213), or more appropriate
standards based upon recent guidance, shall be applied to protect the General Warm-
water Aquatic Life use designation.
■
Modified Warm-water Aquatic Life - These waters are incapable of supporting and
maintaining a balanced, integrated, adaptive community of a warm-water fish and
macroinvertebrate community due to irretrievable modifications of the channel
morphology, hydrology and physical habitat. Such structural modifications are long-
standing (i.e., twenty years or longer) and may include artificially constructed channels
designed to carry storm and wastewater or stream channels consisting of sheet-pile,
concrete, or riprap walls. Hydrological modifications include artificially controlled water
discharges and levels. The fish community in these waters is dominated by moderately
tolerant minnows, sunfishes, catfishes and suckers, which may include spottail shiner,
emerald shiner, black bullhead, orange-spotted sunfish, largemouth bass, bluegill, and
black crappie. The attributes of species composition, diversity and functional
Q: \ Meetings \SAC \ 022404 SAC MEETING NOTES final.doc
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA February 24, 2004 SAC Meeting
April 16, 2004 Draft
Page 5
organization will be measured using the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI)1 . Water quality
standards (as identified in 35IL Adm. Code Part 302, Subpart B: Sections 302.201 -
302.213), or more appropriate standards based upon recent guidance, shall be applied to
protect the Modified Warm-water Aquatic Life Use designation.
■ Limited Warm-water Aquatic Life - These waters are not capable of sustaining a wide
variety of warm-water fish (including recreationally important games species) and
macroinvertebrates due to irreversible impacts on water quality, physical habitat, channel
morphology and artificial control of water discharges and levels results in substantial
impairment of the biological condition of the water body. The fish community in these
waters is dominated by primarily tolerant and exotic species including common carp,
central mudmirmow, golden shiner, white sucker; fathead minnow, bluntnose minnow,
yellow bullhead, and green sunfish. Intolerant species are absent. The attributes of
species composition, diversity and functional organization will be measured using the
Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI)
1
. Water quality standards (as identified in 35IL Adm. Code
Part 302, Subpart B: Sections 302.201 - 302.213), or more appropriate standards based
upon recent guidance or habitat limitations, shall be applied to protect the Limited Warm-
water Aquatic Life Use designation.
1 The Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) shall be calculated using the Ohio IBI boatable water method
The techniques for calculating the IBI were overviewed at the December and January SAC
meeting. Using IBI scores to determine biological integrity of CAWS is challenging because
the region lacks an appropriate reference reach; CAWS is a man-made system that was not
constructed to provide habitat for fish. Therefore, IBI scores will be calculated using the Ohio
boatable waters methods and will be used as a screening tool and not for regulatory
enforcement. Figure 1 illustrates the first attempt to use IBI scores for screening purposes.
However, due to comments received, the IBI scores for the CAWS data collected between
1974 and 1996 will be calculated using Ohio IBI methods. An overview of the analysis will be
presented during the April SAC Meeting.
Q: \Meetings\SAC \ 022404 SAC MEETING NOTES finel.cloc
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA February 24, 2004 SAC Meeting
April 16, 2004 Draft
Page 6
Figure 1
45 –
40
35 –
30 –
25 –
20 –
15 –
Box-Whisker Plot of IBI Scores for CAWS Fish
Sampling Locations 1974-1996
General WAL
Modified WAL
Limited WAL
T
s
1-
-r
_s.
-L.
!Sill!
?
i
g
2?
4?
g
2
-I
AL
1.
ZAR A3
`6]
N?
6
2 ,„.
Luc,
?
2?
z?
1
SAC members had the following comments during the meeting regarding the proposed
aquatic life use designations:
■
SAC members wanted to know if the Ohio IBI adjusts for low-end values. Ron French and
Chris Yoder indicated they would follow up on this issue, but Yoder said that these values
might need to be adjusted manually.
■
Midwest Generation and the Sierra Club representatives asked for clarification on the
implications of halting lake diversion and other physical modifications to the system.
Illinois EPA indicated that the flow augmentation management measures would address
flow diversion issues through approximately the next ten years. If the physical alterations
are feasible and applicable during the timeframe of the study, the UAA team will address
them during development of management measures. Illinois EPA also reminded SAC
members of the importance keeping the UAA team informed of planned or potential
projects on CAWS because such projects could support or interfere with the proposed
designated use classifications.
■
Several SAC members indicated that it is extremely difficult to estimate IBI and biological
integrity potential without habitat data. After a long discussion, USEPA agreed to hire
Ed Rankin to evaluate the habitat using QHEI methods at each of the MWRD fish
sampling sites before the April SAC meeting. IEPA, CDM and MWRD expressed a
willingness to lend assistance.
QAMeetings \SAC \ 022404 SAC MEETING NOTES final.doc
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA February 24, 2004 SAC Meeting
April 16, 2004 Draft
Page 7
■
Midwest Generation is not comfortable with defining specific species associated with each
of the designated use classifications. CDM, however, recommends the species definitions
remain included because they are built in to the new IEPA and Ohio EPA methods.
Midwest Generation further contends that unless there has been a recent change in Ohio
policy that has not yet been published, there is no specific listing of species associated
with any given aquatic life use in their Ohio regulations. CDM will address this
comment.
Recreational Use Designations
There are three proposed recreational use designations. These were discussed in depth
during the December SAC meeting (see December SAC Meeting Minutes). However, based
on comments received following the December meeting, the proposed E.
coli
standards were
revised as follows:
■
Whole-Body Contact Recreation - Protects for routine, prolonged and intimate contact uses
including swimming and water-skiing. Protection would require attainment of a
geometric mean of 126 cfu and a daily maximum of 576 cfu E.
coli
(selected on the basis of
8 illnesses per thousand contacts). These whole-body contact recreation criteria shall
apply only during the defined recreational period of May 1 through October 31.
■
Limited Contact Recreation - Protects for incidental or accidental body contact uses, during
which the probability of ingesting appreciable quantities of water
is
minimal, including
recreational boating (kayaking, canoeing, jet skiing), and any limited contact incident to
shoreline activity, such as wading and fishing. Protection would require attainment of a
30-day geometric mean of 1030 cfu E.
coli
(selected on the basis of 10 illnesses per
thousand contacts). These limited-body contact recreation criteria shall apply only during
the defined recreational period of May 1 through October 31.
■
Recreational Navigation - Protects 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 of 2740 cfu
E. coli
(selected on the bases of 14
illnesses per thousand contacts). These limited-body contact recreation criteria shall apply
only during the defined recreational period of May 1 through October 31.
SAC members had the following comments on the proposed recreational use designations:
■
USEPA will accept 14 illnesses per 1000 contacts for calculation of the E.
coli
standard for
the Recreation Navigation use designation.
■
Several SAC members recommended setting the recreation season from March to
November to protect for sculling and other activities that occur on the North Shore
Channel and on Bubbly Creek. The UAA team will evaluate the impacts of this and
determine the feasibility. The extended recreation season may only be necessary for the
QAMeetings\ SAC \ 022404 SAC MEETING NOTES final.doc
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA February 24, 2004 SAC Meeting
April 16, 2004 Draft
Page 8
North Shore Channel and Bubbly Creek and may therefore only affect disinfection at the
North Side Plant.
Existing Recreational and Navigational Uses
Stephanie Brock of CDM presented the observed recreational and navigational uses of Bubbly
Creek and the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal.
Field observations taken by Illinois EPA, CDM, Lake Michigan Federation, USEPA, and
MWRD were collected from June to October of 2003. There were no post card surveys
returned from marinas and boat launches located in or around Bubbly Creek or the Chicago
Sanitary and Ship Canal reach. The following table summarizes the findings of the
recreational use surveys. The data for the South Branch Chicago River is included in Table 1
to illustrate the potential for canoeing, skulling and kayaking on Bubbly Creek.
Table 1
Observed
Activity
Chicago
Sanitary
and Ship Canal
South Branch
Chica o
River
Bubbly Creek
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
Swimming
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
Jet
Skiing
0
0%
5
3%
0
0%
Wading
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
Canoeing
1
2%
10
6%
0
0%
Fishing
16
30%
66
39%
0
0%
Power
Boating
37
69
89
52%
100%
Water and Sediment Quality
Colleen Hughes of CDM presented the water and sediment quality data for Bubbly Creek and
the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. A copy of this presentation is available upon request
and will be posted on the project website. Water and sediment quality data were compared
to proposed water quality standards for the proposed recreational and aquatic life use
classifications (General Use Standards) to identify constituents of concern. The results of the
screening are summarized in the following discussions.
Background
E. coli
and Fecal Conform Conditions
Fecal coliform and
E. coli
data from the sampling station located on the Middle Fork of the
North Branch of the Chicago River at Lake-Cook Road was analyzed to determine if dry-
weather conditions met proposed water quality standards for E.
coli
and fecal coliform. This
station was selected because there are no upstream CSO or WRP discharges. Results indicate,
however, that even during dry weather the
E. coli
and fecal coliform levels are elevated above
QAMeetings\ SAC \ 022404 SAC MEETING NOTES final.doc
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA February 24, 2004 SAC Meeting
April 16, 2004 Draft
Page 9
proposed water quality standards. This is likely due to very low dry-weather flows (less than
1 cfs peak flows) and the presence of a large population of waterfowl in the area; the station is
therefore not necessarily indicative of background conditions. USEPA expressed that they
have data and graphs showing that bacteria levels drop as water travels downstream of
WRPs. MWRD has provided a report suggesting the same.
Water Quality Use Attainment Screening
Fecal coliform and
E. coli
concentrations often exceeded the proposed standards for Whole-
Body Contact Recreation, Limited Contact Recreation, and Recreational Navigation.
Dissolved oxygen, temperature, ammonia (chronic), pH, total silver, total iron, and dissolved
zinc are the concerning factors for Bubbly Creek. The parameters of concern for the Chicago
Sanitary and Ship Canal are dissolved oxygen, temperature, ammonia (chronic, Sub chronic,
acute), pH, total silver, total iron, total manganese, dissolved nickel, dissolved zinc, TDS, and
WAD cyanide (chronic).
Sediment Quality Criteria Guidelines
Sediment quality criteria guidelines were used to evaluate sediment quality data in the CAWS
as listed below.
MacDonald (2000) Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology was used.
■
Threshold Effects Concentration (TEC) - Toxic to sensitive benthic organisms
■
Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) - Toxic to most benthic organisms
The guidelines are based on two screening levels for various sediment chemical parameters.
Figure 2 illustrates the increase of potential impact with increasing chemical concentrations.
If concentrations frequently exceeded both screening levels, further investigation such as
bioassays are recommended to better understand the potential toxicity of the contaminated
sediments to aquatic life.
Q: \Meetings \SAC \022404 SAC MEETING NOTES final. doc
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA February 24, 2004 SAC Meeting
April 16, 2004 Draft
Page 10
Figure 2
Increasing
Concentration
Presumed
Toxic
Possibly
Toxic
Presumed
Nontoxic
PEC I ER-M
TEC f ER-L
Sediment Quality Assessment
The following conclusions were drawn from the sediment chemistry analysis:
■
Metal concentrations, with the exception of lead, generally increase going downstream on
the CSSC from Bubbly Creek to Lockport Powerhouse
■
Collatoral Channel and CSSC generally have higher metals concentrations than Bubbly
Creek
■
Cadmium, Copper, Lead, Mercury and Zinc concentrations exceed both the TEC and PEC
guidelines at most stations
■
Concentrations of Cadmium, Chromium, and Nickel in Bubbly Creek are between the PEC
and TEC guidelines and are generally above both guidelines along CSSC
SAC members inquired about sediment removal from Bubbly Creek. Illinois EPA indicated
that because sediment removal plans are not within the five to ten year time frame, this issue
is not being considered for the current UAA.
QAMeetings \ SAC \ 022404 SAC MEETING NOTES final.doc
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA February 24, 2004 SAC Meeting
April 16, 2004 Draft
Page 11
Biological and Habitat Conditions
Ron French of CDM presented biological and habitat data for Bubbly Creek. Table 2
summarizes fish data for the selected segments from August 2002. However, the data was
collected over only a 400 meter reach, which represents a small sample size.
Table 2
Segment
Location
Number of
Species
Dominant Species
•
Bubbly Creek
Archer Avenue
4
Carp, gizzard shad, largemouth bass,
pumpkin seed
.
There is no fish sample data on CSSC and no macroinvertebrate or habitat data available for
Bubbly Creek and the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. Again, it was announced that
USEPA, rEPA and MWRD will perform QHEI habitat surveys at each of the fish sampling
locations prior to the April SAC meeting.
A copy of the biological and habitat presentation is available upon request and will be posted
on the project website.
Designated Use Classifications and Management Alternatives for
Bubbly Creek and the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal
SAC members proposed the following potential use designations for these reaches (Table 3):
Table 3
Proposed Designated
Use
Bubbly Creek
Chicago
Sanitary and
Shi
Ship
Can al
Whole-Body
Contact
Contact
Recreatio
Limited Contact
Recreation
X
Recreational
Navigation
X
X
General Use Warm-
Water Aquatic Life
Q: \ Meetings \SAC \ 022404 SAC MEETING NOTES final.doc
Modified Warm-Water
Aquatic Life
Limited Warm-Water
Aquatic Life
7
X
X
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA February 24, 2004 SAC Meeting
April 16, 2004 Draft
Page 12
Table 4 lists the management measures proposed for Bubbly Creek and CSSC:
Table 4
Management
Alternatives
Bubbly Creek
Chicago Sanitary and
Ship Canal
Flow Augmentation
X
Aeration
X
X
Instreain Habitat
Enhancement
?
Sediment Removal
?
TARP Capture
Priorities
NOT ABLE TO EVALUATE AT THIS TIME
Disinfection
X
X
Other
_
The project team will include these management alternatives in the letter to MWRD.
Announcements
USEPA and Illinois EPA plan to conduct QHEI habitat evaluations at each of the MWRD fish
sampling locations before the April SAC meeting. The results of the habitat analysis and
calculations of the Ohio IBI scores will be presented then.
The next SAC meeting will be held April 27, 2004. This meeting will cover the remaining
reaches including the Calumet River, Lake Calumet, Grand Calumet River, Little Calumet
River, and the Calumet-Sag Channel. An agenda will be developed and distributed to SAC
members prior to the next meeting. Please note the CAWS UAA web site,
www.chicagoareawaterways.org, is operational.
QAMeetings \ SAC \ 022404 SAC MEETING NOTES tinal.doc
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA February 24, 2004 SAC Meeting
April 16, 2004 Draft
Page 13
Public meetings will be held on May 10 in Evanston at the Evanston Ecology Center, on May
11 at 12:00 p.m. at the State of Illinois Building in downtown Chicago, on May 11 at 7:00 p.m.
at the Thompson Center in downtown Chicago, and on May 13 at the Southeast
Environmental Task Force offices in the Lake Calumet area. The recommended use
designations and suggested water quality standards, including incorporation of SAC
comments and suggestions, will be presented.
CC:
Scott Twait
Illinois EPA
Brenda Carter
IERG
Colleen Hughes
CDM '
Bill Constantelos
Midwest Gen.
Ron French
CDM
Mardi Klevs
USEPA
Stephanie Brock
CDM
Dick Lanyon .
MWRDGC
Lisa Frede
CICI
Albert Ettinger
ELPC/Sierra Club
Beth Wentzel
Prairie River Network
Nick Menninga
Greeley
&
Hansen
Janet Pellegrini
USEPA
Ed Hammer
USEPA
Fred Axley
FOCR
Dave Pfeifer
USEPA
Nelson Chueng
Chicago - Planning
Susan O'Connell
MWRDGC
Todd Wildermuth
FOCR
Sid Osakada
Chicago - DWM
Paul Zwijack
Corn Products
Previous SAC Attendees
Julia Wozniak
Midwest Gen.
Q: \Meetings \
SAC1022404 SAC MEETING NOTES final.doc
Memorandum
To:?
Toby Frevert, Illinois EPA
Rob Sulski, Illinois EPA
From: Ron French, CDM
Date:?
February 18, 2004
Subject: Minutes for the January 27, 2004 Stakeholder Advisor)/ Committee
Meeting
Attendees:
Rob Sulski
Illinois EPA
Rebecca Rader
Hill & Knowlton
Howard Essig
Illinois EPA
Jeff Covinsky
HMC/IRCA
Toby Frevert
Illinois EPA
Roger Dausman
III. Port District
Colleen Hughes
CDM
Laurel O'Sullivan
LMF
Ron French
CDM
Julia Wozniak
Midwest Gen.
Stephanie Brock
CDM
Bill Constantelos
Midwest Gen.
Todd King
CDM
Susan O'Connell
MWRDGC
Nelson Chueng
Chicago - Planning
Dick Lanyon
MWRDGC
Lisa Frede
CICI
Beth Wentzel
Prairie River Network
Joe Deal
City of Chicago
Michelle Gurgas
Sierra Club
Paul Zwijack
Corn Products
Tzachying Su
USACE
Bob Foster
CPD
Janet Pellegrini
USEPA
Greg Seegert
EA Engineering
Ed Hammer
USEPA
Todd Wildermuth
FOCR
Dave Pfeifer
USEPA
Fred Axley
FOCR
Peter Howe
USEPA
Nick Menninga
Greeley & Hansen
Allen Burton
Wright State University
On Tuesday, January 27, 2004 the Illinois EPA and CDM held a meeting of the Stakeholder
Advisory Committee (SAC) to discuss the progress of the Chicago Area Waterway System
Use Attainability Analysis (CAWS UAA). The meeting reviewed data presented during the
December SAC meeting on three CAWS reaches at the northern end of the project area,
presented data on three additional reaches, and covered the following items:
■
Overview of the Rain Blocker Program
■
Review and Discussion of Proposed Use Classifications and Standards
■
Upper North Shore Channel, Lower North Shore Channel, and Upper North Branch of the
Chicago River Data Summary and Discussion of Attainable Uses and Management
Options
QAMeetings \SAC \ 012704 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA January 27, 2004 SAC Meeting
February 18, 2004
Page 2
■ Lower North Branch of the Chicago River, the Chicago River, and the South Branch of the
Chicago River Data and Uses Presentation and Discussion of Attainable Uses and
Management Options
Each agenda item is discussed in detail in the sections to follow. Individual presentations and
finalized meeting minutes are or will be posted on the project website at
www.chicagoareawaterways.org.
Rain Blocker Program
Overview
Joe Deal, City of Chicago, discussed the objectives and successes of the City of Chicago's Rain
Blocker Program and overviewed the City's plans for increasing green infrastructure within
the city limits. The Rain Blocker Program was designed and implemented to store water in
the streets in order to solve problems, such as CSO events, caused by an overburdened CSO
system. The program included restricting storm runoff into 180,000 catch basins located
within the city limits. In most cases, restrictors were installed within the catch basin to restrict
inflow and increase street storage during storm events. The success of the program is
illustrated by a reduction of complaints. In fact, a storm in August 2002 generated 10% of the
number of complaints generated by a same size storm in past years.
The City of Chicago is also encouraging green infrastructure projects and retrofits throughout
the city. Green infrastructure projects include: downspout disconnection, green roofs, median
planters, green alleys, cisterns, rain gardens, site design, permeable pavement, landscape
ordinance, and the CitySpace Program. The CitySpace Program is designed to manage and
reduce inputs to the stormwater system through stormwater BMPs. In the last six years, the
City has encouraged the diversion of clean (treated) stormwater to waterways. An example,
is the Lake Shore East Development which treats its stormwater prior to releasing it to the
waterways.
A SAC member inquired about the City's plans to develop a plan to address water quality in
the CAWS or any changes in ordinances. On the record, the Mayor's office supports
upgrades to the CAWS, but at this time they have not developed or outlined any specific
indicators.
Proposed Use Classifications and Standards
Proposed aquatic life use and recreational use classifications and standards were originally
presented during the December SAC meeting. Since that meeting the proposed classifications
and standards have been updated to include comments provided during and following the
meeting (see December SAC meeting minutes for a full summary of comments).
Aquatic Life Use Designations
At this time, three Aquatic Life Use designations are proposed:
QAMeetings \SAC \ 012704 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA January 27, 2004 SAC Meeting
February 18, 2004
Page 3
■
General Use Warm-water Aquatic Life
■
Modified Warm-water Aquatic Life
■
Limited Warm-water Aquatic Life
The classification attributes of species composition, diversity, and functional organization are
measured using the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI). The IBI was used to evaluate the ecological
health of a stream. Metrics used to calculate the IBI include species richness, reproduction,
and tolerance measures. IBI scores are calculated by ecoregion and stream wetted width.
Ohio EPA currently utilizes a system similar to these proposed designations.
The IBI approach presented at the meeting attempted to calculate the potential IBI (or
potential of the waterway reach to support a higher level of species diversity based on all
years of fish data collected) for a given CAWS reach. The potential IBI is a composite
calculation of all species of fish ever collected in a given reach. The analysis found that the
highest potential IBI scores occurred in CAWS reaches connected to Lake Michigan. The IBI
potential was proposed as a screening tool for what could occur and strives to assist
stakeholders in prescribing attainable aquatic life use classifications for CAWS. CDM and
Illinois EPA will be holding a meeting with Illinois DNR and USEPA to present the methods
and gain consensus on the approach. Definitions and corresponding IBI scores are provided
below:
■
General Use Warm-water Aquatic Life - The level of protection necessary to protect surface
water for the year around maintenance of a balanced and diverse warm-water fish and
macroinvertebrate community. The biological integrity of these waters are reflected by
IBI scores between 38 and 50. Water quality standards
as
identified in 35 IL Adm. Code
Part 302, Subpart B: Sections 302.201 - 302.213 or more appropriate standards based upon
recent guidance shall be applied to protect this designation.
■
Modified Warm-water Aquatic Life - These waters are incapable of supporting and
maintaining a balanced, integrated, adaptive community of a warm-water fish and
macroinvertebrate community due to irretrievable modifications of the channel
morphology, hydrology and physical habitat. Such modifications are of a long-duration
(i.e. 20 years or longer) and may include the following examples: stream channels
consisting of sheet-pile, concrete and rip-rap walls; and artificially constructed channels to
carry stormwater and wastewater. Hydrological modification includes artificially
controlled water discharges and levels. Such waters are suitable for stocking of
recreationally important game fish. The biological integrity of these waters are reflected
by IBI scores between 21 and 37. Water quality standards as identified in 35 IL Adm.
Code Part 302, Subpart B: Sections 302.201 - 302.213 or more appropriate standards based
upon recent guidance shall be applied to protect this designation.
Q: \Meetings \ S AC1012704 SAC MEETING NOTES. doc
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA January 27, 2004 SAC Meeting
February 18, 2004
Page 4
■
Limited Warm-water Aquatic Life - These waters are not capable of sustaining a wide
variety of warm-water fish (including recreationally important game species) and
macroinvertebrates due to poor habitat or irreversible water quality impacts on water
quality, physical habitat, channel morphology and artificial control of water discharge and
levels that result in substantial impairment of the biological condition of the water body.
The biological integrity of these waters are reflected by IBI scores <21. Water quality
standards as identified in 35 IL Adm. Code Part 302, Subpart B: Sections 302.201 - 302.213
or more appropriate standards based upon recent guidance shall be applied to protect this
designation. On a case-by-case basis, General Use water quality criteria may be modified
to protect existing and potential biological conditions in these waters.
SAC members had the following comments during the meeting regarding the proposed
aquatic life use designations:
■
Members had reservations about lumping all of the fish data because in more recent years
there have been significant improvements in species diversity. This should be addressed
by looking at the best IBI score calculated for the reach. However, some SAC members
are still concerned that the last 3-4 years are not reflected in the IBI scores.
■
The number of lake fish species has declined near the lakefront intake (into CAWS) control
structures due to the reduction of diversion from the lake into CAWS. The number of
stream species has increased because leakages from the lake have been fixed. SAC would
like CDM/IEPA to consider the impacts of these fixes and the impacts of the reductions of
lake water diversions.
■
Is data from the Skokie Lagoon considered or reflected? Improvements made up in the
Skokie Lagoons could potentially impact the North Branch Chicago River.
■
SAC members would like a hard copy of the Draft Proposed Designated Uses provided
prior to the February SAC meeting for review.
■
Will these proposed designated uses affect rule making/ designated uses/standards in
other parts of Illinois? No, these designated uses are only proposed for the CAWS.
■
One SAC member believes the IBI potential is a fine tool for what it is proposed for and
that it will accurately describe the potential based on the management regime of the last
30 years. However, how will the tool be used to predict the potential based on a new
management regime for the next 30 years?
■
Suggested calling IBI potential, IBI max over the last 30 years.
■
Believe that the IBI potential is a baseline. How will it be used to determine the potential in
the next 10 years.
Q:\Meelings\SAC1012704 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA January
27, 2004
SAC Meeting
February
18, 2004
Page
5
■
Are the water quality standards proposed adequate to support the IBI metrics? Since the
uses are based on biological integrity, the water quality is assumed to be capable of
supporting the biology. Therefore, General Use standards should be adequate to support
the calculated and proposed designations. For Modified and Limited Warm-water
Aquatic Life Use designated reaches there will be further evaluations of non-compliant
(with General Use Standards) parameters to determine whether different (than General
Use Standards) criteria - so long as they are sufficiently protective of potential uses - are
appropriate.
■
Would like the wording of the proposed designated uses changed to eliminate words such
as incapable because negative words don't support "forward-thinking" designated uses
and standards.
At this time, the SAC members agreed to evaluate CAWS utilizing the proposed aquatic life
designated uses and approach.
Recreational Use Designations
There are three proposed recreational use designations. These were discussed in depth
during the December SAC meeting (see December SAC Meeting Minutes). However, the
proposed E.
coli
standards were revised based on comments received following the meeting
and are outlined below:
■
Whole-body Contact Recreation - Protection would require attainment of a geometric mean
of
126
cfu
E. coli
and a daily maximum of
576
cfu E.
coli
standard based on
8
illiness per
thousand contact.
■
Limited Contact Recreation - Protection would require attainment of a 30-day geometric
mean of 1000 cfu E.
coli
standard based on 10 illness per thousand contact.
■
Non-Contact Recreation - Protection would require attainment of a 30-day geometric mean
of
2750
cfu E. coli standard based on 14 illness per thousand contact.
SAC members had the following comments on the proposed recreational use designations:
■
Is jet skiing covered under Whole-body Contact Recreation? It is actually covered under
Limited Contact Recreation. This is a debatable point because there are questions
regarding the amount of contact occurring.
■
Is May-October the disinfection period for most other areas? Should the recreational
period range from April 1 through October 31? In most other cities disinfection occurs
during May through October.
Q:\Mectings\SAC\012704 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA January 27, 2004 SAC Meeting
February 18, 2004
Page 6
■
USEPA is not sure that 14 illness/1000 will be accepted as a threshold value for Non-
Contact Recreation. However, at the time of the meeting they had no clarification as to
why 14 illness/1000 would not be acceptable.
■
Other sources of bacteria besides effluent include stormwater and CSOs. The group
wanted to know if there is bacteria data showing that bacteria standards are met during
dry weather in waterways not containing domestic wastewater effluents This analysis
may be possible on the North Branch of the Chicago River. Colleen will look into the
analysis for the February SAC meeting.
With the exception of the 14/1000 based value, SAC members provided consensus on the
proposed recreational use designations.
Designated Use Classifications and Management Alternatives for
Upper North Shore Channel, Lower North Shore Channel and Upper
North Branch Chicago River
A summary was provided for the previously presented recreational use, water and sediment
quality, and biological and habitat data for the Upper and Lower North Shore Channel and
Upper North Branch Chicago River. Based on the data, SAC members proposed the
following potential use designations for these reaches:
Proposed
Designated Use
Upper North Shore
Channel
Lower North Shore
Channel
Upper North Branch
Chicago. River
Whole-Body Contact
Recreation
Limited Contact
Recreation
X
Non-Contact
Recreation
XX
X
General Use Warm-
Water Aquatic Life
Modified Warm-
Water Aquatic Life
X
X
X
Limited Warm-Water
Aquatic Life
QAMeetings \SAC \ 012704 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA January 27, 2004 SAC Meeting
February 18, 2004
Page 7
Toby Frevert, Illinois EPA, reinforced the objectives of the UAA, which is to obtain the
highest potential use possible in the next 5 to 10 years. He would like SAC members to
disclose all legitimate and plausible plans and management options in order to assist in the
proper designation of aquatic and recreational uses for these three segments of the CAWS.
■
The Sierra Club indicated, without providing details, that there is the potential for major
physical changes to CAWS within the next 5-10 years.
■
The Park District is working with USACE on 3 projects in the area. One project is currently
under construction on the NSC, the other two are still in design phase. .
■
Dick Lanyon of MWRD described two projects that are evaluating aeration on the North
Shore Channel. One project is being conducted by Northwestern Engineering students
and is evaluating an aeration plan for using solar powered bottom aerators. The
Northwestern project is very preliminary and no results have been formulated. The other
project is being performed at the Evanston Ecology Center to evaluate if it is possible to
use the excess energy generated from a new wind generator for instream aeration. Again,
there are no results from this evaluation at this time.
Toby Frevert urged SAC members and project staff to focus management efforts on methods
which center on dissolved oxygen (DO) because these are likely more feasible and cost
effective than redesigning the physical structure of the CAWS. Additionally, he clarified that
MWRD cannot be expected to evaluate dozens of different management options to determine
the impacts on water quality; we need to concentrate on realistic options. Their analysis will
also include cost determinations. Finally, he would like the project teams report to document
that prohibiting the use of the waterways is not politically feasible or in the best interest of
CAWS. Therefore, sealing off the waterways is not an acceptable alternative.
The discussion of management options was quite extensive. The following suggestions were
made during the discussion:
■
Divert MWRD flow from the North Side WRP to the Wilmette Lock for flow augmentation.
This would alleviate the stagnant conditions and would likely improve velocity,
turbulence and DO conditions in the Upper North Shore Channel.
■
Construct a series of SEPA stations
■
Disinfect at the North Side WRP
■
Install stormwater BMPs (such as those outlined in NPDES Phase II Permits).
Municipalities would implement the BMPs. There may not be an accurate method to
determine the impact BMPs would have on bacteria levels.
Q: \Meetings \ SAC \ 012704 SAC MEETING NOTES.cloc
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA January 27, 2004 SAC Meeting
February 18, 2004
Page 8
■
Sediment removal and its impact on heavy metal toxicity.
■
A hydraulic model of the TARP system is being constructed at the University of Illinois.
This study will evaluate optimization of the TARP system; however, results from the
evaluation will not be completed for approximately 3 years.
The following management measures are proposed for each segment:
Management
Alternatives
Upper North
Shore
Channel
Lower North
Shore Channel
Upper North
h Chicago
-o
River
Flow
Augmentation
X
Aeration
X
X
Instream Habitat
Enhancement
Floatable Control
REQUIRED
Sediment Removal
TARP Capture
Priorities
NOT ABLE TO EVALUATE UNTIL U of I STUDY
COMPLETE
Disinfection
X
X
X
Other
The project team will draft a letter to MWRD outlining the management measures needing to
be evaluated. The evaluation should include an analysis of the impacts on water quality and
estimated costs.
Dissolved Oxygen and Floatable Standards Discussion
Floatables control was not proposed as a management measure because it is a compliance
issue and not a candidate pollutant for a UAA downgrade. However, DO is a candidate for a
downgrade of water quality standards. Regarding DO, at this time most NPDES permits do
not outline specific DO limits because DO is generally controlled by limits set on BOD and
CBOD.
Existing Recreational and Navigational Uses
Stephanie Brock of CDM presented the observed recreational and navigational uses of the
Lower North Branch of the Chicago River, the Chicago River and the South Branch of the
Chicago River.
QAMeefings \SAC \ 012704 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA January 27, 2004 SAC Meeting
February 18, 2004
Page 9
Illinois EPA, CDM, Lake Michigan Federation, USEPA, and MWRD field collected recreation
data from June to October of 2003. Additionally, post card surveys from four marinas/boat
launches were returned for the South Branch of the Chicago River. The following table
summarizes the findings of the recreational use surveys. Data collected from the post card
surveys were not used to calculate the percentages below because the surveys were designed
to collect only qualitative data for the purpose of verifying and augmenting uses observed
during field visits.
Observed
Activity
Lower North Branch
Chica
•
o River
Chicago River
South Branch
Chicaio
Count
of the
River
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
Percent
Swimming
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
Jet Skiing
0
0%
0
0%
5
3%
Wading
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
Canoeing
2
5%
0
0%
10
6%
Fishing
0
0%
2
6%
66
39%
Power
Boating
41
95%
29
94%
89
52%
Water and Sediment Quality
Colleen Hughes of CDM presented the water and sediment quality data for the Lower North
Branch of the Chicago River, the Chicago River and the South Branch of the Chicago River. A
copy of this presentation is available upon request and will be posted on the project website.
Water and sediment quality data were compared to proposed water quality standards for the
proposed recreational and aquatic life use classifications to identify constituents of concern.
The following is a summary of the results of use attainment
screening
analyses.
Water Quality Use Attainment Screening
Fecal coliform and
E. coli
concentrations usually exceeded the proposed standards for
both Whole-Body Contact Recreation and Limited Contact Recreation. Dissolved
oxygen, temperature, ammonia (chronic, subchronic, and acute), pH, total silver,
dissolved iron, dissolved zinc, TDS, and offensive conditions (floatables) are other
constituents of concern.
Dissolved Oxygen Wet Weather Response
Analysis of the dissolved oxygen response to wet weather CSO events indicates that there is a
DO sag response on the North Branch of the Chicago River. The response is more severe in
summer months and can be tracked downstream from the North Branch Pumping Station to a
DO station located a Kinzie.
QAMeetings \SAC NO12704 SAC MEETING NOTES.cloc
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA January 27, 2004 SAC Meeting
February 18, 2004
Page 10
Sediment Quality Criteria Guidelines
Sediment quality criteria guidelines were used to evaluate sediment data in CAWS as listed
below.
MacDonald (2000) Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology was used.
■
Threshold effects concentration (I
EC) - Toxic to sensitive benthic organisms
■
Probable effects concentration (PEC) - Toxic to most benthic organisms
These guidelines are based on two concentrations that provide guidance regarding the
potential impact to aquatic organisms. The figure below illustrates the increase of potential
impact with increasing concentrations. The guidelines were used to screen sediment chemical
parameters. If chemical concentrations frequently exceeded both guidelines, further
investigation such as bioassays are recommended to better understand the potential toxicity
of contaminated sediments to aquatic life.
Presumed
Toxic
PEC I ER-M
Possibly
Toxic
TEC I ER-L
Presumed
Nontoxic
Sediment Quality Assessment
The following conclusions were drawn from the sediment chemistry analysis:
■
Chicago River sediments have lower metal concentrations than the North and South
Branch except for Mercury
■
Lead concentrations exceed the PEC guideline at all stations
■
Cadmium, Copper, Chromium, Nickel, and Zinc concentrations exceed the TEC and PEC
guidelines at most stations
QAMestings NSACI012704 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Increasing
Concentration
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA January 27, 2004 SAC Meeting
February 18, 2004
Page 11
Biological and Habitat Conditions
Ron French of CDM presented biological and habitat data for the Lower North Branch of the
Chicago River, the Chicago River, and the South Branch of the Chicago River. The following
table summarizes fish data for the selected segments from 1993 to present.
Segment
Location
Number of
Species
Dominant Species
Upper and
Lower North
Branch
Chicago River
UNBCR - Wilson
Avenue
23
Bluegill, carp, bluntnose minnow, gizzard
shad, golden shiner, goldfish, green
sunfish, largemouth bass
LNBCR - Grand
Avenue
25
Bluegill, carp, bluntnose minnow, gizzard
shad, golden shiner, goldfish, green
sunfish, largemouth bass
Chicago River
.
Loo
24
Alewife, gizzard shad, carp, goldfish,
largemouth bass, yellow perch
Inner Harbor
35
Alewife, gizzard shad, carp, goldfish,
bluntnose minnow, rock bass, green
sunfish, bluegill, smallmouth bass,
largemouth bass, yellow perch
South Branch
Chicago Rive
30
Alewife, gizzard shad, carp, goldfish,
bluegill, largemouth bass, yellow perch
Q:\Meetings\SAC1012704 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA January 27, 2004 SAC Meeting
February 18, 2004
Page 12
At the time of the meeting there was no macroinvertebrate or habitat data available for the
Lower North Branch of the Chicago River, the Chicago River or the South Branch of the
Chicago River.
Currently, the City of Chicago is performing a detailed shoreline habitat assessment of most
of CAWS, which will be completed this spring. CDM and the Illinois EPA collected rough
habitat data while performing recreational surveys during the summer of 2003.
A copy of the biological and habitat presentation is available upon request and will be posted
on the project website.
Designated Use Classifications and Management Alternatives for
Lower North Branch Chicago River, Chicago River and South Branch
Chicago River
SAC members proposed the following potential use designations for these reaches:
Proposed Designated
Use
Lower North Branch
Chicago River
Chicago River
South Branch Chicago
River
Whole-Body Contact
Recreation
Limited Contact
Recreation
X
XX
Non-Contact
Recreation
X
XX
General Warm-Water
Aquatic Life
Modified Warm-Water
Aquatic Life
X
X
Limited Warm-Water
Aquatic Life
X
Q: \Meetings \SAC \012704 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA January 27, 2004 SAC Meeting
February 18, 2004
Page 13
The following management measures are proposed for each segment:
Management
Alternatives
Lower North
Branch
Chicago
River
Chicago River
South Branch
Chicago.
River
Flow
Augmentation
Aeration
X
X
Instream Habitat
Enhancement
.
Floatable Control
REQUIRED
Sediment Removal
TARP Capture
Priorities
NOT ABLE TO EVALUATE UNTIL U of I STUDY
COMPLETE
Disinfection
X
X
X
Other
The project team will include the management alternative for these three reaches in the draft
letter to MWRD.
Announcements
A Health Advisory Committee meeting to discuss a distribution plan for the pamphlets will
be scheduled soon by USEPA and IEPA. At this point, MWRD has approved the use of the
pamphlets and endorsed posting of signage at public access sites under MWRD control or
ownership.
The next SAC meeting will be held February 24, 2004. This meeting will cover the remaining
reaches including the South Fork (Bubbly Creek), the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, the
Grand Calumet River, the Little Calumet River North Leg, the Calumet-Sag Channel, Lake
Calumet, The Calumet River, the North Branch Canal, Collateral Channel and navigation slips
along the South Branch. An agenda will be developed and distributed to SAC members prior
to the next meeting. Please note the CAWS UAA web site, www.chicagoareawaterways.org,
is operational
Public meetings will be held on May 10 in Evanston at the Evanston Ecology Center, on May
11 in downtown Chicago at the State of Illinois building, and on May 13 in Lake Calumet
area. During this next round of meetings, the recommended use designations and suggested
Q: \Meetings \SAC4012704 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA January 27, 2004 SAC Meeting
February 18, 2004
Page 14
water quality standards, including incorporation of SAC comments and suggestions, will be
presented to the public.
CC:
Howard Essig
Illinois EPA
Roger Dausman
Ill. Port District
Colleen Hughes
CDM
Laurel O'Sullivan
LMF
Ron French
CDM
Julia Wozniak
Midwest Gen.
Stephanie Brock
CDM
Bill Constantelos
Midwest Gen.
Todd King
CDM
Susan O'Connell
MWRDGC
Nelson Chueng
Chicago - Planning
Dick Lanyon
.MWRDGC
Lisa Frede
CCI
Beth Wentzel
Prairie River Network
Joe Deal
City of Chicago
Michelle Gurgas
Sierra Club
Paul Zwijack
Corn Products
Tzachying Su
USACE
Bob Foster
CPD
Janet Pellegrini
USEPA
Greg Seegert
EA Engineering
Ed Hammer
USEPA
Todd Wildermuth
FOCR
Dave Pfeifer
USEPA
Fred Axley
FOCR
Peter Howe
USEPA
Nick Menninga
Greeley
&
Hansen
Allen Burton
Wright State University
Rebecca Rader
Hill
&
Knowlton
Previous SAC Attendees
Jeff Covinsky
HMC/IRCA
Q:Weetings \SAC \012704 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Memorandum
To:
?
Toby Frevert, Illinois EPA
Rob Sulski, Illinois EPA
From: Ron French, CDM
Date:?
December 22, 2003
Subject: Minutes for the December 16, 2003 Stakeholder Advisory Committee
Meeting
Attendees:
Rob Sulski
Illinois EPA
Bill Masri
Chicago-Water
Howard Essig
Illinois EPA
Steve Pescitelli
Illinois DNR
Scott Twait
Illinois EPA
Nick Menninga
Greeley & Hansen
Nia Haller
Illinois EPA
Lisa Frede
Chem. Ind. Council Ill.
Ron French
CDM
Fred Axley
Friends of Chicago R.
Colleen Hughes
CDM
Todd Wildermuth
Friends of Chicago R.
Stephanie Brock
CDM
Julia Wozniak
Midwest Generation
Jessica Harker
Primera
Bill Constantelos
Midwest Generation
Dick Lanyon
MWRD
Tzuoh-Ying Su
USACE
Sergio Serafino
MWRD
Albert Ettinger
ELPC/ Sierra Club
Mardi Klevs
USEPA
Michele Giurgas
Sierra Club
Janet Pellegrini
USEPA
Richard Rass
Sierra Club
Ed Hammer
USEPA
Jeannette Givodceiliie Sierra Club
Martin Russ
USEPA
Jeff Covinsky
Hannah/Ill. R. Carriers
Peter Howe
USEPA
Beth Wentzel
Prairie Rivers Network
David Phiefer
USEPA
Laurel O'Sullivan
L. Michigan Federation
John R Petro
Exelon
Joel Brammeler
L. Michigan Federation
Nelson Chueng
Chicago-Planning
Frank Kudrna
IL Int. Port District
Joe Deal
Chicago-Mayor's Office
Harry Walton
Ill. Env. Reg. Group
Renante Marante
Chicago-Environment
CODocurnenis and Settings \jdratnLocal SettingsVremporary Internet Ftles1OLK4 \ 121603 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA December 16, 2003 SAC Meeting
December 22, 2003
Page 2
On Tuesday, December 16, 2003 the Illinois EPA and CDM held a Stakeholder Advisory
Committee (SAC) meeting to discuss the progress of the Chicago Area Waterway System Use
Attainability Analysis (CAWS UAA). The meeting covered the following items:
■
TARP Project Status, Schedule, Benefits and System Operations
■
Safety and Navigational Meeting Update
■
Waterway Reach Segmentation. Analysis
. Approach
■
Existing Navigational and Recreational Uses
■
Water and Sediment Quality
■
Biological and Habitat Conditions
■
Proposed Standards
■
Announcements
Each agenda item is discussed in detail in the sections to follow. Individual presentations and
finalized meeting minutes are or will be posted on the project website at
www.chicagoareawaterways.org. The December SAC meeting focused on 3 CAWS reaches at
the northern end of the project area.
TARP Project Status, Schedule, Benefits and System Operations
Overview
Dick Lanyon, the Director of Research and Development for the Metropolitan Water
Reclamation District (MWRD), and Sergio Serafino, Supervising Civil Engineer of the MWRD,
presented the status, schedule, benefits and system operations of MWRD's Tunnel and
Reservoir Project (TARP).
The TARP system is designed to intercept, during storm events, excess combined sewer
overflow (CSO) before the CSO can reach the CAWS; The CAWS has approximately 380 CSO
structures: the MWRD owns approximately 10%; the City of Chicago owns approximately
50%, and the remaining are owned by forty Chicago area suburbs.
Currently, the TARP system consists of 101.5 miles deep tunnels and 0.35 billion gallons of
storage capacity (provided by the O'Hare Reservoir). Upon completion TARP will consists of
109.4 miles of deep tunnels and 15.65 billion gallons of storage capacity (provided by two
additional reservoirs). The tunnels, which are approximately 320 feet below ground, are
constructed of concrete and have walls 1-foot thick. The tunnels and reservoirs are designed
CADocuments and Settings \jdratt \Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \OLK4 121603 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA December 16, 2003 SAC Meeting
December 22, 2003
Page 3
to capture and store the CSOs until the treatment plants have the capacity to treat the
captured wastewater.
TARP is composed of four tunnel systems:
■
Mainstream (located along the CAWS in the northern, central and southwest city and
suburbs)
■
Calumet (located on the CAWS in the southern suburbs)
■
O'Hare (not on CAWS)
■
Des Plaines (not on CAWS, but connected to Mainstream)
And three reservoirs:
■
McCook (attached to Mainstream and Des Plaines Tunnel Systems)
■ Thornton (attached to Calumet Tunnel System)
■
O'Hare (attached to O'Hare Tunnel System)
TARP Performance
TARP has reduced CSOs discharge to receiving waters. It is estimated that over 700 billion
gallons of CSOs have been captured and treated to date (TARP captures the "first flush"
which equates to approximately 85% of pollutant load). TARP has resulted in a decreased
need for discretionary diversion of Lake Michigan, which in turn increased drinking water
allocation. Also since the construction of TARP, the frequency of basement and street
flooding has been reduced as well as the number of reversals to Lake Michigan. Fish species,
land values and recreational opportunities have increased because of the water quality
benefits provided by the TARP system.
Additional TARP benefits include increased capture of oxygen consuming substances,
treatment plant expansion savings, and relief sewer saving. It provides a planned bypass for
rehabilitation of sewers and emergency conveyance and outlet. Also, the system allows for
diversion of chemical spills to avoid treatment plant upset. Downstream benefits outside
Metro Chicago include reduced flood peaks and duration of high water.
O'Hare Reservoir
O'Hare Reservoir was designed and built by the US Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) to
store a 50 year storm. The MWRD is in charge of operation and maintenance of the 350
million gallon reservoir. An inlet/outlet structure controls dewatering and the reservoir
C:NOocuments and Settings \tdrateLocal Settings \ Temporary Internet Files OLK4 121603 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA December 16, 2003 SAC Meeting
December 22, 2003
Page 4
includes nine mechanical aerators, a compacted concrete floor, a geo-membrane liner, and
gravity fill and drain. The reservoir has been in operation since 1998. The O'Hare reservoir
has saved an estimated $61 million in flood damage reduction in its first six years.
Thornton Reservoir
The Thornton Reservoir is expected to be completed and on-line by 2014. Work competed or
under construction on the Thornton Reservoir includes the construction and startup of the
transitional reservoir, completion of the Vincennes Avenue relocation, and approximately
40% of the rock mining. Remaining work scheduled for the reservoir includes rock mining
and wall stabilization, construction of connecting tunnels and hydraulic structures,
groundwater protection work, aeration and wash down facilities, and construction of dams
and bulkheads.
McCook Reservoir
The McCook Reservoir is expected to be completed and on-line by 2023. Work completed on
the McCook Reservoir includes an impermeable groundwater cut-off wall, site preparation
and commissioning of sludge lagoons. The aquifer in the area will be monitored to ensure
that no seepage is occurring. Work under construction for the reservoir indudes a test grout
curtain, distribution tunnel system, addition of pumps and motors, and overburden removal.
Remaining work scheduled indudes a rock conveyance tunnel, rock mining, and all
stabilization. Also, construction of the main tunnel and inlet, grout curtain, and stage 2 cut-
off walls, aeration and wash down facilities.
Aeration
Aeration equipment was originally placed in the reservoirs to control odor. However, the
MWRD has performed various tests that prove the reservoirs have odor under control
without the help of aeration. Therefore, the reservoir aeration equipment may not always be
necessary.
Planned TARP Storage Volume
The following table shows the planned TARP CSO storage volume
Year(s)
CSO Storage
Volume in Billion
Gallons
1980
0.07
1985-1986
1.3
1989-1993
1.6
C:\Documents and Settings \jdratt\ Local Settings \Temporary Internet FileskOLK4\ 121603 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA December 16, 2003 SAC Meeting
December 22, 2003
Page 5
1995
1.8
1998
2.55
2003-2006
2.8
2013
6.3
2014
11.1
2018
14.6
2023
18.1
Operations
Attendees of the meeting inquired about the discharge volume of the Chicago area combined
sewers. Currently the water reclamation plants are undersized to accommodate the flow
generated in the combined sewer system area during some storm events. The TARP system
will intercept and store the excess flow until the WRP have sufficient capacity to treat the
flows. The frequency and volume of the overflows are difficult to quantify because they vary
with the weather. However after TARP is completed, MWRD estimates that no more than
four CSO events per year will discharge to the CAWS. MWRD will verify the performance
and characterize the system with a study upon completion of construction of TARP.
In the 1800's the sewers discharged directly to the rivers in the Chicago area. Due to the
increasing population in the Chicago area, the community faced extreme health and
environmental problems caused by the untreated water. As a result, the water reclamation
plants were constructed to intercept all dry weather and a portion of wet weather flow from
the combined sewers. TARP is designed to capture most of the remaining wet weather flow
for later treatment at the reclamation plant, however, when TARP is full, the CSOs discharge
into CAWS.
The MWRD uses a weather consultant to predict the size of storm events and open and closes
the gates to TARP appropriately. When TARP gates are dosed, CSO flows into CAWS.
During a moderate rainstorm, the TARP gates are closed when the tunnels are approximately
70% full. During extreme storm events, the gates to TARP are closed when the tunnels are
40% full (this accounts for inflow from ungated structures which inlet to TARP). The gates
need to be closed at strategic times to prevent water hammer. Water hammer is an increase in
pressure due to rapid changes in velocity of flows through a pipe. When the TARP gates are
closed, the magnitude of the pressure produced is frequently much greater than the static
pressure on the line. Because of the large size of TARP, it would cause significant damage.
Newer drop shafts were designed with such problems in mind.
CADocuments and Settings \jdrattlocal Settings \Temporary Internet Files\OLK4 \ 121603 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA December 16, 2003 SAC Meeting
December 22, 2003
Page 6
Dry weather CSOs are very infrequent and have been attributed to human error or accidents
during construction projects or debris related clogging of sewers or structures. Inspection
and maintenance programs are in place to make sure dry weather CSOs do not occur.
Navigational Meeting Update
Rob SulsId of the Illinois EPA summarized a meeting held on November 19 between CDM,
the Illinois EPA, the City of Chicago Police Department, the Illinois International Port
Authority and the Coast Guard concerning homeland security and other safety, navigational
and enforcement issues in CAWS, specifically, whether there are any existing or near future
regulations or laws that may interfere with potential UAA outcomes.
Although there are presently no blanket plans to prohibit any recreational uses, the United
States Coast Guard has the authority to shut down activities on or along CAWS in the event
of a terrorist threat or other emergency. All sensitive or vulnerable sites on CAWS are
required to have security plans by December 28, 2003. The police may also at their discretion
ticket or arrest individuals or prevent certain activities on a case-by-case basis if there is an
existing or potential a threat to waterway safety.
The placement or installation of structures that may interfere with navigation; such as sunken .
cars and other such obstacles that some may consider to be fish habitat, is frowned upon by
USACE. However, USACE and IDNR have permit systems for handling such activities.
Waterway Reach Segmentation Analysis Approach
Because of the diverse conditions and size of the CAWS, the project team has broken the
study area into thirteen segments. The following table details the segments and provides a
date at which the analysis of each segment will be presented to the SAC.
Segment
Description
SAC
Presentation
Upper North Shore
Channel
Wilmette Lock to North Side WRP
Dec 16
Lower North Shore
Channel
North Side WRP to confluence with North Branch of the
Chicago River
Dec 16
Upper
.
North Branch of
the Chicago River
Confluence with North Shore Channel to North Avenue
Turning Basin
Dec 16
Lower North Branch of
the Chicago River
North Avenue Turning Basin to Confluence with Chicago
River
Jan 27
Chicago River
Chicago Control Works to confluence with North Branch
and South Branch of the Chicago River
Jan27
C:kDocuments and Settings \jdratttLocal Settings \ Temporary Internet Files \OLK4 \121603 SAC MEETING NOTES.don
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA December 16, 2003 SAC Meeting
December 22, 2003
Page 7
South Branch of the
Chicago River
Confluence with the Chicago River to confluence with
Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal
Jan 27
South Fork
Racine Avenue Pumping Station to Confluence with South
Branch of the Chicago River
Feb 24
Chicago Sanitary and
Ship Canal
Confluence with the South Branch of the Chicago River to
Lockport Powerhouse
Feb 24
Calumet-Sag Channel
Confluence with Little Calumet to confluence with Chicago
Sanitary and Ship Channel
Feb 24
Little Calumet River
West
Calumet WRP to confluence with Calumet Sag Channel
Feb 24
Little Calumet River
East
O'Brien Lock and Dam to Calumet WRP
March 23
Grand Calumet River
Illinois state line to confluence with Little Calumet River
March 23
Lake Calumet?
.
Lake Calumet
March 23
Proposed Use Classifications
The following are the proposed designated use classifications for the CAWS:
Recreational Use Classifications
Whole-Body Recreation: Protects for routine, prolonged and intimate contact used induding
swimming and water-skiing. Protection would require attainment of 126 cfu E. coli standard
Limited Contact Recreation:
Protects for incidental or accidental body contact, which the
probability of ingesting appreciable quantities of water is minimal, such as recreational
boating (kayaking, canoeing, jet skiing), and any limited contact incident to shoreline activity,
such as wading and fishing. Protection would require attainment of 1000 cfu E. coli standard
based on 10 illnesses per thousand contacts.
Non-Contact Recreation:
Protects for non-contact activities such as power boating and tour
boat operations. No E. coli standard.
Aquatic Life Classifications
Warm
Water Aquatic Life:
Diverse assemblage of warm water fish, macroinvertebrates and
habitat features that allow for survival and reproduction. Protection would require
attainment of current General Use water quality standards.
Modified Warm Water Aquatic Life: Representative aquatic assemblages are generally
composed of species tolerant to low dissolved oxygen, silt, nutrient enrichment, and poor
C:\Documents and Settings \jdrattlocaI Settings \Temporary Internet FilestOLK4\ 121603 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA December 16, 2003 SAC Meeting
December 22, 2003
Page 8
quality habitat due to irreversible habitat modifications. Protection would require attainment
of current Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life water quality standards, and any
more stringent standards that come out of federal guidance developed since Illinois
Secondary Contact standards were adopted.
Existing Recreational and Navigational Uses
Stephanie Brock of CDM presented the observed recreational and navigational uses of the
Upper North Shore Channel, Lower North Shore Channel, and the Upper North Branch of the
Chicago River.
Field observations; taken by Illinois EPA, CDM, Lake Michigan Federation, USEPA, and
MWRD were collected from June to October of 2003. The following table summarizes the
findings.
Observed
Activity
Upper North Shore
Channel
Lower North Shore
Channel
Upper North
the Chicago
Count
Branch of
River
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
Percent
Swimming
0
0%
0.
0%
0
0%
Jet Siding
0
0%
0
0%
2
1%
Wading
0
0%
1
2%
7
2%
Canoeing
6
40%
10
15%
128
46%
Fishing
7
47%
53
80%
80
28%
Power
Boating
2
13%
2
3%
64
23%
Water and Sediment Quality
Colleen Hughes of CDM presented the water and sediment quality data for the North Shore
Channel and the Upper North Branch of the Chicago River. A copy of this presentation is
available upon request and will be posted on the project website. Water and sediment quality
data were compared to proposed water quality standards for the proposed recreational and
aquatic life use classifications to identify constituents of concern and resulted in the following
use attainment screening summary.
Water Quality Use Attainment Screening
Fecal coliform and E. coli concentrations usually exceeded the proposed standards for
both Whole-Body Contact Recreation and Limited Contact Recreation. Dissolved
oxygen, ammonia (chronic, subchronic, and acute), pH, cyanide (WAD), total
mercury, silver, dissolved copper, nickel, zinc, and TDS are the constituents of
concern for the proposed Warm Water Aquatic Life classification. Dissolved oxygen,
unionized ammonia, pH, total lead and iron, TDS, and fats, oil, and grease are the
C:\Documents and Settings \jdratt\Local Settings \ Temporary Internet Files \OLK4 \ 121603 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA December 16, 2003 SAC Meeting
December 22, 2003
Page 9
constituents
of concern for the proposed Modified Warm Water Aquatic Life
classification.
Sediment Quality Criteria Guidelines
Two sediment quality criteria guidelines were used to evaluate sediment quality data in the
CAWS as listed below.
Long and Morgan (1990), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
■ Effect Range - Low (ER-L)
■ Effect Range - Median (ER-M)
MacDonald (2000) Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology was used.
■
Threshold effects concentration (TEC) - Toxic to sensitive benthic organisms
■ Probable effects concentration (PEC) - Toxic to most benthic organisms
Both sets of guidelines are based on two concentrations that provide guidance regarding the
potential impact to aquatic organisms. The figure below illustrates the increase of potential
impact with increasing concentrations. The guidelines were used to screen sediment chemical
parameters. If chemical concentrations frequently exceeded both guidelines further
investigation such as bioassays are recommended to better understand the potential toxicity
•
Presumed
Toxic
PEC I ER-M
Possibly
Toxic
TEC
/
ER-L
Presumed
Nontoxic
of contaminated sediments to aquatic life.
Sediment Quality Assessment
In the North Shore Channel and the Upper North Branch of the Chicago River, the sediment
quality generally deteriorates from the north to the south_ Cadmium, lead, mercury, and
Increasing
Concentration
CADocuments and Settings \jdratnLocal Settings \Temporary Internet Files\ OLK4\ 121603 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA December 16, 2003 SAC Meeting
December 22, 2003
Page 10
silver concentrations typically exceeded ER-M and PEC guidelines, particularly towards the
downstream end of the Upper North Branch of the Chicago River. Zinc, Copper, Chromium,
and Nickel typically exceeded the ER-L and TEC guideline, with all but Chromium exceeding
the ER-M and PEC guidelines at downstream locations on the Upper North Branch. High
levels of heavy metals in sediment do not alone indicate toxic effects, but serve as a potential
indication of where toxicity testing and benthic biosurveys should be conducted to determine
if the sediment is toxic to aquatic organisms.
Point Source Assessment (MWRD North Side WRP)
Effluent water quality data from the MWRD North Side water reclamation plant were also
compared to proposed water quality standards for constituents of concern identified by the
water and sediment quality use attainment screening process. Effluent fecal coliform
concentrations nearly always exceeded the proposed whole contact and limited contact
recreation thresholds. There is currently no water quality standard for fecal coliform for the
currently classified secondary contact North Shore Channel and Upper North Branch of the
Chicago River downstream of the North Side WRP.
Ammonia (chronic), cyanide (WAD, acute and chronic), mercury, silver, pH, and dissolved
oxygen effluent concentrations exceeded the proposed warm water aquatic life use
dassification water quality standards at least once over the past five years. However, only
mercury, cyanide (WAD, chronic), and pH exceeded those thresholds more than ten percent
of the time.
Cyanide, mercury, and pH were the only constituents to exceed the proposed modified warm
water aquatic life use classification, all less than ten percent of the time. It should be noted
that the point source assessment comparisons were not made to evaluate effluent discharge
compliance, but to assess potential point source loadings that may be contributing to
constituents of concern identified in the water and sediment quality use attainment screening
process.
Biological and Habitat Conditions
Ron French of CDM presented biological and habitat data for the North Shore Channel and
the Upper North Branch of the Chicago River. The following table summarizes fish data for
the selected segments from 1993 to present.
Segment
?
Location
?
Number of Dominant Species
Species
C:\Documents and Settings \jdrattiLocal Settings \Temporary Internet Files \OLK4\ 121603 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA December 16, 2003 SAC Meeting
December 22, 2003
Page 11
Upper North
Shore Channel
(# Species
= 33)
Central Street
12
Bluegill, bluntnose minnow, green sunfish,
largemouth bass, rock bass
Dempster Stree
25
Bluegill, carp, gizzard shad, goldfish,
largemouth bass, rock bass
Oakton Street
2
Golden shiner, largemouth bass
Sheridan Road
31
Alewife, bluegill, bluntnose minnow,
gizzard shad, goldfish, green sunfish,
largemouth bass
Lower North
Shore Channel
(# Species
= 27)
Touhy Avenue
24
Bluegill, carp, green sunfish, gizzard shad,
golden shiner, goldfish, largemouth bass
Peterson Avenue
21
Bluegill, bluntnose minnow, gizzard shad,
goldfish, green sunfish, largemouth bass,
spottail shiner
Foster Avenu
15
Bluegill, carp, gizzard shad, largemouth
bass
Upper North
Branch
Diverse
Parkway
7
Carp, gizzard shad, largemouth bass
Chicago River
Wilson Avenue
Bluegill, carp, bluntnose minnow, gizzard
(# Species = 21)
25
shad, golden shiner, goldfish, green
sunfish, largemouth bass
The following table summarizes the macroinvertebrate data for the selected segments
Segment
Location
Number
of
Species
Dominant Species
Upper North
Shore Channel
(# Species
= 6)
Central Street
12
Oligochaeta, Caecidotea, Chironomidae
'Oakton Street
2
Oligochaeta, Chironomidae
C:\Documents and Settings Wired \Local Settings \ Temporary Internet Files\ OLK4 \ 121603 SAC MEETING NOTES.ded
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA December 16, 2003 SAC Meeting
December 22, 2003
Page 12
Lower North
Touhy Avenu
24
Turbellaria, Oligochaeta, Chironomidae
Shore Channel
(# Species
=
8)
Foster Avenu
15
Turbellaria, Oligochaeta,
Gammarus,
Chironomidae
Upper North
Branch
Diverse
Parkway
7
Turbellaria, Oligochaeta, Chironomidae
Chicago River
(# Species
=
9)
Wilson Avenu
25
Turbellaria, Oligochaeta, Chironomidae
The following table summarizes the habitat data for the selected segments.
CADocuments and Settings \jdratt\Local Settings \ Temporary Internet Files \ OLK4 121603 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA December 16, 2003 SAC Meeting
December 21, 2003
Page 13
Location
Albany BL
Albany BC Albany EC
Albany EL Toughy
Toughy
Toughy
Toughy
Transect Location
BL
BC
EC
EL
BC
BR
EC
ER
Water Body
NBCR
NBCR
NBCR
NBCR
NSC
NSC
NSC
NSC
Aquatic Vegetation
Attached Algae
Vegetation,
Attached
Algae
Vegetation,
Attached
Algae
Vegetation,
Attached
Algae,
Rooted
Floating
none
attached
algea, rooted
floating
none
none
Instream Cover for Ash
Submerged
Tree Roods,
Submerged
Terrestrial
Vegetation
Boulders
Submerged
Tree
Roods,
Submerged
Terrestrial
Vegetation,
aquatic
vegetation none
aquatic veg,
boulders,
submerged
tree roots and
terrestrial veg
none
boulders,
submerged tree
roots and
terrestrial veg
Immediate Shore Cover
Denuded
90
90
80
80
20
20
20
20
Grasses
10
10
Shrubs
Trees
10
10
20
20
80
80
70
70
Other (cobble/limestone)
Sediment Composition
Plant Debris
50
5
Clay
Inorganic Silt
10
5
10
Organic Sludge
Sand
10
70
Gravel
85
15
Cobble
20
20
10
Boulder
70
30
20
20
100
Mussel Shells
50
70
30
Bedrock or Concrete
100
Coal Fines
CADocuments and Settings *haft \ Local Settings Temporary Internet FOesIOLK4V121603 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA December 16, 2003 SAC Meeting
December 21, 2003
Page 14
Data summaries of macroinvertebrate and fish sampling data were provided to the SAC
attendees.
In general the CAWS have a wide diversity of species compared to other effluent dominated
waterways.
Some attendees wanted the biological and habitat data to be compared to other waterway to
better quantify the biological and habitat stressors of the CAWS. However because of the
uniqueness of the CAWS, no waterway provides a good comparison. It was recommended
that a careful analysis of the Ohio standards would be helpful in comparing the CAWS to
other systems.
Currently, the City of Chicago is performing a detailed shoreline habitat assessment of most
of the CAWS, which will be completed this spring. CDM and the Illinois EPA collected rough
habitat data while collecting recreational data during the summer of 2003.
A copy of the biological and habitat presentation is available upon request and on the project
website.
Discussion
The SAC accepted the three recreational uses. Also, the members agreed that swimming is
not an attainable use in the next 10 years. The group is aware that even if the MWRD
disinfects their effluent, bacteria could still be a problem because of urban storm runoff.
Most SAC attendees would like to see a wider variety of aquatic life uses. CAWS has
improved over the years and they would like a change in the aquatic life standards to reflect
the improvements.
Most of the attendees agreed that wading is a use in the North Shore Channel and the Upper
North Branch of the Chicago River. The MWRD, however, did not think that it was an
appropriate or legal use. They believe the waterway is physically dangerous for waders
because the bottom of the river is soft and the banks are steep. Also, fences are in place to
protect the public and those who pass the fences to recreate on the river are trespassing.
Some areas, however, are not fenced off, including the Skokie Boat Launch, the North Park
and portions of the Ravenswood neighborhood.
An attendee was concerned about the recreational bacteria standard's relationship to the
health of children. The bacteria standards were adopted from USEPA's recommended
bacteria criteria.
Announcements
MWRD's NPDES permit meeting concerning the plan to notify the public of CSO events will
be publicized shortly. The meeting will likely be held in January 2004.
CaDocuments and Setlings‘jdratt \Local Settings Temporary Internet
Hes\
MX4\121603 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA December 16, 2003 SAC Meeting
December 22, 2003
Page 15
The next SAC meeting will be held on January 27, 2004. An agenda will be developed and
distributed to SAC members prior to the next meeting. Please note the CAWS UAA web site,
www.chicagoareawaterways.org, is operational. Contact Chris Varones of Hill & Knowlton
with comments and questions regarding the website.
The next series of public meeting will be held in May. During these series of meetings, the
recommended use designations and suggested water quality standards, including
incorporation of SAC comments and suggestions, will be presented to the public.
CC:?
Bill Masri?
CDWM
Howard Essig?
Illinois EPA?
Steve Pescitelli?IDNR
Scott Twait?
Illinois EPA?
Nick Menninga?
Greeley & Hansen
Nia Haller?
Illinois EPA?
Lisa Frede?
CICI
Ron French
?
CDM
?
Fred Axley
?
FCR
Colleen Hughes CDM
?
Todd Wildermuth?
FCR
Stephanie Brock CDM
?
Julia Wozniak
?
Midwest Generation
Jessica Harker?
Primera?
Bill Constantelos
?
Midwest Generation
Dick Lanyon?
MWRD?
Tzuoh-Ying Su?
USACE
Sergio Serafino?
MWRD
?
Albert Ettinger?
ELPC/ Sierra Club
Mardi Klevs?
USEPA
?
Michele Giurgas
?
Sierra Club
Janet Pellegrini
?
USEPA?
Richard Rass
?
Sierra Club
Ed Hammer
?
USEPA?
Jeannette Givodceiliie Sierra Club
Martin Russ
?
USEPA?
Jeff Covinsky
?
Hannah/ IRCA
Peter Howe?
USEPA
?
Beth Wentzel?
Prairie Rivers Network -
David Phiefer
?
USEPA?
Laurel O'Sullivan?
LMF
John R Petro?
Exelon
?
Joel Brammeler
?
LMF
Nelson Chueng CDOP?
Frank Kudrna
?
IL International Port District
Joe Deal
?
City of Chicago
?
Harry Walton
?
IERG
Renante Marante CDOE
?
Previous SAC Meeting Attendees
CADocuments and Settings Nidratt\Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files\ OLK4 V121603 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Memorandum
To:?
Toby Frevert, Illinois EPA
Rob Sulski, Illinois EPA
From: Ron French, CDM
Date:
.?November 12, 2003
Subject: Minutes for the October Stakeholder Advisory Committee Meeting
Attendees:
Name .?
Organization?
Name? Organization
Toby Frevert
?
Illinois EPA?Lisa Fre cle?CICI
Rob Sulski •
?
Illinois EPA
?
Fred Auxley.?FCR
Scott Twait?
Illinois EPA •?Todd Wildermuth?
FCR
Ron French?
CDM
?
Julia Wozniak?
Midwest Generation
Colleen Hughes CDM
?
Bill Constantelos?
Midwest Generation
Jeff Wickenkamp. CDM
?
Tzuoh-Ying Su?
USACE
Nicole Rowan?
CDM?
Albert Ettinger.?
ELPC/ Sierra Club
Jessica Harker
?
Primera?
Paul Zwijack?
• Corn Products.
Susan O'Connell MWRD.
?
• Laurel O'Sullivan
?
LMF.
Dick Lany on?
MWRD.
?
Jayne Lillienfeld-Jones LMF. Contractor
Mardi Klevs.?
USEPA?
Aaron Rosinski
?
SE Env. Task Force.
Janet Pellegrini USEPA
?
Harry. Walton?
IERG .
On Tuesday, October 28, 2003 the Illinois EPA and CDM held a Stakeholder Advisory
Committee (SAC) meeting to discuss the progress of the Chicago Area Waterway System Use
Attainability Analysis (CAWS UAA). The meeting covered the following items:
■
Chemical Industry Council of Illinois - Overview
■
Midwest Generation - Overview
■
Corn Products - Overview
■
Use designations - A summary of uses in different states and potential uses for the CAWS
=ecumenic and SettingsljdrateLocal SettIngtrernporary Internet Fites1OLK4N102803 SAC MEETING NOTES2.doc
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA October 28, 2003 SAC Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 2
■
Biological and Habitat Analysis of the CAWS - A review of the data
■
Update on Data Analysis and Recreational Use Survey
■
Announcements
Each agenda item is discussed in detail in the sections to follow. The agenda was established
to introduce and educate the SAC on the purpose, goals, proposed methodologies, and
progress of the CAWS UAA.
Chemical Industry Council of Illinois
Lisa Frede, the Director of Regulatory Affairs for the Chemical Industry Council of Illinois
(CICI), presented an overview of the CICI mission and reasons her organization is interested
in the CAWS UAA.
Illinois is the fourth largest chemical manufacturing state in the US. In 1951, CICI was
founded as a statewide -trade association whose goal is to ensure the viability and promote the
interests of the chemical industry through:
■
Legislative Affairs: Ensuring that public policies and programs are mutually beneficial to
the citizens of Illinois and the chemical industry through the provision of leadership,
information and service
■
Regulatory Affairs: Updating members of regulatory information
■
Responsible Care: Running an outreach program that promotes excellence in safety
■
Education: Inspiring and encouraging students' and educators' interest in chemistry and
the sciences by hosting science fairs, recognizing outstanding science teachers, and
awarding scholarship.
■
Membership: Attracting and uniting a sufficient number of member companies to support
CICI, including companies along the CAWS
■
State Outreach: Working with mayor, chemical companies, and community members to
have open communication
CICI has an interest in the CAWS UAA because the outcome may affect CICI members along
the waterway. For instance, UAA might call for voluntary implementation of different
management measures.
C:\Documents and Settings \ldrattLocal Settings \Temporary Internet Files \ OLK4 102803 SAC MEETING NOTES2.doc
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA October 28, 2003 SAC Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 3
Midwest Generation
Julia Wozniak presented an overview of Midwest Generation's purpose, facilities, operations,
water quality monitoring studies and reasons the organization is interested in the CAWS
UAA.
Midwest Generation is an independent power production company acquired from Corn Ed in
December 1999. Midwest Generation generates and sells electricity wholesale in the open
market. An independent power production company differs from a utility in that costs
cannot be passed back to the customer or consumer.
The company owns three electric power generating facilities along the CAWS. The Fisk Plant
is located on the South Branch of the Chicago River and has been in operation since 1959. The
Crawford Generation Plant is located on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Channel has been in
operation since 1960. The Will County Generation Plant has been in operation on the Chicago
Sanitary and Ship Channel since 1955.
Midwest Generation has provided several comprehensive studies of the Upper Illinois
Waterway (UIW) inherited from Corn Ed. The 111W studies took place during 1991-1995 and
indude 55 miles of the CAWS study area. The UIW studies have been submitted to the UAA
project team. The motivation of the study was to characterize the waterway.
The UIW study was initiated as a result of a lawsuit involving the plants far-field (1-55)
thermal requirements. Among the various study results of the UIW montioring effort, it was
determined that the plants within the CAW UAA area continue to be in compliance with the
thermal Secondary Use Water Quality Standard, which requires that instream temperatures
are maintained below a maximum temperature of 100 degrees F at all times. Therefore, no
operation changes have been required at the plants to ensure compliance with the existing
temperature standards.
The volume of flow extracted from the CSSC for the once-through cooling process at each
station is determined by the number of circulating water pumps in operation at any given
time. There are no flow monitoring stations located near the plants. If the CSSC is
experiencing low flow, it is possible that the cooling operations could take the entire flow of
the CSSC. However, such events have never been recorded because of the lack of an
upstream flow gaging station. It is known that ambient flow in the system is extremely
variable and quickly changes by orders of magnitude, as evidenced by abrupt changes in pool
level during storm events.
The plants divert flow from the CAWS for the plants' once-through cooling processes.
Midwest Generation has experienced some localized recirculation of flow at the Crawford
plant, but it has never caused any operational problems as a result.
CADocuments and SettingsljcIratnLocal Settings\ Temporary Internet Files\ OLK4M 02803 SAC MEETING NOTES2.doc
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA October 28, 2003 SAC Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 4
The relationship between the plants cooling water operations and coliform levels has not been
studied. There have been no documented fish kills in the immediate vicinity of the plants.
Screens around the cooling water system intakes of the plants are of standard design to
prevent the entry of fish and debris. The screens are checked several times a week for fish and
invasive species, which are reported to IDNR and/or the aquatic nuisance species task force
headed by Wisconsin Sea Grant.
The potential for air emissions
,
from Midwest Generation power plants to cause surface water
pollution has not been studied. However, the USEPA requires use of the best available
technology when building or upgrading plants to minimize the pollution to the•air and
surface waters.
Midwest Generation is interested in the CAWS UAA because the outcome may affect plant
operations. For instance, temperature regulation changes might call for a change in the
cooling process operations, or the need for further evaluation.
Corn Products International, Inc.
Paul Zwijack presented an overview of Corn Products' operations, permit and reasons the
organization is interested in the CAWS UAA.
Corn Products is one of the world's largest corn refiners. The Argo refinery located on the
CSSC in Bedford Park, IL dates back almost a century. Corn Products is a leading supplier of
products from the corn-refining process—sweeteners and starches.
Corn Products has a permit to use the CSSC for non-contact cooling water. The plant takes
approximately 30-100cfs from the CSSC for the plants cooling water needs. The exact
numbers of flow extraction are available if necessary. The plant has not experienced any
difficulties staying in compliance with the temperature.
The MWRD Stickney WRP treats approximately 20 MGD of wastewater from the Argo Corn
Product plant. Therefore, Corn Products is mainly interested in the implication of cost
increases if MWRD is required to change treatment operations.
Use Designations
Nicole Rowan of CDM presented highlights from the Designated Use Symposium and
examples of recreational use standards and aquatic life use standards
C:\Documents and SettIngqdratnLocal Settings \Temporary Internet Files\ OLK4 \ 102803 SAC MEETING NOTES2.doc
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA October 28, 2003 SAC Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 5
Designated. Use Symposium
The USEPA sponsored a Designated Use Symposium to obtain input on guidance for use
designations. The symposium included expert panel presentations and small group
discussions. The proceeding of the symposium can be found on the USEPA web site.
The symposium discussions concluded that the UAA should be used to define water
conditions by a "social determination" involving the public. Long-term use attainment
decisions are not always possible. Therefore, the priority areas should include sensitive areas,
open waters (versus urban tributaries), and existing (versus potential) drinking water intakes.
Conditions for cost trade offs were discussed during the Symposium. One alternative
suggested construction of splash parks and swimming pools for local recreation versus
primary contact in urban waterways. Knee of curve economic analysis for low priority waters
were also recommended to optimize results.
Recreational Uses
The recreational use designations in Orange County, CA have three categories, which include
water contact recreation, limited contact recreation, and no-contact recreation. Dilution and
diffusion of water quality constituents make it possible for a variety of designated uses on the
same watershed.
Water contact recreation includes routine prolonged and intimate contact with the waterway.
This use category practices the strictest standard and protects for activities such as swimming,
water skiing, skin and scuba diving, surfing, whitewater activities, and uses of hot natural
springs.
The second recreational use category is limited contact use in which contact is either
incidental or accidental and the probability of ingesting appreciable quantities of water is
minimal. Uses in this category include commercial and recreational boating and any limited
contact incident to shoreline activity, such as wading, fishing and tidepool and marine life
study.
Non-contact recreational use is any recreational or other water use involving proximity of
water but in which contact with the water is unlikely to occur and where fishing occurs only
infrequently, if at all. Non-contact recreational activities would include, but are not limited to
picnicking, sunbathing, hiking, beachcombing, camping, pleasure boating, hunting on land
and sightseeing.
In Orange County, existing fencing surrounds the no contact use area. Some SAC attendants
were concerned about the enforcement of a no contact recreation use and suggested that
fences can easily be climbed or cut for access. Also, the use could provide incentive to put up
fencing that would impair improvement of the waterway.
CADocuments and Settings\jdratt \Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \ OLK4MO2803 SAC MEETING NOTESidoc
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA October 28, 2003 SAC Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 6
Canoeing, kayaking, and boating that involve exposure to the water is not included in the
protected use of pleasure boating. Non contact use has no water quality standard for bacteria.
Aquatic Life Uses
Effluent Dependent Type Uses
Waterway health is determined not just by the physical dynamics resulting from the effluent
discharge but by other physical limitations imposed on the ecosystem by multiple stressors.
Even at highest levels of wastewater treatment (e.g., nitrification/ denitrification and
filtration) the aquatic biological community can be limited because of the habitat.
Analyses of aquatic biological communities are used to measure overall waterway health
because they are a reflection of the physical and chemical nature resulting from instream flow
characteristics (natural and effluent driven).
To evaluate use attainment for aquatic life in a significantly modified ecosystem, a reference
condition and attainable expectations must be defined. The reference condition and
attainable expectations are described below in the Biological and Habitat Analysis of the
CAWS section. Attainable expectations should incorporate limitations and benefits of a
significantly modified aquatic community...
Aquatic life goals are often higher than what is actually achievable. When water
quality
improves,
habitat can restrict aquatic life use designations from being achieved. Also, higher
water quality may encourage more water diversion, which could further decrease habitat
suitability.
A more effective approach for improving aquatic communities may be to focus on habitat
rehabilitation and maintenance rather than focusing on end-of-pipe standards. Rehabilitation
and maintenance would have the practical benefit of improving instream and riparian habitat.
Focus on habitat benefits could rely on a performance-based approach that uses "success
criteria" to define measurable management or mitigation objectives for the created ecosystem.
Arizona and Colorado have created a holistic watershed approach. Arizona defines the uses
of effluent dominated waters as, "The use of an effluent dependent water by animals, plants,
or other organisms for habitation, growth, or propagation. Effluent dependent water means
surface water that consists primarily of discharges of treated wastewater which has been
classified as effluent dependent water by the Director under R18-11-113." A SAC attendee
suggested that a specific waterbody be presented as an example.
Colorado's definition states, "For plains and Colorado Plateau streams that would otherwise
have an Aquatic Life - No Fish classification, but which have perennial or intermittent flows
adequate to support fish as the result of the discharge of treated wastewater. Expected
conditions may differ from those generally found for plains and Colorado Plateau streams
C:\Documents and SettingsdrataLocal SettIngs g
emporary Internet Res \ OLK4 102803 SAC MEETING NOTES2.doc
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA October 28, 2003 SAC Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 7
with fish." SAC attendees inquired about Colorado waters that 'differ.' The term 'differ'
implies that if the conditions are exceptional, then the waterbody will undergo a process to
define specific criteria unique to that waterway.
Limited Aquatic Life Type Uses
Streams that support limited aquatic life populations primarily composed of minnows and
other non-game fish species. Below are some examples of how other states have defined
limited aquatic life regulations.
Ohio has a limited aquatic life use, which is called
Modified Warm Water.
The use defines
waters that have been found to be incapable of supporting and maintaining a balanced,
integrated, adaptive community of warm water organisms due to irretrievable modifications
of the physical habitat. Such modifications are typically long-lasting in duration (i.e., twenty
years or longer) and may include the following examples: extensive stream channel
modification, extensive sedimentation resulting from abandoned mine runoff, and extensive
permanent impoundment of free-flowing water bodies.
The Texas limited aquatic life is applied to water bodies of severely imbalanced trophic
structures with uniform habitat characteristics. The species assemblage is absent of most
regionally expected species and contains no sensitive species. The diversity and species
richness are low.
Oklahoma defines a Habitat Limited Aquatic Life, which is a subcategory of the beneficial use
"Fish and Wildlife Propagation," waterbodies where the water chemistry and habitat are not
adequate to support a "Warm Water Aquatic Community"
New Mexico's Limited Warm Water Fishery is described as a surface water of the State where
intermittent flow may severely limit the ability of the reach to sustain a natural fish
population on a continuous annual basis; or a surface water of the State where historical data
indicate that water temperature may routinely exceed 32.2°C
Idaho's Modified Aquatic Life characterizes water quality appropriate for an aquatic life
community that is limited due to one or more conditions set forth in 40 CFR 131.10(g) which
preclude attainment of reference streams or conditions.
Biological and Habitat Analysis of the CAWS
Ron French of CDM gave a presentation of the available biological (fish), macroinvertebrate,
and habitat data on the CAWS. The diversity and abundance of these features of the
waterway reflects upon the overall health of the system. The primary contributors of data
were the MWRDGC, Midwest Generation, and IDNR.
C:\Documents and SettingsNidrattlocat Settings g
emixtraly Internet Flies \OLK4 \102803 SAC MEETING NOTES2.doc
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA October 28, 2003 SAC Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 8
Fish
Below is a table summarizes the fish data for each reach of the CAWS. The table includes the
number of sample locations, number of species found, the IBI score, and the water quality
score for each reach.
Reach
Sample
Locations
Number
of Species
IBI Score
Water Quality
Score
N. Shore Channel
4
44
.
Fair
Fair
N. Branch Chicago River
. 29
*?
Fair
Good
Chicago River
3
41
Fair
Good
S. Branch Chicago River
5
34
Fair
Good
S. Fork (Bubbly Creek)
.
None
None.
None
None
Chicago Sanitary and
Ship Canal
5
34
Fair
good
Calumet-Sag Channel
2
33
Fair
Fair
Little Calumet River
2
28
Fair
Fair
Lake Calumet
None
None
None
None
Grand Calumet
None
None
None
None
The CAWS has recently experienced significant improvements in fish species diversity. These
improvements are attributed to several factors; however, the primary reasons credited for
improving fish species diversity in the CAWS is the discontinuation of chlorination at the
MWRD facilities in the mid 80's, the Tunnel and Reservoir Plan (TARP), and the Side Stream
Elevated Pool Aeration (SEPA) and supplemental aeration stations.
The chlorination process, stopped during the mid-1980's, did not include dechlorination. The
level of chlorination was not measured directly because the amount of chlorination was
driven by an end of pipe fecal coliform standard.
Other factors that influence fish population include the following:
CADocuments and SetangstjdrataLocal SettIngsViemporary Internet Files \OLKA 102803 SAC MEETING NOTES2.doc
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA October 28, 2003 SAC Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 9
■ Water temperatures
■
Dissolved oxygen levels
■
Channelization of the waterways
■
Lock and dams
■
Contaminated sediments and dredging
■
Physical habitat
■
Others (e.g. endocrine disruptors, exotic species, predator/prey interactions)
Fish diversity has improved with water quality improvements. However, the biological
integrity of the fish communities in the CAWS is poor to fair. The fish communities are
dominated by species that can live under harsh conditions that include poor water quality
and habitat (e.g. bluntonse minnow, common carp, goldfish, etc).
A SAC attendee asked if a report has distinguished fish that are tolerant to poor water'quality
and fish that are tolerant to poor habitat. Ron French, the CDM team fisheries biologist,
explained that in his experience fish tolerant to poor water quality are also generally tolerant
to poor habitat. Therefore, biological life will not greatly improve with major improvements
of water quality in the CAWS, because in the waterways habitat is a limiting factor.
An attendee asked why locks and dams are listed as an item that influences fish population.
Fish are free to pass the locks and dams like boats. Fish are able to swim through the locks,
but not constantly having free access limits the migration.
Macroinvertebrates
Macroinvertebrate data was collected at 13 locations along the CAWS. The sampling
techniques included Hester-Dendy samplers and a ponar dredge.
The table below summarizes the available macroinvertebrate data for each reach of the
CAWS. The table includes the sample locations, number of species collected and the
dominant species for each reach.
Reach
Sample Locations
Number of
List of Dominate
Species
Species
N. Shore Channel
Central Rd, Touhy
Ave, Foster Ave,
10
Oligochaeta most
dominant followed by
C:\Documents and SettIngsNjdratt \Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files\ OLK4\102803 SAC MEETING NOTES2.doc
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA October 28, 2003 SAC Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 10
Oakton St.
chironomids
N. Branch Chicago River
Wilson Ave, Grand
Ave and Diversey Ave
10
Oligochaeta,
flatwoms, isopods and
chironomids
Chicago River
None
None
None
S. Branch Chicago River
None
?
.
None
None
?
.
S. Fork (Bubbly Creek)
None
None
None
Chicago Sanitary and Ship
Canal
Harlem Ave, Cicero
Ave, 16
th St.
12
Oligochaeta,
chironomids
Calumet-Sag Channel
Cicero Ave.
12
Oligochaeta,
chironomids, zebra
mussels
.?
Little Calumet River
Halsted St.
12
•?Oligochaeta,
chironomids, zebra
mussels, hyrda
Lake Calumet
None
None
None
Grand Calumet
None
None
None
The macroinverterates have very limited diversity in the waterways. The macroinvertebrate
community is dominated by organisms that can survive under harsh conditions, including
both poor water quality and habitat. The CAWS lacks littoral areas, riffles, and substrate
types that provide suitable habitat for macroinvertebrate. The contaminated sediments and
low dissolved oxygen levels also prohibit the growth of the macroinvertebrate community.
Habitat
The majority of the CAWS has been modified into concrete lined channels. The waterway
lacks sloping sides and shallow pools needed for a healthy biological community. The table
below provides the percentage of observed sediment and shore cover constituents in each
reach. Also, the table includes descriptions of aquatic vegetation and in stream cover for fish.
CADocuments and Settingsljdratt\Locat Settings\Temporary Internet Files \OLK4\102803 SAC MEETING NOTES2.doc
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA October 28, 2003 SAC Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 11
The table below is a summary of habitat data provide by the MWRD. Habitat data collected
by the USEPA, Lake Michigan Federation, the Illinois EPA, and CDM will be analyzed for the
December 16th
SAC meeting. Also, the habitat analysis will be posted on the project web site.
C:\Documents and SettIngsldrattkLocal SettingslTemporary Internet Files \OLK4\ 102803 SAC MEETING NOTES2.doc
North Branch
Chicago River
North Shore
Channel
Chicago River .South Branch
Chicago River
Bubbly Creek
Chicago Sanitary
and Ship 'Channel
Calumet-Sag
Channel
Transect Locations
Grand Ave
&
Albany
Ave
Touhy
Wells
&
Lake
Shore Dr.
Madison
&
Loomis
•?
•
Archer Ave
HCa
ice
rlerm
o AAv
y
e
e
,
,
D
u
am
ck
e
pno
A
rti
v
i
e6
,
th,
Rt 83,
&
Stephen St
Cicero Ave
ranges form none to
attached algae, rooted
ranges from none
to attached algae,
ranges from none to
attached algae, rooted
ranges from none to
attached algae,
Aquatic Vegetation
floating
rooted floating
none
- none
none
submergents duckweed
overhanging shrubs
ranges from
ranges from none to brush
debris jams, submerged
Instream Cover for Fish
ranges from none to
submerged tree roots
and terrestrial veg,
aquatic veg, boulders
aquatic veg,
boulders,
submerged tree
roots and veg
ranges from none
to logs under cut
bank, rock ledge,
railroad ties
ranges from none to
cement ledge,
boulders
ranges from none to
submerged tree
roots, under cut
bank, boulders, logs
terrestrial veg, rock ledge,
boulders, under cut bank,
indentions, in rock wall,
overhanging veg
ranges from none to
rock ledge
Immediate
Shore Cover
Denuded
9
201
100
63
20
Grasses
100
10
100
80
36
10
Shrub
Trees
15
75
75
30
---7.-----
•-
(3
-
--------------------------
20
90
_
_
3
19
66
45
70
Other (cobble/limestone)
25
30
Sediment Composition
_
Plant Debris
28
.
10.
5?
•
5
Clay
. ..
10.'
•
?
8
10
__________
Inorganic Silt
50
8
68
46
35
_
Organic Sludge
?......
60
92
.
55
---------------
- -----
•
Sand
•?
20
40
.___.
18
21
13
26
Gravel
--------
______ —______-_
50
50
.
22
_
35
33
.—_______—__--_-
23
________________________
53
Cobble
17
_ _
?
_
.
?
10
... ________
18
_____. _________
____
20
_____ ___ .
____________
43
______________
Boulder
60
10
.
55
Mussel Shells
60
30
25
50
34
95
Bedrock or Concrete
100
100
70
100
_____________
100
Coal Fines
5
•
CADocuments end SetttninAldrattlLocal SettIngs1Temporary Internet Fllee1OLK41102803 SAC MEETING NOTES2doc
Several SAC attendees explained that the CAWS did have habitat. For example, the concrete
canalized walls are crumbling in areas. Also, the habitat can be improved in many ways and
potential improvements should be incorporated into the UAA. FCR has a study of habitat
restorations along the waterways that would not interfere with existing uses.
The UAA project team agreed that in some areas, the concrete walls were crumbling.
However, concrete creates a less then optimal surface for macroinvertabrates to attach. Also,
in most of the waterway the existing healthy habitat pockets are too few and small to cause
any significant improvement in the biological health of the majority of the CAWS. Significant
habitat restoration is likely not the optimal alternative for the waterway given time and cost
limitations.
SAC attendees asked the UAA project team not to draw conclusions at this time. Also,
attendees wanted dates to be referenced throughout the presentation of the data. And, for
data analysis to be done solely on a reach by reach basis.
Data from the USFWS and IDNR was not presented because the agencies do not have
significant amounts of data on the CAWS.
An attendee inquired whether the low flow areas of the CAWS, which indude the North
Shore Channel north of the North Side WRP and Bubbly Creek, will be considered as a stream
or a lake. These reaches will be considered both. Alternatives for these reaches will be
complicated and discussed further in future SAC meetings.
Update on Data Analysis and Recreational Use Survey
Colleen Hughes of CDM presented an update on the on-going data analysis. The list of issues
currently being analyzed is:
■
Frequency and duration of dissolved oxygen and bacteria during wet weather events
■
Temperature behavior especially along the CSSC where higher temperatures have been
observed
■
Point Source loadings and dry weather conditions along the waterway
■ Reach specific analysis
■
Reach based water quality standard compliance matrix
■
303 (d) listed parameters
■ Sediment Quality
■
Biological & Habitat
CaDoeumerts and Sedingsldrattl.ocal Seelnas\ Temporary Internet
FILes101.K41102803 SAC MEETING NOTES2.doe
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA October 28, 2003 SAC Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 14
The recreational use of the CAWS will be evaluated using:
■
Surveys completed by the Illinois EPA, CDM, Lake Michigan Federation, and USEPA
■
Data gathered from annual recreational events
■
Interviews of leaders of community organizations that use the river
■
Post card surveys of marinas located on the CAWS
Jessica Harker of Primera presented the results of the marina postcard survey. The survey
accumulated recreational data starting the week of June 9, 2003 and ending the week of
October 20, 2003. Post cards in sets of 20 were sent to marinas along the CAWS. Each marina
was asked to complete one post card per week and return it to CDM. The following marinas
choose to participate in the survey:
■
South Branch Marina on the South Branch of the Chicago River
■
Crowley's on the South Branch of the Chicago River
■
River City Marina on the South Branch of the Chicago River
■
Chicago Yacht Yard, Inc. near the South Branch Turning Basin
■
Pier 11 Marina on the Little Calumet River
■
Lake Calumet Boat on the Little Calumet River
■
Skippers' Marina on the Little Calumet River
The cards surveyed what recreational activities, listed below, were observed or not observed.
The corresponding percentages were calculated
as
the number of cards that designated the
activity was observed out of the total number of post cards returned. For example, 7 percent
of the returned postcards indicated swimming was observed at the marina from which the
postcard was returned.
■
Power Boating - 97%
■
Fishing - 63%
■ Water Skiing/ Jet Skiing - 44%
■
Kayaking/ Canoeing - 30 %
C:\Documents and Settings1jdratnLotal Settings
qemporary Internet Files\ OLK4 102803 SAC MEETING NOTESadoc
Chicago Area Waterway System UAA October 28, 2003 SAC Meeting
November 12, 2003
Page 15
■ Swimming - 7%
■
Wading - 5%
■ Playing at Stream Bank - 1%
Swimming was observed at Skippers Marina, River City Marina, and Crowley's Marina.
Announcements
The MWRD has completed a model calibration report as well as a bacteria study on the
Lower Des Plaines River. These reports are available from the MWRD upon request.
Also, the MWRD will give a presentation explaining TARP operations and construction
schedule during the December SAC meeting.
The health advisory pamphlets where distributed to the meeting attendees and are available
through USEPA. USEPA encouraged the health advisory committee members to arrange
another meeting to redress health advisory signage for the CAWS.
The next SAC meeting will be held on December 16, 2003 in the State of Illinois Building
An agenda will be developed and distributed to SAC members prior to the next meeting:
Please note the CAWS UAA web site,
www.chicagoareawaterways.org,
is operational.
Contact Chris Varones of Hill & Knowlton with comments and questions regarding the
website.
CC:
Toby Frevert
Ilinois EPA
Fred Auxley
FCR
Rob Sulski
Illinois EPA
Todd Wildermuth
FCR
Scott Twait
Illinois EPA
Julia Wozniak
Midwest Generation
Ron French
CDM
Bill Constantelos
Midwest Generation
Colleen Hughes CDM
Tzuoh-Ying Su
USACE
Jeff Wickenkamp CDM
Albert Ettinger
ELPC/ Sierra Club
Nicole Rowan
CDM
Beth Wentzel
Prairie Rivers Network
Jessica Harker
Primera
Paul Zwijack
Corn Products
Susan O'Connell MWRD
Laurel O'Sullivan
LMF
Dick Lanyon
MWRD
Jayne Lillienfeld-Jones LMF Contractor
Mardi Klevs
USEPA
Aaron Rosinski
SE Env. Task Force
Janet Pellegrini USEPA
Harry Walton
IERG
Lisa Frede
CICI
Previous SAC Meeting Attendees
CADocuments and SettingAdratnLocal Settings \ Temporary Internet Files \ OLKA 102803 SAC MEETING NOTES2.dna
Memorandum
To:
?
Toby Frevert, Illinois EPA
Rob Sulski, Illinois EPA
From: Ron French, CDM
• Date:
?
September 19, 2003
Subject: Meeting' Minutes for the August Stakeholder Advisory Committee
Attendees:
Name
Rob Sulski
Scott Twa it
Ron French
Colleen Hughes
Jessica Harker
Sri Rangarajan
Lou Kollias
Joe Cummings
Sergio Serafino
Chris Varones
Joe Deal
Nelson Chueng
Janet Pellegrini
Organization
Illinois EPA
Illinois EPA
CDM
CDM
Primera
Hydroqual
MWRD
MWRD
MWRD
Hill & Knowlton
City of Chicago
City of Chicago
USEPA
Name
Lisa Frede
Fred Auxley
Julia Wozniak
Bill Constantelos
Tzaoh-Ying Su
Sarah Tupper
Beth Wentzel
Paul Zwijack
Laurel O'Sullivan
Jayne Lillienfeld-Jones
Frank Kudrna
Jeff Covinsky
Brenda Carter
Organization
CICI
FCR
Midwest Generation
Midwest Generation
USACE
Sierra Club
Prairie Rivers Network
Corn Products
LMF
LMF Contractor
IL Int. Port District
HMC/IRCA
IERG
On Tuesday, August 26, 2003 the Illinois EPA and CDM held a Stakeholder Advisory
Committee (SAC) meeting to discuss the progress of the Chicago Area Waterway System Use
Attainability Analysis (CAWS UAA). The meeting covered the following items:
■
City of Chicago - Overview of Water Agenda
■
Summary of Water Quality Standards to Support Designated Uses
■
Preliminary Data Review and Analysis
■
Update on Recreational Use Surveys
CADocumenls and Settingstjdratttocal Setlings\Ternporary Internet Files\OLK4t062603 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago UAA SAC Meeting
September 19, 2003
Page 2
■ Outline of Water Quality Modeling Approach
■
Objectives for Public Evening Meetings on September 8, 9, 11, and 16
■
Goals for October SAC Meeting
Each agenda item is discussed in detail in the sections to follow. The agenda was established
to introduce and educate the SAC on the purpose, goals, proposed methodologies, and
progress
of
the CAWS UAA.
City of Chicago - Overview
City
of Chicago Mayor's Office
Joe Deal of the City of Chicago Mayor's Office (City) delivered a speech describing the Water
Agenda for the City. The City is interested in the CAWS UAA because the potential
outcomes will affect the City's Water Agenda. The City's Water Agenda focuses on multi-
departmental coordination to change citizens' perception of the waterways. The following
sections detail the variety of issues addressed in the City's Water Agenda.
Conservation
The City is dedicated to increasing water conservation through several programs. By
repairing water infrastructure the.City has dramatically reduced water use and leakage
despite population increases. Other conservation projects include installing custodian caps
on fire hydrants, retrofitting drinking fountains, and recirculating the water in pools/splash
fountains. Additionally, the City conducts water audits for industrial users as part of the
energy efficiency audits program. Finally, the Water Agenda calls for the Department of
Water Management to develop a plan for comprehensive metering, and to review the City's
Building Codes to ensure that developers are not prohibited from using innovative
technology.
Water Quality
Water quality concerns include complex issues such as invasive species, air pollution,
sediment, and beach closings.
Stormwater
The City manages stormwater by supporting TARP construction, minimizing roadway
runoff, and taking advantage of green infrastructure opportunities Green infrastructure
indudes implementation of rooftop gardens, permeable alleys and parking structures, rain
gardens, open spaces and wetlands, and cisterns and rain barrels. The Chicago Center for
Green Technology is a model for managing stormwater on site. Chicago has developed
guidance on storm water best management practices (BMPs) to assist and encourage citizens
to reach the City's stormwater control goals.
CADocuments and Setlingsdrattlocal SettingskTemporary Internet Files\ OLK4 \ 082603 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago UAA SAC Meeting
September 19, 2003
Page 3
Education
The City's education campaign goals encourage citizens to think about water resources,
understand their role in protecting resources, and ultimately to conserve water. The
education campaign, Action 1-1 20, will utilize the following tools to educate and involve the
public in the Water Agenda:
■
Mass media including public awareness advertisements and an interactive web page with
updated information on water issues in the City
■ Education program for schools
■
Partnerships with local environmental groups
City
of
Chicago Planning
Department
Nelson Chueng of the City of Chicago Planning Department described the City's plans for the
riverfront and their interest in the CAWS UAA. The City's plan for the riverfront is detailed in
The Chicago River Corridor Development Plan
(1999).
The riverfront is owned, operated, and enjoyed by several different entities. The City.
assembled a team representing the different organizations including government, private
sector developers, and nonprofit organizations to create a blueprint for the Chicago
Riverfront. The purpose is to enhance the rivers attractiveness as a natural and recreational
resource, while respecting the needs of residential and business developments. These goals
are achieved through segmenting and zoning the riverfront. The
Chicago River Corridor
Development Plan
details a shared vision for the river and outlines specific recommendations.
One attendee inquired about the sediment issues in the South Fork of the Chicago River
(Bubbly Creek). The US Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) is currently studying the sediment
in that area. The results of USACE study and the CAWS UAA will set a precedent of
sediment treatment along the entire CAWS.
Several attendees are concerned with the encroachment issue on the North Branch of the
Chicago River (NBCR). Several homeowners along the NBCR have built docks along the
waterway, which prevents attainment of continuous public access along the waterway as
detailed in the
Chicago River. Corridor Development Plan.
MWRD owns the land along the
NBCR and requires up to a 30' set back from the waterway. This is an important issue along
the CAWS; however, it is a tenant-owner issue and will not be apart of the UAA.
It was announced that TIF funds will not be available for this project. TIF funds are reserved
to support disadvantaged areas only.
C:\Documents and Settings \jdratt \ Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \OLK4\ 082603 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago UAA SAC Meeting
September 19, 2003
Page 4
Water Quality Standards to Support Designated Uses
Colleen Hughes presented the water quality standards to support designated uses. The
following table reports the existing standards as they apply to the unique reaches of the
CAWS.
Illinois EPA
Designated Uses
(July 2002 305B
Report, Table 3-4)
Applicable IL WQ
Standards
Parameters
Evaluated
Applicable
Waterbodies
Aquatic Life
General Use
DO, pH, metals,
'
unionized ammonia,
TDS, nutrients
Up-stream of the
North Side WRP on
the N. Shore
Channel, Chicago
River
Indigenous aquatic
life
Secondary Contact
.
and indigenous
aquatic life
DO, pH, metals,
unionized ammonia,
TDS
CSSC, Cal-Sag, Lake
Cal, Grand Cal,
SBSR, Section of
NBCR, N. Shore
Channel, Little Cal,
Cal River
Primary contact
(swimming)
General Use
Fecal Coliform
N. Shore Channel
above North Side
WRP, Chicago River
Secondary contact
(recreation) (only
assessed in lakes)
Secondary Contact
and indigenous
aquatic life
Lake Calumet
Fish consumption
General Use
All CAWS water
bodies
Bacteria
Standards
Fecal
Coliform
The Illinois General Use fecal coliform standard states:
■ During the months of May through October, based on a minimum of five samples taken
over not more than a 30 day period, fecal coliform shall not exceed a geometric mean of
CADocuments and Settingstidrattlocal Settings \Temporary Internet FilestOLK4 \ 082603 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago UAA SAC Meeting
September 19, 2003
Page 5
200 coliform forming units (cfu) per 100 ml, nor shall more than 10% of the samples taken
during any 30 day period exceed 400 cfu per 100 ml in protected waters. Protected waters
are defined as waters, which due to natural characteristics, aesthetic value or
environmental significance are deserving of protection from pathogenic organisms.
Protected water will meet one or both of the following conditions:
o Presently support or have the physical characteristics to support primary
contact
o Flow though or adjacent to parks or residential areas
■ Waters unsuited to support primary contact
uses
because of physical, hydrologic or
geographic configurations and located in areas unlikely to be frequented by the public on
a routine basis as determined by the Agency at 35 111. Adm. Code 309 Subpart A, are
exempt from this standard. There is no Secondary Use fecal coliform numeric standard.
E. coli
The USEPA Draft Bacteria Standards Guidance for Primary Contact criteria recommends that
the geometric mean (GM) for E.
coli
adhere to the following formula:
Log (GM) = (0.1064 x illness rate) +1.249
The single sample maxima (SSM) as recommended by the USEPA Draft Guidance should
adhere to the following formula
Log (SSM) = (log (GM))+(confidence level factor) x (log standard deviation)
The USEPA Draft Bacteria Standards Guidance for Secondary Contact criteria recommends
that the geometric mean (GM) for E.
coli
conform to the following formula:
GM = 5 x primary contact criterion
There is no single sample maxima (SSM) criteria recommendation by the USEPA.
C:\Documents and Settings1jdratttLecal SettIngs\ Temporary Internet Files\OLK4\082603 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
EPA's 1986 Criteria, Primary
Contact Recreation:
Indicator
Illness
Rate
Freshwater
Geometric
Mean
Density
Single Sample Maximum Allowable Density
75% CL
82% CL
90% CL
95% CL
(Designated
(Moderate
(Light-use
(Infrequent
Beach Area)
full body
full bodyuse)
recreation)
contact)
Enterococci
E colt
Marine
Enterococci
19
33
126
62
235
104
78
298
158
107
410
276
151
576
501
Chicago UAA SAC Meeting
September 19, 2003
Page 6
■ Below are a list of varying levels of body contact and their corresponding confidence level
factors:
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Standards
The General Use standards state that DO shall not be less than 6.0 mg/L during 16 hours of
any 24 hour period, nor less than 5.0 mg/1 at any time.
The Secondary Use standards state that DO shall not be less than 4.0 mg/L at any time and on
the Calumet-Sag Channel the DO shall not be less tan 3.0 mg/L at any time.
Preliminary Data Review and Analysis
Colleen Hughes of CDM presented preliminary bacteria and DO results. The data has been
analyzed and presented on various maps and box-plots for the CAWS:
Fecal
Coiform
■ Geometric mean of monthly fecal coliform data
CADocuments and Settings1}dralnlocal Settings \Temporary Internet Files OLK4 082603 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago UAA SAC Meeting
September 19, 2003
Page 7
■ Distributicn of monthly fecal coliform data
■ Seasonal (winter/summer) geometric mean of fecal coliform data
■
Seasonal (winter/summer) distribution of fecal coliform data
■ Fecal Coliform data during open water and non-open water seasons on the following
reaches:
o North Shore Channel
o North Branch of the Chicago River
o
Chicago River mainsteam and South Branch
o
Chicago Sanitary & Ship. Channel
Calumet- Sag Channel
North Leg of the Little Calumet River
E.Coli
■
Geometric Mean of E. Coil monthly sampling throughout the year
■
Distributicn of E. Coli monthly sampling throughout the year
Hard copies of the maps for the CAWS were distributed to the attendees, and more copies are
available to SAC members upon request. The Project Team is comfortable using the fecal
coliform data to model the system. The CAWS UAA budget prohibits the collection of 5
bacteria samples taken within a 30 day period. However, the Project Team has a sufficient
amount of quality bacteria data to analyze trends.
Concerning CSO frequency, antecedent conditions may contribute to an increased number of
documented annual CSO events.
One attendee recommended that the Project Team look at hot summers, wet summers, and
other similar combinations to better understand the behavior of bacteria in the CAWS. The
Project Team will look at several other conditions that will be defined as the analysis
progresses.
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
The
DO data was illustrated with the following maps:
CADocuments and Settings Nidratt\Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \OLK4\082603 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago UAA SAC Meeting
September 19, 2003
Page 8
■
Seasonal (winter/ summer) mean DO of continuous sampling stations
■
Seasonal (winter/ summer) frequency distribution of DO of continuous sampling stations
The relationship between stream temperature and DO was reiterated during the meeting.
One physical process that affects DO concentration is the relationship between water
temperature and gas saturation Cold water can hold more dissolved oxygen gas than
warmer water; warmer water becomes "saturated" more easily with oxygen. As water
becomes warmer, it can hold less and less DO.
An attendee recalled that the USACE made significant improvements to the locks during
1999. Also during that year, the allowable amount of diversion from Lake Michigan was
decreased. The DO levels before and after 1999 should be more carefully analyzed to
properly understand the current DO data trends in the waterway.
Future Water Quality Data Analysis
The following issues will be examined during future data analysis efforts:
■ Point/ Non-point source data
■
Wet events analysis
o Need CSO and storm water bacteria data
■
North Branch data
o Deerfield WRP has disinfection and no CSOs
■
Little Calumet South Leg
o Area has no WRP discharges directly up-stream
o
Obtain Thorn Creek Basin Sanitary District data
■
Lake Calumet
■
303d listed parameters
■
Water quality modeling results
The committee agreed that several pumping stations were omitted from the maps, and that it
is key to realize the locations of major point source pollution. The Project Team will track
CADocuments and SetengstjdratOLocal Settings \Temporary Internet Files\ OLK4 \ 082&03 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago UAA SAC Meeting
September 19, 2003
Page 9
down and incorporate pumping stations which have a flow deemed significant enough to
impact the waterways.
Biology and Habitat
Ron French of CDM gave a presentation summarizing the biological and habitat data that has
been received. Below is a table describing sources of the biological and habitat data that has
been collected for each reach.
Reach
Benthic
Macroinvertebrate
Data
Fish Data
Habitat
N. Shore Channel
MWRD
USACE, FWS, MWRD MWRD
N. Branch Chicago
River
MWRD
FWS, MWRD
MWRD
Chicago River
MWRD
USACE, FWS, USEPA,
MWRD
MWRD
S. Branch Chicago
River
None
FWS, USEPA
Midwest Generation,
MWRD
S. Fork (Bubbly
Creek)
None
None
MWRD
Chicago Sanitary and
Ship Canal
Midwest-Generation,
MWRD
USACE, Midwest
Generation, FWS,
MWRD, USEPA
Midwest-Generation,
MWRD
Calumet-Sag
Channel
MWRD
USACE, FWS, MWRD
MWRD
Little Calumet River
MWRD
USACE, FWS, MWRD
MWRD
Lake Calumet
None
USACE
None
Grand Calumet
None
None
None
C:\Documents and Settingstidrattlotal Setlings\Temporary Internet Files\ OLK4\ 082603 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago UAA SAC Meeting
September 19, 2003
Page 10
One attendee inquired why the MWRD does not have a biological/habitat sampling point on
the South Fork of the Chicago River (Bubbly Creek). A representative from the MWRD
responded that the MWRD already has a good idea of the present sediment quality in that
area due to past sampling on the South Fork.
An attendee recommended that the Project Team contact the USEPA for more biological data
on Lake Calumet.
The biological assessment will be a unique analysis because the system is primarily manmade
and therefore does not correspond well with 'established biological assessment strategies. The
reaches will be assessed using intercomparison of various existing biological/habitat indices.
Additionally, the macroinvertebrate community diversity will be used to characterize the
reaches.
Update on Recreational Use Survey
The recreational use of the CAWS will be evaluated using:
■
Surveys completed by the Illinois EPA, CDM, Lake Michigan Federation, and USEPA
■
Data gathered from annual recreational events
■
Interviews of leaders of community organizations that use the river
■
Post card surveys of marinas located on the CAWS
Jessica Harker of Primera presented initial results of the marina postcard survey. Post cards
in sets of 20 were sent to marinas along the CAWS. Each marina was asked to complete one
post card per week and return it to CDM. The following marinas choose to participate in the
survey:
■
South Branch Marina on the South Branch of the Chicago River
■
Crowley's on the South Branch of the Chicago River
■
River City Marina on the South Branch of the Chicago River
■
Chicago Yacht Yard, Inc. near the South Branch Turning Basin
■
Pier 11 Marina on the Little Calumet River
■
Lake Calumet Boat on the Little Calumet River
■
Skippers' Marina on the Little Calumet River
C:\Documents and Settings NjdrattlocaI Settings\Temporary Internet FtlestOLK4100303 SAC MEETING NOTESdoc
Chicago UAA SAC Meeting
September 19, 2003
Page 11
The cards survey what recreational activities, listed below, were observed or not observed.
The corresponding percentages indicate the number of cards that designated that the activity
was observed out of the total number of post cards returned. For example, 7 percent of the
returned postcards indicated swimming was observed at the marina from which the postcard
was returned.
■
Power Boating- 98%
■ Swimming- 7%
■
Fishing- 68%
■
Wading- 4%
■
Water Skiing/ Jet Skiing- 52%
■
Playing at Stream Bank- 2%
■ Kayaking/Canoeing- 25%
Swimming was observed at Skippers Marina, River City Marina, and Crowley's Marina.
Water Quality Modeling Approach
Data Acquisition Status Report
Sri Rangarajan of HydroQuargave a summary of the modeling framework to support the
UAA process for the CAWS.
Need
for Modeling
It is difficult, if not monetarily impossible to assess the waterways through direct monitoring
alone, because of event related variability, complex diffusion in the system and other factors.
Many samples would be needed for proper characterization. A water quality model
mathematically describes a water system and predicts the consequences of future actions in
terms of water quality. The modeling for the CAWS UAA will reveal contributions from
point and non-point source loads, how they will change in the future, and how to manipulate
pollutant source loads to achieve designated uses. Once sufficient data has been gathered
(including rainfall, temperature, topographic, land use, point source load, and management
practice data), the information will be input into the model. The output of the model will
yield constituent concentrations, stream flows, and water quality descriptions.
Selection of
Models.
A wide variety of water quality models are available. The best model for a specific project has
the ability to produce the desired output, to properly incorporate the projects unique site-
specific characteristics, and to produce results according to the project time and resource
constraints.
Marquette University is developing the hydrodynamic and DO model for the CAWS UAA.
They chose a model called DUFLOW.
C:\Documents and Settings \jdratt \Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files\ OLK4 082603 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago UAA SAC Meeting
September 19, 2003
Page 12
No model currently exists for bacteria or suspended solids for the CAWS UAA. HydroQual
is considering either Water Quality Analysis Simulation Program (WASP) or DUFLOW to
model these parameters.
InpuVOutput Review
The CAWS model inputs include:
■ Urban Watershed Model
o Precipitation (O'Hare, Midway and Valparaiso - hourly and Park Forest
-
daily)
o Land use and percent impervious area
o Losses such
as
evaporation, infiltration and depressional storage
o Physical parameters of urban watersheds such as surface roughness, slope and
drainage area
■
Collection system model
o
Dry weather flow distributions
o
System details such as pipes, pump stations, combined sewer overflow with
storm water outfalls and WRP effluent/bypass locations
■
Hydrodynamics
o Storm water runoff
o CSO discharges
o WRP discharges
o
Base flow volumes
o Channel cross-section and other physical properties
o
Flow/ water depth data for calibration
o
Operation rules such as diversion, gate controls or dam operation during
dry/wet periods or during winter/ summer seasons
■ Water Quality - for each water quality parameter
C:\Documents and SenIngsljdratnLocal Settings \ Temporary Internet Files \ OLK4 \ 082603 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago UAA SAC Meeting
September 19, 2003
Page 13
o
Storm water runoff concentrations
o
CSO concentrations
o
WRP discharge concentrations (effluent/bypass)
o Base flow/ background concentrations
o In-stream temperature magnitudes and duration
The base flow of the system is probably negligible. The effluent from the WRP acts as the
base flow in the CAWS.
The desired outputs for the CAWS include:
■ In-stream concentrations
o Temporal and spatial distributions
o Near-field missing characteristics for discharge points
o
Depth-variant concentrations
■ Graphics/statistics to show extent of compliance to criteria
Application in the UAA Process
Sri ran a model for a waterway system in New York City. The model ran three different
scenarios. The model included uncertainty analysis and confidence levels. As a result of the
New York water quality model, the citizens of New York paid for the most optimal
improvements.
For the CAWS, monthly data from the past five years will be used for input. Hourly data will
be used to calibrate the model.
Plans for Public Evening Meetings
A series of four public meeting are scheduled from 7:00- 9:00pm at the following locations in
September to discuss the progress of the UAA project and overview the physical
characteristics of the reaches of the CAWS:
■ September 8, 2003:
?
The Ecology Center
2024 McCormick Boulevard
Evanston, IL 60201
CADocuments and Settings \jdrattlocat Setlings\Temporary Internet Files \ OU<4\082603 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago UAA SAC Meeting
September 19, 2003
Page 14
■ September 9, 2003:
■ September 11, 2003:
■ September 16, 2003:
Lake Katherine Nature Preserve
7402 Lake Katherine Drive
Palos Heights, IL 60463
Stefani's at Harborside International Golf Course
11001 South Doty Avenue East
Chicago, IL 60628
James R. Thompson Center - Assembly Hall Room
100 W. Randolph
• Chicago, IL 60601
Goals for Next Meeting
The next SAC meeting will be held on October 28, 2003 at 9:00 am in the State of Illinois
Building. The goals for the next meeting includes:
■
Discussion on appropriate designated uses
■ Identify treatment and mitigation strategies.
■
Estimate cost of compliance
An agenda will be developed and distributed to SAC members prior to the next meeting.
Please note the CAWS UAA web site,
www.chicagoareawaterways.org,
is operational.
Contact Hill & Knowlton with comments and questions regarding the website.
cc
Rob Sulski
Illinois EPA
Lisa Frede
CICI
Scott Twait
Illinois EPA
Fred Auxley
FCR
Ron French
CDM
Julia Wozniak
Midwest Generation
Colleen Hughes
CDM
Bill Constantelos
Midwest Generation
Jessica Harker
Primera
Tzaoh-Ying Su
USACE
Sri Rangarajan
Hydroqual
Sarah Tupper
Sierra Club
Lou Kollias
MWRD
Beth Wentzel
Prairie Rivers Network
Joe Cummings
MWRD
Paul Zwijack
Corn Products
Sergio Serafino
MWRD
Laurel O'Sullivan
LMF
Chris Varones
Hill
&
Knowlton
Jayne Lillienfeld-Jones LMF Contractor
Joe Deal
City of Chicago
Frank Kudrna
Illinois Int. Port District
Nelson Chueng
City of Chicago
Jeff Covinsky
HMC/1RCA
Janet Pellegrini
USEPA
Brenda Carter
IERG
Previous SAC.
Meeting Attendees
C:\Documents and Settings \jdratnLocal SettingslIemporary Internet Files\ OLK4 \ 082603 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Memorandum
To:
?
Toby Frevert, Illinois EPA
Rob Sulski, Illinois EPA
From: Ron French, CDM
Date:
?
September 19, 2003
Subject: Meeting Minutes for the August Stakeholder Advisory Committee
Attendees:
Name
Rob Sulski
Scott Twa it
Ron French
Colleen Hughes
Jessica Harker
Sri Rangarajan
Lou Kollias
Joe Cummings
Sergio Serafino
Chris Varones
Joe Deal
Nelson Chueng
Janet Pellegrini
Organization
Illinois EPA
Illinois EPA
CDM
CDM
Primera
Hydroqual
MWRD
MWRD
MWRD
Hill & Knowlton
City of Chicago
City of Chicago
USEPA
Name
Lisa Frede
Fred Auxley
Julia Wozniak
Bill Constantelos
Tzaoh-Ying Su
Sarah Tupper
Beth Wentzel
Paul Zwijack
Laurel O'Sullivan
Jayne Lillienfeld-Jones
Frank Kudrna
Jeff Covinsky
Brenda Carter
Organization
CICI
FCR
Midwest Generation
Midwest Generation
USACE
Sierra Club
Prairie Rivers Network
Corn Products
LMF
LMF Contractor
IL Int. Port District
HMC/IRCA
IERG
On Tuesday, August 26, 2003 the Illinois EPA and CDM held a Stakeholder Advisory
Committee (SAC) meeting to discuss the progress of the Chicago Area Waterway System Use
Attainability Analysis (CAWS UAA). The meeting covered the following items:
■
City of Chicago - Overview of Water Agenda
■
Summary of Water Quality Standards to Support Designated Uses
■
Preliminary Data Review and Analysis
■
Update on Recreational Use Surveys
CADocurnents and SettingsVirattlocal Settings \Temporary Internet Files \ OLK4 \ 082603 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago UAA SAC Meeting
September 19, 2003
Page 2
■
Outline of Water Quality Modeling Approach
■
Objectives for Public Evening Meetings on September 8, 9, 11, and 16
■
Goals for October SAC Meeting
Each agenda item is discussed in detail in the sections to follow. The agenda was established
to introduce and educate the SAC on the purpose, goals, proposed methodologies, and
progress of the CAWS UAA.
City of Chicago - Overview
City. of Chicago Mayor's Office
Joe Deal of the City of Chicago Mayor's Office (City) delivered a speech describing the Water
Agenda for the City. The City is interested in the CAWS UAA because the potential
outcomes will affect the City's Water Agenda. The City's Water Agenda focuses on multi-
departmental coordination to change citizens' perception of the waterways. The following
sections detail the variety of issues addressed in the City's Water Agenda.
Conservation
The City is dedicated to increasing water conservation through several programs. By
repairing water infrastructure the City has dramatically reduced water use and leakage
despite population increases. Other conservation projects include installing custodian caps
on fire hydrants, retrofitting drinking fountains, and recirculating the water in pools/splash
. fountains. Additionally, the City conducts water audits for industrial users as part of the
energy efficiency audits program. Finally, the Water Agenda calls for the Department of
Water Management to develop a plan for comprehensive metering, and to review the City's
Building Codes to ensure that developers are not prohibited from using innovative
technology.
Water Quality
Water quality concerns include complex issues such as invasive species, air pollution,
sediment, and beach closings.
Stormwater
The City manages stormwater by supporting TARP construction, minimizing roadway
runoff, and taking advantage of green infrastructure opportunities. Green infrastructure
includes implementation of rooftop gardens, permeable alleys and parking structures, rain
gardens, open spaces and wetlands, and cisterns and rain barrels. The Chicago Center for
Green Technology is a model for managing stormwater on site. Chicago has developed
guidance on storm water best management practices (BMPs) to assist and encourage citizens
to reach the City's stormwater control goals.
C:\Documents and Settings\ Oran \Local Settings \Temporary Internet Ries \OLK4N 082603 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago UAA SAC Meeting
September 19, 2003
Page 3
Education
The City's education campaign goals encourage citizens to think about water resources,
understand their role in protecting resources, and ultimately to conserve water. The
education campaign, Action H
2
0, will utilize the following tools to educate and involve the
public in the Water Agenda:
■
Mass media including public awareness advertisements and an interactive web page with
updated information on water issues in the City
■ Education program for schools
■ Partnerships with local environmental groups
City. of Chicago Planning Department
Nelson Chueng of the City of Chicago Planning Department described the City's plans for the
riverfront and their interest in the CAWS UAA. The City's plan for the riverfront is detailed in
The Chicago River Corridor Development Plan
(1999).
The riverfront is owned, operated, and enjoyed by several different entities. The City
assembled a team representing the different organizations including government, private
sector developers, and nonprofit organizations to create a blueprint for the Chicago
Riverfront. The purpose is to enhance the rivers attractiveness as a natural and recreational
resource, while respecting the needs of residential and business developments. These goals
are achieved through segmenting and zoning the riverfront. The
Chicago. River Corridor
Development Plan
details a shared vision for the river and outlines specific recommendations.
One attendee inquired about the sediment issues in the South Fork of the Chicago River
(Bubbly Creek). The US Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) is currently studying the sediment
in that area. The results of USACE study and the CAWS UAA will set a precedent of
sediment treatment along the entire CAWS.
Several attendees are concerned with the encroachment issue on the North Branch of the
Chicago River (NBCR). Several homeowners along the NBCR have built docks along the
waterway, which prevents attainment of continuous public access along the waterway as
detailed in the
Chicago River Corridor Development Plan.
MWRD owns the land along the
NBCR and requires up to a 30' set back from the waterway. This is an important issue along
the CAWS; however, it is a tenant-owner issue and will not be apart of the UAA.
It was announced that TIF funds will not be available for this project. TIF funds are reserved
to support disadvantaged areas only.
C:\Documents
Documents and Settings \jdratt■Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files\ OLK4\ 082603 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago UAA SAC Meeting
September 19, 2003
Page 4
Water Quality Standards to Support Designated Uses
Colleen Hughes presented the water quality standards to support designated uses. The
following table reports the existing standards as they apply to the unique reaches of the
CAWS.
Illinois
EPA
Designated Uses
(July 2002 305B
Report, Table 3-4)
Applicable
IL WQ
Standards
Parameters
Evaluated
•
Applicable
Waterbodies
Aquatic Life
General Use
•
DO, pi-I,
metals,
unionized ammonia,
TDS, nutrients
Up-stream of the
North Side WRP on
the N. Shore
Channel, Chicago
River
Indigenous aquatic
life
Secondary Contact
and indigenous
aquatic life
DO, pH, metals,
unionized ammonia,
TDS
CSSC, Cal-Sag, Lake
Cal, Grand
Cal,
SBSR, Section of.
NBCR, N. Shore
Channel, Little Cal,
Cal River
Primary contact
(swimming)
General Use
Fecal Coliform
N. Shore Channel
above North Side
WRP, Chicago River
Secondary contact
(recreation) (only
assessed in lakes)
Secondary Contact
and indigenous
aquatic life
Lake Calumet
Fish consumption
General Use
All CAWS water
bodies
Bacteria Standards
Fecal
Coliform
The Illinois General Use fecal coliform standard states:
■
During the months of May through October, based on a minimum of five samples taken
over not more than a 30 day period, fecal coliform shall not exceed a geometric mean of
CADocuments and Settings \jdratt\Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \OLK4 \ 082603 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago UAA SAC Meeting
September 19, 2003
Page 5
200 coliform forming units (cfu) per 100 ml, nor shall more than 10% of the samples taken
during any 30 day period exceed 400 cfu per 100 ml in protected waters. Protected waters
are defined as waters, which due to natural characteristics, aesthetic value or •
environmental significance are deserving of protection from pathogenic organisms.
Protected water will meet one or both of the following conditions:
o Presently support or
,
have the physical characteristics to support primary
contact
Flow though or adjacent to parks or residential areas
■ Waters unsuited to support primary contact uses because of physical, hydrologic or
geographic configurations and located in areas unlikely to be frequented by the public on
a routine basis as determined by the Agency at 35111. Adm. Code 309 Subpart A, are
exempt from this standard. There is no Secondary Use fecal coliform numeric standard.
E. co
li
The USEPA Draft Bacteria Standards Guidance for Primary Contact criteria recommends that
the geometric mean (GM) for E.
coli
adhere to the following formula:
Log (GM) = (0.1064 x illness rate) +1.249
The single sample maxima (SSM) as recommended by the USEPA Draft Guidance should
adhere to the following formula
Log (SSM) = (log (GM))+(confidence level factor) x (log standard deviation)
The USEPA Draft Bacteria Standards Guidance for Secondary Contact criteria recommends
that the geometric mean (GM) for E.
coli
conform to the following formula:
GM = 5 x primary contact criterion
There is no single sample maxima (SSM) criteria recommendation by the USEPA.
CADocuments and Settings \idratt1Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \ OLK4 082603 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
EPA's 1986 Criteria, Primary
Contact Recreation:
Indicator
?
Illness
?
Geometric
?
Single Sample Maximum Allowable Density
Rate
?
Mean
Density
?
75"/0 CL
?
CL?
90% CL?
95% CL
(Designated
?
( Moderate
?
(Light-use?
(Infrequent
Beach Area)?
full body?
full body?
use)
recreation)
?
contact)
33
?
62?
78
126
?235?
208
Marine
Enterococci
?
I
35
104?158
Freshwater
Enterococci
E col
i
107
151
410
576
276
501
Chicago UAA SAC Meeting
September 19, 2003
Page 6
■ Below are a list of varying levels of body contact and their corresponding confidence level
factors:
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Standards
The General Use standards state that DO shall not be less than 6.0 mg/L during 16 hours of
any 24 hour period, nor less than 5.0 mg/1 at any time.
The Secondary Use standards state that DO shall not be less than 4.0 mg/L at any time and on
the Calumet-Sag Channel the DO shall not be less tan 3.0 mg/L at any time.
Preliminary Data Review and Analysis
Colleen Hughes of CDM presented preliminary bacteria and DO results. The data has been
analyzed and presented on various maps and box-plots for the CAWS:
Fecal Coiform
■ Geometric mean of monthly fecal coliform data
C:\Documents and SettIngsldratt■Local SettIngs
g
emporary Internet Files\ OLK4\ 082603 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago UAA SAC Meeting
September 19, 2003
Page 7
■
Distribution of monthly fecal coliform data
■
Seasonal (winter/summer) geometric mean of fecal coliform data
■ Seasonal (winter/ summer) distribution of fecal coliform data
■ Fecal Coliform data during open water and non-open water seasons on the following
reaches:
o North Shore Channel
o North Branch of the Chicago River
o
Chicago River mainsteam and South Branch
o Chicago Sanitary & Ship Channel
Calumet- Sag Channel
North Leg of the Little Calumet River
■
Geometric Mean of E. Coli monthly sampling throughout the year
■
Distributicn of E. Coli monthly sampling throughout the year
Hard copies of the maps for the CAWS were distributed to the attendees, and more copies are
available to SAC members upon request. The Project Team is comfortable using the fecal
coliform data to model the system. The CAWS UAA budget prohibits the collection of 5
bacteria samples taken within a 30 day period. However, the Project Team has a sufficient
amount of quality bacteria data to analyze trends.
Concerning CSO frequency, antecedent conditions may contribute to an increased number of
documented annual CSO events.
One attendee recommended that the Project Team look at hot summers, wet summers, and
other similar combinations to better understand the behavior of bacteria in the CAWS. The
Project Team will look at several other conditions that will be defined as the analysis
progresses.
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
The DO data was illustrated with the following maps:
CADocuments and Settings \jdratt \ Local Settings\Temporary Internet FllestOLK4 \ 082603 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago UAA SAC Meeting
September 19, 2003
Page 8
■ Seasonal (winter/ summer) mean DO of continuous sampling stations
■ Seasonal (winter/ summer) frequency distribution of DO of continuous sampling stations
The relationship between stream temperature and DO was reiterated during the meeting.
One physical process that affects DO concentration is the relationship between water
temperature and gas saturation. Cold water can hold more dissolved oxygen gas than
warmer water; warmer water becomes "saturated" more easily with oxygen. As water
becomes warmer, it can hold less and less DO.
An attendee recalled that the USACE made significant improvements to the locks during
1999. Also during that year, the allowable amount of diversion from Lake Michigan was
decreased. The DO levels before and after 1999 should be more carefully analyzed to
properly understand the current DO data trends in the waterway.
Future. Water Quality Data Analysis
The following issues will be examined during future data analysis efforts:
Point/ Non-point source data
■ Wet events analysis
o Need CSO and storm water bacteria data
■ North Branch data
o Deerfield WRP has disinfection and no CSOs
■
Little Calumet South Leg
o
Area has no WRP discharges directly up-stream
o
Obtain Thorn Creek Basin Sanitary District data
■
Lake Calumet
■
303d listed parameters
■ Water quality modeling results
The committee agreed that several pumping stations were omitted from the maps, and that it
is key to realize the locations of major point source pollution. The Project Team will track
CADocuments and Settingsljdrattlocal Settings \Temporary Internet Files \ OLK4 082603 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago UAA SAC Meeting
September 19, 2003
Page 9
down and incorporate pumping stations which have a flow deemed significant enough to
impact the waterways.
Biology and Habitat
Ron French of CDM gave a presentation summarizing the biological and habitat data that has
been received. Below is a table describing sources of the biological and habitat data that has
been collected for each reach.
Reach
Benthic
•
Macroinvertebrate
.
Data
Fish Data
.
Habitat
•
N. Shore Channel
MWRD
USACE, FWS, MWRD
MWRD
N. Branch Chicago
River
MWRD
FWS, MWRD
MWRD
Chicago River
MWRD
USACE, FWS, USEPA,
MWRD
MWRD
S. Branch Chicago
River
None
FWS, USEPA
Midwest Generation,
MWRD
S. Fork (Bubbly
Creek)
None
None
MWRD
Chicago Sanitary and
Ship Canal
Midwest Generation,
MWRD
USACE, Midwest -
Generation, FWS,
MWRD, USEPA
Midwest Generation,
MWRD
Calumet-Sag
Channel
MWRD
USACE, FWS, MWRD
MWRD
Little Calumet River
MWRD
USACE, FWS, MWRD MWRD
Lake Calumet
None
USACE
None
Grand Calumet
None
None
None
CADocuments and Settings N.jdratt1 Local SenIngs1Temporaly Internet Files\ OLK41082603 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago UAA SAC Meeting
September 19, 2003
Page 10
One attendee inquired why the MWRD does not have a biological/habitat sampling point on
the South Fork of the Chicago River (Bubbly Creek). A representative from the MWRD
responded that the MWRD already has a good idea of the present sediment quality in that
area due to past sampling on the South Fork.
An attendee recommended that the Project Team contact the USEPA for more biological data
on Lake Calumet.
. The biological assessment will be a unique analysis because the system is primarily manmade
and therefore does not correspond well with established biological assessment *strategies. The
reaches will be assessed using intereomparison of various existing biological/habitat indices.
Additionally, the macroinvertebrate community diversity will be used to characterize the
reaches.
Update on Recreational Use Survey
The recreational use of the CAWS will be evaluated using:
■
Surveys completed by the Illinois EPA, CDM, Lake Michigan Federation, and USEPA
■
Data gathered from annual recreational events
■
Interviews of leaders of community organizations that use the river
■
Post card surveys of marinas located on the CAWS
Jessica Harker of Primera presented initial results of the marina postcard survey. Post cards
in sets of 20 were sent to marinas along the CAWS. Each marina was asked to complete one
post card per week and return it to CDM. The following marinas choose to participate.in the
survey:
■
South Branch Marina on the South Branch of the Chicago River
■
Crowley's on the South Branch of the Chicago River
■
River City Marina on the South Branch of the Chicago River
■
Chicago Yacht Yard, Inc. near the South Branch Turning Basin
■
Pier 11 Marina on the Little Calumet River
■
Lake Calumet Boat on the Little Calumet River
■
Skippers' Marina on the Little Calumet River
CADocuments and Settings \jdrateLocal Settings‘Temporary Internet Files\ OLK4 \ 082603 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago UAA SAC Meeting
September 19, 2003
Page 11
The cards survey what recreational activities, listed below, were observed or not observed.
The corresponding percentages indicate the number of cards that designated that the activity
was observed out of the total number of post cards returned. For example, 7 percent of the
returned postcards indicated swimming was observed at the marina from which the postcard
was returned.
■
Power Boating- 98%
■
Swimming- 7%
■
Fishing- 68%
■
Wading- 4%
■
Water Skiing/ Jet Skiing- 52%
■ Playing at Stream Bank- 2%
■
Kayaking/Canoeing- 25%
Swimming was observed at Skippers Marina, River City Marina, and Crowley's Marina.
Water Quality Modeling Approach
Data Acquisition Status Report
Sri Rangarajan of HydroQual gave a summary of the modelingiramework to support the
UAA process for the CAWS.
Need for Modeling
It is difficult, if not monetarily impossible to assess the waterways through direct monitoring
alone, because of event related variability, complex diffusion in the system and other factors.
Many samples would be needed for proper characterization. A water quality model
mathematically describes a water system and predicts the consequences of future actions in
terms of water qualitk. The modeling for the CAWS UAA will reveal contributions from
point and non-point source loads, how they will change in the future, and how to manipulate
pollutant source loads to achieve designated uses. Once sufficient data has been gathered
(including rainfall, temperature, topographic, land use, point source load, and management
practice data), the information will be input into the model. The output of the model will
yield constituent concentrations, stream flows, and water quality descriptions.
Selection
of Models
A wide variety of water quality models are available. The best model for a specific project has
the ability to produce the desired output, to properly incorporate the projects unique site-
specific characteristics, and to produce results according to the project time and resource
constraints.
Marquette University is developing the hydrodynamic and DO model for the CAWS UAA.
They chose a model called DUFLOW.
CADocuments and SettIngqdratttLocal Settings
q
emporary Internet Files \OLK4 \ 082603 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago UAA SAC Meeting
September 19, 2003
Page 12
No model currently exists for bacteria or suspended solids for the CAWS UAA. HydroQual
is considering either Water Quality Analysis Simulation Program (WASP) or DUFLOW to
model these parameters.
Input/Output Review
The CAWS model inputs indude:
■ Urban Watershed Model
o
Precipitation (O'Hare, Midway and Valparaiso - hourly and Park Forest -
daily)
o
Land use and percent impervious area
o
Losses such as evaporation, infiltration and depressional storage
o
Physical parameters of urban watersheds such as surface roughness, slope and
drainage area
■
Collection system model
o Dry weather flow distributions
o System
details
such as pipes, pump stations, combined sewer overflow with
storm water outfalls and WRP effluent/bypass locations
■ Hydrodynamics
o
Storm water runoff
o
CSO discharges
o
WRP discharges
o
Base flow volumes
o
Channel cross-section and other physical properties
o
Flow/ water depth data for calibration
o
Operation rules such as diversion, gate controls or dam operation during
dry/wet periods or during winter/summer seasons
■ Water Quality - for each water quality parameter
C:\Documents and Settingsljdratt \ Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files \ OLK4 \ 082603 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago UAA SAC Meeting
September 19, 2003
Page 13
o Storm water runoff concentrations
o CSO concentrations
o WRP discharge concentrations (effluent/bypass)
o Base flow/ background concentrations
o
In-stream temperature magnitudes and duration
The base flow of the system is probably negligible. The effluent from the WRP acts as the
base flow in the CAWS.
The desired outputs for the CAWS include:
■ In-stream concentrations
Temporal and spatial distributions
o Near-field missing characteristics for discharge points
o Depth-variant concentrations
■ Graphics/statistics to show extent of compliance to criteria
Application in the
UAA
Process
Sri ran a model for a waterway system in New York City. The model ran three different
scenarios. The model included uncertainty analysis and confidence levels. As a result of the
New York water quality model, the citizens of New York paid for the most optimal
improvements.
For the CAWS, monthly data from the past five years will be used for input. Hourly data will
be used to calibrate the model.
Plans for Public Evening Meetings
A series of four public meeting are scheduled from 7:00- 9:00pm at the following locations in
September to discuss the progress of the UAA project and overview the physical
characteristics of the reaches of the CAWS:
■
September 8, 2003:
?
The Ecology Center
2024 McCormick Boulevard
Evanston, IL 60201
CADocuments and SetlIngskjdratnLocal Settings \Temporary Internet Files OLK4 \ 082603 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago UAA SAC Meeting
September 19, 2003
Page 14
■
September 9, 2003:
?
Lake Katherine Nature Preserve
7402 Lake Katherine Drive
Palos Heights, IL 60463
■
September 11, 2003:?
Stefani's at Harborside International Golf Course
11001 South Doty Avenue East
Chicago, IL 60628
■
September 16, 2003: . James R. Thompson Center - Assembly Hall Room
100 W. Randolph
Chicago, IL 60601
Goals for Next Meeting
The next SAC meeting will be held on October 28, 2003 at 9:00 am in the State of Illinois
Building. The goals for the next meeting includes:
■
Discussion on appropriate designated uses
•
'
Identify treatment and mitigation strategies.
■
Estimate cost of compliance
An agenda will be developed and distributed to SAC members prior to the next meeting.
Please note the CAWS UAA web site,
www.chicagoareawaterways.org,
is operational.
Contact Hill & Knowlton with comments and questions regarding the website..
CC:
... __
Rob Sulski
Illinois EPA
Lisa Frede
CICI
Scott Twait
Illinois EPA
Fred Auxley
FCR
Ron French
CDM
Julia Wozniak
Midwest Generation
Colleen Hughes
CDM
Bill Constantelos
Midwest Generation
Jessica Harker
Primera
Tzaoh-Ying Su
USACE
Sri Rangarajan
Hydroqual
Sarah Tupper
Sierra Club
Lou Kollias
MWRD
Beth Wentzel
Prairie Rivers Network
Joe Cummings
MWRD
Paul Zwijack
Corn Products
Sergio Serafino
MWRD
Laurel O'Sullivan
LMF
Chris Varones
Hill
&
Knowlton
Jayne Lillienfeld-Jones LMF Contractor
Joe Deal
City of Chicago
Frank Kudrna
Illinois Int. Port District
Nelson Chueng
City of Chicago
Jeff Covinsky
HMC/IRCA
Janet Pellegrini
USEPA
Brenda Carter
IERG
Previous SAC Meeting Attendees
CADocuments and SettinqqdrattlocaI Settings \ Ternporary Internet Files \ OLK4 \ 082603 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Memorandum
To:?
Toby Frevert, Illinois EPA
Rob Sulski, Illinois EPA
From: Ron French, CDM
Date:
?
July 28, 2003
Subject: Meeting Minutes for the July Stakeholder Advisory Committee
Attendees:
Name
Rob Sulski
Scott Twait
Ron French
Chris Yamaya
John D'Aniello
Nicole Rowan
Susan O'Connell
Lou Kollias
Sergio Seregino
Rebecca Rader
Joe Deal
Bob Foster
Janet Pellegrini
Organization
Illinois EPA
Illinois EPA
CDM
CDM
CDM
CDM
MWRD
MWRD
MWRD
Hill & Knowlton
Chicago Mayor's Office
Chicago Park District
USEPA
Name
Lisa Frede
Laurene von Klan
Julia Wozniak
Bill Constantelos
Jessica Harker
Sarah Tupper
Albert Ettinger
Paul Zwijack
Laurel O'Sullivan
Jayne Lillienfeld-Jones
Nick Menninga
Brenda Carter
Organization
CICI
FCR
Midwest Generation
Midwest Generation
Primera
Sierra Club
ELPC/ Sierra Club
Corn Products
LMF
LMF Contractor
Greeley & Hansen
IERG
On Tuesday, July 22, 2003 the Illinois EPA and CDM held a Stakeholder Advisory Committee
(SAC) meeting to discuss the Chicago Area Waterway System Use Attainability Analysis
(CAWS UAA). The meeting covered the following items:
■
Friends of the Chicago River - Overview
■
Lake Michigan Federation - Overview
■
Physical Features of the CAWS
■
Overview of Other Urban Streams
C:\Documents and Settings\ idratt \Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \ OLK4 \ 072203 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago UAA SAC Meeting
July 28, 2003
Page 2
■
Update on Data Analysis and Recreational Use Survey
■
Six Criteria for a UAA
■
Water Quality Standards as they apply to the Chicago Area Waterway System
■
Goals for Next Meeting
Each agenda item is discussed in detail in the sections to follow. The agenda was established
to introduce and educate the SAC on the purpose, goals, proposed methodologies, and
progress of the CAWS UAA.
Friends of the Chicago River - Overview
Laurene von Klan of the Friends of the Chicago River (FCR) delivered a speech describing
FCR and its interest in the CAWS UAA.
FCR was formed after several community members were inspired by a Chicago magazine
article entitled, "Our Friendless River" described the poor state of the Chicago River and that
the Chicago River was friendless. FCR was incorporated in 1988. Now, FCR has grown from
a dedicated group of volunteers to a nonprofit organization with a ten person staff and a one
million dollar budget.
The mission of FCR is to foster the vitality of the Chicago River for the human, plant and
animal communities within its watershed. Or, in simpler terms, to improve the Chicago
River. FCR accomplishes their mission through:
■
Education programs, such as the
Chicago River Schools Network
■
On-The-Ground Projects, such as
Chicago River Rescue Day
■
Policy and Planning, such as city ordinance projects
Regarding the CAWS UAA, FCR encourages the highest upgrade possible. Members of FCR
have hosted, witnessed, and reported a wide variety of uses on the CAWS.
FCR highlighted the fact that the MWRD is proud of providing the most affordable
wastewater treatment in comparison to other large cities. Hence, FCR feels that the MWRD
has some financial flexibility. Therefore, FCR encourages MWRD to incorporate disinfection
as a part of their WRP treatment process.
Finally, FCR invited everyone to participate in the annual Flatwater Classic Canoe and Kayak
Race and Bicycle Escapade on August 10, 2003.
CADocuments and SettIngskjdrattlocal Settings\Ternporary Internet Hes \OLK4 \ 072203 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago UAA SAC Meeting
July 28, 2003
Page 3
Lake Michigan Federation - Overview
Laurel O'Sullivan presented an overview of the Lake Michigan Federation (LMF). LMF is a
citizen-based organization formed in 1970. The goal of LMF is to protect one of America's
largest lakes, Lake Michigan. This goal is accomplished by a multidisciplinary staff that has
expertise in policymaking, legal analysis, science, education'and community organization.
The staff works on policy issues at state and national levels and on implementation at the
local level. The LMF program areas include:..
■
Water Quality: the water quality program goal is to reduce water pollution to Lake
Michigan and, by extension, the Great Lakes
■
Habitat Protection: including habitat restoration for lakefront communities
■
Land Use and Water Conservation: protecting sand dunes and addressing the impacts of
changing lake levels
■
Education: LMF works with communities around the lake to identify and eliminate sources
of beach closings
■
Outreach: LMF's adopt a beach program provides education and stewardship
opportunities
LMF is interested in the CAWS UAA because flow reversals on the CAWS adversely impact
Lake Michigan. By protecting the quality of the river system, LMF is protecting the quality of
the water delivered to the Lake Michigan during overflow events.
Physical Features of the Chicago Area Waterway System
Presentation
Ron French of CDM gave a presentation on the physical features of the CAWS reaches that
have been surveyed. Together, Illinois EPA, CDM, and LMF have made five of nine
scheduled CAWS habitat and waterway recreational use surveys. The surveyed areas have
been divided into ten reaches based on similar existing uses, aquatic habitat, channel
morphology, and designated use. The presentation provides facts and pictures of each of the
ten reaches. Reaches included:
■
North Shore Channel
■
North Branch of the Chicago River North Leg Reach
■
North Branch of the Chicago River South Leg Reach
■
North Branch Canal
C:\Docurnents and Settings \idratt\Local SettingskTemporary Internet Files \OLK4 \ 072203 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago UAA SAC Meeting
July 28, 2003
Page 4
■
Chicago River
■
South Branch of the Chicago River
■
South Fork (Bubbly Creek)
■
Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal
■
Calumet-Sag Channel
■
Little Calumet River North Leg
■
Lake Calumet
The following parameters were described for each reach:
■
Length, Width, and Depth
■
Bank Morphology
■
Aquatic Habitat Characteristics
■
Riparian Land Use
■
Existing Use Classification
■
Existing Uses
■
Potential Uses
Terminology
The SAC had some discussion of the terminology used during the presentation. The survey
suggested that several reaches have limited aquatic habitat. However, FCR felt that significant
man-made aquatic habitat existed.
FCR believes that some areas labeled with limited aquatic habitat have sections of crumbing
concrete walls, which provide man-made aquatic habitat. Also, FCR thinks that several
Christmas trees and cars in the river acts as manmade aquatic habitat. FCR will provide
CDM with a report describing the man-made instream aquatic habitat and related material.
During the presentation, Bubbly Creek was described as having heavy barge traffic.
However, some SAC members considered the barge traffic on Bubbly Creek as light.
CADocuments and Settingstictratticcal Settings \Temporary Internet Files OLK4 \ 072203 SAC MEETING NOTES.dac
Chicago UAA SAC Meeting
July 28, 2003
Page 5
Parameters
Waterway use of the CAWS will incorporate the future development along the waterway as
listed in the City of Chicago's
Chicago River Corridor Development Plan.
Waterway Use
A use not identified in the presentation was a fish cleaning station is in place along the CAWS
at Oakton. The fish cleaning station experiences little use.
The-SAC would like to see a list of events along the CAWS.
. Overview of Other Urban Streams
Nicole Rowan of CDM presented an overview of water quality standards in waterways
similar to the CAWS. Below is a table summarizing six urban waterways and bacteriological
standards in large cities around the United States. The table outlines the waterway
classification as Primary or Secondary Contact Use, the bacteria water quality standard, and if
the waterway is on the 303(d) list.
•?
Water Body
Primary or
Secondary Use
Water Quality Standards
303(d) List
Boston Inner
Harbor
Secondary
Fecal Coliform 200 cfu/mL (may be
seasonally applied)
4 CSO events/year (UA
determined)
Yes
New York
Waterways
Secondary
Fecal Coliform 200 cfu/mL
Yes
Rouge River
&
Detroit River
Primary and
Seconda ry
(seasonal)
E. coil 130 cfu/mL- Primary
E. coli 1000 cfu/mL- Secondary
Yes
White River
Primary (seasonal)
E. coil 125 cfu/mL
Yes
South Platte River
Primary
E. coil 126 cfu/mL
Yes
LA River
Primary and
Secondary
Fecal coliform 200 cfu/mL
Fecal coliform 2000 cfu/
?
L
Yes
Referenced from CDM's
Overview of Other
Urban
Streams and Bacteriological Issues
presentation delivered on July 22, 2003
CADocuments and Settings Wrattlocal SettingstTemporary Internet FilesFOLK4t072203 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago UAA SAC Meeting
July 28, 2003
Page 6
The CAWS is not listed on the 303(d) List for bacterial water quality violations because the
CAWS is one of the few waterways within a large city that has no bacteria standard.
Update on Data Analysis and Recreational Use Survey
Data Acquisition Status Report
Nicole Rowan of CDM gave a summary of the status of data collected and distributed a
document/report bibliography to the SAC for review. The Project Team has most of the data
it needs, but is still requesting recreational data at each public meeting. Also, the Illinois EPA,
CDM and Lake Michigan Federation have scheduled four more field surveys to collect •
recreational data during the summer.
Recreational Use Survey
Postcard surveys of recreational use have been sent to several marinas along the CAWS.
Handouts distributed to the SAC described the participation to date.
Data Analysis
Tier One of the data analysis plan is to create an initial characterization of waterway reaches.
This indudes:
■
Water quality and sediment chemistry data (Bacteria, DO, 303(d) listed parameters)
■
Summary statistics
■
Comparison with water quality standards/ criteria
■
Probability/frequency exceedance plots
■ Review of aquatic life related data reports - habitat, fish species survey
Tier Two of the data analysis plan is to evaluate factors affecting water quality. This indudes:
■ Wet/dry conditions and summer/winter flow relationships
■
Modeling combined sewer overflow (CSO) impacts and point source loadings control
options
Preliminary Tier One results will be presented at the August SAC meeting.
Six Criteria for a Use Attainability Analysis
Rob Sulski of the Illinois EPA described the six criteria that a UAA relies on to determine
whether a waterway can fully attain the CWA swimmable and fishable goal. The six criteria
indude the following:
C:\Documents and Settings4dratt \ Local Settings \ Temporary Internet Files \ OLK4 \ 072203 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago UAA SAC Meeting
July 28, 2003
Page 7
■
Naturally occurring pollutant concentrations
■
Natural ephemeral intermittent or low flow conditions or water levels
■
Human caused conditions or sources of pollution
■
Dams, diversions or other types of hydrologic modifications
■
Physical conditions related to the natural features of the water body
■
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 •
Cost
SAC members were interested in the cost impacts of MWRD disinfection. The economic and
social cost impact for disinfection is currently not known. However, Illinois EPA has sent a
letter to the MWRD requesting a cost estimate for disinfection.
A SAC member suggested that an outside organization estimate MWRD disinfection costs.
The members were reminded that once MWRD submits their estimate,IEPA and CDM will
have the information needed to perform a separate cost analysis.
One SAC member stated economic discussions are premature. Physical factor limitations
need to be evaluated first. The project team will present the economics of the attainable
alternatives when they have been determined.
?
-
SAC members also questioned the technique of estimating the costs of selected remedies. The
typical cost estimate for a UAA does not incorporate property value along the waterway or
savings on health expenses. The cost assessment is gauged as a percent burden for the median
income.
Water Quality Standards as They Apply to the Chicago Area Waterway
System
Nicole Rowan of CDM presented a map of 2002 303(d) listed segments in the CAWS. A
description of impairments for each segment and the cause of the impairments were
described for each segment. Water quality violations with in the CAWS included thirty-four
parameters. The water quality standards for both General and Secondary Use were
summarized for each listed parameter.
Goals for Next Meeting
The next SAC meeting will be held on August 26, 2003 at 9:00 am in the Thompson Center.
The goal for the next meeting includes:
C:\Documents and SettingqdratttLocal Settings \ Temporary Internet Files \OLK41072203 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago UAA SAC Meeting
July 28, 2003
Page 8
■ Evaluate results of recreational use field surveys and water quality sampling
An agenda will be developed and distributed to SAC members prior to the next meeting.
Please note the CAWS UAA web site, www.chicagoareawaterways.org, is operational.
Contact Hill & Knowlton with comments and questions regarding the website.
CC:
Rob Sulski
Illinois EPA
Lisa Frede
CICI
Scott Twait
Illinois EPA
Laurene von Klan
FCR
Ron French
CDM
Julia Wozniak
Midwest Generation
Chris Yamaya
CDM
Bill Constantelos
Midwest Generation
John D'Aniello
CDM
Jessica Harker
Primera
Nicole Rowan
CDM
Sarah Tupper
Sierra Club
Susan O'Connell
MWRD
Albert Ettinger
ELPC/ Sierra Club
Lou Kollias
MWRD
Paul Zwijack
Corn Products
Sergio Seregino
MWRD
Laurel O'Sullivan
LMF
Rebecca Rader
Hill & Knowlton'
Jayne Lillienfeld-Jones
LMF Contractor
Joe Deal
Chicago Mayor's Office
Nick Menninga
?
'?
-
Greeley & Hansen
Bob Foster
Chicago Park District
Brenda Carter
IERG
Janet Pellegrini
USEPA
Previous other SAC
Meeting Attendants
CADocurnents and Settingqdraltlocal Settings \Ternporary Internet Files\ OLK4 \ 072203 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Memorandum
To:
?
Toby Frevert, Illinois EPA
Rob Sulski, Illinois EPA
From: Ron French, CDM
bate:
?
July 10, 2003
Subject: Meeting Minutes for the Stakeholder Advisory Committee
Attendees:
Name
Toby Frevert
Rob Su!ski
Nia Haller
Joanne Scher
Ron French
Colleen Hughes
Nicole Rowan
Joe Deal
Bob Foster
Brian Fischer
Paul Zwijack
John Petro
Laurene von Klan
Sasha Engle
Sheila Deely
Jeff Covinsky
Chris Varones
Organization
Illinois EPA
Illinois EPA
Illinois EPA
Illinois EPA
CDM
CDM
CDM
Chicago Mayor's Office
Chicago Park District
CICI
Corn Products
Exelon
FCR
Gardner Carton & Douglas
Gardner Carton & Douglas
Hannah Marine/ IRCA
Hill & Knowlton
Name
,
Harry R Walton
Frank Kudrna
Dale Bryson
Jayne Lillienfeld-Jones
Julia Wozniak
Gary Kruger
Dick Lanyon
Susan O'Connell
Beth Wentzel
Jessica Harker
Aaron Rosinski
Tzuoh-ying Su
Ed Hammer
Janet Pellegrini
Mardi Klevs
Dave Pfeifer
Organization
IERG
III Int. Port District
LMF
LMF Contractor
Midwest Generation
Morton Salt
MWRD
MWRD
Prairie Rivers Network
Primera
SE Env.Task Force
USAGE
USEPA
USEPA
USEPA
USEPA
On
Tuesday, June
24, 2003
the Illinois EPA and CDM held a Stakeholder Advisory Committee
(SAC) meeting to discuss the Chicago Area Waterway System Use Attainability Analysis (CAWS
UAA). The meeting covered the following items:
■
Mission Statement
■
CAWS Description and Features
C:\Documents and Settingsldratt \ Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files\OLK4\ 062403 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago UAA SAC Meeting
April 30, 2003
Page 2
■
Work Plan Comments
■
Use Definitions and Sub-categorization of Waterways
■
EPA's Draft Bacteria Criteria Guidance
■
Waterway Health Advisory Status
■
Data Collection and Recreational Use Survey Update
■
Goals for Next Meeting
Each agenda item is discussed in detail in the sections to follow. The agenda was established to
introduce and educate the SAC on the purpose, goals, proposed methodologies, and progress of
the CAWS UAA.
Mission Statement
The proposed mission statement for the CAWS UAA follows:
"The goal of the Chicago Area Waterway System UAA Study is to review and evaluate established
beneficial use classifications and water quality criteria, make recommendations for appropriate
changes, and gain regulatory and public consensus."
After discussion, the SAC agreed on the following as the final mission statement:
"The goal of the Chicago Area Waterway System UAA Study is to review and evaluate established
beneficial use classifications and water quality criteria, make recommendations for appropriate
changes, and gain regulatory and public input for the Chicago Area Waterway System."
Chicago Area Waterway System Description and Features
Richard Lanyon, Director of Research and Development at the Metropolitan Water Reclamation
District of Greater Chicago (MWRD), delivered a presentation on the CAWS history, physical
characteristics, and water quality conditions. The presentation detailed the following topics:
■
A brief history of modifications to the CAWS for accommodating the water and wastewater
needs of the Chicago area.
■
A summary of the hydrologic conditions on the CAWS
■
A description of CAWS hydraulic controls related to lock and darn operations and Lake
Michigan
C:\Documents and SettIngsljdratttLocal Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4\062403 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago UAA SAC Meeting
April 30, 2003
Page 3
■
A description of wastewater management operations on the CAWS including four water
reclamation plants, Tunnel and Reservoir Program (TARP), Sidestream Elevated Pool Aeration
(SEPA) stations, in stream diffuser aeration stations, and stormwater infrastructure
■
A summary of action taken by the MWRD during dry weather, light rainfall, moderate rainfall,
heavy rainfall, and severe rainfall on the CAWS
■
A description of general use and secondary contact waters, NPDES permits, and compliance
with water quality conditions
■
Existing human uses of the CAWS
Several issues required clarification during the presentation. The first regarded the percent of
CAWS volume that originates from the four water reclamation plants (WRPs). Approximately
70% of the system flow consists of effluent from WRPs. This percentage is calculated based on the
flow leaving from the Lockport control at the outlet of the system. Therefore, the entire system is
not necessarily 70% WRP effluent. During the winter months approximately 100% of the flow
leaving through Lockport is WRP effluent; where as the flow during the summer months is
approximately 50% effluent. The percentages of WRP effluent at particular points along the
CAWS are available.
One attendee inquired about the cost of the aeration systems. The five SEPA stations cost
approximately 40 millions dollars to install. The in-stream aeration systems were built in the
1970's and were more expensive. Costs for the in-stream aeration system were not provided at the
meeting.
The life expectancy of TARP was questioned. Although, the lifetime is unknown, it is considered
the long-term, permanent solution to the flooding and combined sewer overflow (CSO) issues.
Until the TARP reservoirs are completed (expected completion data is 2015), CAWS will continue
to experience frequent CSOs and an occasional river reversal. About once per year, a large CSO
will require that the river be reversed so that it flows into Lake Michigan.
Finally, the unique issues involving Lake Calumet were addressed. The Illinois Department of
Transportation is discharging into the lake, which is a concern of a representative of the Lake
Calumet area. The discharge does not require monitoring unless a complaint is filed. Also, Lake
Calumet is unique in that the Port District owns the majority of the land beneath and around Lake
Calumet, unlike much of the rest of the Secondary Contact portion of CAWS where the MWRD
owns much of the land.
Land use around the CAWS is not an issue as long as it is not adversely affecting the water
quality. A sub-committee will be developed for Lake Calumet if the data continues to support that
the area has unique issues.
CADocuments and Settings \Oran\ Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \OLK4 \ 062403 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago UAA SAC Meeting
April 30, 2003
Page 4
Note that Mr. Lanyon's Power Point presentation is available in full upon request.
Work Plan Comments
The SAC could not agree on whether Bubbly Creek was classified as a Secondary Contact or
General Use waterway. The IEPA has determined that Bubbly Creek is Secondary Contact and
has so indicated in the NPDES permit reissued to the City of Chicago in May 2002. However, the
committee did agree that the time spent on the past conditions should be a minimum. The SAC
wants to focus on the potential of the CAWS.
The MWRD are concerned about the implications of the following statements in the UAA Work
Plan.
■
"MWRDGC is currently evaluating the water quality and economic impact of wastewater
disinfection on the CAWS." (p 11)
■
"The feasibility estimates of capital, operation and maintenance, and management costs of
desired facilities and programs. The CDM team will rely mainly on the cost estimates
provided to IEPA from MWRDGC for facility improvements." (p 15)
MWRD has not yet received a formal request to initiate these tasks described in the comments
above. The appropriate expert stakeholder will be sent a formal request when it is appropriate
during the project.
It was also clarified that although reference is made to modeling of conditions anticipated upon
completion of TARP Phase II in Task 6, the intent of the UAA Study is to develop a regulatory
proposal that will pertain to conditions expected in the next 10 years and prior to completion of
TARP Phase II. (p 13)
Use Definitions and Sub-Categorization of Waterways
Nicole Rowan, CDM, summarized the terminology of the Illinois use classifications and
standards for General Use, Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life, and the current
water quality criteria to protect recreational uses. She also explained the relationship between
existing, pot
e
ntial and designated uses.
The sub-categorization and overall project approach is as follows:
■
Review of current beneficial uses of CAWS (geographical area)
■
Determine existing uses on CAWS
■
Examine existing segmentation of CAWS
C:\Documents and SettingqdralltLocal SettingstTemporary Internet FIlestOLK4\082403 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago UAA SAC Meeting
April 30, 2003
Page 5
■ Data analysis
■
Potentially new use designation (including sub-categorization)
Other factors that will be included in the analysis are:
■ Segmentation of the CAWS
■ Seasonal recreation use
■
High flow exclusions
■ Wildlife impacted recreation
In the next few months the CAWS UAA team will need to answer the following questions:
■ What are the existing uses?
■
What are the potential uses?
■
Where do potential uses apply?
■
What are the designated uses?
■
What are appropriate criteria to protect the designated uses?
EPA's Draft Bacteria Criteria Guidance
David Pfeifer, USEPA Region 5, delivered a presentation orrthe "EPA's Recommended
Criteria for the Protection of Recreational Uses." USEPA found that E. coli and enterococcus
predicted illness more accurately than fecal coliform and has based their calculations on those
indicators. Pfeifer described the E. coli-based criteria, confidence level factors, and deviation.
He provided illness rates and geometric mean criteria for secondary contact. Additionally, he
summarized the effects of illness rate on geometric mean density for primary and secondary
contact. An example of possible results is provided below:
Level (illness per 1000
Criteria
Single Sample Maximum
Recreational Use
Designated
exposed swimmers
Geometric
Confidence
expressed as a percent)
Mean
Confidence
Criterion
Level
Swimming Beach
0.8
126
75%
236
C:\Documents and SettingsWradlocal Settings \Temporary Internet Files\ OLK4 0E2403 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago UAA SAC Meeting
April 30, 2003
Page 6
Swimming likely
0.8
126
82%
298
Swimming possible
0.9
161
90%
523
Swimming unlikely
1.0
206
95%
940
Boating (no
immersion)
1.0
1028
NA
NA
Referenced from
EPA's Recommended Criteria for the Protection of Recreational Uses
presentation delivered on June 24, 2003
The results were generated. from fieldwork that investigated the number of people who
became ill from varying contact in different types of waterways. A control group was •
established to address the possibility that the ill party was sick already or contracted the
illness from a different source.
Note that Dave Pfiefer's Power Point presentation is available in full upon request.
Waterway Health Advisory Status.
The SAC could not agree on the format of the Health Advisory sign. There is concern that the
sign message is too broad and could be interpreted as a negative description of the CAWS.
Drafts or comments are still accepted. The recreational season has arrived. Although, the
Health Advisory sign is not finalized, the Health Advisory Pamphlet was finalized and will
be produced and distributed to the public.
Data Collection and Recreational Use Survey Update
A summary list of data collected and data to be received was handed out to the SAC for
review. An updated list will be handed out during the next SAC. The Project Team is still
requesting recreational data at the public meetings. Also, the Illinois EPA, CDM and Lake
Michigan Federation will be conducting field surveys to collect recreational data throughout
the summer.
Surveys of recreational use have been sent to several marinas along the CAWS. Handouts
distributed described the survey program and its participation to date.
Friends of the Chicago River has an extensive mailing list for survey use if needed. Also,
recreational use can be surveyed during the 2003 Flat Water Classic.
The City of Chicago has a report entitled the
Chicago River Corridor Development Plan
available
that describes existing and potential uses of the CAWS.
C:\Documents and SetUngs4dratALocal SeltIngs\Temporary Internet Files\ OLK4 062403 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago UAA SAC Meeting
April 30, 2003
Page 7
Goals for Next Meeting
The goal for the next SAC meeting, scheduled for 9:00 am on July 22, 2003 at the Thomson
Center, is:
■
Assess suitability for human recreation based on hydrology, public access, relationship to
or interference with other uses, public health & safety
The Agenda to address this follows:
■
Friends of the Chicago River description
■
Lake Michigan Federation description
■
Physical Features of the CAWS
■
Overview of other urban streams
■
Update on data acquisition and recreational use surveys
■
The six criteria for a UAA
■
Water quality standards
■
Other issues
The CAWS UAA web site, www.chicagoareawaterwa
ys.org, will be running within a few
days and stakeholders will be e-mailed when the site becomes active.
CC:
Toby Frevert
Illinois EPA
Harry R Walton
IERG
Rob Sulski
Illinois EPA
Frank Kudrna
Ill Int. Port District
Nia Haller
Illinois EPA
Dale Bryson
LMF
Joanne Scher
Illinois EPA
Jayne Lillienfeld-Jones LMF Contractor
Ron French
CDM
Julia Wozniak
Midwest Generation
Colleen Hughes
CDM
Gary Kruger
Morton Salt
Nicole Rowan
CDM
Dick Lanyon
MWRD
Joe Deal
Chicago Mayor's Office
Susan O'Connell
MWRD
Bob Foster
Chicago Park District
Beth Wentzel
Prairie Rivers Network
Brian Fischer
CICI
Jessica Harker
Primera
Paul Zwijack
Corn Products
Aaron Rosinski
SE Env.Task Force
John Petro
Exelon
Tzuoh-ying Su
USACE
\ Documents and SettIngsldratt\ Local Settings \Temporary Internet Flles\OLK41062403 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago UAA SAC Meeting
April 30, 2003
Page 8
Laurene von Klan FCR
Sasha Engle
Sheila Deely
Jeff Covinsky
Chris Varones
Gardner Carton & Douglas
Gardner Carton & Douglas
Hannah Marine/ IRCA
Hill & Knowlton
Ed Hammer
Janet Pellegrini
Mardi Klevs
Dave Pfeifer
Previous other SAC
Meeting Attendants
USEPA
USEPA
USEPA
USEPA
CADocuments and Settings\idratt\ Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files OLK4 \ 0132403 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Memorandum
To:?
Toby Frevert, Illinois EPA
Rob Sulski, Illinois EPA
From: Ron French, CDM
Date:
?
April 30, 2003
Subject: Meeting Minutes for the Stakeholder Advisory Committee
Attendees:
Name
Organization Name
Organization
Toby Frevert
Illinois EPA
Julia Wozniak
Midwest Generation.
Rob Sulski
Illinois..EPA
Bill Constantelos
Midwest Generation,
Scott Twait
Illinois. EPA
Fred Axley
Friends of the Chicago River
Deborah Williams
Illinois EPA
Laurel O'Sullivan
Lake Michigan.Federation
Howard Essig
Illinois EPA
George A Braan
Kudrana & Assoc. Rep 1.I.P.D.
Ron French
CDM
Aaron Rosinski
SE Environmental Task Force
Colleen Hughes
CDM
Lisa Frede
CICI
Jessica Harker
Primera
Susanne Davis
USACE-Chicago
Sri Rangarajan
HydroQual
Jeff Zuercher
USACE
Ed Hammer
USEPA
Jeff Covinsky
HMC
Janet Pellegrini
USEPA
Paul Zwijack
Corn Products
Dick Lanyon
MWRD
Chris Varones
Hill & Knowlton
On Tuesday, April 22, 2003 Illinois EPA held a Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) meeting to
discuss the Chicago Area Waterway System Use Attainability Analysis (CAWS UAA). The
meeting covered the following items:
■
Introduction of SAC
■
Overview of the CAWS UAA
■
Project Update
■
Goals and Objectives of SAC
■
Goals for Next Meeting
http://lory.netcomsus.Corn/commonitile.php/pgilocalhostichicago-waterwaysibinaries/6/042203 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago UAA SAC Meeting
April 30, 2003
Page 2
■ Action Items
Each agenda item is discussed in detail in the sections to follow: The agenda was established to
introduce and educate the SAC on the purpose, goals, proposed methodologies, and progress of
the CAWS UAA.
Introduction of the Stakeholder Advisory Committee
The advisory committee consists of stakeholders, which are technically knowledgeable
representatives of community groups concerned
.
with the CAWS UAA and who have an interest
in decisions being made for these waterways. These representatives are invited to every SAC
meetings; however, any other interested party is welcome to attend. The SAC was formed to
provide stakeholder input and guidance throughout the CAWS UAA process. Therefore,
representatives are encouraged to attend every SAC meeting in order to provide consistent and
valuable input.
Overview of the Chicago Area Waterway Use Attainability Analysis
The overview of the CAWS UAA consisted of descriptions of the following:
■
A brief history of the CAWS
■
A summary of key laws, regulations and policies that govern the CAWS UAA
■
An outline of the UAA process
■
A list of potential outcomes from the CAWS UAA
■
A summary of the workplan and schedule
Additionally, Rob Sulski of Illinois EPA and Ron French of CDM presented a collection of pictures
taken during the aerial tour of the CAW. Photographs and video of the CAWS were taken during
the helicopter tour hosted by MWRD. The following sites were noted during the presentation:
■
MWRD wastewater treatment plants at Stickney and Calumet
■
MWRD Sidestream Elevated Pool Aeration (SEPA) stations
■
Waterway control structures
■
Marinas
■
Types of channel bank habitat (i.e. sheet piling, structures, vegetation, etc.)
■
Vegetated sections along the river the public could potentially come in contact with the water
hllp:Mory.netcomsus.com/commontNe.php/ogilocaIhostichicago-waterwaysibinadest6/042203 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago UAA SAC Meeting
April 30, 2003
Page 3
■
Industrial sections along the river that are not easily accessible to animals or the public
■
Public recreational boat launches
Project Update
The UAA project team has accomplished the following since the project start in January 2003:
■
CDM contract signed Jan 27
th
?■ Meeting to discuss health advisory
postings/pamphlet •
■
Jan 30th
meeting to discuss health issues
in the waterway
■ Prepared public health pamphlet and
on-shore sign
■
Feb 11th
internal kickoff meeting with
Illinois EPA and CDM
■ Prepared project mailing list
■
Feb 25th
site visit to the Calumet-Sag
■ Prepared for May public meetings
area
■ Development of project web site
■
Met with MWRDGC, Friends of the
(www.ChicagoAreaWaterways.org)
Chicago River (FOCR), and Port
Development & Safety Council to
■ Met with MWRDGC modeler to discuss
inform them of the UAA study and how
water quality model of the CAWS
they could help us with the study
■ Helicopter flyover
■
Prepared project work plan
■ Data acquisition meeting
Four topics of concern surfaced during the project update discussion. First, the SAC
addressed identification of the appropriate method to distribute a health advisory to the
public. The SAC suggested that the health advisory information could be distributed through
the following methods:
■
Signs along the river (especially at access points)
■
Pamphlets at kiosks along the river
■
Press releases
■
Stakeholder resourses, such as newsletters
Second, the SAC addressed inclusion of commercial and recreational boating standards in the
UAA. The UAA project team will use contacts at the Illinois EPA and the USEPA to ensure
that all standards are included in the analysis of the river.
http:Mory.netcomsus.com/commontfile.phP/PVIocalhost/chicago-waterways/bInalies/6/042203 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago UAA SAC Meeting
April 30, 2003
Page 4
Third, the SAC discussed the possible outcomes of the UAA, which includes disinfection of
wastewater effluent. MWRD engineers will estimate the economic feasibility of disinfection
because economics is a factor in the decision making process of designated uses of the CAWS.
Finally, the SAC addressed data collection methods and progress. The project team is
currently requesting data from MWRD, Illinois EPA, U.S. EPA, Midwest Generation, other
government agencies, and CAWS stakeholders. The requests are based on information
gathered during the April 10, 2003 Data Acquisition meeting held at CDM. Once the data is
cataloged, the project team will ask stakeholders to supply additional data and/or conduct
field collections.
Goals and Objectives of Stakeholder Advisory Committee
The goals and objectives of the SAC are as follows:
■
Provide a "reality" check on issues and proposals to the project team
■
Provide education, guidance and direction relating to each stakeholder's expertise and
knowledge of the waterways
■
Review and comment on draft reports
■
Assist Illinois EPA in recommending appropriate uses for the CAWS
■
Review and accept the Illinois EPA scope of the study (for educational value to the
members of the SAC)
■
Review and comment on the CDM work tasks and schedule
■
Review and comment on the stakeholder regional meeting schedule, agendas, content and
progress
■
Perform a coordinating and fill-in-the-gaps role when regional groups go off in different
directions or fail to provide input necessary to move forward
■
Review and comment on public information and materials used in the regional meetings
and in the study
■
Approve by consensus periodic progress reports on the conduct of the study (to make
progress reports available that do no alienate groups represented the SAC)
■
Participate in the development of subcommittees
http:Mory.netcomsus.com/commonffile.php/pg/localtiost/chicago-waterwaysThinades/6/042203 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago UAA SAC Meeting
April 30, 2003
Page 5
Further, each SAC member is to act
as
a two-way conduit between SAC and it group
members.
This portion of the meeting focused on two important topics. First, the execution of the public
meetings was addressed. Public meetings, as outlined in the workplan, are scheduled in May
2003, September 2003, and March 2004.
The May 2003 public meetings will be held in Evanston, Palos Heights, and Chicago.
Locations of the meetings were determined based on area interest, availability of.affordable
facilities, and accessibility. Representatives of the SAC offered several sources for free pubic
notification, including the
Evanston Round Table
and the
.
Evanston
Express.
With the exception of the May, September and March schedule, pubic meetings are intended
to be flexible in frequency and location to accommodate special needs of any party interested
in being a part of the UAA. The UAA project team is dedicated to maintaining open lines of
communication with all interested parties, and will hold additional special meeting upon
request.
Second, the SAC discussed the development of sub-committees. Sub-committees will be
developed on an "as needed" basis to address unique situations that surface throughout the
project.
Goals for Next Meeting
The goals for the next SAC meeting, scheduled for 9:00 am on June 24, 2003 at the Thompson
Center, are the following:
■
Introduction of organizations interest and concerns
■
Project update
■
Education needs for stakeholders, particularly aspects of the study
■
Identification of subcommittee goals and objectives
Additionally, the SAC decided that it is important to clarify the variety of concerns and issues
which must be balanced throughout the UAA process. Therefore, during the next SAC
meeting each stakeholder will present a brief summary (5 to 10 minutes) outlining their
group's purpose, objectives, and relation to the CAWS UAA.
The web site, www.chicagoareawaterways.org, will be running before the next SAC meeting.
The agenda, pertinent documents and other related information for the next SAC meeting will
be available for download from the website.
http:Morys
i
etcomsus.com/commontlile.PhP/Pg/localhost/chIcago-waterwa
y
siblnariesh3/042203
SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Chicago UAA SAC Meeting
April 30, 2003
Page 6
No SAC meeting will be held in May because of Memorial Day. The next SAC meeting will
be June 24, 2003 in the Thomson Center. The meeting is scheduled from 9:00am to 12:00pm.
Action Items
Illinois EPA
■
Create and distribute list of current Stakeholder Advisory Committee Members
■
Approve and announce workplan
CDM
■
Summit data requests from the Data Acquisition meeting and follow up on data gaps
■
Update the web page, www.chicagoareawaterways.org, to include materials useful for the
next SAC meeting
MWRD
■
Estimate, using rough calculations, the' economic feasibility of disinfection
cc:
- Scott Twait, Illinois EPA
Deborah Williams, Illinois EPA
Howard Essig, Illinois EPA
Ron French, CDM
Colleen Hughes, CDM
Jessica Harker, Primera
Sri Rangarajan, HydroQual
Ed Hammer, USEPA
Janet Pellegrini, USEPA
Dick Lanyon, MWRD
Julia Wozniak, Midwest Generation
Bill Constantelos, Midwest Generation
Fred Axley, Friends of the Chicago River
Laurel O'Sullivan, Lake MI Federation
George A Braam, Kunrana and
Associates Rep I.I.P.D.
Aaron Rosinski, Southeast
Environmental Task Force
Lisa Frede, CICI
Susanne Davis, USACE-Chicago
Jeff Zuercher, USACE
Paul Zwijack, Corn Products
Jeff Covinsky, HMC
Chris Varones, Hill & Knowlton
Joe Deal, City of Chicago
Barry Burton, City of Chicago
Bob Foster, Chicago Park District
http:Mory.netcomsus.com/commonffile.php/psflocalhost/chicago-waterways/binades/6/042203 SAC MEETING NOTES.doc
Memorandum
To:
?
Toby Frevert, Illinois EPA
Rob Sulski, Illinois EPA
From: Ron French, CDM
- Date:
?
September 25, 2003
Subject: Meeting Minutes for The Future of the Chicago Area Waterway
System Public Meeting
The Illinois EPA held four public meetings throughout the Chicago area to update and
discuss the Chicago Area Waterway System (CAWS) Use Attainability Analysis (UAA). A
meeting was held in Evanston on September 8, in Palos Heights on September 9, on Lake
Calumet on September 11, and in downtown Chicago September 16. The meeting agendas
consisted of the following items:
■
CAWS UAA Status Report
■
Six Criteria for Changing Designated Use
■
Physical Characteristics of the CAWS
■
Contacts and Additional Resources
■
Discussion
Each agenda item is discussed in detail in the following sections. The agenda was established
to educate and receive feedback from the public on the direction and goals of the CAWS
UAA. The following sections, exduding the Discussion section, apply to each of the public
meetings. The Discussion section, which summarizes participants' comments and concerns,
is subdivided by meeting location to communicate the regional concerns regarding the CAWS
UAA project.
UAA Status Report
Rob Sulski of the Illinois EPA summarized the progress of the CAWS UAA Project Team.
Public Meetings
September 25, 2003
Page 2
Project Materials
Since the last series of public meetings the Project Team, in conjunction with the Stakeholder
Advisory Committee (SAC), has:
■
Completed and approved a Work Plan
■
Developed Health Advisory Pamphlet to educate the public on potential risks associated
with recreating in the CAWS the pamphlet was approved by the MWRD, IDPH, Illinois
EPA, and the USEPA
■
The Project web page is established, at •www.chicagoareawaterways.org
Completed data acquisition review
■
Monthly SAC meetings
Initial data analysis
■
Model selection criteria
Monthly SAC Meetings
The Project Team has hosted four Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) meetings. The SAC
consists of stakeholders who are technically knowledgeable representatives from government,
industry and community groups concerned with the CAWS UAA and who have an invested
interest in decisions being made on the waterways. These representatives are invited to
monthly SAC meetings. However, any interested party who wants to be involved is welcome
to attend. The SAC was formed to provide stakeholder input and guidance throughout the
CAWS UAA process. The following is a list of topics discussed at the meetings:
■
April - Review and approve UAA Work Plan
■
June - Outline UAA regulations/ policy and overview of the CAWS by MWRD
■
July - Overview of physical characteristics of CAWS and applicable water quality
standards
■
August - Preliminary data analysis and model development strategy
Recreational Use Surveys
The recreational use on the CAWS has been evaluated using:
QAMeetings Ipubli60903 PUBLIC MEETINGS.cloc
Public Meetings
September 25, 2003
Page 3
■
Six recreational and habitat surveys by the Illinois EPA, CDM, and Lake Michigan
Federation
■
One survey to be completed by USEPA
■ Weekly post card surveys completed by marinas along the CAWS
Initial Data Analysis
To date, analysis has been limited to dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform and bacteria. These
parameters have been analyzed to determine mean or geometric mean and to establish the
frequency of exceedanco of the applicable water quality standard. List of analysis on the
parameters follow:
■
Fecal Coliform based on annual, seasonal (winter & summer) and recreation season data
■
E. coli during summer and winter conditions
■ Dissolved Oxygen (DO) during summer and winter conditions
Model Selection Criteria
A water quality model mathematically describes a water system and predicts the consequences of
future actions in terms of water quality. The modeling for the CAWS UAA will reveal
contributions from point and non-point source loads, how they will change in the future, and how
to manipulate pollutant source loads to achieve designated uses. However, it is difficult to assess
through monitoring alone because of event related variability and complex diffusion in the
system. Therefore, many samples are needed to properly characterized sources.
Once sufficient data has been gathered, it will be incorporated into the model. Examples of input
data include rainfall, temperature, topographic elevations, point source loads, and management
practice data. The output of the model will reveal constituent concentrations, stream flows, and
general water quality trends.
A wide variety of water quality models are available. The best model for a specific project has the
ability to produce the desired output, to operate properly incorporating the projects unique site-
specific characteristics, and to produce results according to the project time and resource
constraints.
Marquette University is developing the hydrodynamic and DO model for the CAWS UAA. They
chose a model called DUFLOW. No model currently exists for bacteria or suspended solids for the
CAWS UAA. HydroQual is considering Water Quality Analysis Simulation Program (WASP) or
DUFLOW to model these parameters.
QAMeetings1public10903 PUBLIC MEETINGS.doc
Public Meetings
September 25, 2003
Page 4
Six Criteria for Changing Designated Use
Rob Sulski of the Illinois ELIA outlined the six criteria for changing a designated use as described
in the Clean Water Act (CWA). The CWA stipulates, "It is the nation's goal that wherever
attainable, water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and
wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water (swimming and fishing) should be
achieved." Water quality standards are adopted to protect designated uses. For example, if water
quality standards for swimming are attainable, then a standard for bacteria levels in the water
must be established to allow for such a use.
The state must conduct a UAA if the state has designated or will designate a use inconsistent with
the CWA. Currently, the CAWS classification is inconsistent with the CWA. A UAA is a
structured scientific assessment of the factors affecting the attainment of the use, which may
include physical, chemical, biological, and economic factors.
Factors that may be used to argue that a designated use is not attainable are:
1) Natural pollution
2) Flow conditions
3)
Human caused conditions that would cause more environmental damage to correct than to
leave in place
4) Hydrologic modifications not feasible to restore or to alternatively operate
5) Physical conditions related to natural features
6) Substantial and widespread economic and social impact
Physical Characteristics of the CAWS
Presentation
CDM gave a presentation on the physical features of the CAWS. Together, Illinois EPA, CDM,
and LMF have made six of nine scheduled CAWS habitat and waterway recreational use surveys.
The surveys resulted in the delineation of ten reaches based on similar existing uses, aquatic
habitat, channel morphology, and designated use. The presentation provided facts and pictures of
each of the ten reaches. Reaches included:
■
North Shore Channel
■
North Branch of the Chicago River North Leg
■
North Branch of the Chicago River South Leg
CIAMeetingskpublIc10903 PUBLIC MEETINGS.doc
Public Meetings
September 25, 2003
Page 5
■
North Branch Canal
■
Chicago River
■
South Branch of the Chicago River
■
South Fork (Bubbly Creek)
■
Chicago $anitary and Ship Canal
■
Calumet-Sag Channel
■
Little Calumet River North Leg
■
Lake Calumet
The following parameters were described for each reach:
■
Length, Width, and Depth
■
Bank Morphology
■
Aquatic Habitat Characteristics
■
Riparian Land Use
■
Existing Use Classification
■
Observed Uses
■
Potential Uses
Contacts and Other Resources
The following contacts are available for questions and concerns related to the CAWS UAA. Public
statements are collected and taken into consideration throughout the duration of the project.
Rob Sulski
Illinois EPA
rob.sulski@epa.state.il.us
(847) 294-4000
Ed Hammer
USEPA
QAMeetingskpuble,0903 PUBLIC MEETINGS.doc
Public Meetings
September 25, 2003
Page 6
hammer.edward@epamail.epa.gov
(312) 886-3019
Ron French
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
frenchrd@cdm.com
(312) 346-5228
Additionally, further information is available on the project website, located at
www.chicagoareawaterways.org
The next series of public meetings are scheduled for March 2004. The location of the March public
meetings will be determined. Locations for the meetings are determined based on area interest,
availability of affordable facilities, and accessibility.
Public meetings are intended to be flexible in both frequency and location to accommodate the
special needs of any party interested in the UAA. The UAA Project Team is dedicated to
maintaining open lines of communication with all interested parties and will hold additional
meetings upon request.
Discussion
A summary of participant comments and responses is included in the following sections. This
portion of the minutes was subdivided by the location of the meeting to communicate the regional
concerns and issues. The Evanston meeting, held on September 8, is discussed first, followed by
the meeting in Palos Heights on September 9, next the meeting near Lake Calumet on September
11 and the meeting in downtown Chicago on September 16.
Evanston Public Meeting
The Evanston Public Meeting occurred September 8, 2003 in the Ecology Center at 7:00pm.
Twenty-three people attended the meeting. The following is a summary of the discussions at the
meeting.
Modeling
Water quality parameters applicable to the UAA have been collected for years. Continuous DO
data is available as well as an abundance of E. coli data. However, not much data is available from
CSOs. Overall the water quality of the CAWS has improved.
Once a specific model has been selected and modified for the CAWS, it will run different "what if"
scenarios. Some examples of "what if" scenarios are:
■ What would bacteria levels be if all WRP chlorinated?
QAMeetingslpublid1:1903 PUBLIC MEETINGS.doc
Public Meetings
September 25, 2003
Page 7
■ What would the DO levels be if a SEPA station were added to the North Shore Channel?
Pollution
Any owner or individual found polluting along the CAWS is subject to a fine by the Illinois EPA
and in some cases the MWRD.
One attendee inquired if chemical treatment to lawns is harmful to CAWS water quality. The
water chemistry data reflects chemical pollution exceedences. Currently, no sources have been
identified.
Disinfection
Disinfection is typically accomplished with a chlorination/ dechlorination process. Though,
alternatives such as UV or Ozone treatment processes exist. All processes have positive and
negative impacts which must be considered. However, based on the UAA goals , the main
concern is if disinfection is necessary and not what type of disinfection process would potentially
be utilized..
Navigation
On the NBCR, navigable waters end slightly north of the North Avenue Turning Basin at Goose
Island. The barges that pass through the
.
CAWS carry a wide variety of goods including:
■
Grain
■
Salt
■
Coal
■
Scrap Iron
■
Sand
■
Gravel
Submerged Boat
The submerged boat in the mouth of the Grand Calumet River was placed there several years ago
by local residents to stop flow and pollution from an Indiana WRP. The pollution problem from
the Indiana WRP has been resolved.
A submerged boat near Goose Island is currently being dismantled.
Access
Access to the waterways is increasing. Fences along the North Shore Channel and the NBCR are
low and there are many sections where people can pass. Under bridge paths are planned for the
bridges at Diversey and Fullerton.
River Modification
The Locks have reversed the flow in the Little Calumet River and the Chicago River. The amount
of water that can be diverted from Lake Michigan is strictly regulated by a Federal decree. Leaks
in the Locks were repaired in 1999. The Locks will likely be replaced when funding becomes
Q:\Meetings\public\0903 PUBLIC MEETINGS.doc
Public Meetings
September 25, 2003
Page 8
available. Much of the diverted Lake water is used for domestic consumption. A complete history
of the modifications to the CAWS can be found in Libby Hill's book,
The Chicago River: A Natural
and Unnatural History.
Health Concerns
An informational pamphlet has been approved and is currently being processed. The pamphlet
provides health precautions for those recreating on the CAWS.
• One attendee asked that a health advisory sign be posted at the Worth and Alsip boat launches.
Signage has been discussed among the stakeholders. The concern from some of the stakeholders is
that recreation will be decreased because of fear created by signage. However, signage will be
posted by the Chicago Park District and the MWRD.
The flow from the CAWS eventually discharges into the Illinois River, which is the water body
that Peoria, IL uses as a drinking water source. Because of dilution and dispersion of the
pollutions from the CAWS, the water is safe to use as a drinking water source in Peoria.
The fish in the CAWS have been tested and the IDNR has established a fishadvisory to address
health and safety issues related to fishing in the CAWS.
DO
Levels and Sidestream Elevated Pool Aeration (SEPA)
SEPA stations pump a portion of the stream water into an elevated pool about the channel. The
water ten cascades over a series of weirs to create waterfalls that add oxygen to the waterway.
SEPA stations are approximately 99% efficient. Improving DO levels by building more SEPA
stations will be a consideration of the CAWS UAA.
The DO levels in the North Shore Channel are neither less than 6 mg/L during at least 16 hours of
any 24 hour period, nor less than 5.0 mg/L at anytime above the Northside WRP and not less then
4mg/L at any time below the Northside WRP.
Analysis
Approach
The approximate duration of the CAWS UAA is two years. The approach of the CAWS UAA will:
■
Document current uses of the CAWS
■
Set water quality standards to protect for those uses
■
Model the CAWS to optimize the achievement of the water quality standards
Some of the attendees questioned the use designation process. If the waterways were less
polluted, then more uses would emerge. However, other attendees argued that many citizens are
currently recreating in the waterway despite the pollution problems.
Q:1Mee6ngsNpublic\0903 PUBLIC MEETINGS.doc
Public Meetings
September 25, 2003
Page 9
Another attendee questioned the ability to document the use of nature in progress, which is the
function of the Ecology Center's canoeing trips. The number of Ecology Center canoeing trips
during 2003 was submitted to the Project Team.
Possible Results
An attendee inquired if it was possible to achieve a healthy warm water habitat in the North Shore
Channel. Physically, it is possible to create a healthy warm water habitat. However, economically
it might not be feasible. An economic analysis of different management options will be performed
.as part of the CAWS UAA.
An attendee asked if it were possible to increase the flow in the North Shore Channel above the
WRP. Increased flow is unlikely feasible, but increasing the flow in stagnate areas will be in the
analysis.
Another request from an attendee was to optimize the holistic experience of the waterway
including aesthetics, water quality, odor and increase flow.
Another participant was worried that General Use designation of the North Shore Channel above
the WRP would be downgraded. The results of the analysis will be presented it March. The
Standards will probably change according to the unique characteristics of each reach.
Palos Heights Public Meeting
The Palos Heights Public Meeting occurred September 9, 2003 at 7:00pm in Lake Katherine Nature
Preserve. Eight people attended the meeting. The following is a summary of the meeting
discussion topics.
Data
The data for the CAWS UAA originates from several sources including:
■
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
■
US Environmental Protection Agency
■
Illinois Department of Natural Resources
■
National Weather Service
■
Illinois Geological Survey
■
Fish and Wildlife Service
■
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
QAMeetingapublic\0903 PUBLIC MEETINGS.doc
Public Meetings
September 25, 2003
Page 10
■
Midwest Generation
■
Friends of the Chicago River
Health Advisory
An informational pamphlet has been approved and will be distributed to CAWS users. The
pamphlet describes the health hazards associated with contacting the waters of the CAWS.
One attendee asked that a health advisory sign be posted at the Worth and Alsip boat launches.
The SAC has discussed posting signage. The concern from some of the stakeholders is that
recreation will be decreased because of fear created by caution signs. Therefore, the SAC could
not unanimously agree on a health advisory sign. However, the Chicago Park District and the
MWRD agreed to post health advisory sign on their property for the next recreational season.
Waterway Recreational Use
The attendees made the following observations on the CAWS:
■
The annual Bass Master event took place the weekend of September 6, 2003 in the Calumet
area
■
Non-motorized crafts have never observed along the CSSC reach
■
Several attendees have observed swimming in the Calumet-Sag Channel and the Little
Calumet River
■
Much of the primary contact activities are taking place at the Worth and Alsip boat launches
Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control
CSO events are managed by diversions at the locks at Lockport, downtown Chicago, Calumet, and
Wilmette. The Lockport Locks can decrease the stage of the CAWS by three feet in a few hours in
anticipation of a storm event resulting in CSO to the CAWS.
When the capacity of the storage structures on the CAWS are exceeded which include TARP and
WRPs, the last escape for excess flow is through the controlling locks in downtown Chicago to
Lake Michigan.
One attendee inquired if the drinking water intake will be extended because of CSOs polluting
Lake Michigan. The long term control of CSOs is TARP. Drinking water facilities will not need to
be adjusted
because of the CSOs.
Ravenswood Neighborhood
An attendee inquired about the encroachment issue along the North Branch of the Chicago River
(NBCR). Several homeowners in the Ravenswood neighborhood along the NBCR have built
a: Meetingskpublic10903 PUBLIC MEETINGS.doc
Public Meetings
September 25, 2003
Page 11
docks along the waterway, which prevents attainment of continuous public access along the
waterway. MWRD owns the land along the NBCR and requires up to a 30' set back from'the
waterway. This is an important issue along the CAWS; however, it is a tenant-owner issue and
will not be apart of the UAA.
Habitat
All meeting members agreed that the boating along the CAWS is a pleasant experience.
Woodchucks, deer, and other wildlife have been spotted swimming across the Calumet- Sag
Channel by several attendees.
Lake Calumet is very shallow except in an area that has been dredged. It is the last piece of
undisturbed water along the CAWS, and is home to many species of wildlife.
Disinfection
Disinfection is a process for removing bacteria from effluent discharged from WRPs. However,
disinfection of effluent from WRP along the CAWS will not necessarily decrease bacteria to levels
acceptable for swimming. Initial data analysis shows that on the NBCR around Deerfield, IL the
bacteria levels exceed the General Use water quality standard despite disinfection at the WRP on
that waterway. Bacteria could be originating from storm runoff, natural causes, or other
nonpoint
sources.
Other Waterways
An attendee asked
why certain nearby reaches are not included in the study. Other reaches in the
area are General Use waterways and are subject to a different study call a Total Maximum Daily
Load (TMDL).
Next Meeting
The next series of public meeting will be held in March 2004. The March public meetings will
present the results and recommendations of the UAA.
Lake Calumet Public Meeting
The Public Meeting on Lake Calumet occurred September 11, 2003 in Stefani's at Harborside
International Golf Course at 7:00pm. Ten people attended the meeting. The following is a
summary of the discussions at the meeting.
Meetings
Approximately 10 to 25 people have been attending the September series of public meetings. The
next series of public meeting will be held in March 2004. The March public meetings will present
the results and recommendation of the UAA.
QAMeetIngslpublicl0903 PUBLIC MEETINGS.doc
Public Meetings
September 25, 2003
Page 12
Health Advisory
A health advisory pamphlet is currently being processed to educate CAWS users about the health
precautions associated with recreating on the waterways. The MWRD and the Chicago Park
District have also agreed to post signage along the waterways warning of health hazards.
MWRD's permits require them to inform the public when overflow events occur. The plan
detailing their public notification program
is
currently being reviewed.
Fishing has been an activity frequently observed along the waterway. A fish advisory from IDNR
is in effect.
Sidestream Elevated Pool Aeration (SEPA)
One attendee heard that the SEPA stations will be closed. The SEPA station will no be closed;
however, they do not operate during the winter months. Additionally, SEPA 1 is in a location that
used to be populated by steel mills. However, the steel mills have closed and the water quality
has improved. If the SEPA station is found to be no longer needed, then it
,
will_
close.
Pollution
The Chicago River has a density gradient that causes the water to flow one direction at the top of
the water column and another direction on the bottom. Possible causes for the density gradient
are temperature changes and an increased salt content from winter street runoff.
Grand Calumet River
The submerged boat in the mouth of the Grand Calumet River was placed their by local residents
to stop the flow and pollution coming from an Indiana WRP. The pollution problem from the
Indiana WRP has been resolved.
The cost to dreg the Grand Calumet River and to remove the submerged boat at the mouth will be
considered as part of the CAWS UAA.
Navigation
Commercial traffic the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Channel (CSSC) is heavy. Navigation through
the Lockport Locks is tracked by the US Army Corp of Engineers.
In recent years, the traffic along the Calumet-Sag Channel has decreased because the steel mills in
that area were shut down about ten years ago.
One attendee observed that because of the high levels of power boating and barge traffic in the
CSSC, Calumet-Sag Channel, and Little Calumet River non-motorized boating is dangerous. Non-
motorized boating is possible in Lake Calumet. However, the lake lacks access points.
Q: \Meetings \public\0903 PUBLIC MEETINGS.doc
Public Meetings
September 25, 2003
Page 13
The Summit boat launch was closed a few years ago. 'The launch was not being maintained and
was closed due to safety reasons. Only a small number of people used the launch and alternatives
are available for those users. Therefore, the launch will not be reopening.
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
(MWRD)
An attendee inquired about the role of the MWRD in the UAA. The MWRD is a government —
neither a part of the City of Chicago nor Cook County government. It is operated under the
direction of nine elected commissioners.
The MWRD serves the City of Chicago and several suburban communities. Some of the MWRD's
responsibilities include:
■
Ownership and operation of the wastewater reclamation plants (WRP) along the CAWS,
which make up 80%- 90% of its flow
■
Treatment of biosolids from the WRPs
■
Implementation and maintenance of the Tunnel and Reservoir Plan (TARP)
■
Waterways control along most of the CAWS
■ Operation of five sidestream elevated pool aeration (SEPA) stations
■
Permit industrial waste program
Downtown Chicago Public Meeting
The Public Meeting in downtown Chicago occurred September 16, 2003 in the Thompson Center__
at 7:00pm. Ten people attended the meeting. The following is a summary of the discussions at the
meeting.
Bubbly Creek
An attendee inquired about the source of the flow pumped by Racine pumping station. The area
of concern is composed almost entirely of combined sewers. Combined sewer collection systems
consist of one sewer pipe network that collects local domestic wastewater, industrial wastes, and
stormwater runoff. If, during storms, the combined wastewater and runoff exceeds the capacity of
the treatment plant, the overflow is bypassed to TARP (the Tunnel and Reservoir Plan). When
TARP reaches capacity, the Racine pumping stations pumps the combined sewer and stormwater
of the area directly into Bubbly without treatment.
Except during storm flows, Bubbly Creek is a stagnate reach with little or no flow. All flow to the
reach is provided by the Racine Pumping Station. When the pump station is operating, the flow
from Bubbly Creek travels in both directions along the South Branch of the Chicago River.
QAMeetings\public10903 PUBLIC MEETINGS.doc
Public Meetings
September 25, 2003
Page 14
Along the length of Bubbly Creek, the bubbles originating from the sediments increase as the
mouth of the creek is approached. Also, fish jump from the water as boats travel by. These
phenomenons are caused by low DO in the creek.
QAMeetIngapublic10903 PUBLIC MEETINGS.doc
Memorandum
To:
?
Toby Frevert, Illinois EPA
Rob Sulski, Illinois EPA
From: Ron French, CDM
Date:?
July 24, 2003 -
Subject: Meeting Minutes for The Future of the Chicago Area Waterway System
Public Meeting
The Illinois EPA held two public meetings in the Chicago area June 24 and 25, 2003 to introduce
and discuss the Chicago Area Waterway System (CAWS) Use Attainability Analysis (UAA). A
meeting was held in the Thompson Center on June 24, 2003 and in the Windjammer Marina on
June 25, 2003. The meeting agendas consisted of the following items:
■
Brief History of CAWS
■
Explanation of UAA
▪
Course of Action
■
Potential Outcomes
■ Project Duration and Status
■
Contacts and Additional Resources
■
Discussion
Each agenda item is discussed in detail in the following sections. The agenda was established to
educate the public and receive feedback on the direction and goals of the CAWS UAA. The
following sections, excluding the
Discussion
section, apply to both public meetings. The
Discussion
section, which summarizes participants' comments and concerns, is subdivided by meeting
location to communicate the regional concerns regarding the CAWS UAA project.
CADOCUME-1 \epauser\ LOCALS-1 \Temp \GIAMewenUAA PUBLIC MEETINGS fAnutes June 2003.doc
Public Meetings
July 24, 2003
Page 2
Brief History of Chicago Area Waterway System
After explorers first discovered the area, it took 150 years to incorporate the area into the city of
Chicago. Four years after the city of Chicago was incorporated the population exploded from 400
to 4,000. During the following 25 years, the population quickly and severely polluted the surface
waters if the area and water born diseases took the lives of many Chicago residents. It has taken
100 years and billions of dollars to get the CAWS back into reasonable shape. The CAWS has
shown dramatic improvements over the last 30 years.
Rob Sulsld ofIllinois EPA described key historical events of the CAWS, which are listed below.
■
1673: Marquette made the Great Lake to Illinois River portage.
■
1833: Chicago incorporated as a village with 400 residents.
■
1837: Chicago incorporated as a city with over 4,000 residents.
■
1856: Sewer construction begins.
■
1860: Beginning of 30 years of typhoid cholera and other waterborne diseases outbreaks, which
kills many of Chicago area's population.
■
1900- 1922: The main channel of Chicago Sanitary & Ship Canal completed and Calumet-Sag
Channel completed.
■
Late 1930's: The Calumet, Stickney and North Side Wastewater treatment plants were
completed.
■
1972: Congress passed the Clean Water Act amendment.
■
1980's: Millions of dollars awarded in grants and revolving loans to upgrade sewers and
treatment plants.
■
1982: Fecal coliform water quality standard repealed for Secondary Contact Waterways.
■
1985: One billion gallon TARP mainstream tunnel began operating.
■
1988: First upgrades of a portion of the Secondary Contact Use waterways - Calumet River
upstream of O'Brien Lock and North Shore Channel above North Side effluent.
■
1992: First River Rescue Day held.
■
1994: Last of five existing SEPA station put into operation.
C:NDOCUME-1 \epauseALOCALS-11Temp\ GWViewenUAA PUBLIC MEETINGS Minutes June 2003.doc
Public Meetings
July 24, 2003
Page 3
■
1999: City of Chicago publishes their Chicago River Corridor Development Plan.
■
2000: Lower Des Plaines UAA begins.
■
2001: Southeast side environmental and community groups endure a
Vision for Lake Calumet.
■
2002: MWRD "Big Three" and Chicago NPDES Permits reissued with significant CSO language.
■
2003: Chicago Area Waterway System UAA begins.
Explanation of Use Attainability Analysis
Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA) states, "It is the nation's goal that wherever attainable, water quality
which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for
recreation in and on the water (swimming and fishing) should be achieved." Water quality
standards are adopted to protect designated uses. For example, if water quality standards for
swimming are attainable, then a standard for bacteria levels in the water must be established to
allow for such a use.
Improvements in the CAWS have enhanced the water quality and caused more usage of the
waterways. When the water quality improves and waterway uses change, the CWA requires that
designated uses be upgraded if achievable. New or revised water quality standards shall be
established considering the designated use and value of the following:
■
Public water supply
■
Propagation of fish and wildlife
■
Recreational purposes
■
Agricultural, industrial and other purposes
■
Navigation
Other federal regulations that will influence the study include the following:
■
Downstream water quality standards shall not be affected.
■
Sub-categories of uses may be allowed.
■
Uses are attainable if they can be achieved through best available technology or effluent limits.
CA0OCUME-1\epausedLOCALS-1 \ Temp \ GWVieweAUAA PUBUC MEETINGS Minutes June 2003.doc
Public Meetings
July 24, 2003
Page 4
■
Opportunity for public hearing is required to add or remove any use or establish sub-categories
of uses.
■
Seasonal uses with less stringent seasonal standards may be used in lieu of reclassification.
■
Uses existing on or after November 28, 1975 may not be removed.
Use Attainability Analysis
The state must conduct a UAA if the state has designated or will designate a use inconsistent with
the CWA. Currently, the CAWS classification does not meet the goal of the CWA. A UAA is a
structured scientific assessment.of the factors affecting the attainment of the use, which may '
include physical, chemical, biological, and economic factors.
There are many competing uses in the CAWS. For example, some citizens want to canoe while
other citizens have businesses that depend upon commericial traffic. Users need to communicate
and compromise to insure protection of all waterway uses.
Factors that may prevent the attainment of designated uses are the following:
1)
Natural pollution
2) Flow conditions
3)
Human caused conditions that would cause more environmental damage to correct than to
leave in place
4)
Hydrologic modifications not feasible to restore or to alternatively operate
5)
Physical conditions related to natural features
6)
Substantial and widespread economic and social impact
Illinois Water Quality Standards
Use designations on the CAWS are either General Use or Secondary Contact Use. General Use
standards protect the State's water for aquatic life, wildlife, agricultural use, Secondary Contact
Use and most industrial uses and ensure the aesthetic quality of the aquatic environment. Primary
Contact is protected for all General Use classified waters.
Primary Contact Use refers to any recreational or other water use in which there is prolonged
intimate contact with the water involving considerable risk of water ingestion in quantities
sufficient to pose a significant health hazard.
CADOCUME-1 epauseALOCALS-1 \Temp\ GWViewer\UAA PUBLIC MEETINGS Minutes June 2003.doc
Public Meetings
July 24, 2003
Page 5
The Secondary Contact Use is intended for those waters not suited for General Use activities but is
capable of supporting indigenous aquatic life. Secondary Contact Use protects any recreational or
other water uses in which contact with the water is either incidental or accidental and in which the
probability of ingestion of appreciable quantities of water is minimal. Most of the CAWS is
currently classified as Secondary Contact Use.
Course of Action
The CAWS UAA is a comprehensive project, which will depend on the efforts of many
stakeholders for success. Illinois EPA outlined the following tasks to be completed as part of the
UAA:
■
Hire Camp, Dresser & McKee to be the contractor
■
Assemble a technical advisory or the Steering Advisory Committee (SAC) to monitor technical
aspects and issues throughout the project
•
■
Have public relations elements in the process to insure involvement of stakeholders
■
Solicit and assemble data from government, industry and public sources
■
Analyze the data
■
Make a determination of attainable uses in the CAWS
■
Devise master plan to achieve the most desired attainable scenario
■
Perform economic evaluation of selected remedies and adjust master plan accordingly
■
Implement the Plan after approval by stakeholders and the Illinois Pollution Control Board
Potential Outcomes
The UAA analysis could result in a wide variety of outcomes. Some possibilities are listed below.
■
No change-incidental and accidental contact, fish passage and navigation
■
Swimmable and fishable in all respects
■
Seasonally swimmable
■
Dry weather swimmable
■
No swimming, but protected for such
C:\D000ME-1\epauserlLOCALS-1\Temp\GWVlewer\UAA PUBLIC MEETINGS Minutes June 2003.doc
Public Meetings
July 24, 2003
Page 6
■
Aquatic life reproduction
■
Aquatic life passage and survival without reproduction
■
Fish consumption advisories
Project Duration and Status
The CAWS UAA contract was signed in February 2003. The project is expected to be complete in
May 2004. • The following tasks have been completed.
■
CDM contract signed Jan 27th
■
January 30
th
meeting to discuss health issues in the waterways
■
February 11th
internal kickoff meeting
•■ February 25
th
site visit to the
,
Calurnet-Sag area
■
Meeting with MWRD, FCR, Port Development & Safety Council
■
Prepared project work plan
■
Prepared public health pamphlet and advisory sign
■
Prepared project mailing list
■
Prepared for first series of public meetings
■
Development of project web site
■
Met with MWRD modeler
■
Helicopter flyover
■
Data acquisition meeting
■
Meeting to discuss health advisory posting/pamphlet
■
Held first Stakeholder Advisory Committee meeting
■
June 25th waterway use survey
C:\DOCUME-1\epauser\LOCALS-1\Temp\GWViewer\UAA PUBLIC MEETINGS Minutes June 2003.doc
Public Meetings
July 24, 2003
Page 7
Contacts and Other Resources
The following contacts are available for questions and concerns related to the CAWS UAA. Public
statements are collected and are taken into consideration throughout the duration of the project.
Rob Sulski
Illinois EPA
rob.sulski@epa.state.il.us
Ed Hammer
USEPA
hammer.edward@epamail.epa.gov
1-(312)-886-3019
Ron French
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
frenchrd@cdm.com
1-(312)-346-5228
Additionally, further information is available on the project website:
www.chicagoareawaterways.org
Future public meetings are scheduled for September 2003 and March 2004. The September 2003
public meetings will be held in Evanston, Palos Heights, and Chicago. The location of the March
public meeting will be determined. Locations for the meetings were determined based on area
interest, availability of affordable facilities, and accessibility.
-
Public meetings are intended to be flexible in both frequency and location to accommodate the
special needs of any party interested in the UAA. The UAA project team is dedicated to
maintaining open lines of communication with all interested parties and will hold additional
meetings upon request.
Discussion
A summary of participant comments and responses is included in the following sections. This
portion of the minutes is subdivided by the location of the meeting to communicate the regional
concerns and issues. The Thompson Center meeting, held on June 24, 2003 is discussed first,
followed by the meeting at Windjammer Marina on June 25, 2003.
CADOCUME
—
tepauser \ LOCALS-1 \Temp\ GVNIewerNUAA PUBLIC MEETINGS Minutes June 2003.doc
Public Meetings
July 24, 2003
Page 8
Thompson Center Public Meeting
Chicago's Thompson Center Public Meeting occurred June 24, 2003 at 7:00pm. Twenty-three
people attended the meeting. The following is a summary of the discussions at the meeting.
Clean Water Act
The CWA states that uses occurring on or after 1975 will be protected. The CAWS water quality
has improved since 1975, and the CAWS UAA study is considering a potential upgrade.
Therefore, the protection of the uses before 1975 will not be an issue. Often, the 1975 clause is
critical during UAA studies that explore potential downgrades for waterway systems.
The CWA encourages waterway uses to be that which the pubic desires. For that reason, the
public is encouraged to provide feedback throughout the CAWS UAA process.
Ownership and Navigation
The MWRD owns the majority of the land along the CAWS. However, many private docks have
been built along the waterway. Increasing public access to the CAWS and solving navigational,
competition will not be addressed in the CAWS UAA. The focus of the study is to protect the
CAWS water quality for existing and potential uses.
Fish
The fishermen are aware of fish advisories. Advisories are given to all who receive fishing
licenses.
Study Area
The Skokie Lagoons are not apart of the CAWS UAA. The Skokie Lagoons are designated as
General Use waterway and are subject if necessary to a different type of approach called a Total
Maxim Daily Load (TMDL).
Bubbly Creek is a Secondary Contact Use waterway and will be addressed in this study.
Sediment
Dredging the CAWS is one possible way to remove the sediment and will be considered.
However, dredging is costly and it would be difficult to find a location for the enormous volume
of removed sediment.
One attendee recommended that the sediment could be placed with the MWRD's sediment.
However, the MWRD does not have a location for sediments. It has a location for sludge.
Public Use
One attendee expressed concern over the use categories. Canoeing is an existing use, which is
protected by the Secondary Contact Use classification. However, canoeists often have direct
CADOCUME-tlepauseALOCALS-11Temp\GWViewerNUAA PUBLIC MEETINGS Minutes June 2003.doc
Public Meetings
July 24, 2003
Page 9
contact with the water. The attendee suggested that a new category be formed that describes
contact experienced by canoeists.
Attendees observed many people canoeing, kayaking, and playing along the CAWS. Also, some
community organizations get into the waterway while cleaning it.
One commercial boating representative stated that three people where pulled out of the CAWS the
day of the meeting, July 24, 2003. It is a common occurrence to see people fully submerged in the
waterway system. The number of people swimming in the CAWS has increased in recent years.
One attendee suggested that emergency shower stations be placed along the CAWS, so when
people do contact the water they can immediately rinse.
Combined Sewer Overflows
(CSO)
During storm events, the WRP cannot handle the sudden increase of flow and the excess
combined sewer flow is bypassed into the waterway system untreated. During these heavy rain
events, condoms are often seen floating in the CAWS.
For decades only a fraction of an inch of rain would cause CSOs and flooding of rivers and
basements. The long-term plan to elevate the CSOs and flooding problems is the Tunnel and
Reservoir Plan (TARP). Some of the TARP system is already on line and CSO events have been
reduced. When TARP in completed in about 2015, the CSOs should be controlled.
Data
CDM has a large amount of data on the CAWS. About 90% of the data requested from community
and government agencies have been collected. Data is only accepted if it has gone though a
rigorous quality assurance and quality control process.
Much of the data originated from MWRD, US Army Corp of Engineers, Friends of the Chicago
River, Midwest Generation, US Geological Survey, Illinois State Water Survey, Illinois Department
of Natural Resources, Illinois EPA, and USEPA.
Flow and rain data will be incorporated into the model to simulate the CAWS water quality
parameters during wet weather events, dry weather events, and seasonal conditions.
Water Quality
The majority of the CAWS has a Secondary Contact Use designation. High bacteria counts in the
CAWS is one of the reasons that the waterway is labeled as Secondary Contact Use. The high
bacteria counts in the CAWS originate from several sources including the MWRD's water
reclamation plants (WRP) and Chicago area storm water runoff. However, it is possible that
disinfection of the MWRD WRP effluent will not solve the bacteria problem in the CAWS. The
CAWS has unique flow patterns, velocities, and runoff that could prohibit the possibility of
acceptable bacteria counts for General Use.
CADOCUME-11epauser \ LOCALS-1 \Temp\ GWViewenUAA PUBLIC MEETINGS Minutes June 2003.doc
Public Meetings
July 24, 2003
Page 10
Several possibilities will be evaluated in the model. Some of the results of the model will be
presented during the September public meetings.
Windjammer Marina Public Meeting
The Windjammer Marina Meeting occurred June 25, 2003 at 7:00pm. Fourteen people attended the
meeting. The following is a summary of the meeting's discussion topics.
Grand Calumet River
One attendee was concerned about the pollution originating from the state of Indiana. Indiana
Harbor has been a contributor to the pollution of the Grand Calumet River. The attendee
suggested that a dam should be constructed at the Illinois/Indiana border on the Grand Calumet
River to prevent future pollution to the Illinois section of the river.
The Illinois EPA conceded that about ten years ago, millions of gallons of raw sewage was
discharged into the Grand Calumet River from Hammond, IN. However, a Federal lawsuit has
taken care of much of that pollution source.
An attendee recommended dredging the Grand Calumet River: The Illinois EPA will consider
that as an option. However, dredging
is
costly and it would be
. difficult to find a location for the
enormous volume of sediment.
Course
of
Action
The attendees were concerned with the budget, time span, and expected results of the project. In
the past, clean up of the waterways in the area were disregarded because of the high cost.
Funding will continue to be made available because the water quality standards are protected
under the CWA. A significant remedy, TARP, continues to be constructed. However, because the
costs are enormous, the full remedy will not be applied over night.
The CAWS UAA has an aggressive schedule with an expected completion date of Spring 2004.
Funding for the CAWS UAA has already been set aside.
The CAWS has improved drastically during the last thirty years.. The improvements have been a
result of government agencies and community organizations working on CAWS improvement
projects. Because of these improvements, the CAWS UAA will produce an action plan based on
the evaluation of the established beneficial uses and water quality criteria.
Smell
Some attendees described an unpleasant smell in the area. The Illinois EPA explained that the
smell is likely coming from the area landfills. Odor should not be a problem from the landfill.
However, if it is, witnesses should file a complaint with the Illinois EPA and the agency will
investigate the situation.
C:\DOCUME-1\epauser\LOCALS-1\Temp\GMewer\UAA PUBLIC MEETINGS Minutes June 2003.doc
Public Meetings
July 24, 2003
Page 11
Future Meetings
The next series of public meetings will be held in September 2003.
CADOCUME-1 1 epausenLOCALS-1 \TempLGWViewer \ UAA PUBLIC MEETINGS Minutes June 2003.doc
Memorandum
To:?
Toby Frevert, Illinois EPA
Rob Sulski, Illinois EPA
From: Ron French, CDM
Date:?
June 16, 2003
Subject: Meeting Minutes for The Future of the Chicago Area Waterway System
Public Meeting
The Illinois EPA held three public meetings throughout the Chicago area during May 5 through
May 9, 2003 to introduce and discuss the Chicago Area Waterway System (CAWS) Use
Attainability Analysis (UAA). A meeting was held in Evanston on May 5, in Palos Heights on
May 6, and on Lake Calumet on May 8, 2003. The meeting agendas consisted of the following -
items:
■
Brief History of CAWS
■ Explanation of UAA
■ Course of Action
■
Potential Outcomes
■
Project Duration and Status
■
Contacts and Additional Resources
■ Discussion
Each agenda item is discussed in detail in the following sections. The agenda was established to
educate the public and receive feedback from the public on the direction and goals concerning the
CAWS UAA. The following sections, excluding the Discussion section, apply to each of the public
meetings. The Discussion section, which summarizes participants' comments and concerns, is
subdivided by meeting location to communicate the regional concerns regarding the CAWS UAA
project.
CADocuments and Settings\jdratnLocal Settings \Temporary Internet Files \OLK4\0503 PUBLIC MEETINGS.doc
Public Meetings
June 16, 2003
Page 2
Brief History of Chicago Area Waterway System
After explorers' first discovery, it took 150 to incorporate the area into the city of Chicago. Over
the next four years, the population exploded from 400 to 4,000. During the next 25 years, the
population quickly and severely polluted the surface waters, and water born diseases took the
lives of many Chicago residents. It has taken 100 years and billions of dollars to get the Chicago
Area Waterways back into reasonable shape. The CAWS has shown especially dramatic
improvements over the last 30 years.
Rob Sulski of Illinois EPA described key historical events of the CAWS, which are listed below:
■
1673: Marquette made the Great Lake to Illinois River portage.
■
1833: Chicago incorporated as a village with 400 residents.
■
1837: Chicago incorporated as a city with over 4,000 residents.
■
1856: Sewer construction begins.
■
1860: Beginning 30 years of typhoid cholera and other waterborne diseases outbreaks kills many
of Chicago area's population.
■
1900- 1922: The main channel of Chicago Sanitary & Ship Canal completed and Cal-Sag Cannel
completed.
■
Late 1930's: The Calumet, Stickney and North Side Wastewater treatment plants were
completed.
■
1972: Congress passed the Clean Water Act amendment.
■
1980's: Millions of dollars awarded in grant and revolving loans to upgrade sewers and
treatment plant.
■
1982: Fecal coliform water quality standard repealed for Secondary Contact Waterways.
■
1985: One billion gallon TARP mainstream tunnel began operating.
■
1988: First upgrades of some Secondary Contact waters - Calumet River upstream of O'Brien
Lock and North Sore Channel above North Side effluent.
■
1992: First River Rescue Day held.
■
1994: Last of five existing SEPA station put into operation.
C:\Documents and Settingstjdrattlocal SetlingsViemporary Internet Files\ OLK4 \0503 PUBLIC MEETINGS.doc
Public Meetings
June 16, 2003
Page 3
■
1999: City of Chicago publishes their Chicago River Development Corridor Plan.
■
2000: Lower Des Plaines UAA begins.
■
2001: Southeast side environmental and community groups endure a
Vision for Lake Calumet.
■
2002: MWRD "Big Three" and Chicago NPDES Permits reissued with significant CSO language.
■
2003: Chicago Area Waterway UAA begins.
Explanation of Use Attainability Analysis
Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA) says, "It is the nation's goal that wherever attainable, water quality
which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for
recreation in and on the water (swimming and fishing) should be achieved." Water quality .
standards are adopted to protect designated uses. For example, if water quality standards for
swimming are attainable, then a standard for bacteria levels in the water must be established to
allow for such a use.
?
•
Improvements in the CAWS have enhanced the water quality and caused more usage of the
waterways. When the water quality improves and waterway uses change, the CWA requires that
designated uses be upgraded if achievable. New or revised water quality standards shall be
established considering the designated use and value of the following:
■ Public water supply
■
Propagation of fish and wildlife
■
Recreational purposes
■
Agricultural, industrial and other purposes
■ Navigation
Other federal regulations that will influence the study include the following:
■
Downstream water quality standards shall not be affected.
■
Sub-categories of uses may be allowed.
■
Uses are attainable if they can be achieved through best available technology or effluent limits.
CADocurnents and Settingqdratt\Lacal Settings \Temporary Internet Files\ OLKA0503 PUBLIC MEETINGS.doc
Public Meetings
June 16, 2003
Page 4
■
Opportunity for public hearing is required to add or remove any use or establish sub-categories
of uses.
■
Seasonal uses with less stringent seasonal standards may be used in lieu of reclassification.
■
Uses existing on or after November 28, 1975 may not be removed.
Use Attainability Analysis
The state must conduct a UAA if the state has designated or will designate a use inconsistent with
the CWA. Currently, the CAWS classification is inconsistent with the CWA. A UAA is a
structured scientific assessment of the factors affecting the attainment of the use, which may
indude physical, chemical, biological, and economic factors.
There are many competing uses in the CAWS. For example, some citizens want to canoe while
other citizens have businesses that depend upon commericial traffic. Users need to communicate
and compromise to insure protection of all waterway uses.
Factors that may used to argue that a designated use is not attainable are:
1) Natural pollution
2)
Flow conditions
3)
Human caused conditions that would cause more environmental damage to correct than to
leave in place
- 4) Hydrologic modifications not feasible to restore_or to alternatively operate
5)
Physical conditions related to natural features
6)
Substantial and widespread economic and social impact
Illinois Water Quality Standards
Use designations in Chicago Area inland waterways are either General Use or Secondary Contact
Use. General Use standards protect the State's water for aquatic life, wildlife, agricultural use,
Secondary Contact Use and most industrial uses and ensure the aesthetic quality of the aquatic
environment. Primary Contact is also a protected General Use.
Primary Contact Use refers to any recreational or other water use in which there is prolonged
intimate contact with the water involving considerable risk of water ingestion in quantities
sufficient to pose a significant health hazard.
CADoctiments and SettingsLjciratt \Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \OLK4 0503 PUBLIC MEETINGS.doc
Public Meetings
June 16, 2003
Page 5
The Secondary Contact Use is intended for those waters not suited for General Use activities but
are capable of supporting an indigenous aquatic life. Secondary Contact Use protects any
recreational or other water uses in which contact with the water is either incidental or accidental
and in which the probability of ingestion of appreciable quantities of water is minimal. Most of the
CAWS is currently classified as Secondary Contact Use.
Course of Action
The CAWS UAA is a comprehensive project, which will depend on the efforts of many
stakeholders for success. Illinois EPA outlined the following tasks to be completed as part of the
UAA:
■
Hire Camp, Dresser & McKee to be the contractor
■
Assemble a technical advisory or the Steering Advisory Committee (SAC) to monitor the
technical working thought out the project
■
Include public relations expertise to insure constant involvement of stakeholders
■
Solicit and assemble data from government, industry and public sources
■
Analyze the data
■
Make a determination on what uses are existing and attainable in CAWS
■
Devise master plan to achieve the attainable uses
■
Perform economical evaluation of selected remedies and adjust master plan accordingly
■
Implement the Plan after approval by stakeholders and Illinois Pollution Control Board
Potential Outcomes
The UAA analysis could result in a wide variety of outcomes. Some possibilities are listed below.
■
No change-incidental and accidental contact, fish passage and navigation
■
Swimable and fishable in all respects
■
Seasonally swimable
■
Dry weather swimable
■
No swimming, but protected for such
CADocuments and SetlingstidratttLocal Settings
g
emporary Internet Files \OLK410503 PUBUC MEETINGS.den
Public Meetings
June 16, 2003
Page 6
■
Aquatic life reproduction
■
Aquatic life passage and survival without reproduction
■
Fish consumption advisories
Project Duration and Status
The CAWS UAA contract was signed in February 2003. The project is expected to be complete in
May 2004. The following tasks have been completed.
■
CDM contract signed Jan 27th
■
January 30th
meeting to discuss health issues in the waterways
■
February 11
th
internal kickoff meeting
■
February 25th
site visit to the Calumet-Sag area
■
. Met with MWRD, FCR, Port Development & Safety
.
Council
■
Prepared project work plan
■
Prepared public health pamphlet and advisory sign
■
Prepared project mailing list
■
Prepared for public meetings
■
Development of project web site
■
Met with MWRD modeler
■
Helicopter flyover
■
Data acquisition meeting
■
Meeting to discuss health advisory posting/pamphlet
■
Held first Stakeholder Advisory Committee meeting
Contacts and Other Resources
The following contacts are available for questions and concerns related to the CAWS UAA. Public
statements are collected and are taken into consideration through out the duration of the project.
CADocuments and SettingAdratt \Local Settings \Temporary Internet FilestOLK4\ 0503 PUBLIC MEETINGS.doc
Public Meetings
June 16, 2003
Page 7
Rob Sulski
Illinois EPA
rob.sulski@epa.state.il.us
1-(847)-294-4000
Ed Hammer
USEPA
hammer.edward@epamail.epa.gov
1-(312)-886-3019
Ron French
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
frenchrd&dm.com
1-(312)-346-5228
Additionally, further information is available on the project website:
www.chicagoareawaterways.org
Future public meetings are scheduled for June 2003, September 2003, and March 2004. The June
2003 public meetings will be held in downtown Chicago at the Thompson Center and in the South
Side of Chicago at the M&M Windjammer Marina. The September 2003 public meetings will be
held in Evanston, Palos Heights, and Chicago. The location of the March public meeting will be
determined. Locations for the meetings were determined based on area interest, availability of
affordable facilities, and accessibility.
Public meetings are intended to be flexible M both frequency and location to accommodate the
special needs of any party interested in the UAA. The UAA project team is dedicated to
maintaining open lines of communication with all interested parties and will hold additional
meetings upon request
Discussion
A summary of participant comments and responses is included in the following sections. This
portion of the minutes was subdivided by the location of the meeting to communicate the regional
concerns and issues. The Evanston meeting, held on May 5, is discussed first, followed by the
meeting in Palos Heights on May 6 and then the meeting near Lake Calumet on May 8.
Evanston Public Meeting
The Evanston Public Meeting occurred May 5, 2003 in the Evanston City Council Chambers of
Civic Center at 7:00pm. Thirty-two people attended the meeting. The following is a summary of
the discussions at the meeting.
C:\Documents and Settings Njdratt \ Local SettIngs\Ternporary Internet Files \ OLK4 \0503 PUBLIC MEETINGS.doc
Public Meetings
June 16, 2003
Page 8
Stakeholder Definition
A stakeholder is any one with an interest in the outcome of the project All are encouraged to be
involved.
The Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) consists of stakeholders that are technically
knowledgeable representatives of government, industry and community groups concerned with
the CAWS UAA and who have an interest in decisions being made for these waterways. These
representatives are invited to monthly SAC meetings. However, any interested party who wants
to be involved is welcome to attend. The SAC was formed to provide stakeholder input and
guidance throughout the CAWS UAA process.
Health Concerns
Rob Sulski of Illinois EPA explained that the purpose of the recent health advisory for Secondary
Contact waterways is to educate the public on the potential health risks associated with contact of
such waters. The January
30th,
2003
UAA meeting explored the possibility that individual citizens
may not be aware of or fully appreciate the potential physical obstacles or bacterial organisms
which could cause harm or illness within the Secondary Contact waterways. Participants of the
January 30
th
meeting concluded that the public should be notified of the potential health and
safety risks associated with waterway usage and formed a Health Advisory Committee to address
the issue. As a result, the Health Advisory Committee and the Illinois EPA are preparing a health
advisory that consists of a sign and a pamphlet for public posting and distribution.
One public concern was that a health advisory would create fear of the CAWS and decrease sales
for boat rental companies and other organizations that encourage water recreation. The Health
Advisory Committee has discussed that issue and will be sensitive to that concern. An attendee
recommended researching similaradvisories that have successfully used positive statements when
educating the public about potentially hazardous waterways.
One attendee suggested that the health advisory be educational. The health advisory could be
misinterpreted as a caution for drowning instead of a caution of water quality risks. The health
advisory will be worded so that the purpose for the warning is clear.
The public expressed concern about the risk involved in contacting Secondary Contact Use
waterways. One attendee contracted Giardia from paddling. Another attendee reported an event
in which a mother and a child swam in the river, and as a result suffered from dysentery and
vomiting. Many people paddle the CAWS and inevitably get wet. Also attendees have witnessed
several children and adults playing, fishing, canoeing, kayaking, and sculling in the water. The
Riverside Neighbors are regularly in contact with the water when working on erosion control and
beautification projects. Additionally, people have been observed eating ducks from the river.
Schools have access and perform experiments on the river. An attendee concluded that contact
with the CAWS is apart of the communities everyday life.
CADocurneres and SettIngqdrattlocal Settings\ Ternporary Internet Files\ OLK410503 PUBLIC MEETINGS.doc
Public Meetings
June 16, 2003
Page 9
Currently, no study details an accurate health assessment of the waterways, but a wide variety of
illnesses can possibly be contracted from water contact. The current Secondary Contact Use
classification of CAWS does not protect for dose contact with the water. If someone becomes sick
after being in contact with the CAWS, the person should notify his/her physician of the water
contact. The Health Advisory is being created to educate the public on this issue.
Data Collection
The Project team is currently collecting recreational data. Additional comments may be sent to the
contacts.
A note taker
is
recording the discussion during the meetings. Meeting minutes will be distributed
to all interested attendees and posted on the project website.
How Changes are Executed
The UAA process will make a determination on a use for a particular CAWS reach or group of
reaches. A reach is a waterway segment in which the water characteristics are similar. After a use
is determined, the project team will assertain whether the use is protected. Finally, the project •
team will lay out a plan for revising use designations and protecting such revised.
Cost
If the UAA results in a change in the use classification of the CAWS, the implementation measures
necessary to affect the change, including funding options, will be researched as part of the UAA
project. Implementation measures, such as disinfection or retrofit, may be funded through taxes,
fines, or both. Generally, the taxes appear as an additional fee on a sewer or water bill. An
example of an imposed fine includes, those given to people who do not curb their dogs in a dog
curbing area. The economic impacts will be presented and discussed with the stakeholders as part
--of the UAA process.
Disinfection
The water quality and economic impacts of disinfection will be explored during the UAA.
However, the type of disinfection will not be addressed. If disinfection is apart of the UAA's
conclusion it is the responsibility of the wastewater discharger in conjunction with the IEPA to
determine appropriate disinfection strategies.
In the past, wastewater treatment processes used chlorination to disinfect; therefore, chlorine was
present in the waterways, which caused harm to some life forms. Today, chlorination is always
coupled with a dechlorination process that removes the chlorine from the reclamation plant's
effluent before it is released into the waterway.
One attendee articulated that the MWRD offers wastewater treatment at a lower cost then other
large cities. Therefore, the MWRD has room to increase costs, which could pay for disinfection or
other process improvements.
CADocoments and Setting.qdratnLocal Settings\Temporary Internet Files\ OLK4\ 0503 PUBLIC MEETINGS.doc
Public Meetings
June 16, 2003
Page 10
Flow and
TARP
The Chicago area sewer system is composed almost entirely of combined sewers. Combined
sewer collection systems consist of one sewer pipe network that collects domestic wastewater,
industrial wastes, and stormwater runoff. If, during storms, the combined wastewater and runoff
exceeds the capacity of the treatment plant, the overflow is bypassed directly to the CAWS
without treatment. This excess results in significant pollution, and creates potential health
hazards for downstream users. To alleviate this problem, the Chicago area is implementing the
Tunnel and Reservoir Plan (TARP). Under this plan, huge underground tunnels and surface
reservoirs intercept combined sewer overflow and hold it for later full treatment prior to release to
the waterway. The tunnel components of TARP are nearly completed. The reservoirs are
scheduled for completion in 2017..
MWRD's permits require informing the public when overflow events occur. The plan for fulfilling
this requirement is currently under review.
The flow in the North Shore Channel below Howard Street is dominated by effluent from the
MWRD North Side wastewater treatment plant. Upstream of the plant, flow is dominated in the
warmer months by Lake Michigan water diverted into the channel at Wilmette, or, during rain
events, by CSOs. In the colder months, when there is no "discretionary diversion", upstream flow
is low or non-existent and water quality is poor. The amount of allowable "discretionary
diversion" will continue to decrease in the future.
Alternatives
One attendee expressed concern over the impacts of keeping invasive species out of Lake
Michigan, such as turning the river anaerobic or boiling the river. Invasive species control is not a
task of the CAWS UAA. Invasive species control is presently being discussed by an inter-agency
task force being coordinated bythe University of Wisconsin Sea Grant institure. Boiling the river
of making it anaerobic are, we understand, not alternatives currently being considered by the Task
Force.
Bacteria
Data
An attendee inquired about daily bacteria counts. Daily bacteria counts are not available for the
CAWS, however, there is some monthly sampling data.
Possible Outcomes
CAWS is a complicated system, but the project team will try to find a feasible solution that will
achieve the CWA goal. At these early stages of the study, the outcome cannot be predicted.
Some attendees were unclear on what would be served by setting standards for primary contact,
but not designating a swimming use. It is possible that a waterway has the ability to attain the
General Use water quality standards. However, the waterway may not be swimmable due to
CADocuments and Settings\jdratt\Local Settings \Temp
orary Internet Files \OLK4\0503 PUBLIC MEETINGS.doc
Public Meetings
June 16, 2003
Page 11
physical hazards such as commercial traffic, sheet pile walls, or other physical obstacles that create
a hazardous environment for swimmers.
Lower Des Plaines UAA
The Des Plaines River joins the CAWS at the south end of the system. The lower Des Plaines River
is being evaluated in a separate UAA, developed by Illinois EPA, and is not a part of the CAWS
UAA project. The use classifications on the lower Des Plaines will not necessarily affect the results
of the CAWS UAA. However, the methodologies utilized will
be
similar and improved upon
from experience.
Waterway Use
Finally, the attendees discussed waterway use. Rivers do not have designations for 'right of way'
with regards to commercial and recreational traffic. Commercial and recreational units seem to
cohabitate successfully on the CAWS. However, the rights of the commercial users are protected
under federal law while the rights of recreation users are not.
The owner of
River Bikes
was able to get his company started because of good communication with
commercial, and government agencies associated with the river. Good communication will be
emphasized throughout the CAWS UAA.
The
Coke
plants have been all shut down and are therefore not as strongly involved in the CAWS
UAA in a stakeholder advisory capacity. -
Palos Heights Public Meeting
The Palos Heights Public Meeting occurred May 6, 2003 at 7:00pm in a Park District Building.
Thirteen people attended the meeting. The following is a summary of the meeting discussion
topics.
Public Involvement
Interested parties can gather information and contribute comments on the CAWS UAA by
attending public meetings, e-mailing or calling the contacts listed above, and visiting the project
website.
The Illinois EPA held three public meetings during May 5 through May 9, 2003 to introduce and
discuss the CAWS. Future public meetings are scheduled for June 2003, September 2003, and
March 2004. The June 2003 public meetings will be held in downtown Chicago at the Thompson
Center and in the South Side of Chicago at the M&M Windjammer Marina. The September 2003
public meetings will be held in Evanston, Palos Heights, and Chicago. The location of the March
public meeting will be determined. Locations for the meetings were determined based on area
interest, availability of affordable facilities, and accessibility.
C:\Documents and Settingstjdrattlocal Settings \Temporary Internet Files\ OLK4 \0503 PUBLIC MEETINGS.doc
Public Meetings
June 16, 2003
Page 12
Public meetings are intended to be flexible in both frequency and location to accommodate the
special needs of any party interested in the UAA. The UAA project team is dedicated to
maintaining open lines of communication with all interested parties and will hold additional
meetings upon request.
The June 2003 public meetings were scheduled based on a recommendation of an attendee at this
meeting.
Paddling Community
A representative of the paddling community described the following conditions and concerns.
Paddlers heavily use the CAWS. The CAWS hosts several events each season with thousands of
paddlers, and these events are just a fraction of the users. Approximately 43,000 small boats are
registered within the area.
During the Chicago River Flatwater Classic, which is an annual event, 540 people are in contact
with the water. The organizer of the event feels responsible for health risks of theparticipants. To
address this issue, the Illinois EPA is in the process of creating a health advisory to
.
educate the
public on the, potential health risks associated with contact with the waters of the CAWS. The
advisory includes caution signs and informational pamphlets.
The paddling community applauds Illinois EPA's efforts on CAWS UAA project and recommends
that the CAWS be up graded to General Use. Paddling is an existing condition and is not a
Secondary Contact Use activity. Hands and feet are almost always exposed to the water when
paddling. Paddlers believe that the waterways can and should be returned to the state in which
explorers Joliet and Marquette discovered it.
CAWS
Pollution
Waterway users notice that the CAWS often has a foul smell, and has floating debris including
used tampons and condoms. An attendee inquired about a possibility of a regulation on the size
of objects passed into the waterways.
The floating sanitary debris is a result of combined sewer system overflows (CSOs). These CSOs
result in significant pollution and create potential health hazards for downstream users. To
alleviate this problem, Chicago has implemented the TARP, which is scheduled for completion in
2017.
MWRD's permits required them to inform the public when overflow events occur. The plan for
public notification is currently under review.
Disinfection
A question surfaced concerning seasonal disinfection. Seasonal disinfection applies to discharges
into General Use waterways only. Secondary Contact Use contact waters do not have a bacteria
CADocuments and SettingsljdrathLocal SetlIngs\Temporary Internet FilesL0LK4\0503 PUBLIC MEETINGS.doc
Public Meetings
June 16, 2003
Page 13
requirement, therefore, dischargers into such waterways are not required to disinfect. If
disinfection becomes a recommendation of the UAA it will be the responsibility of the dischargers
to fulfill the disinfection requirement in conjunction with the IEPA permit process with whichever
technology they choose.
Pollution Source
An attendee tried to get information from the MWRD to determine when the water is safe for
paddling. The MWRD could not provide an answer. No one source can confidently state when
the CAWS is safe because health risks come from several sources. In addition to CSOs and the
MWRD effluent, the CAWS collects urban stormwater runoff, animal waste, and other pollutants.
Chicago Public Meeting
The Chicago Public Meeting occurred May 8, 2003 in Stefani's at Harborside International Golf
Course at 7:00pm. Forty-five people attended the meeting. The following is a summary of the
discussions at the meeting.
Public Outreach
The first topic of discussion concerned the definition of SAC. The SAC consists of stakeholders,
which are technically knowledgeable representatives of government, industry and community
groups concerned with the CAWS UAA and who have an interest in decisions being made for
these waterways. These representatives are invited to every SAC meetings. However, any other
interested party who wants to be involved is also welcome to attend. The SAC was formed to
provide stakeholder input and guidance throughout the CAWS UAA process.
Also, additonal public meetings have been added in the downtown Chicago area during late June
as recommended by an attendee for the Palos Heights public meeting.
TARP
The Chicago area sewer system is composed almost entirely of combined sewers. Combined
sewer collection systems consist of one sewer pipe network that collects domestic wastewater,
industrial wastes, and stormwater runoff. If, during storms, the combined wastewater and runoff
exceeds the capacity of the treatment plant, the overflow is bypassed directly to the CAWS
without treatment. This excess results in significant pollution induding floating condoms in the
river or the "white fish" that some attendees voiced concern. The untreated overflows create
potential health hazards for downstream users. To alleviate this problem, the Chicago Area is has
implementing the Tunnel and Reservoir Plan (TARP). Under this plan, huge underground
tunnels and surface reservoirs intercept combined sewer overflow and hold it for later full
treatment prior to release to the waterway. The tunnel components of TARP are nearly
completed. The reservoirs are scheduled for completion in 2017.
The MWRD's permits require them to inform the public when overflow events occur. The plan
detailing their public notification program is currently being reviewed.
CADocuments and Settings■jdratt \ Local Settings\ Temporary Internet Files \OLK4 0503 PUBLIC MEETINGS.doc
Public Meetings
June 16, 2003
Page 14
The flow in the North Shore Channel below Howard Street is dominated by effluent from the
MWRD North Side wastewater treatment plant. Upstream of the plant, flow is dominated in the
warmer months by Lake Michigan water diverted into the channel at Wilmette, or, during rain
events, by CSOs. In the colder months, when there is no "discretionary diversion", upstream flow.
is low or non-existent and water quality is poor. The amount of allowable "discretionary
diversion" will continue to decrease in the future.
Importance
of
Waterway Use Data
Currently much of the CAWS is classified as a Secondary Contact Use waterway, which means •
that no one should intentionally contact the water. The waterway use data will contribute to the
designation of the waterway. For example, if only a few people in a limited area are using the
entire waterway for contact recreation, it may be more economical to build pools in the
neighborhood of those few people. Also, physical barriers like boat and barge traffic might make
the CAWS unsafe for swimming. As the data unfolds, the Illinois EPA with the guidance of the
stakeholders will have to make critical decisions based on the available water use data.
Downstream Effects
The downstream effects of the CAWS are minor. The communities downstream of Joliet have a
General Use designation for their waterways, and are using it as the source of their drinking
water.
Metals and toxins are not the major problem. Rather, bacteria, dissolved oxygen, sedimentation
exceedances and structural and functional habitat limitation appear to be the significant stressors.
The bacteria and dissolved oxygen problems dissipate as the water flows downstream. The
dissipation of these pollutants is similar to the dissipation of the green dye on the Chicago River.
Every St. Patrick's day, the Chicago River is dyed green. However, the river is only green for
about a day because the dye dissipates.
Chicago Area Waterway System
(CAWS)
Components and Protection
The CAWS does not include Wolf Lake or Indian Creek because they low flow General Use
tributaries of a larger General Use waterway. Lake Calumet is included in the CAWS because it is
a Secondary Contact Use waterway. General Use waterways are subject to a different type of
corrective approach Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL). TMDLs are a federally mandated
process under the Clean Water Act. A TMDL consists of a quantitative analysis to determine the
greatest amount of a given pollutant that a water body can receive without violating water quality
standards and designated uses. More information regarding Illinois' TMDL process is available
on the Illinois EPA's website (httpl /www.epa.statell.us/water/tmdl/index.html).
The uses of the CAWS will be evaluated during the UAA and the standards will be revised and
reset accordingly by the Illinois Pollution Control Board. Once a waterway is designated for a
particular use, the Illinois EPA is responsible for the protecting that use.
CADocuments and Settings NjdrataLocal Settings \Temporary Internet Files \ OLK410503 PUBLIC MEETINGS.doc
Public Meetings
June 16, 2003
Page 15
Data Sources
The MWRD, national and state government agencies, Midwest Generation, and others will supply
the data to support the UAA analysis. Data includes water quality, sediment, habitat,
hydrological, hydrologic weather and GIS data from the period of 1998 and earlier in some cases,
through 2003.
Pollutants
All pollutants of concern are listed on the Illinois EPA web site. The MWRD consistently achieves
the discharge standards set forth by National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permits. The MWRD also attempts to alleviate the dissolved oxygen water quality problems by
means of In-stream and Side-stream Elevated Pool Aerations (SEPA) stations.
Sediment contamination is mostly a legacy pollution problem. They often resurface because of
barge traffic or during storm related scouring action. If necessary and economically feasible, the
pollutants will be removed from the river bottoms.
Interests
Attendees' agreed that the interests of the waterway should be cooperative and not recreational
vs. commercial. Strong meeting representation and communication will be emphasized
throughout the UAA to achieve a positive compromise incorporating all interests.
Health Advisory
Concerned surfaced about the stigma associated with advisories. The Health Advisory is for
educating and reminding the public of commonsense hygiene. The health advisory will be
sensitive in language and in presentation.
Vision of Calumet
The
Vision of Calumet,
a non-profit organization dedicated to the protection of Lake Calumet's
wildlife and other natural resources, would like the entire waterway up graded to General Use.
Also, the group has completed their own land use plan for the entire Lake Calumet shoreline. A
survey of 250 young people and adults concluded that the community does not use the waterway
but would like too.
Cost
Funding and staffing for the CAWS UAA is available and will not be a barrier for this project.
Fishing
The health effects of eating the fish that live in the CAWS is unknown. Attendees have witnessed
people eating fish The fish seem more healthy and abundant then they have in the past. The
consumption of fish is a visible use.
CADocurnents and SettIngs4drattlocaI Settings\ Temporary Internet Files \ OLK4 \0503 PUBLIC MEETINGS.doc
Public Meetings
June 16, 2003
Page 16
One fisherman reported seeing a lot of beautiful healthy fish. The carp can be as large as 50 lbs,
and can eat it's own body weight in three days. The fisherman would like to see an upgrade to the
CAWS use classification and the beautification of the entire system.
Submitted Public Comments
Two public meeting attendees submitted written comments.
Submitted by Ryan Chew of
Chicago River Canoe and Kayak
during the Evanston Public Meeting:
I want to thank IEPA for undertaking this project. I run a boat rental business that has put
roughly 7,000 people on the water in our first two years. Our customers enjoy the natural setting
of the
.
RavensWood Manor stretch of the North Branch, its herons,kingfishers and turtles, as well
as the chance to see the urban visions of Chicago from the river. While fewer than one in one
hundred of our paddlers fall in, it does happen. We also see many other paddlers put in at our
launch or pass by us. For the sake of all of these people in the paddling community, we support
efforts to improve water quality in the Chicago Waterway System.
Victor Crii7ello of
Vision for Lake Calumet
submitted a report entitled A 21st
Century Vision for Lake
Calumet: A Sustainable Future for Industry, Widlife, and the Public
during the Chicago Public
meeting. The report will be available upon request and will be posted on the project website.
C:\Documents and Settingskjdratt \Local Settings \Terrvorary Internet Files \ OLK4 \ 0503 PUBLIC MEETINGS.doc
