BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF:

WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND

EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS FOR THE

CHICAGO AREA WATERWAY SYSTEM

AND THE LOWER DES PLAINES RIVER:

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 35 111.

Adm. Code farts 301, 302, 303 and 304

R08-9

(Rulemaking - Water)

PRE-FILED TESTIMONY OF JENNIFER WASIK

I am Jennifer Wasik, and I have been a biologist in the Aquatic Ecology and Water

Quality Section at the District for over 7 years. I have a Bachelor of Science degree in Biology

from the University of Michigan and a Master of Science degree in Environmental Management

from the Illinois Institute of Technology. In addition to supervising the collection of biological,

habitat, and sediment samples for our Ambient Water Quality Monitoring (AWQM) Program,

which began in 2001, 1 manage other aquatic research projects. I serve on various local water

quality-related committees including the Bubbly Creek Sediment Capping Demonstration Project

committee and the Illinois Nutrient Standards Workgroup. I have also been a member of the

North American Benthological Society (NABS) since 2003.

In

my testimony, I will discuss the District's sediment and benthic invertebrate sample

collection program and summarise the physical, chemical, and toxicological data we have

collected between 2001-2007 in the CAWS. A detailed description of our collection and

analytical methods for biological and sediment data is located in District R&D reports (Wasik,

et

al

2008

;

Attachments I and 2)

Methodology

Sampling

;

Stations

.

The 59 AWQM Program

sampling stations

are located on natural and

man-made waterways throughout the District's service area (

Attachment

3).

Twenty eight of the

stations are in the CAWS, whereas the other stations are located in the General Use, shallow-draft

waterways.

The biological, sediment, and habitat monitoring portions of the AWQM Program

operate on a 4-year cycle, with a primary focus each year on a different watershed area. The

1

---

waterways are divided into the northern Chicago River System, southern Chicago River System,

Calumet River System, and Des Plaines River System. The Des Plaines River System consists of

General Use waterways that are not relevant to this ruleinaking.

Physical Chai

-

acterization of Sediment

.

During biological collections, physical habitat

is assessed at four locations at each sampling station: At the beginning and end of a sampling

reach, at the side and center of the waterway. A sediment evaluation is one component of the

habitat assessment process. The estimated sediment coinposition, color, and odor are recorded,

and the presence of oil is noted. In addition, the depth of fines is measured by pushing a leveling

rod through the fine deposited sediment until a hard bottom is reached. Dine-grained sediment

has a large surface area to volume ratio and has a tendency to be more chemically and

biologically reactive, thereby increasing the probability of contaminant absorption and

desorption (Salomons et al., 1987; Burton, 1992). Thus, homogenous fine-grained sediments like

silt and sand generally support tolerant organisms, such as aquatic worms from the Oligoehaete

taxon (Brinkhurst, R.0).

On the other hand, a more complex and heterogeneous substrate,

consisting of sand, gravel and cobbles, is conducive to a diverse benthic invertebrate community

(Hynes, 1970). Such a balanced benthic invertebrate population would likely include more

sensitive mayfly, stonefly, and caddisfly larvae known as EPT (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and

Trichoptera taxa.

Sediment Chemisti

-

y and

Toxicity. In 2002, the District began collecting sediment for

chemical and toxicity analysis at each of the AWQM stations. A ponar sampler was used to

obtain sediment froin the side and center of the waterway at each sampling station. A ponar is a

6" x 6" stainless steel dredge that scoops up sediment from the bottom of a waterbody. The

District's Analytical Laboratory Division (ALD) analyzed sediment samples for total solids (TS),

total volatile solids (TVS), ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N), nitrate plus nitrite nitrogen (N02t-N03),

total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), total phosphorus (fP), total cyanide (TCN), phenols, total metals,

and Organic Priority Pollutants listed

in Attachment

4. Additional sediment samples were sent

on ice to a contractor laboratory for Acid Volatile Sulfide/Simultaneously Extracted Metals

(AVS/SEM), TOC, and particle size determination. All constituents were analyzed using

procedures established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) or

2

---

described in Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (19`x' edition,

1998).

Inorganic and organic sediment chemistry results for 2002-2007 are found in

Attachments

5 and 6, respectively.

Attachment

7 is the station location key to accompany

organic sediment chemistry data.

AVS/SEM, TOC, and particle size reports from 2002-2007

prepared by the contracted laboratories are provided

in Attachments 8-13.

In the absence of sediment toxicity data, the CAWS UAA report employed sediment

toxicity screening levels from MacDonald, et al. 2000 in order to identify "potential problem

areas and constituents." Sediment contaminants exceeding the Threshold Effects Concentration

(TEC) are considered "possibly toxic," and those exceeding the Probable Effects Concentrations

(PEC) are "presumed toxic." Table 4-9 (page 4-12) in the UAA report lists the TEC and PEC

values for 12 contaminants.

However, the District also has several years of sediment toxicity data obtained from

bioassays conducted in sediment from the CAWS. Sediment samples for toxicity analysis were

collected in the same manner and locations as the sediment chemistry samples. These samples

were sent to a contractor for ten-day

Chir°onornus tenlans

toxicity testing, which is a USEPA-

recommended method (USEPA 2000 Test Method 1002). Attachment 14 exhibits sediment

toxicity results between 2002-2007 in the CAWS. Attachments 15-20 are the sediment toxicity

reports prepared during 2002-2007, respectively, by ASci Corp, the District's contracted toxicity

laboratory. These reports contain a very detailed description of the test methods and results.

Bioassay survival results that are significantly different than the control indicate that the

sediment sample is not suitable for survival of this commonly assayed belithic invertebrate. Ash

free dry weight results that are significantly different than the control suggest that the sediment is

not conducive to normal growth of the organism.

Benthic Invertebrates

.

The District has been collecting benthic invertebrates in the

CAWS as part of the AWQM Program since 2001. We collect benthic invertebrates from the

center and side of the waterway at each station, using ponar grab and Hester Dendy samplers.

While ponar samplers are like a small steel jaw that collects a portion of sediment from the

bottom of the waterway, Hester Dendy samplers provide an artificial substrate in the water

column above the sediment for colonization by benthic invertebrates. Hester Dendy data reflects

3

---

colonization potential as opposed to actual assemblage at a given location (USEPA 2006). Hester

Dendy samples tend to indicate bcnthic invertebrate taxi that might be present at a given location

if there were habitat available. Evidence of this in the CAWS in provided

in Attachment 21.

The bcnthic invertebrate data from 2001-2005 is available in reports prepared by our

contractor, EA Engineering, Science, and Technology

(Attachments

22, 23,

and 24

).

Due to the

time required for identification, bcnthic invertebrate data is currently only available through

2005, although bcnthic invertebrates were also collected in 2006 and 2007, and continue to be

collected. These reports also contain overall taxi richness (ic. number of species collected), El'T

taxa richness (ie. number of sensitive mayfly, stonefly, and caddisfly species collected),

Chironoinidae (a classification of midges with an aquatic larval phase) head capsule deformity

abundance, and brief interpretations of the data from each sampling station. Clironomidae head

capsule deformity observations can indicate stress from sediment contaminant exposure (Merritt,

et al. 2008).

Sediment Data Summary

by CA

WS Reach

North Shore Channel

.

Sand and silt dominated sediment throughout the North Shore

Channel (NSC), and the depth of fines measured greater than 4 feet at two stations.

Concentrations of trace metals in NSC sediments were generally below the PEC, but

most sari pies exhibited cadmium, copper, lead, nickel and zinc concentrations above the TEC.

Total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) concentrations were presumed toxic in three of the

samples.

Toxicity results showed significant lethality from exposure to NSC sediments from one

station.

Oligochaeta was the dominant taxon collected from the NSC. Total taxa richness from

Hester Dendy samples was highest in the furthest upstream station in the North Shore Channel

(31 taxa), and decreased in the downstream direction.

North Branch

Chicag

o

River.

Along the North Branch Chicago River (NBCR),

sediments were less dominated by fine sediments at the furthest upstream location. However,

sediments taken further downstream in the NBCR were dominated by silt and sludge and

contained heavy oil deposits. Depth of fines at this station was as deep as >5 feet.

4

---

Five of the six sediment samples frorn the NBCR during 2005 had PAH concentrations

presumed toxic. Generally, trace metal concentrations in sediment samples were above either- the

PEC or TEC screening levels in all of these samples.

Toxicity

results showed significant lethality from exposure

to

Diversey Parkway and

Grand Avenue on the North Branch Chicago River.

Pollution tolerant aquatic worms were the dominant organisms collected from the deep

draft portion of the NBCR. The lowest total taxa richness (four) was from the ponar sample at

Grand Avenue in the North Branch Chicago River. Approximately 13 percent of midge

specimens collected and examined from Grand Avenue in the North Branch Chicago River

during 2002 exhibited head capsule deformities.

Chicago River.

Fine sediments dominated the Chicago River bottom, with 1-5 feet

depth of fines.

Analysis of sediments from the Chicago River (main stem) sampling stations showed

presumed toxic concentrations of PAHs and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in seven out of

eight samples. In addition, concentrations of cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, and

zinc were always greater than either the presumed or possibly toxic screening values in the 2002

samples from the Chicago River.

A majority of

benthic invertebrates collected from the Chicago River were

aquatic

worms. Hester Dendy samples yielded a total of 22 species from the Chicago River, while ponar

samples only had 5 species, as would be expected given the high quality lake water in this reach

and the poor sediment habitat quality.

South Branch Chicago River

.

The South Branch Chicago River- (SBCR) was

extensively embedded with fine sediments with depth of fines measuring 1 to >5 feet. Sediments

from these stations generally exhibited an oil sheen. In the SBCR, each of the seven total

sediment samples greatly exceeded the presumed toxic screening level for PAH concentration.

Six of the samples also exceeded the PEC for PCBs. Sediment samples from the South Branch

exceeded the PEC or TEC for cadmium chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc, with

very few exceptions.

5

---

Tolerant taxi dominated samples from the SBCR. Total and EPT taxa richness were

considerably higher in Hester Dendy than ponar samples. Dive percent of midges collected from

Loomis Street on the South Branch Chicago River in 2002 exhibited head capsule deformities.

South

F

ork South Branch Chicago River (Bubbly

Creek). In Bubbly Creek, there

was only one monitoring station assessed for physical habitat. Sediment composition varied

greatly between the beginning and end of the sampling reach; the former dominated by sludge

deposits and the latter by gravel. Depth of fines ranged up to 4.5 feet, and the sediments had

odors of asphalt or strongly septic sludge.

All four samples taken would be presumed toxic based on exceeding the PEC

concentration for PCBs and lead. Every Bubbly Creek sediment sample exceeded either the PEC

or TEC for PAffs, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc.

Tolerant benthic invertebrate

taxa comprised

over 99 percent of the total density in

Bubbly Creek samples, demonstrating a highly stressed community.

Sediment toxicity bioassays also confirmed toxicity to

Ch.iranomus tentans

in the 2002

samples from Archer Avenue on Bubbly Creek

Chicag

o Sanitary and Ship Canal.

The three furthest upstream stations on the Chicago

Sanitary and Ship Canal (CSSC) were dominated by silt and sludge bottoms and depth of fines

ranging from <1-9 feet. Oil was detected at a majority of the assessment locations. At the three

stations further downstream, the channel bottom was often scoured concrete.

A majority of the 16 sediment samples taken from the CSSC exceeded the PEC screening

level for cadmium

, chromium

, lead, nickel, zinc, PCBs, and PAHs.

One CSSC sediment sample elicited significant lethality to

Chirononnus tentans.

Seventeen of the samples

from

this system indicated impaired

organism

growth.

Tolerant taxa, primarily Oligochacta, comprised a majority of the benthic invertebrate

samples from most of the stations in this system. According to reports prepared by EA

Engineering, the benthic communities were generally highly stressed in the CSSC. From 2001-

2005, Hester Dendy samples yielded many more total and EPT taxa than ponar samples. This is

6

---

characteristic of aquatic environments in which water quality exceeds habitat quality or

availability. These data are probably reflective of the soft homogenous silt sediments present in

this system.

Calumet-Sag Channel

.

The results from physical habitat characterizations in the Cal-

Sag Channel (CSC) clearly show that the sediments lack substrate heterogeneity. Most of the

sediment samples are comprised of fine particulates of silt and sludge. The depth of fine

sediments often measured seven to eight feet. Several sediment samples displayed slight to heavy

oil sheens and were reported to have strong petroleum odors. Aquatic vegetation was absent

during the surveys, except for attached green algae.

By comparing measured concentrations to the TEC and PEC values, all of the sediment

samples collected by the District from the CSC in 2003 would be presumed toxic for PCBs.

Total PAH levels in all of the sediment samples from the CSC exceeded the TLC, and two

exceeded the PEC. All of the sediment samples had presumed toxic lead concentrations and five

of the six samples had presumed toxic zinc concentrations. One sediment sample showed

chromium and cadmium concentrations greater than the PEC. In 2007, sediment with a strong

petroleum odor collected from two of the locations on the CSC was discarded due to concerns

over possible flammability during metals analysis. Of the remaining four sediment samples three

were presumed toxic due to lead, two due to chromium, nickel, and zinc, and one due to

cadmium.

The toxicity of CSC sediments was confirmed by sediment toxicity bioassays. Relative to

the rest of the CAWS, sediment from the CSC exhibited elevated toxicity. Sediment samples

collected during; 2003 from all of the CSC stations were not conducive to the survival of

Chironoinus tentcans.

Generally, the survival rates for test organisms in the six sediment samples

from the three locations were very low (down to zero) compared to control samples. Similar

toxicity

was observed in sediment samples collected during 2007, in which five of the six

sediment samples caused significant organism lethality. Significant growth impairment was

detected in the one sample that did not have a lethal effect on the organisms.

According to the technical report prepared by LA Engineering (

Attachment

23) which

summarized the results of field assessments conducted during 2003-2004, the "benthic

7

---

community at all three locations (in the CSC} was represented by a low number of taxa and was

dominated by highly tolerant organisms. Therefore,

it is

reasonable to conclude that the benthic

community at these locations in the Cal-Sag is highly stressed" (Page 3-21). Similar results have

been obtained from samples collected during; 2001, 2002, and 2005.

In 2003, total Hester Dendy taxa richness was 20, 21, and 18 species at the three Cal-Sag

Channel sampling; stations. Conversely, only six, three, and five total taxi were observed in

ponar samples at the same stations, respectively. The discrepancy between total taxa collected in

ponar versus Hester Dendy samples suggests that lack of habitat (ie. physical ellaracteri sties of

the sediment) may be limiting benthic invertebrate

communities.

Head capsule deformities were observed at a rate generally

less than

two percent, except

during; 2003 at Cicero Avenue on the Calunict-Sag Channel, where approximately ten percent of

midge specimen collected exhibited head capsule deformities.

Little

Calumet River

. In the Little Calumet River, the surveys indicated a variety of

sediment types ranging from silt or gravel to

scoured concrete bottoms

in the center of the

waterway, with mostly fine sediments on the side. Light oil was detected in certain reaches and

some reaches had relatively extensive decaying; terrestrial vegetation on the bottom. Depth of

fines had a wide range of 0 to 6.6 feet during; 2007. Sediment samples from the Little Calumet

River exhibited concentrations of certain contaminants above screening levels to a lesser extent

than the Grand Calumet River and Cal-Sag Channel.

In the deep draft portion of the Little Calumet River, three out of five sediment stations

exhibited toxicity and the other two stations showed decreased growth compared to the control

during 2003. During 2007, one out of the five Little Calumet River sediment samples showed

significant lethality, and there was decreased growth in two samples.

Zebra mussels were the dominant taxi from Hester Dendy samples in the Little Calumet

River during most years.

Calumet River

.

Channel scouring; was present in some reaches of the Calumet River,

whereas other- areas exhibited pockets of fine sediments mixed with zebra and quagga mussel

shells.

Oil sheens and odors were detected in the sediment at both stations.

8

---

In the Calumet River, one sample out of three was unsuitable for

Chironoinus

survival in

2003 and one sample out of four was unsuitable for survival in 2007.

Zebra mussels represented 93-98 percent of the total density in the Hester Dendy samples

between 2001-2005. Samples from the Calumet River differed from the rest of they system in

that total taxa richness was higher in ponar than Hester

Dendy

samples because zebra mussels

largely colonized space on the artificial substrates.

Grand Calumet River. Sediments at the one station in the Grand Calumet River were

characterized by very deep fines (generally <5 feet) and extensive evidence of oil contamination.

In the Grand Calumet River, both sediment samples taken in 2003 had concentrations of

cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, zinc, PCBs and PAI-Is above the PEC screening

level, any one of which would indicate presumed toxicity. During; 2007, one sample showed six

heavy metal concentrations beyond presumed toxic levels, whereas the other sample had two

metals beyond this threshold. One sample exhibited a presumed toxic PAH concentration

One out of two samples in the Grand Calumet River exhibited significant lethality in

2003, while both samples did in 2007.

Pollution tolerant Oligochacta accounted for over 90 percent of the total density of ponar

and Hester Dendy samples from the Grand Calumet River. Relatively few total species were

collected in these samples and no EPT taxa were found.

Conclusion

Throughout the CAWS, homogenous fine sediments dominated and there was no quality

habitat for bcnthic invertebrates. Many locations in the CSSC, CSC, NBCR, and SBCR emitted

the odor or sheen of oil. Chemical contamination with metals, PAHs, and/or PCBs was

widespread in CAWS sediments according to screening levels used in the UAA report. Toxicity

analysis demonstrated that sediments were unsuitable for the survival of a relatively tolerant

species of bcnthic invertebrate, especially in the CSC. Unsurprisingly, bcnthic invertebrate

samples from the CAWS exhibited low total and EPT taxa richness, and tolerant species of

worms and midges were ubiquitous. Finally, higher taxa richness in Hester Dendy samples than

9

---

ponar samples indicate that water quality is adequate for more sensitive species, but the habitat is

limiting their colonization.

10

---

Re: spegfully

submitted,

lel4u,^6

By:

Jennifer Wasik

---

Testimony Attachments

I .

District R&D Report No. 08-2. Ambient Water Quality Monitoring in the Chicago

Area Waterway System: A Summary of Biological, Habitat, and Sediment Quality

Data Between 2001 and 2004.

2.

District R&D Report No. 08-33. Ambient Water Quality Monitoring in the Chicago,

Calumet, and Des Plaines River Systems: A Summary of Biological, Habitat, and

Sediment Quality During 2005.

3.

Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Program Station Map

4.

List of Organic Priority Pollutants analyzed in CAWS sediments

5.

Summary of inorganic sediment chemistry in the CAWS between 2002-2007

6.

Summary of organic sediment chemistry in the CAWS between 2002-2007

T

Key of sampling station identification numbers and locations

8.

AVS/SEM, `I'OC, and particle size reports froYn 2002

9.

AVS/SEM, TOC, and particle size reports from 2003

10.

AVS/SEM, TOC, and particle size reports from 2004

11.

AVS/SEM, TOC, and particle size reports from 2005

12.

AVS/SEM, TOC, and particle sire reports from 2006

13.

AVS/SEM, 'I'OC, and particle size reports from 2007

14.

Summary of sediment toxicity results in the CAWS between 2002-2007

15.

Sediment toxicity report from 2002

16.

Sediment toxicity report from 2003

17.

Sediment toxicity report from 2004

18.

Sediment toxicity report from 2005

19.

Sediment toxicity report from 2006

20.

Sediment toxicity report from 2007

21.

Comparison of benthic invertebrate species richness from Hester Deady versus ponar

grab samples at District annual sampling stations

22.

Benthic invertebrate report from 2001-2002

23.

Benthic invertebrate report fron-i 2003-2004

24.

Benthic invertebrate report from 2005

11

---

References

American Public Health Association, American

Water

Works Association, and Water

Environment Federation (publishers). 1998.

Standard Methods.fbr° the Examination of Water and

Wastewater,

19`1' ed.

Brinkhurst R. O., and C. R. Kennedy. 1965. Studies on the biology of the Tubificidae (Annelida:

Oligochaeta) in a polluted stream.

Journal Animal Ecology,

34: 429-443.

Burton, G.A., Jr., 1992. "Assessing contaminated aquatic sediments."

Ellvironrnental Science

and Technology, 26:

1862-1863.

Hynes, I-1 B. N. 1970. "The Ecology of Running; Waters." University of Toronto Press, Toronto,

Ontario.

MacDonald, D.D., C.G. Ingersoll, and T.A. Berger. 2000. "Development and evaluation of

consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems."

Arch.

Environ.

Contain. Toxicol.

39:20-31.

Merritt, R.W., K.W. Cummins, M.B. Berg

(editors).

2008.

"An Introduction to the Aquatic

Insects of North America." 4 ed. Kendall/Hunt Publishing, Company.

Salomons,

W., N.W. de Rooij, H. Kerdijk, and J. Bril, 1987. "Sediments as a Source for

Contaminants."

Ilydrobiologia

149, 13-30.

USEPA. March 2000.

Methods for Measuring the Toxicity and Broaccurnulation of Sediment -

Associated Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates,

Second Ed. Office of Research and

Development. Report No. EPA-600-R-99-064.

USEPA. 2006.

Concepts and Approaches for° the Bioassessment of Non-wadeable Streams and

Rivers.

Report No. EPA 600-R-06-127.

Wasik, Jennifer, Thomas Minarik, Jr., Michael Sopcak, and Samuel Dennison. January, 2008.

Arnbieni Water Quality Monitoring in the Chicago Area Waterway System: A Sunvnary of

Biological, Ilabitat, and Sediment Quality Data Between 2001 and 2004.

Metropolitan Water

Reclamation District of Greater Chicago Research and Development Department Report No. 08-

2.

Wasik, Jennifer and Thomas Minarik, Jr. June, 2008.

Anibieni

Water Quality Monitoring in the

Chicago,

Calumet, and Des Plaines River Systems: A Summary of Biological, habitat, and

Sediment Quality During 2005.

Metropolitan

Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago

Research and Development Department Report No. 08-33.

12

---

A

ttachment 1

---

Metropolitan Water

Reclamation

District of Greater Chicago

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

DEPARTMENT

REPORT NO. 08-2

AMBIENT WATER QUALITY MONITORING

IN THE CHICAGO AREA WATERWAY SYSTEM:

A SUMMARY OF BIOLOGICAL, HABITAT, AND

SEDIMENT QUALITY DATA BETWEEN 2001 AND 2004

January 2008

---

Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago

100 East Erie Street Chicago, Illinois 60611-2803 (312) 751-5600

AMBIENT WATER QUALITY MONI'

T'ORING

IN THE CHICAGO AREA WATERWAY SYSTEM:

A SUMMARY OIL BIOLOGICAL, HABITAT, AND

SEDIMENT QUALITY DATA BETWEEN

2001

AND 2004

By

Jennif

er

Wasik

Biologist II

Thomas A. Minarik, Jr.

Biologist I

Michael Sopcak

Biologist III

Samuel G. Dennison

Biologist IV

Research and Development Department

Louis Kollias

,

Director

January 2008

---

TABLE: OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

us'r OF FIGURES

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

DISCLAIMER

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Chlorophyll

Habitat

Fish

Benthic Invertebrates

Sediment

Chemistry

Sediment

Toxicity

INTRODUCTION

DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA

Chicago Area Waterway System

Sampling Stations

MATERIALS

AND METHODS

Chlorophyll

Sample Collection

Laboratory Analysis

Filtration

Extraction

Page

v

vii

ix

ix

ix

x

x

x

xi

I

4

4

4

6

6

6

6

6

6

i

---

TABLE OF CONTENTS

(Continued)

Page

SpectrophotoEnetric Analysis

6

Quality Control

6

Habitat

7

Data Collection

7

Assessment

Locations

7

Calculating Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index

7

Dish

10

Boatable Stream Sampling

10

Wadeable Stream Sampling

1.0

Fish Processing

10

Index of Biotic Integrity

10

Benthic Invertebrates

11

Ponar Sediment Sampling

II

Artificial Substrate Sampling

Benthic Invertebrate Processing

I1

II

Sediment Chemistry

13

Sample Collection

13

Sample Analyses

13

Sediment Toxicity

13

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

17

Chlorophyll

17

ii

---

TABLE OF CONTE

NTS (Continued)

Page

Chicago River System.

17

Calumet River System

17

Des Plaines River System

17

Habitat

17

Chicago River System

17

Calumet River

System

23

Des Plaines River- System

23

Dish

23

Chicago River

-

System

23

Calumet River System

38

Des Plaines River System.

38

Benthie Invertebrates

38

North Branch Chicago River System

38

South Branch Chicago River Systen7

38

Calumet River- System

43

Des Plaines River System

43

Sediment Chemistry

43

Sediment Toxicity

43

Chicago River System

68

Calumet River System

68

iii

---

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Des Plaines River System

68

REFERENCES

69

iv

---

LIST OF TABLES

Table

No.

__

__

Page

I

Ambient Water Quality Program Sampling Stations and Biological

2

Sampling Year

2

Constituents Analyzed, Sample Containers, and Preservation Meth-

14

3

ods for Sediment Samples Collected for the Ambient Water Quality

Monitoring Program During 2002-2004

List of Organic Priority Pollutants Analyzed in Sediment Samples

15

Collected for the Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Program

Between 2002-2004

4

Range and Mean Chlorophyll a Values in the Chicago Area Water-

18

5

way System Between August 2001 and December 2004

Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index Scores in the Chicago Area

21

6

Waterway Systern Measured Between 2002 and 2004

Common and Scientific Names of Fishes Collected in the Chicago

24

7

Area Waterway System Between 2001 and 2004

Number, Weight, and Number of Species for Fish Collected in the

27

8

Chicago Area Waterway System Between 2001 and 2004

Index of Biotic Integrity Score and Category Calculated for the Chi-

33

9

cago Area Waterway System Between 2001 and 2004

List of Benthic Invertebrate Taxa Collected in I-fester Dendy and

39

Ponar Samples from the Chicago Area Waterway System Between

2001 and 2004

10

Chemical Characteristics of Sediment Collected from the Chicago

44

1 I

Area Waterway System Between 2002 and 2004

Trace Metals in Sediment Collected from the Chicago Area Water-

47

12

way System Between 2002 and 2004

Acid Volatile Sulfide, Simultaneously Extracted Metals, Total Or-

50

panic Carbon, and Particle Size Sediment Data from the Chicago

Area Waterway System Between 2002 and 2004

v

---

LIST OF TABLES (

Continued)

Table

No.

Page

13

Organic Priority Pollutants Detected in Sediment Collected from the

Chicago River 2002

53

14

Organic Priority Pollutants Detected in Sediment Collected from the

South Branch Chicago River and South Fork South Branch Chicago

River During 2002

54

15

Organic Priority Pollutants Detected in Sediment Collected from the

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal During 2002

55

16

Organic Priority Pollutants Detected in Sediment Collected from the

Calumet River and the Grand Calumet River During 2003

56

17

Organic Priority Pollutants Detected in Sediment Collected from

Thorn Creek and Wolf Lake During 2003

57

18

Organic Priority Pollutants Detected in Sediment Collected from the

Little Calumet River During 2003

58

19

Organic Priority Pollutants Detected in Sediment Collected from the

Calumet-Sag Channel During 2003

59

20

Organic Priority Pollutants Detected in Sediment Collected from

Buffalo Creek and Higgins Creek During 2004

60

21

Organic Priority Pollutants Detected in Sediment Collected from the

Des Plaines River- During 2004

61

22

Organic Priority Pollutants Detected in Sediment Collected from Salt

Creek During 2004

63

23

Organic Priority Pollutants Detected in Sediment Collected from the

West Branch DuPage River During 2004

64

24

Toxicity Data for Sediment Collected from the Chicago Area Wa-

terway System Between 2002 and 2004

65

vi

---

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

No.

P

aze^

I

Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Program Sampling Stations

5

2

Metropolitan

Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago Physi-

cal Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet

8

3

Configuration of Hester Dendy Larval Plate Sampler

12

vii

---

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors extend their deepest gratitude to Dustin Gallagher, Rebecca Rose, Richard

Schackart, John Szafoni, and Justin Vick of the Aquatic Ecology and Water Quality Section for

their hard work in the field and laboratory during 2001-2004.

For their assistance on the Pollution Control Boats, thanks are extended to Industrial

Waste Division staff.

"I'he authors wish to acknowledge the Analytical Laboratory Division for performing

sediment chemistry analyses.

Special thanks are extended to Dr. Thomas Granato, Assistant. Director of Research and

Development, Environmental Monitoring and Research Division, for his helpful review com-

ments.

Many thanks to Ms. Joan Scrima, Principal Office Support Specialist, for her formatting

and organization of this report.

DISCLAIMER

Mention of proprietary equipment and chemicals in this report does not constitute

endorsement by the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago,

viii

---

SUMMARY AND

CONCLUSION

The biological portion of' the Ambient Water Quality Monitoring (AWQM) Program

operates on a 4-year cycle, with a primary focus each year on a different portion of the Chicago

Area Waterway System (CAWS). Biological assessments were perlormed at each of the 59 sta-

tions

within the 4-year cycle of' 2001-2004.

Physical habitat and sediment characterizations

were added to the protocol in 2002. Fifteen of the 59 stations were monitored annually based on

their proximity to Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (District) facili-

ties and other considerations.

Chlorophyll a was measured monthly at each of the 59 AWQM

stations,

The following summarizes findings for biological, physical habitat, and sediment pa-

rameters measured during 2001-2004.

Chlorophyll

Chlorophyll a concentrations decreased directly downstream of water treatment plants

due to dilution of the waterway with effluent. In the Chicago River System, chlorophyll a means

ranged from 1 pg/L at Touhy Avenue on the North Shore Channel to 25 µg/l, at Dundee Road on

the

West Fork North Branch Chicago River. The highest recorded chlorophyll a. concentration

during 2001-2004 was 118 1Lg/L, also at Dundee Road.

Mean chlorophyll a values in the Calumet River System ranged from 2 !Lg/L (Ewing

Avenue, Calumet River) to 40 pg/L (Burnham Avenue, Grand Calumet River). The maximum

concentration measured 313 ^Lg/L at Burnham Avenue.

The range of chlorophyll a concentrations in the Des Plaines River System was 3 µg/L

(Wille Road, Higgins Creek) to 46 pg/L (Material Service Road, Des Plaines River).

The

maximum concentration measured in this system was 299 pg/L at Stephen Street in the Des

Plaines River.

Habitat

During the biological collection events, staff biologists assessed physical habitat at the

beginning and end of each sampling reach and calculated a Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index

(QI-IEI) score using this information. The QHEI was developed for wadeable streams and may

not be appropriate for deep-draft channels in CAWS. However, no physical habitat index is cur-

rently available for such waterways. Physical habitat assessments were not performed during the

first year of the 4-year biological collection cycle. Therefore, habitat data in the northern region

of the Chicago River System is limited to the annually sampled stations.

The habitat ratings assigned to stations assessed in the Chicago River System during

2002-2004 ranged from very poor to poor (27-42). Negative habitat features in this system in-

cluded channelization, limited flow, limited instream cover, and excess silt in sediments.

ix

---

In the Calumet River System, QHEI ratings ranged from poor to fair (32-55). The limit-

ing factors in this systern appeared to be lack of instream cover, silty substrates, and

channel ization.

Habitat ratings ranged from very poor to good (23-64) in the Des Plaines Systern. Son-le

stations in the Des Plaines River and Salt Creek had instrearn habitat for fish, as well as adequate

canopy cover, and comparably better channel morphology and land use than found in other sys-

terns.

However, stations in Higgins Creek and the Calurnet-Sag Channel were limited by chan-

nelization, silt-dorninated sediments, and lack of canopy or in stream cover.

Fish

Fish were collected from deep-draft waterways using boat electrofishing methods and

from wadeable waterways employing a backpack electrofisher and a bag seine. Sampling length

was generally 400 meters or 40 meters on each bank for deep and wadeable waterways, respec-

tively.

Dish were generally identified, weighed, measured, and checked for abnormalities in the

field before being released.

A total of 56 fish species and 4 hybrids were collected from CAWS between 2001-2004.

Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) scores indicated a "fair" rating at most of the 59 stations, although

a few were considered "poor." Carp and gizzard shad were among the most frequently collected

species of fish in the Chicago and Calumet River Systems, while various sunfish were most

abundant in the Des Plaines River System.

Benthic Invertebrates

Benthic invertebrate samples were collected using petite ponar grab and Hester Dendy

larval plate samplers.

The samples yielded 193 total benthic invertebrate taxa (73 identified to

species level) during 2001-2004. Comprehensive benthic invertebrate data have been published

in two other Research and Development (R&D) Reports available on the District Website

(wwvy.mwrd.org) under- the "Biological Reports" heading. They are entitled, R&D Report No.

04-4, "A Study of the Benthic Macro invertebrate Community in Selected Chicago Metropolitan

Area Waterways During 2001 and 2002," and Report No. 07-47, "A Study of the Benthic Macro-

invertebrate Community in Selected Chicago Metropolitan Area Waterways During 2003 and

2004.,,

Sediment Chemistry

During 2002--2004, sediment samples were collected from the side and center of the wa-

terway at 40 stations (sediment chemistry was not analyzed in 2001). Sediment samples were

analyzed for 8 general chemistry constituents, 1 I trace metals, and a total of 111 total organic

priority pollutants. In addition, a contracted lab performed acid volatile sulfidelsirnultaneously

extracted metals (AVSISEM), total organic carbon (TOC), and particle size determination,

x

---

Sediment

Toxicity

Tell-day toxicity tests were performed on Chlronumus tentans in sediment samples. col-

lected fi-om 40 stations during 2002-2004. Forty-eight percent of.' stations contained sediment

that was not suitable for Chironumus tentans survival. Forty-eight percent of stations also con-

tained sediment unsuitable for Chironumus tentans growth.

Xi

---

INTRODUCTION

The District began monitoring for the AWQM Program at 59 sampling stations on 21 wa-

terways in 2001.

While water samples were collected monthly to assess water quality, this report

focus is on the biological

,

habitat

,

and sediment quality at these sampling stations from 2001-

2004.

The biological monitoring portion of the AWQM Program operates on a 4-year cycle,

with a primary focus each year on a different portion of the CAWS. Table 1 displays the field

monitoring schedule for biological, physical habitat, and sediment quality assessments through-

out the 4-year cycle. Fifteen of the 59 stations are monitored annually, based on their proximity

to District water reclamation plants (WRPs) or municipal boundaries.

Characterization of physical habitat, fish, and benthic invertebrate populations, along

with sediment toxicity and chemistry, are among the most crucial components for a comprehen-

sive evaluation of a waterway. Each parameter represents a piece of the overall picture that is

necessary to identify problem areas, make regulatory decisions, and determine plausible attain-

able uses for a waterway.

In addition to analyzing the AWQM Program data in order to assess and manage the im-

pact of the District's

WRPs, our data is often shared with other government agencies, non-

governmental organizations, and academic institutions. For instance, the AWQM Program data

is shared with the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) to support their efforts to

make regulatory decisions, prepare the 305(b) reports in accordance with the Clean Water Act,

and perform Use Attainability Analyses (UAA).

1

---

TABLE 1: AMBIENT WATER QUALITY PROGRAM SAMPLING STATIONS

AND BIOLOGICAL SAMPLING YEAR

Station

No.

Sampling Station

Waterway

Year Sampled

106

Dundee Road

West Fork North Branch

2001

103

Golf Road

West Fork North Branch

2001

31

Lake-Cook Road

Middle Fork North Branch

2001

32

Lake-Cook Road

Skokie River

2001

105

Frontage Road

Skokie River

2001

104

Glenview Road

North Branch Chicago River

2001

34

Dempster Street

North Branch Chicago River,

2001

96

Albany Avenue

North Branch Chicago River

Annually

35

Central Street

North Shore Channel

2001

102

Oakton Street

North Shore Channel

2001

36

Touhy Avenue

North Shore Channel

Annually

101

Foster Avenue

North Shore Channel

2001

37

Wilson Avenue

North Branch Chicago River

2001

73

Diversey Parkway

North Branch Chicago River

2001

46

Grand Avenue

North Branch Chicago River

Annually

74

Lake Shore Drive

Chicago River

2002

100

Wells Street

Chicago River

2002

39

Madison Street

South Branch Chicago River

2002

108

Loomis Street

South Branch Chicago River

2002

99

Archer Avenue

South Fork South Branch

2002

40

Damen Avenue

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal

2002

75

Cicero Avenue

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal

Annually

41

Harlem Avenue

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal

Annually

42

Route 83

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal

2002

48

Stephen Street

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal

2002

92

Lockport

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal

Annually

49

Ewing' Avenue

Calumet River

2003

55

130x'' Street

Calumet River

Annually

50

Burnham Avenue

Wolf Lake

2003

86

Burnham Avenue

Grand Calumet River

2003

56

Indiana Avenue

Little Calumet River

2003

76

Halsted Street

Little Calumet River

Annually

52

Wentworth Avenue

Little Calumet River

2003

54

Joe Orr Road

Thorn Creek

2003

97

170`x' Street

Thorn Creek

2003

2

---

TABLE 1 (Continued): AMBIENT WATER QUALITY PROGRAM SAMPLING STATIONS

AND BIOLOGICAL SAMPLING YEAR

Station

No.

Sampling Station

Waterway

Year Sampled

57

Ashland Avenue

Little Calumet River

2003

58

Ashland Avenue

Calumet-Sag Channel

2003

59

Cicero Avenue

Calumet-Sag Channel

Annually

43

Route 83

Calumet-Sag Channel

2003

90

Route 19

Poplar Creek

2004

110

Springinsguth Road

West Branch DuPage River

2004

89

Walnut Lane

West Branch DuPage River

2004

64

Lake Avenue

West Branch DuPage River

A

nnu

ally

79

Higgins Road

Salt Creek

2004

80

Arlington Heights Rel.

Salt Creek

2004

18

Devon Avenue

Salt Creek

Annually

24

Wolf Road

Salt Creek

2004

109

Brookfield Avenue

Salt Creek

2004

77

Elmhurst Road

Higgins Creek

2004

78

Wille Road

Higgins Creek

Annually

12

Lake-Cook Road

Buffalo Creek

2004

13

Lake-Cook Road

Des Plaines River

Annually

17

Oakton Street

Des Plaines River

2004

19

Belmont Avenue

Des Plaines River

2004

20

Roosevelt Road

Des Plaines River

2004

22

Ogden Avenue

Des Plaines River

Annually

23

Willow Springs Rd.

Des Plaines River

2004

29

Stephen Street

Des Plaines River

2004

91

Material Service Rd.

Des Plaines River

Annually

3

---

DESCRIPTION OF THE, S'T'UDY AREA

Chicago Area Waterway System

The CAWS consists of man-made canals, as well as natural streams, which have been

altered to varying degrees. Some natural waterways have been deepened, straightened, and/or

widened to such an extent that reversion to their natural state would be impossible. The water-

ways serve the Chicago area by draining urban storm water runoff and treated municipal waste-

water effluent and allowing commercial navigation in the deep-draft portions.

The primary man-made waterways are the North Shore Channel, connecting Lake Michi-

gan at Wilmette to the North Branch of the Chicago River; the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal

(CSSC), extending from Darren Avenue to the Lockport Powerhouse; and the Calumct-Sag

Channel, connecting the Little Calumet River with the CSSC. The primary natural waterways

include the Chicago River System, branches flowing south from Lake County into the North

Branch of the Chicago River; the Des Plaines River System, flowing; south from Lake County

and joining with the discharge from the CSSC downstream of the Lockport Powerhouse; and the

Calumet River System, flowing; south and west into the Calumet-Sag Channel.

Sampling Stations

The sampling stations for the AWQM Program are located on natural and man-made

waterways throughout the District's service area. A map of the CAWS including the 59 sampling;

stations and the District's WRPs is shown in Figure 1. Stations were primarily selected such that

there was at least one monitoring station on the lower end of an IEPA 303(d) impaired waterway

segment. Secondary criteria for selecting sampling locations included: (1) above and below major

point sources of pollution, (2) below Lake Michigan diversion points, (3) above junction of two ma-

jor waterways, (4) below county municipal boundaries, and (5) in areas of environmental concern.

4

---

FIGURE 1: AMBIENT WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM

SAMPLING STATIONS

5

---

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Chlorophyll

Sample Collection. Surface water grab samples for chlorophyll analysis were collected

using a stainless steel bucket. The bucket was lowered into the waterway generally from the up-

stream side of the bridge at the most central location. The bucket was submerged, filled, and

then raised to the top of the bridge. An aliquot was poured into an amber, plastic, one-liter bottle

that

was pre-preserved with 1-mg magnesium carbonate, leaving 112-inch airspace at the top.

Samples were then placed in a cooler with ice and returned to lab for processing.

Laboratory

Analysis.

Filtration.

Prior to filtering samples, water was mixed by rapidly

inverting sample bottles 25 times before the first pour. Samples were filtered through Whatman

type GF/F glass-fiber filters (0.7 micrometer

s) using

Millipore filtration equipment and vacuum

pressure.

The water samples were filtered until the rate of flow decreased, but before it became

clogged.

Following filtration, sample filters were folded and wrapped with

aluminum

foil and

extracted the following day.

Extraction.

Filters were placed in glass extraction tubes with 5 mL of 90 percent aqueous

acetone solution.

Using a motorized tissue grinder set at 500 rpm and a pestle, the top layer of

the filter was separated. Samples were then transferred to centrifuge tubes and additional ace-

tone was added until the total volume equaled 10 mL. These tubes were inverted 5 times and

then placed at 4°C for approximately 24 hours to steep.

sSpectrophotonietric Analysis.

After removing samples from refrigeration, they were cen-

trifuged for 20 minutes at 2,500 rpm.

Three ml of the supernatant was transferred into a

spectrophotometric cell and the absorbance read at 750, 664, 647, and 630 nm. To correct for

the degradation product, pheophyton, 0.1 rnL of 1 percent hydrochloric acid was added and after

one minute, absorbance was react again at 750 and 665 nm. The spectrophotometer was pro-

grammed to calculate corrected chlorophyll a, b, and c values based on the volumes filtered and

used to extract samples.

Quality Conlrol.

A reagent blank of 90 percent acetone was placed in the spectropho-

tometer every tenth sample and read between -0,1 and 0.1 pg/L. A method blank of distilled wa-

ter was prepared for each group of samples and run through the entire laboratory procedure. One

duplicate sample was chosen randomly for each group of samples and would have to be within

20 relative percent difference of the original sample. Chlorophyll

a

and

b

standards from spin-

ach were also analyzed every 20 samples and displayed at least a 90 percent recovery,

6

---

Habitat

Data Collection

.

Physical habitat assessment data sheets (Figure 2) were completed by a

staff biologist in the field at each station starting in 2002. Habitat evaluation had not yet been

implemented in the AWQM Program during 2001 when the focus of sampling was in the North

Shore Channel and the North Branch Chicago River. Assessments made in the field included

weather conditions, channel morphology, bank erosion, shore cover, aquatic vegetation, man-

made structures, floatable materials, riparian land use, sediment composition, sediment color and

odor, depth of fines, and presence of oil in sediment. Channel width was determined using a

Yardage Pro 800 rangefinder in the non-wadable waterways. A fiberglass telescoping leveling

rod was used

to measure

water depth and depth of fines (in sediment). The smallest extension of

the round leveling rod (1-inch diameter) was pushed into the sediment with reasonable force as

far as possible to determine depth of fines in feet. A 6- X 6-inch petite Ponar grab sampler was

used to collect sediment for analysis. Staff biologists estimated the percent composition of plant

debris, clay, inorganic silt, organic sludge, sand (0.06-2 rnrn diameter), gravel (<2-64 mm diame-

ter), cobble (>64-256 rnm diameter), boulder (>256 mm diameter), or bedrocldconcrete in the

sediment. Sediment color and odor was recorded, as well as the appearance of oil in the sample.

Assessment

Locations,

Physical habitat was evaluated at the beginning and end of the

fishing range in the center and on one side of the waterway at each station. The range was 40

meters for wadable sites, 100 meters for

sites in

which the small boat electrofisher was em-

ployed, and 400 meters for deep-draft waterways.

Calculating

;

Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index. The

QHEI was created by the Ohio

Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) to determine the suitability of a stretch of waterway

to fish and macroinvertebrates based on physical habitat characteristics (Rankin, 1989). The in-

dex was developed to assess wadeable streams, not deep-draft channels such as CAWS. How-

ever, no appropriate index was available for these waterways. Habitat scores were calculated for

each of the stations visited between 2002 and 2004 using the OEPA QHEI procedures. Stations

were then classified as excellent, good, fair, poor, or very poor based oil their- ability to support

aquatic life in reference to habitat (CDM, 2004). The classification ranges were as follows:

<=75

Excellent

60-74

Good

46-59

lair

30-45

Poor

<30

Very Poor

7

---

FIGURE 2: METROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION DISTRICT OF

GREATER CHICAGO PHYSICAL HABITAT ASSESSMENT FIELD DATA SHEET

Date

Time

Station Number

Station

Name

Latitude

Waterbody

Longitude

Assessment Observer (s)

Weather Conditions

SUNNY

CLOUDY

RAIN

Stream Order

Assessment Location

BEGINNING

END

Assessment Location Facing Upstream

Channel Habitat

POOL

Water Depth (ft)

Water Level

Man-made Structures

OUTFALL

Channelization

Bank Erosion

LEFT

CENTER

RIGHT

RUN

RIFFLE

Channel

Width (ft)

(circle one)

(circle one)

(circle one)

(circle one)

LOW

NORMAL

HIGH

FLOODED

(

circle one)

DAM

RIPRAP

BRIDGE

LEVEE

ISLAND

SHEET PILING

OTHER

{

circla all applicable)

YES

NO

(

circle one)

NONE

SLIGHT

MODERATE

SEVERE

(circle one)

Floatable Materials

YES

^

NO

If

YES, characterize

(

circle one)

(

circle all appl

i

cabl

e)

STREET LITTER

SANITARY SEWAGE

VEGETATIVE MATERIAL

Aquatic Vegetation

YES -^a

NO

(circle one)

If

YES, is vegetation

{

circle all applicabl e)

ROOTED EMERGENT

ROOTED SUBMERGENT

ROOTED FLOATING

ATTACHED ALGAE

FLOATING ALGAE

OTHER

k

^

Instream Cover for Fish

(circle ail

applicable)

AQUATIC VEGETATION

BOULDERS

BRUSH-DEBRIS JAMS

LOGS

SUBMERGED TREE ROOTS

SUBMERGED TERRESTRIAL VEGETATION

UNDER CUT BANK

ROCK LEDGE

OTHER

Canopy Cover

OPEN

PARTLY SHADED

SHADED

Immediate Shore Cover

DENUDED

GRASSES

SHRUBS

TREES

OTHER (specify)

Z?UMM

(circlo one)

Riparian Land Use

GRASSLAND

%

URBAN RESIDENTIAL

%

URBAN COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL

%

OTHER

(complete both sides of page)

WETLAND

%

FOREST

%

ROW CROPS

%

pec y

Page 1

8

---

FIGURE 2

(

Continued

):

METROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION DISTRICT OF

GREATER CHICAGO PHYSICAL HABITAT ASSESSMENT FIELD DATA SHEET

Station Number

Sediment Composition

Sediment Color

Oil in Sediment

Embeddedness

Sinuosity

Plant Debris

Clay

Inorganic Silt

Organic Sludge

Sand (0.06 mm to 2 mm diameter)

Gravel

(>

2 mm to 64 mm diameter)

Cobble

(>

64 mm to 256 mrn diameter)

Boulder

(>

256 mm diameter)

Bedrock or Concrete

Sediment Odor

NONE

LIGHT

MODERATE

HEAVY

(

circle one)

NONE

NORMAL

MODERATE

EXTENSIVE

(

ci,c[e one)

NONE

LOW

MODERATE

HIGH

(circle one)

Depth of Fines

(In feet using 1 inch diameter probe)

Photo Numbers

Looking Upstream

Site Location/Map

Additional Remarks

Looking Downstream

(Draw a map of the site and indicate the area assessed)

(Complete both sides of page)

Page 2

9

---

Fish

Boatable Stream Sampling.

Fish were collected at each sample station with a boat

mounted electrofisher.

The electrofisher was powered by a direct current (DC) generator.

Stunned fish were picked out of the water with long handled dip nets by either of two petters

who were positioned on the bow of the boat. In most cases, the section of canal sampled ex-

tended for 400 meters. Whenever- possible, both sides of this canal section were electrofished.

Wadeable Stream Sampling. Fish

were collected at each sample station using a back-

pack electrofisher and a bag seine. A DC backpack electrofisher was employed to electrify the

water with 0.7 to 1.0 amps of current, stunning the fish. In most instances, two 40-meter long

backpack electrofisher collections were conducted at each station. A 40-meter reach of the creek

was electrified by moving upstream parallel to the bank. Additional personnel followed the elec-

trofisher collecting the stunned fish with dip nets. Following the first collection, a second 40-

meter electrofishing survey was conducted on the opposite bank. If the creek was less than five

meters wide, electrofishing occurred only once along a 40-meter reach. The total electrofishing

time during each 40-meter collection was noted.

A 15-foot bag seine with 3/16-inch rnesh was also used to collect fish. Staff pulled the

seine for 40 meters traveling upstream parallel to the bank. In most instances, a separate 40-

meter seine collection occurred along each bank.

The total area monitored varied with the width of the creek. For example, a location 20

meters wide sampled with two 40-meter electrofisher collections and two 40-meter seine collec-

tions

would equate to a monitoring area of 800 square meters. Conductivity and temperature

(°C) were recorded before each sample collection.

Fish Processing

. In the field, most fish were identified to species, weighed to the nearest

gram or nearest 0. I gram (depending on size), measured for standard and total length to the near-

est millimeter, and examined for the incidence of disease, parasites, or other anomalies. Follow-

ing processing, these fish were returned live to the river.

Minnows and other small fish that were

difficult to identify were preserved in 10 percent (v/v) forrnalin and returned to the laboratory for

further analysis.

These small fish were processed in a similar manner to the field-measured fish,

except that they were weighed to the nearest 0.01 grarn.

Ijidex of Biotic Integrity

. Biological integrity of aquatic ecosystems has been defined as

the ability to support and maintain a balanced, integrated, and adaptive community having a

species composition, diversity, and a functional organization comparable to that of a natural

habitat (Karr et al., 1986).

Karr's 1986 IBI was used to analyze fish data from 2001-2004. The

limitations of using this tool, which was meant to apply to wadable streams, for sorne of the

man-made, channelized waterways in CAWS should be recognized. Karr's IBI integrates infor-

mation frorn 12 fish community metrics that fall into three major categories: (1) species richness

and composition, (2) trophic composition, and (3) fish abundance and condition. Each metric is

10

---

scored as a 1, 3, or S based on whether its evaluation deviates strongly, deviates somewhat, or

approximates expectations, respectively, as compared to an undisturbed site located in a similar

geographical region and on a strearn of comparable size. Individual metrics are added to calcu-

late a total IBI score. A high IBI indicates high biological integrity or health and low disturbance

or lack of perturbations.

A low IBI indicates low biological integrity and high disturbance or

degradation. Separate IBI metric scores were determined based on the relative abundance of fish

collected with each fishing gear. 1131 categories of good (IBI 41-60), fair (IBI 21-40), or poor

(IBI <21), as derived by the IEPA (IEPA, 1996) were determined and reported.

Benthic Invertebrates

Ponar Sediment Sampling, Triplicate sediment samples were collected with a petite

Ponar Grab (0.023 rn2) from the center and one side of the deep-draft and wadeable waterway

stations.

Grab samples were taken at locations upstream from any prior sampling disturbance,

such as Hester Dendy retrievals (see description in next section) to avoid collecting disturbed

sediment.

An appropriate area for ponar sampling was chosen by a staff biologist to avoid any

obvious obstructions such as large rocks or plants.

The sediment samples were sieved in the

field using a field sieving bucket with 250-micrometer (prn) openings. The sieved material was

poured into one-gallon plastic containers, preserved to 10 percent formalin concentration, and

brought back to the laboratory for analysis. All samples were stored at 4°C until processed.

Artificial Substrate Sampling

.

Hester Dendy artificial substrate samplers were de-

ployed at each station between May and June. Figure 3 shows a diagram of the plate configura-

tion that was assembled prior to deployment in the waterways. In all, 27, 3- X 3-inch sampling

plates were attached to 2, 18-pound river anchors, connected to an object on shore (usually a

tree) by a cable, and then placed on the bottom of the waterway in the center and on one side.

These substrates were left in the waterway between 7 and 14 weeks and then retrieved concur-

rent to other biological sampling,. Hester Dendy set-ups were located and the anchors were lifted

out of the waterway with a 250-micron mesh plankton net underneath to avoid organism loss.

Then, plates were cut from the anchors and placed into a one-gallon bucket with a secure

leak-proof lid. Invertebrates from the plankton net reservoir were also rinsed into the buckets,

which were then filled with river water and brought to a 10 percent final concentration of

formalin.

Benthic Invertebrate Processing

.

In the laboratory, the ponar sediment samples were

gently washed and screened through a U.S. Standard number 60 mesh sieve (250 pin openings).

The formalin mixture in which the Hester Dendy plates were immersed was also sieved through

a number 60 mesh sieve, and then the sampling bucket was filled with tap water to cover the

plates.

Each plate was removed from the sampler and gently brushed with a paintbrush on both

sides while running under a slow stream of water in order to rinse the attached invertebrates into

the sieve.

Rinsings from both ponar and Hester Dendy sampling containers were thoroughly

sieved.

The sieved material was examined in small batches under a compound microscope in a

100- X 50-mm glass crystallizing dish filled about I ern high.

Laboratory technicians then

11

---

FIGURE 3: CONFIGURATION OF HESTER DENDY LARVAL PLATE SAMPLER

2" PVC Pipe

12

---

counted oligochaete worms and removed all other invertebrates from the finer residual material,

In situations where large numbers of worms were encountered (>1000), estimates of their abun-

dance were made by using a subsampling device. Invertebrates other than worms were sent to a

consultant (EA Engineering) for identification to genus or species when possible,

Sediment

Chemistry

Sample Collection

.

Prior to sample collection the Ponar grab sampler and the metal and

plastic pans and scoops were cleaned with hot water and laboratory detergent, rinsed with de-

ionized water and allowed to air dry. The Ponar and metal pans and scoops were then rinsed

with acetone, allowed to air dry, and dried in an oven at 105°C for one hour.

When dry and cool,

each set was placed in a plastic bag and sealed to prevent contamination until ready for use.

Sediment samples were collected from the center and side of the waterway using separate

cleaned 6- X 6-inch Ponar grab samplers. The sediment samples were transferred into either

plastic or metal pans and then put into the appropriate container using plastic or metal scoops.

The constituents analyzed in sediment, sample containers used, and preservation methods are

summarized in 'T'able 2. Metal scoops and pans were used for samples collected in glass contain-

ers,

whereas plastic scoops and pans were used for sediment collected in plastic containers. Af-

ter being filled, sample containers were placed

on ice until

they could be refrigerated.

Sample Analyses. The sediment samples were analyzed for total solids (TS), total vola-

tile solids (TVS), ammonia nitrogen (NT-13-N), nitrate plus nitrite nitrogen (N02+NO3), total

Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), total phosphorus (TP), total cyanide (TCN), phenols, total metals

(including arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, silver,

and zinc), and Organic Priority Pollutants listed in Table 3 by the District's Analytical Labora-

tory

Division (ALD),

Sediment samples were sent on ice to a contractor laboratory for

AVS/SEM, TOC, and particle size. In the laboratory, all constituents were analyzed using

pro-

cedures established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) or de-

scribed in Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater ( 19'x' edition, 1998).

Sediment

T

oxicity

Sediment samples were collected using a 6- X 6-inch Ponar grab sampler from the center

and side of the waterways, and scooped into 1-gallon plastic buckets (at least 1/2 full). Buckets

were kept on ice until they could be refrigerated. These samples were sent in coolers on ice to a

contractor for ten-day Chironumus tentans toxicity testing (USEPA 2000 Test Method 100.2).

Tests were performed within 14 days of sediment collection.

13

---

'TABLE 2: CONSTITUENTS ANALYZED, SAMPLE CONTAINERS, AND

PRESERVATION METHODS FOR SEDIMENT SAMPLES COLLECTED FOR THE

AMBIENT WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM DURING 2002-2004

Units of

Sample

Constituents

Measure'

Container

Preservative

Total Solids (TS)

percent

Glass

Cool, 4°C

Total Volatile Solids (TVS)

Percent

Glass

Cool, 4°C

Un-ionized Ammonia (NH3-N)

nag/kg

Glass

Cool, 4°C

Nitrite plus Nitrate Nitrogen (N02+NO3)

mg/kg

Glass

Cool, 4°C

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)

mg/kg

Glass

Cool, 4°C

Total Phosphorus (TP)

mg/kg

Glass

Cool, 4°C

Phenols

mg/kg

Glass

Cool, 4°C

Total Cyanide (TCN)

mg/kg

Glass

Cool, 4°C

Acid Volatile Sulfide (AVS)

pmoles/g

Plastic

Cool, 4°C

Simultaneously Extracted Metal (SEM)

Nmoles/g

Plastic

Cool, 4°C

Total Organic Carbon (TOC)

nag/kg

Glass

Cool, 4°C

Particle Sire

percent

Plastic

Cool, 4°C

Toxicity (survival)

percent

Plastic

Cool, 4°C

Toxicity (growth)

rng/org

Plastic

Cool, 4°C

Total Metals:

mg/leg

Glass

Cool, 4°C

(Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium Copper,

Iron, Lead, Manganese, Mercury, Nickel,

Silver, and Zinc)

Organic Priority Pollutants:

pg/kg

Glass

Cool, 4°C

(Volatile Organic Compounds, Polynuclear

Aromatic Hydrocarbons, Polychlorinated

Biphenyls, Pesticides)

'Expressed on a dry weight basis.

14

---

TABLE 3: LIST OF ORGANIC PRIORITY POLLUTANTS ANALYZED IN SEDIMENT SAMPLES COLLECTED FOR THE

AMBIENT WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM BETWEEN 2002-2004

Volatile Organic

Acid

B ase/Neutral

Compounds

Extractables

Extractables

Pesticides and PCBs

Acrolein

2-Chlorophenol

Acenaphthene

Aldrin

Acrylonitrile

2,4-Dichlorophenol

Acenaphthylene

a-BHC-alpha

Benzene

2,4-Dimethylphenol

Anthracene

b-BHC-beta

Bromoform

4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol

Benzidine

BHC-gamma

Carbon tetrachloride

2,4-Dinitrophenol

Benzo(a)anthracene

BHC-delta

Chlorobenzene

2-Nitrophenol

Benzo(a)pyrene

Chlordane

ChIorodibromomethane

4-Nitrophenol

3, 4-B en zo f l u ora n then

4,4'-DDT

Chloroethane

Parachlorometacresol

Benzo(ghi)perylene

4,4'-DDE

2-Chloroethylvinyl ether

Pentachlorophenol

Benzo(k) fluoranthene

4,4'-DDD

Chloroform

Phenol

B i s(2-chl oroethoxy) methane

Dieldrin

Dichl orobromomethane

2,4,6-Trichlorophenol

Bis(2-chloroethyI)ether

a-Endosulfan-alpha

1, I-Dichloroethane

B i s (2-ch 1 oroi sopropyl)ether

b-Endosulfan-beta

1,2-Dichloroethane

B i s (2-ethylhexyl)phthalate

Endosulfan sulfate

1, i -Dichloroethylene

4-BromophenyI phenyl ether

Endrin

1,2-Dichloropropane

Butylbenzyl phthalate

Endrin aldehyde

1,3-Dichloropropene

2-Chloronaphthalene

Heptachlor

Ethyl benzene

4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether

Heptachlor epoxide

Methyl bromide

Chrysene

PCB-1242

Methyl chloride

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene

PCB-1254

Methylene chloride

1,2-Dichlorobenzene

PCB-1221

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane

1,3-Dichlorobenzene

PCB-1232

Tetrachl oroethyl ene

1,4-Dichlorobenzene

PCB-1248

Toluene

3,3'-Dichl oroben zidine

PCB-1260

---

TABLE 3 (Continued): LIST OF ORGANIC PRIORITY POLLUTANTS ANALYZED IN SEDIMENT SAMPLES COLLECTED

FOR THE AMBIENT WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM BETWEEN 2002-2004

Volatile Or;anic

Compounds

1,2-trans-Dichloroethylene

1, 1, 1 -Trichloroethane

1,1,2-Trichloroethane

Trichloroethylene

Vinyl chloride

Trichlorofluoromethane

Acid

Extractables

B ase

/Neutral

Extractables

Diethyl phthalate

Dimethyl phthalate

Di-n-butyl phthalate

2,4-Dinitrotoluene

2,6-Dinitrotoluene

Di-n-octyl phthalate

1,2-Diphenylhydrazine

Fluoranthene

Fluorene

Hexachlorobenzene

Hexachlorobutadiene

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene

Hexachloroethane

1ndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene

Isophorone

Naphthalene

Nitrobenzene

N-Nitrosodimethylamine

N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine

N-Mtrosodiphenylamine

Phenanthrene

Pyrene

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene

Pesticides and PCBs

PCB-101.6

Toxaphene

---

RESULTS AND

DISCUSSION

Chlorophyll

As a photosynthetic component of all algae cells, the determination of chlorophyll a is an

accepted way of quantifying algal biomass in lakes and streams. Chlorophyll values are of inter-

est to regulatory agencies since it is also widely accepted that high algae concentrations rnay in-

dicate nutrient impairment.

The IPPA is cooperating with other state and local agencies to

develop regional water quality criteria for nutrients and possibly chlorophyll. In light of this

consideration, the District began monitoring chlorophyll on a monthly basis in August 2001 as

part of the AWQM Program. Results are shown in Table 4.

Chicago River System. During 2001-2004, the highest rnean chlorophyll a value in the

Chicago River System was at Dundee Road on the West Fork North Branch Chicago River- (25

pg/L).

The lowest mean chlorophyll a concentration throughout the systern was I pg/L at Touhy

Avenue on the North Shore Channel.

Calumet River

System

.

Mean chlorophyll a concentrations ranged from 2 pg/L at Ew-

ing Avenue on the Calumet River to 40 pg/L at Burnham Avenue on the Grand Calumet River.

Des Plaines River System.

The highest mean chlorophyll concentrations in the Des

Plaines River System were calculated at Stephen Street (41 pg/L) and Material Service Road (46

pg/L) on the Des Plaines River.

Wille Road on Higgins Creek had the lowest rnean chlorophyll

a concentration throughout this systern (3 pg/L).

Habitat

Habitat is one of the most crucial factors limiting aquatic life in urban environments such

as CAWS. Channelization, limited instream and canopy cover-, siltation, erosion, and lack of

adequate flood plain area are sorne of the physical characteristics that challenge waterways in the

Chicago area. The QHEI was developed by OEPA as a method to quantify and assess wadeable

aquatic habitats for their ability to support aquatic life. Since this metric was designed to analyze

wadeable streams, the limitations to its application in man-made channel portions of CAWS

should be considered.

Metrics include: substrate, instrearn cover-, channel quality, riparian

zone/erosion, pool and riffle quality, and stream gradient. Narrative designations were assigned

to

QHEI score ranges so that waterway reaches could be categorized as excellent, good, fair,

poor, or very poor based on the ability of the habitat to support aquatic life. Table 5 displays the

QHEI score and rating for each of the stations assessed in 2002-2004.

Chicago River System

.

The habitat ratings assigned to stations assessed in the Chicago

River System during 2002_2004 ranged from very poor to poor (27-42). Negative habitat

17

---

TABLE 4: RANGE AND MEAN CHLOROPHYLL a VALUES IN THE CHICAGO AREA WATERWAY SYSTEM BETWEEN

AUGUST 2001 AND DECEMBER 2004

Station

Station

Standard

No_

Name

Waterway

N

Mean

pg/L

Minimum

µg/L

Maximum

pg/L

Deviation

p g/L

106

Dundee Road

West Fork North Branch Chicago River

18

25

4

11.8

31

103

Golf Road

West Fork North Branch Chicago River

34

18

2

96

18

31

Lake-Cook Road

Middle Fork North Branch Chicago River

33

9

<1

35

8

32

Lake

-

Cook Road

Skokie River

33

14

1

91

17

105

Frontage Road

Skokie River

41

22

2

80

17

104

Glenview Road

North Branch Chicago River

29

18

1

47

12

34

Dempster Street

North Branch Chicago River

40

16

1

39

10

96

Albany Avenue

North Branch Chicago River

37

17

2

61

15

35

Central Street

North Shore Channel

32

7

<1

91

18

102

Oakton Street

North Shore Channel

38

11

<1

65

18

36

Touhy Avenue

North Shore Channel

40

1

<1

5

1

101

Foster Avenue

North Shore Channel

40

3

<1

31

5

37

Wilson Avenue

North Branch Chicago River

41

4

<1

18

4

73

Diversey Avenue

North Branch Chicago River

41

4

<1

12

3

46

Grand Avenue

North Branch Chicago River

41

5

1

20

5

74

Lake Shore Dr.

Chicago River

36

3

1

18

4

100

Wells Street

Chicago River

37

3

1

16

3

39

Madison Street

South Branch Chicago River

39

4

1

16

4

108

Loomis Street

South Branch Chicago River

41

5

<1

26

6

99

Archer Avenue

South Fork South Branch Chicago River

41

15

<1

90

20

107

Western Avenue

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal

17

3

1

7

2

40

Damen Avenue

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal

24

7

1

25

7

75

Cicero Avenue

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal

41

7

I

25

7

41

Harlem.

Avenue

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal

41

3

1

8

2

42

Route 83

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal

41

4

<I

24

4

---

TABLE 4 (Continued): RANGE AND MEAN CHLOROPHYLL a VALUES IN THE CHICAGO AREA WATERWAY SYSTEM

BETWEEN AUGUST 2001 AND DECEMBER 2004

Station

Station

Standard

No.

Name

Waterway

N*

Mean

µg/L

Minimum

pg/L

Maximum

pg/L

Deviation

g/L

48

Stephen Street

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal

41

5

1

20

4

92

Lockport

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal

171

5

<1

37

5

49

Ewing Avenue

Calumet River

38

2

1

5

1

55

130"' Street

Calumet River

37

7

1

22

5

50

Burnham Avenue

Wolf Lake

40

6

<1

18

5

86

Burnham Avenue

Grand Calumet River

33

40

3

313

69

56

Indiana Avenue

Little Calumet River

37

20

3

64

14

76

Halsted Street

Little Calumet River

39

7

<1

29

7

52

Wentworth Avenue

Little Calumet River

35

7

l

40

7

54

Joe

Orr

Road

Thorn Creek

21

7

1

33

8

97

170th Street

Thorn Creek

38

10

2

32

7

57

Ashland Avenue

Little Calumet River

35

10

2

43

9

58

Ashland Avenue

Calumet-Sag Channel

41

10

1

35

10

59

Cicero Avenue

Calumet-Sag Channel

40

11

1

56

12

43

Route 83

Calumet-Sag Channel

38

14

<1

93

18

90

Route 19

Poplar Creek

34

12

1

32

8

63

Longmeadow Lane2

West Branch DuPage River

2

17

8

25

13

110

Springinsguth Road

West Branch DuPage River

10

11

1

23

7

89

Walnut Lane

West Branch DuPage River

38

6

1

31

7

64

Lake Street

West Branch DuPage River

40

23

5

103

19

79

Higgins Road

Salt Creek

32

36

10

114

23

80

Arlington Hts. Road

Salt Creek

38

15

2

41

11

18

Devon Avenue

Salt Creek

38

17

4

45

9

24

Wolf Road

Salt Creek

39

10

1

49

11

21

First Avenue3

Salt Creek

9

11

2

46

14

109

Brookfield Avenue

Salt Creek

25

13

<1

50

14

---

TABLE 4 (Continued): RANGE AND MEAN CHLOROPHYLL a VALUES IN THE CHICAGO AREA WATERWAY SYSTEM

BETWEEN AUGUST 2001 AND DECEMBER 2004

Station

Station

Standard

No.

Name

Waterway

N'

Mean

p g/L

Minimum

P g/L

Maximum

p g/L

Deviation

leg/L

77

Elmhurst Road

Higgins Creek

22

12

4

23

5

78

Wille Road

Higgins Creek

40

3

<1

15

3

12

Lake-Cook Road

Buffalo Creek

27

28

7

65

13

13

Lake-Cook Road

Des Plaines River

39

27

7

105

20

17

Oakton Street

Des Plaines River

35

27

2

108

24

19

Belmont Avenue

Des Plaines River

39

19

<1

91

23

20

Roosevelt Road

Des Plaines River

34

15

<1

81

19

22

Ogden Avenue

Des Plaines River

32

18

1

94

23

23

Willow Springs Road

Des Plaines River

35

25

1

161

34

29

Stephen Street

Des Plaines River

38

41

1

299

62

91

Material Services Road

Des Plaines River

39

46

3

214

51

'N=Number of Observations.

Samples were taken at Western Avenue instead of Damen Avenue during 2001-2002 due to bridge construction.

2Longmeadow Avenue Station on West Branch DuPage River was replaced by Springinsguth Road in January 2004 due to tow flow.

'First Avenue Station on Salt Creek was replaced by Brookfield Avenue in July 2002 due to low flow.

---

TABLE 5: QUALITATIVE HABITAT EVALUATION INDEX SCORES IN THE

CHICAGO AREA WATERWAY SYSTEM MEASURED BETWEEN 2002 AND 2004

Station

Station Name

Waterway

QHEI*

Habitat

No.

Score

Rating

96

Albany Avenue

North Branch Chicago River-

33

Poor

36

Touhy Avenue

North Shore Channel

40

Poor

46

Grand Avenue

North Branch Chicago River

29

Very Poor

74

Lake Shore Drive

Chicago River

29

Very Poor

100

Wells Street

Chicago River

28

Very Poor

39

Madison Street

South Branch Chicago River

27

Very Poor

108

Loomis Street

South Branch Chicago River

32

Poor

99

Archer Avenue

South Fork South Branch Chicago River

42

Poor

40

Damen Avenue

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal

34

Poor,

75

Cicero Avenue

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal

32

Poor

41

Harlem Avenue

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal

35

Poor

42

Route 83

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal

38

Poor

48

Stephen Street

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal

37

Poor

92

Lockport

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal

40

Poor

49

Ewing Avenue

Calumet River

32

Poor

55

130'x' Street

Calumet River

51

Fair

50

Burnham Avenue

Wolf Lake Drain

47

Fair

86

Burnham Avenue

Grand Calumet River

36

Poor

56

Indiana Avenue

Little Calumet River

47

Fair

76

Halsted Street

Little Calumet River

55

lair

52

Wentworth Avenue

Little Calumet River

40

Poor

54

Joe Orr Road

Thorn Creek

55

Fair

97

170"' Street

Thorn Creek

41

Poor

57

Ashland Avenue

Little Calumet River

51

Fair

58

Ashland Avenue

Calurnet-Sag Channel

39

Poor-

59

Cicero Avenue

Calumet-Sag Channel

37

Poor

43

Route 83

Calumet-Sag Channel

41

Poor

90

Route 19

Poplar Creek

52

Fair

110

Springinsguth Road

West Branch DuPage River

31

Poor

89

Walnut Lane

West Branch DuPage River

47

Fair

64

Lake Street

West Branch DuPage River

49

Fair

79

Higgins Road

Salt Creek

63

Good

80

Arlington Heights Rd.

Salt Creek

64

Good

18

Devon Avenue

Salt Creek

55

Fair

24

Wolf Road

Salt Creek

49

Fair

109

Brookfield Avenue

Salt Creek

47

Fair

77

Elmhurst Road

Higgins Creek

23

Very Poor

21

---

TABLE 5

(Continued

): QUALITATIVE HABITAT EVALUATION

INDEX SCORES IN THE

CHICAGO AREA WATERWAYS

MEASURED BETWEEN 20

0

2 AND 2004

Station

Station Name

Waterway

QHEI}'

Habitat

No.

Score

Rating

78

Wille Road

Higgins Creek

27

Very Poor

12

Lake-Cook Road

Buffalo Creek

43

Poor

13

Lake-Cook Road

Des Plaines River

49

lair

17

Oakton Street

Des Plaines River

51

Fair

19

Belmont Avenue

Des Plaines River

51

Fair

20

Roosevelt Road

Des Plaines River

47

Fair

22

Ogden Avenue

Des Plaines River

53

Fair

23

Willow Springs Rd.

Des Plaines River

46

Fair

29

Stephen Street

Des Plaines River

46

Fair

91

Material Services Rd.

Des Plaines River

64

Good

QHEI=Qualitative 1-Iabitat Evaluation Index.

22

---

features in this system included channehzation throughout most of the evaluated waterways, lim-

ited flow especially in the North Shope Channel, limited instrearn cover, and excess silt in sedi-

inents. The highest QHEI score in the analyzed portion of this system (42) was assigned to

Archer Avenue on the South Fork South Branch Chicago River, despite its extremely silty sub-

strate. Positive attributes at Archer Avenue included moderate instream and canopy cover along

the waterway reach and the lack of channel walls. It is important to note that there were stations

in non-channelized portions of the Main, West, and Middle Forks of the North Branch Chicago

River and Skokie River that were likely to have higher QHEI scores but

were

not assessed for

habitat quality in 2001.

These sampling stations will be evaluated for habitat in 2005 and re-

ported upon subsequently.

Calumet River System

.

In the Calumet River System, QHEI ratings ranged frorn poor

to fair (32-55). The limiting factors in this system were a lack of instream cover, silty substrates,

and channelization throughout reaches of the Calumet River and the Calurnet-Sag Channel. The

stations with the best habitat scores were located at Halsted Street on the Little Calumet River

and Joe Orr Road on Thorn Creek. These locations had more instream cover, less silt in the sedi-

ment, and better channel development than the other stations in the Calumet River System.

Des Plaines River System

.

Habitat varied most widely amongst waterway reaches in the

Des Plaines River System, ratings ranged from very poor to good (23-64). Some stations in the

Des Plaines River and Salt Creek had attractive instream habitat for fish, as well as adequate

canopy cover, and comparably better channel morphology and land use than found in other sys-

tems.

Arlington Heights Road and Higgins Road on Salt Creek were both located in highly for-

ested areas which provided tree cover and good flood plain quality.

However, stations on

Higgins Creek and the Calumet-Sag Channel were limited by channelization, silt-dorninated

sediments, and lack of canopy or instream cover.

Wille Road on Higgins Creek had concrete

banks and an artificial streambed, while the Elmhurst Road Station on the same creek was inter-

mittent and had sludge in the sediments,

Fish

The common and scientific names of the fishes collected in CAWS between 2001 and

2004 are listed in Table 6, organized by family. The number of individuals, total species, and

game species collected, as well as catch weight from each station, can be referenced in Table 7.

In addition, Table 8 displays the calculated IBI score and descriptive category for various collec-

tion

methods employed at each station. Comprehensive fish data for each station are also avail-

able on the District Website at www.mwrd.org under the "Biological Data" heading.

Chicago River System

..

The most abundant species collected from the wadeable portion

of the Chicago River System included carp, largemouth bass, green sunfish, and bluegill, while

carp, gizzard shad, and largemouth bass were the most frequently collected species in the deep-

draft portion.

The IBI scores generally indicated fair conditions in the wadeable portion and

poor to fair conditions in the deep draft.

23

---

TABLE 6: COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF FISHES COLLECTED

IN THE CHICAGO AREA WATERWAY SYSTEM BETWEEN 2001 AND 2004

Common Name

BOWFIN FAMILY

Bowfin

Scientific Name

AMIIDAE

Ainia calva

HERRING FAMILY

Skip.j

ack herring

Alewife

Gizzard shad

TROUT FAMILY

Chinook sahnon

PIKE FAMILY

Grass pickerel

Northern Pike*

MINNOW FAMILY

Goldfish

Common carp

Grass carp

Carp x Goldfish Hybrid

Spot.fin shiner

Hornyhead chub

Golden shiner

Emerald shiner

Bigmouth shiner

Spottail shiner

Ozark minnow

Sand shiner

Mimic shiner

Bluntnose minnow

Fathead minnow

Creek chub

SUCKER FAMILY

Quillback

White sucker

Black buffalo

Spotted sucker

Golden redhorse

CLUPEIDAE

Alosa ch-

rysochloris

Alosa pseudoharengus

Dorosoma cepedianum

SALMONIDAE

Oncorhynchus ishawytscha

ESOCIDAE

Esox arnerlcanus

Esox lucius

CYPRINIDAE

Carassius aura.tus

Cyprinus carpio

Ctenopharyngodon idella

Cyprin.us carpio x Carras.sius auralu,S

Cyprinellca.spiloptera

Nocomis biguttca us

Notemigon-us crysoleucas

Notropis atherinoi-des

Notropis dorscalis

Notropis haaclson.ius

Notropis nubilus

Notropis stramineus

Notropis volucellus

Pimephales notcatus

Pirnephales prornelas

Seinotilus alrornaculatus

CATOSTOMIDAE

Carplodes cyprinus

Catostomus cornmersonii

lctiobus roger

Minytrerna melan.ops

Moxostoma. erythrurum

24

---

TABLE G (Continued): COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF FISHES COLLECTED

IN THE CHICAGO AREA WATERWAY SYSTEM BETWEEN 2001 AND 2004

Common Name

CATFISH FAMILY

Black bullhead

Yellow bullhead

Channel catfish*

Tadpole madtom

Scientific Name

ICTALURIDAE

Arneic.crus ramelas

Ameiurus natalis

Ictalurus punctatus

Noturus gyrinus

PIRATE PERCH FAMILY

Pirate perch

KILLIFISH FAMILY

Blackstripe topminnow

LIVEBEARER FAMILY

Western mosquitofish

STICKLEBACK FAMILY

Brook stickleback

TEMPERATE BASS FAMILY

White perch'

White bass*

Yellow bass'

GOBY FAMILY

Round goby

SUNFISH FAMILY

Rock bass*

Green sunfish*

Pumpkinseed

Warmouth

Orangespotted sunfish

Bluegill'

Longear sunfish

Green sunfish x Pumpkinseed Hybrid

Green sunfish x Bluegill Hybrid

Pumpkinseed x Bluegill Hybrid

APHREDODERIDAE

Aphrecloderus sayanus

FUNDULIDAE

Fun.dulus

notatus

POECILIIDAE

Ganibusia

affirms

GASTEROSTEIDAE

Culaea

incons tans

MORONIDAE

Morone a-mericana

Morone chrysops

Morone mississippiensis

GOBIIDAE

Neogobius nielanosto7nus

CENTRARCHIDAE

Ambloplites rupestris

Lgmmis cyanellus

Lepomis gibbosus

Leponfis gulo sus

Lepoin-is luan.ilis

Lepomis macrochirus

Lepomis megalotis

L.cyanellus x L.gibbosus

L. cyanellu.s x L. macrochiru.s

L. gibbosus x L. macrochirus

25

---

TABLE 6 (Continued); COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF FISHES COLLECTED

IN THE CHICAGO AREA WATERWAY SYSTEM BETWEEN 2001 AND 2004

Common Name

SUNFISH FAMILY (Continued)

Smallmouth bass

o:

Largemouth bass*

White crappie

Black crappie

Scientific Name

CENTRARCHIDAE

Micropterus dolom.ieu

Microllterus salrnoides

Pornoxis annularis

Poinoxis nigroinaculatus

PERCH FAMILY

Johnny darter

Yellow perch

Blackside darter

Sauber*

Walleye

DRUM FAMILY

Freshwater drum

YGame fish species.

PERCIDAE

Elheostorna

nigrum

Perca. flaveseen,s

Percin.

a maculata

Sander c•anadensis

Sander

vltreus

SCIAENIDAE

Aplodinotus

grunniens

26

---

TABLE 7: NUMBER, WEIGHT, AND NUMBER OF SPECIES FOR FISH COLLECTED IN THE

CHICAGO AREA WATERWAY SYSTEM BETWEEN 2001 AND 2004

Station

No.

Station Name

Sample

Number

Weight

Number of Species

Year

Gear

of Fish

in Grams

Total

Game

Most Abundant Species

106

Dundee Road

103

Golf Road

31

Lake-Cook Road

32

Lake-Cook Road

105 Frontage Road

104

Glenview Road

34

Dempster Street

96

Albany Avenue2

Albany Avenue2

Albany Avenue

Albany Avenue2

35

Central Street

102

Oakton Street

36

Touhy Avenue2

Touhy Avenue2

Touhy Avenue2

Touhy Avenue2

West Fork North Branch Chicago River

2001

BP/S

9

108

3

1

2001

BP/S

16

65

6

3

Middle Fork North Branch Chicago River

2001

BP/S

7

26

4

2

Skokie River

2001

BPIS

9

32

2

2

2001

BPIS

34

422

3

3

North Branch Chicago River (Wadeable Portion}

2001

BP

5

37

3

3

2001

BPIS

5

57

3

2

2001

BP

2

3

2

1

2002

BP

2

10

1

1

2003

BP

6

66

3

1

2004

BP

6

31

2

1

North Shore Channel

2001

EFB-L

132

3,449

12

8

2001

EFB-L

2

4

2

1

2001

EFB-L

596

84,454

11

6

2002

EFB-L

147

146,480

12

8

2003

EFB-L

335

102,261

14

6

2004

EFB-L

249

141,700

11

5

Carp

Largemouth bass

Largemouth bass

Bluegill

Green sunfish

Green sunfish & Largemouth bass

Bluegill

Green sunfish & Brook stickleback

Green sunfish

Green sunfish

Green sunfish & White sucker

Bluegill

Golden shiner & Largemouth bass

Gizzard shad

Gizzard shad

Gizzard shad

Gizzard shad

---

TABLE 7 (Continued). NUMBER, WEIGHT, AND NUMBER OF SPECIES FOR FISH COLLECTED IN THE

CHICAGO AREA WATERWAY SYSTEM BETWEEN 2001 AND 2004

Station

No.

Station Name

101

Foster Avenue

37

Wilson Avenue

73

Diversey Parkway

46

Grand Avenue2

Grand Avenue

Grand Avenue2

Grand Avenue'

74

Outer Drive

100

Wells Street

39

Madison Street

108

Loomis Street

99

Archer Avenue

Sample

Number

Weight

Number of Species

Year

Gear'

of Fish

in Grams

Total

Game

Most Abundant Species

North Shore Channel (Continued)

2001

EFB-L

179

45,309

15

8

Largemouth bass

North Branch Chicago River Dee Portion

2001

EFB-L

75

79,777

13

6

Carp

2001

EFB-L

58

23,733

7

2

Gizzard shad

2001

EFB-L

53

43,553

9

6

Carp

2002

EFB-L

28

22,066

7

3

Carp

2003

EFB-L

67

17,359

8

4

Gizzard shad

2004

EFB-L

88

19,722

9

4

Gizzard shad

Chicago River

2002

EFB-L

22

11,087

8

5

Gizzard

shad & Largemouth bass

2002

EFB-L

136

104.017

11

7

Gizzard shad

South Branch Chicago River

2002

EFB-L

138

25,700

10

3

Emerald shiner

2002

EFB-L

76

77,763

10

5

Carp

Bubblv Creek (South Fork South Branch Chicago River)

2002

EFB-L

21

3,812

5

2

Gizzard shad

Chicago Sanitary and Shi Canal

40

Damen Avenue

2002

EFB-L

148

153,355

10

4

Carp

75

Cicero Avenue?,

2001

EFB-L

188

183,269

11

4

Carp

Cicero Avenue'`

2002

EFB-L

136

160,509

IO

3

Carp

---

TABLE 7 (Continued): NUMBER, WEIGHT, AND NUMBER OF SPECIES FOR FISH COLLECTED IN THE

CHICAGO AREA WATERWAY SYSTEM BETWEEN 2001 AND 2004

Station

Sample Number

Weight

Number of Species

No.

Station Name

Year

Gear'

of Fish

in Grams

Total

Game

Most Abundant Species

Chicago Sanitary and Shy Canal (Continued)

75

Cicero Avenue2

2003

EFB-L

138

34,260

9

3

Gizzard shad

Cicero Avenue'

2004

EFB-L

191

98,526

13

4

Carp

41

Harlem Avenue''

2001

EFB-L

88

51,515

9

3

Gizzard shad

Harlem. Avenue'`

2002

EFB-L

188

114,024

11

3

Gizzard shad

Harlem Avenue'-

2003

EFB-L

225

47,000

9

3

Bluntnose minnow

Harlem Avenue2

2004

EFB-L

193

99,601

13

3

Gizzard shad

42

Route 83

2002

EFB-L

32

1,264

5

2

Mosquitofish

48

Stephen Street

2002

EFB-L

24

1,940

4

0

Bluntnose minnow

92

Lockport'

2001

EFB-L

77

97,313

2

0

Gizzard shad

Lockport'

2002

EFB-L

67

41,250

6

2

Gizzard shad

Lockport`

2003

EFB-L

67

17,248

7

4

Carp

Lockport'

2004

EFB-L

22

44,259

4

2

Carp

Calumet River

49

Ewing Avenue

2003

EFB-L

13

4,754

3

2

Rock bass

55

130`h Street2

2001

EFB-L

157

62,258

13

6

Gizzard shad

130`h Street

2002

EFB-L

261

54,688

12

6

Bluntnose minnow

130`h Street'

2003

EFB-L

182

68,404

8

3

Gizzard shad

130`h Street'`

2004

EFB-L

360

95,951

14

6

Gizzard shad

Wolf Lake Outlet

50

Burnham Avenue

2003

BPIS

16

194

6

5

Longear sunfish

Grand Calumet River

86

Burnham Avenue

2003

BP

0

0

0

0

NA

---

TABLE 7 (Continued): NUMBER, WEIGHT, AND NUMBER OF SPECIES FOR FISH COLLECTED IN THE

CHICAGO AREA WATERWAY SYSTEM BETWEEN 2001 AND 2004

Station

Sample Number

Weight

Number of Species

No.

Station Name

Year

Gear'

of Fish

in Grams

Total

Game

Most Abundant Species

Little Calumet River (Deep Portion)

56

Indiana Avenue

2003

EFB-L

452

234,592

17

11

Gizzard shad

76

Halsted Street

2001

EFB-L

210

128,546

16

8

Gizzard shad

Halsted Street'

2002

EFB-L

163

106,079

17

7

Carp

Halsted Street

2003

EFB-L

219

47,350

13

6

Gizzard shad

Halsted Street'

2004

EFB-L

207

116,705

17

9

Largemouth bass

Thorn Creek

54

Joe Orr Road

2003

BP

19

164

3

2

Creek chub & Green sunfish

97

170`f' Street

2003

EFB-S

5

1,726

4

1

White sucker

Little Calumet River (Wadeable Portion)

52

Wentworth Avenue

2003

BP

1

26

1

0

Carp

57

Ashland Avenue

2003

EFB-S

12

24,255

2

1

Carp

Calumet-SaQ Channel

58

Ashland Avenue

2003

El~B-L

95

80.244

13

8

Gizzard shad

59

Cicero Avenuez

2001

EFB-L

127

52,583

10

4

Gizzard shad

Cicero Avenuez

2002

EFB-L

174

47,808

13

6

Bluntnose minnow

Cicero Avenuez

2003

EFB-L

56

27.815

12

6

Bluntnose minnow & Green sunfish

Cicero Avenuez

2004

EFB-L

147

70.642

10

5

Gizzard shad

43

Route 83

2003

EFB-L

43

31,450

7

3

Carp

Buffalo Creek

12

Lake-Cook Road

2004

BP/S

48

890

8

6

Bluegill

---

TABLE 7 {Continued}: NUMBER, WEIGHT, AND NUMBER OF SPECIES FOR FISH COLLECTED IN THE

CHICAGO AREA WATERWAY SYSTEM BETWEEN 2001 AND 2004

Station

Sample Number

Weight

Number of Species

No.

Station Name

Year

Gear'

of Fish

in Grams

Total

Game

Most Abundant Species

Higgins Creek

77

Elmhurst Road

2004

NS

0

0

0

0

NA

78

Wille Road2

2001

BP/S

323

442

7

1

Fathead minnow

Wille Road2

2002

BP

2

7

2

I

Largemouth bass & Spotfin shiner

Wille Road'-

2003

BP

1

3

1

1

Bluegill

Wille Road2

2004

BP

3

249

2

0

White sucker

Des Plaines River

13

Lake-Cook Road2

2001

BP/S

67

742

4

3

Spotfin shiner

Lake-Cook Road2

2002

BP/S

62

659

8

5

Green sunfish

Lake-Cook Road2

2003

BP/S

133

6,994

13

8

Green sunfish

Lake-Cook Road'`

2004

BP/S

165

4,642

11

6

Green sunfish

17

Oakton Street

2004

EFB-S

22

11,878

11

7

Spotted sucker

19

Belmont Avenue

2004

EFB-S

15

1.854

8

3

Green sunfish

20

Roosevelt Road

2004

EFB-S

12

8,356

5

I

White sucker

22

Ogden Avenue2

2001

BP

112

196

13

4

SpottaiI Shiner

Ogden Avenue`

2002

BP

11

1,567

7

5

Bluegill

Ogden Avenue2

2003

BP

14

128

5

2

Green sunfish

Ogden Avenue'

2004

BP

37

7,623

12

6

Bluegill, Green & Orangespotted sunfish

23

Willow Springs Road

2004

EFB-S

45

26,385

14

9

Carp

29

Stephen Street

2004

BP

58

2,875

10

7

Green sunfish

91

Material Services Road2

2001

BP/S

81

3,069

14

3

Bluntnose minnow

Material Services Road2

2002

BP/S

36

457

11

3

Bluntnose minnow

Material Services Road2

2003

BP/S

24

102

6

1

Blackstripe topminnow

Material Services Road2

2004

BP/S

48

15,036

9

3

Green sunfish

---

TABLE 7 (Continued): NUMBER, WEIGHT, AND NUMBER OF SPECIES FOR FISH COLLECTED IN THE

CHICAGO AREA WATERWAY SYSTEM BETWEEN 2001 AND 2004

Station

Sample

Number

Weight

Number of Species

No.

Station Name

Year

Gear'

of Fish

in Grams

Total

Game

Most Abundant Species

Salt Creek

79

Higgins Road

2004

EFB-S

114

20,329

8

7

Bluecrill

80

Arlington Heights Road

2004

BP

38

969

7

6

Bluegill

18

Devon Avenue2

2001

BP

17

87

6

3

Spotfin shiner

Devon Avenue2

2002

BP

104

5,172

10

6

Spotfin shiner

Devon Avenue`

2003

BP

23

6,869

6

3

Green sunfish

Devon Avenue2

2004

BP

26

1,369

5

4

Green sunfish

24

Wolf Road

2004

BP/S

41

13,278

6

2

Spotf€n shiner

109

Brookfield Avenue

2004

BPIS

35

757

9

3

Creek chub

West Branch DuPage River

110

Springinsguth Road

2004

B PIS

3

32

2

2

Pumpkinseed sunfish

89

Walnut Lane

2004

BP

14

295

4

3

Green sunfish

64

Lake

Street'

2001

B PIS

65

3,232

8

5

Green sunfish.

Lake Street'

2002

BPIS

73

3,148

8

5

Green sunfish

Lake Street2

2003

BP/S

70

7,829

8

5

Green sunfish

Lake Street''

2004

BP/S

81

3,668

8

6

Green sunfish

Poplar Creek

90

Route 19

2004

BP

/

S

38

549

8

2

Green sunfish

Sample Gear: BP, backpack electrofisher; BP/S, backpack electrofisher and minnow seine, EFB-L, large electrofishing boat, EFB-S, small

electrofishing boat.

2Annual collections.

---

TABLE S: INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY SCORE AND CATEGORY CALCULATED FOR THE CHICAGO AREA

WATERWAY SYSTEM BETWEEN 2001 AND 2004

Station

Sample

IBI'

IBI'

No.

Station Name

Waterway

Year

Gear

Score

Category

32

Lake.-Cook Road

Skokie River

2001

BP

34

Fair

Lake-Cook Road

Skokie River

2001

Seine

30

Fair

105

Frontage Road

Skokie River

2001

BP

32

Fair

Frontage Road

Skokie River

2001

Seine

34

Fair

31

Lake-Cook Road

Middle Fork North Branch Chicago River

2001

BP

30

Fair

Lake-Cook Road

Middle Fork North Branch Chicago River

2001

Seine

28

Fair

104

Glenview Road

North Branch Chicago River

2001

BP

24

Fair

106

Dundee Road

West Fork North Branch Chicago River

2001

BP

22

Fair

Dundee Road

West Fork North Branch Chicago River

2001

Seine

24

Fair

103

Golf Road

West Fork North Branch Chicago River

2001

BP

32

Fair

Golf Road

West Fork North Branch Chicago River

2001

Seine

28

Fair

34

Dempster Street

North Branch Chicago River

2001

BP

26

Fair

Dempster Street

North Branch Chicago River

2001

Seine

28

Fair

96

Albany Avenue

North Branch Chicago River

2001

BP

24

Fair

Albany Avenue

North Branch Chicago River

2002

BP

24

Fair

Albany Avenue

North Branch Chicago River

2003

BP

20

Poor

Albany Avenue

North Branch Chicago River

2004

BP

24

Fair

35

Central Street

North Shore Channel

2001

Large EF Boat

30

Fair

102

Oakton Street

North Shore Channel

2001

Large EF Boat

28

Fair

36

Touhy Avenue

North Shore Channel

2001

Large EF Boat

34

Fair

Touhy Avenue

North Shore Channel

2002

Large EF Boat

32

Fair

Touhy Avenue

North Shore Channel

2003

Large EF Boat

30

Fair

Touhy Avenue

North Shore Channel

2004

Large EF Boat

30

Fair

101

Foster Avenue

North Shore Channel

2001

Large EF Boat

30

Fair

37

Wilson Avenue

North Branch Chicago River

2001

Large EF Boat

28

Fair

73

Diversey Parkway

North Branch Chicago River

2001

Large EF Boat

20

Poor

46

Grand Avenue

North Branch Chicago River

2001

Large EF Boat

30

Fair

---

TABLE 8 (Continued): INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY SCORE AND CATEGORY CALCULATED FOR THE CHICAGO

AREA WATERWAY SYSTEM BETWEEN 2001 AND 2004

Station

Sample

1131'

IBIY

No.

Station Name

Waterway

Year

Gear

Score

Category

46

Grand Avenue

North Branch Chicago River

2002

Large EF Boat

20

Poor

Grand Avenue

North Branch Chicago River

2003

Large EF Boat

32

Fair

Grand Avenue

North Branch Chicago River

2004

Large EF Boat

28

Fair

74

Lake Shore Drive

Chicago River

2002

Large EF Boat

30

Fair

100

Wells Street

Chicago River

2002

Large EF Boat

30

Fair

39

Madison Street

South Branch Chicago River

2002

Large EF Boat

34

Fair

108

Loomis Street

South Branch Chicago River

2002

Large EF Boat

26

Fair

99

Archer Avenue

South Fork South Branch Chicago River

2002

Large EF Boat

26

Fair

40

Damen Avenue

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal

2002

Large EF Boat

28

Fair

75

Cicero Avenue

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal

2001

Large EF Boat

20

Poor

Cicero Avenue

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal

2002

Large EF Boat

22

Fair

Cicero Avenue

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal

2003

Large EF Boat

22

Fair

Cicero Avenue

Chicaga Sanitary and Ship Canal

2004

Large EF Boat

22

Fair

41

Harlem Avenue

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal

2001

Larne EF Boat

24

Fair

Harlem Avenue

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal

2002

Large EF Boat

26

Fair

Harlem Avenue

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal

2003

Large EF Boat

24

Fair

Harlem Avenue

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal

2004

Large EF Boat

26

Fair

42

Route 83

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal

2002

Large EF Boat

26

Fair

48

Stephen Street

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal

2002

Large EF Boat

20

Poor

92

Lockport

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal

2001

Large EF Boat

20

Poor

Lockport

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal

2002

Large EF Boat

22

Fair

Lockport

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal

2003

Large EF Boat

24

Fair

Lockport

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal

2004

Large EF Boat

24

Fair

52

Wentworth Avenue

Little Calumet River

2003

BP

24

Fair

54

Joe Orr Road

Thorn Creek

2003

BP

32

Fair

97

170`h Street

Thorn Creek

2003

Small EF Boat

24

Fair

57

Ashland Avenue

Little Calumet River

2003

Small EF Boat

18

Poor

---

TABLE 8 (Continued): INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY SCORE AND CATEGORY CALCULATED FOR THE CHICAGO

AREA WATERWAY SYSTEM BETWEEN 2001 AND 2004

Station

Sample

IBI'

IBI'

No.

Station Name

Waterway

Year

Gear

Score

Category

49

Ewing Avenue

Calumet River

2003

Large EF Boat

34

Fair

50

Burnham Avenue

Wolf Lake Outlet

2003

BP

32

Fair

Burnham Avenue

Wolf Lake Outlet

2003

Seine

28

Fair

55

130`" Street

Calumet River

2001

Large EF Boat

32

Fair

130` Street

Calumet River

2002

Large EF Boat

34

Fair

130`h Street

Calumet River

2003

Large EF Boat

30

Fair

1301' Street

Calumet River

2004

Large EF Boat

36

Fair

86

Burnham Avenue

Grand Calumet River

2003

BP

NA

NA

56

Indiana Avenue

Little Calumet River

2003

Large EF Boat

34

Fair

76

Halsted Street

Little Calumet River

2001

Large EF Boat

34

Fair

Halsted Street

Little Calumet River

2002

Large EF Boat

34

Fair

Halsted Street

Little Calumet River

2003

Large EF Boat

36

Fair

Halsted Street

Little Calumet River

2004

Large EF Boat

36

Fair

58

Ashland Avenue

Calumet-Sag Channel

2003

Large EF Boat

22

Fair

59

Cicero Avenue

Calumet-Sag Channel

2001

Large EF Boat

28

Fair

Cicero Avenue

Calumet-Sac, Channel

2002

Large EF Boat

28

Fair

Cicero Avenue

Calumet-Sac, Channel

2003

Large EF Boat

24

Fair

Cicero Avenue

Calumet-Sag Channel

2004

Large EF Boat

28

Fair

43

Route 83

Calumet-Sag Channel

2003

Large EF Boat

22

Fair

12

Salt Creek

Buffalo Creek

2004

BP

22

Fair

Salt Creek

Buffalo Creek

2004

Seine

28

Fair

13

Lake-Cook Road

Des Plaines River

2001

BP

28

Fair

Lake-Cook Road

Des Plaines River

2001

Seine

32

Fair

Lake-Cook Road

Des Plaines Raver

2002

BP

24

Fair

Lake-Cook Road

Des Plaines River

2002

Seine

34

Fair

Lake-Cook Road

Des Plaines River

2003

BP

32

Fair

Lake-Cook Road

Des Plaines River

2003

Seine

32

Fair

---

TABLE 8 (Continued): INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY SCORE AND CATEGORY CALCULATED FOR THE CHICAGO

AREA WATERWAY SYSTEM BETWEEN 2001 AND 2004

Station

Sample

IBI

IBI%

No.

Station Name

Waterway

Year

Gear

Score

Category

13

Lake-Cook Road

Des Plaines River

2004

BP

30

Fair

Lake-Cook Road

Des Plaines River

2004

Seine

32

Fair

17

Oakton Street

Des Plaines River

2004

Small EF Boat

36

Fair

77

Elmhurst Road

Higgins Creek

2004

BP/Seine

NA

NA

78

Wille Road

Higgins Creek

2001

BP

28

Fair

Wille Road

Higgins Creek

2001

Seine

30

Fair

Wille Road

Higgins Creek

2002

BP

36

Fair

Wille Road

Higgins Creek

2003

BP

30

Fair

W it Ie Road

Higgins Creek

2004

BP

26

Fair

19

Belmont Avenue

Des Plaines River

2004

Small EF Boat

30

Fair

20

Roosevelt Road

Des Plaines River

2004

Small EF Boat

20

Poor

79

Higgins Road

Salt Creek

2004

Small EF Boat

36

Fair

80

Arlington Heights Road

Salt Creek

2004

BP

26

Fair

18

Devon Avenue

Salt Creek

2001

BP

26

Fair

Devon Avenue

Salt Creek

2001

Seine

32

Fair

Devon Avenue

Salt Creek

2002

BP

34

Fair

Devon Avenue

Salt Creek

2002

Seine

30

Fair

Devon Avenue

Salt Creek

2003

BP

22

Fair

Devon Avenue

Salt Creek

2003

Seine

32

Fair

Devon Avenue

Salt Creek

2004

BP

24

Fair

24

Wolf Road

Salt Creek

2004

BP

20

Poor

Wolf Road

Salt Creek

2004

Seine

32

Fair

109

Brookfield Avenue

Salt Creek

2004

BP

32

Fair

Brookfield Avenue

Salt Creek

2004

Seine

32

Fair

22

Ogden Avenue

Des Plaines River

2001

BP

32

Fair

Ogden Avenue

Des Plaines River

2001

Seine

32

Fair

Ogden Avenue

Des Plaines River

2002

BP

26

Fair

---

TABLE 8 (Continued): INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY SCORE AND CATEGORY CALCULATED FOR THE CHICAGO

AREA WATERWAY SYSTEM BETWEEN 2001 AND 2004

Station

Sample

IBI£

IBI£

No.

Station Name

Waterway

Year

Gear

Score

Category

22

Ogden Avenue

Des Plaines River

2003

BP

26

Fair

Ogden Avenue

Des Plaines River

2004

BP

28

Fair

23

Willow Springs Road

Des Plaines River

2004

Small EF Boat

32

Fair

29

Stephen Street

Des Plaines River

2004

BP

28

Fair

91

Material Services Road

Des Plaines River

2001

BP

26

Fair

Material Services Road

Des Plaines River

2001

Seine

24

Fair

Material Services Road

Des Plaines River

2002

BP

26

Fair

Material Services Road

Des Plaines River

2002

Seine

28

Fair

Material Services Road

Des Plaines River

2003

BP

26

Fair

Material Services Road

Des Plaines River

2003

Seine

28

Fair

Material Services Road

Des Plaines River

2004

BP

24

Fair

Material Services Road

Des Plaines River

2004

Seine

24

Fair

110

Springinsguth Road

West Branch DuPage River

2004

BP

28

Fair

89

Walnut Lane

West Branch DuPage River

2004

BP

22

Fair

64

Lake Street

West Branch DuPage River

2001

BP

30

Fair

Lake Street

West Branch DuPage River

2001

Seine

40

Fair

Lake Street

West Branch DuPage River

2002

BP

22

Fair

Lake Street

West Branch DuPage River

2002

Seine

35

Fair

La

k

e

S treet

West

Branch DuPage River

2003

BP

28

F

a

i

r

Lake Street

West Branch DuPage River

2003

Seine

34

Fair

Lake Street

West Branch DuPage River

2004

BP

24

Fair

Lake Street

West Branch DuPage River

2004

Seine

34

Fair

90

Route 19

Poplar Creek

2004

BP

32

Fair

Route 19

Poplar Creek

2004

Seine

32

Fair

IBI=Index of Biotic Integrity.

---

Calumet River System

.

Carp and gizzard shad were also among the most abundant spe-

cies collected from the Calumet River System (deep draft and wadeable). All but one collection

from this system, which was considered poor, yielded a fair IBI rating.

Des Plaines River System

.

Various sunfish were abundant in the Des Plaines River Sys-

tem, including, green sunfish, bluegill, orangespotted sunfish, and pumpkinseed sunfish

.

Blunt-

nose minnows and spotfin shiners were also prevalent in this system. IBI scores were generally

associated with fair ratings, with the exception of two stations.

Benthic Invertebrates

A list of benthic invertebrate taxa collected by the two sampling methods between 2001-

2004 can be found in Table 9. Research and Development Department reports regarding benthic

invertebrate sampling during these years have been published separately and posted on the Dis-

trict

Website at www.mwrd.org under the "Biological Reports" heading. (R&D Report No. 04-4,

"A Study of the Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community in Selected Chicago Metropolitan Area

Waterways During 2001 and 2002," and Report No. 07-47, "A Study of the Benthic Macroinver-

tebrate Community in Selected Chicago Metropolitan Area Waterways During 2003 and 2004").

The complete benthic invertebrate data set from 2001-2004 including number of organisms from

each species collected in petite ponar samplers, as well as Hester Dendy artificial plate samplers,

is available in spreadsheet form on the District

Website at the following address:

littp://www.mwrdge.dst.i l.us/RD/IEPA_Repoi-ts/Waterways/Biological%20Data/Benthic%20Inv

ertebrate%20Dato%20Chicago%o20Area%o20Waterways%202001-2004.xls .

North Branch Chicago River System

. There was considerable variability among ben-

thic communities analyzed in the waterways within this system. Oligochaeta was the dominant

t.axon collected from the North Shore Channel and the deep draft portion of the North Branch

Chicago River. In general, benthic communities appeared less stressed in the shallow portion of

the North Branch Chicago River than in the deep draft. Benthic invertebrate assemblages in the

upstream portions of the West Fork North Branch Chicago River, Skokie River, and North

Branch Chicago River were more balanced and included higher species and EPT richness than

downstream stations. With a few exceptions, head capsule deformities were rarely observed in

the samples from this system. Approximately 13 percent of midge specimens collected and ex-

arnined from Grand Avenue in the North Branch Chicago River during 2002 exhibited head cap-

sule deformities, but 2003 and 2004 samples from this station yielded only one specimen with a

similar deformity. A small number (1-2 percent) of midges collected by Hester Dendy samplers

from both stations in the Skokie River during 2001 also exhibited head capsule deformities.

South Branch Chicago River System

.

Tolerant taxa, primarily Oligochacta, comprised

a majority of the benthic invertebrate samples from most of the stations in this system. The ben-

thic communities ranged frorn moderately stressed in the South Branch Chicago River and

Lockport in the CSSC, to highly stressed in the rest of the CSSC and Bubbly Creek. There were

occurrences of head capsule deformities at multiple stations throughout this system, but they

38

---

`TABLE 9: LIST OF BENTHIC INVERTEBRATE TAXA COLLECTED IN

HESTER DENDY AND PONAR SAMPLES FROM THE CHICAGO AREA

WATERWAY SYSTEM BETWEEN 2001 AND 2001

Taxa

COELENTERATA (Hydroids)

Hydra

NEMATODA

PLATYHELMINTHES (Flat worms)

Turbellaria

ENTOPROCTA

(Moss Animalcules)

Urn.atella gracilis

ECTOPROCTA (

Bryozoans)

Plumatella

ANNELLIDA

Oligochacta (Aquatic Worms)

Hirudinea

(Leeches)

Glossiphoniidae!

Helobdcl la'

IHelobclella papillata

Helobclella stagnalis

Helobclella triserialis

I'lacobdella

Placobctella- pediculata

Erpobdella punctata punctata-

Mooreobclella bucera

Mooreobclella inicrostoma

CRUSTACEA

Ostracoda (Seed Shrimp)

Isopoda (Sow Bugs)

Caecidotea

Amphipoda (Side Swimmers)

Crangonyx

Gammarus'

Garnmarus fasciatus

III>alella azteca

Taxa (

Continued)

CRUSTACEA (Continued)

Decapoda (Crayfish)

Camba.rus barloni.i

Orconectes

01°conectes immunis

Orconeeles virilis

ARACIINOIDEA

Hydracarina

(

Water Mites)

INSECTA

Ephemeroptera (Mayflies)

lsonychia

Baetisi

Baetis, lavistriga

Baetis rnfercalarrs

Callibaetis

Pseuclocloeon ephippiatuni

Heptageni idae'

Heptagenia

Leucrocuta

Stenacron

Stenonema

Stenonema exiguum

Stenoneina integrun?

Stenonema tenninalum

Tricorythodes

Caenis

An.thopotainus rnyops

grp.

Hexagenia

Hexagen.ia bilineata

Hexagen.i.a hinbata

Plecoptera

Pei-testa

39

---

TABLE 9 (Continued): LIST OF BENT TIC INVERTEBRATE TAXA COLLECTED IN

HESTER DENDY AND PONAR SAMPLES THE FROM THE CHICAGO AREA

WATERWAY SYSTEM BETWEEN 2001 AND 2004

Taxa (Continued)

INSECTA (Continued)

Odonata (Damselflies and Dragonflies)

Calopteryx

Coenagr-ionidae

Argla

Enallagm a

L.estes

Libellulidae

Soinatochlora-

Stylurus

Henniptera (True Bugs)

Trepobates

Corixidae

Palmacorim

Megaloptera (Dobson flies)

Corydalus corn.utus

.S'ialis

Trichoptera (Caddisflies)

Cyrnellus fralernars

I- Iydropsychidael

Ceratopsych.e morosa

Cheumatopsyche

Il3,dropsyche

Hydropsyche betteni

Hydropsych bidens

Hydropsyche orris

Hydropsyche shnulans

Potainyi-cr flava

Hydroptila

Ocecet

is

Lepidoptcra (Aquatic Moths)

Petrophila

Coleoptera (Beetles)

Agabus

Copelatus

Laccophilus maculosus

Ancyronyx variegata

Dubiraphia

Taw

(Continued)

INSECTA (Continued)

Coleoptera (Beetles)

Macronychus glabr-atus

Sten.elmist

Stenelmis cren ata

grp.

Peltodytes

Paracyrau{s

Tropivernus

Berosus

F_ctopria

Diptera (True Flies)

Claaobor-us

Ceratopogonidae.

Atrich.opogon.

Bezzia

Ceratopogon

Culicoides

Serrornyia

Culicidae

Hemerodromia

Rhamphomyia

Pericorna

Simulidae

Silnuliurrr

Tipulidae

Tipula

Chironomidae (Midges)

Ablabesrnyia

Ablabesrnyia rrualloch.i

Clinotanypus

Coelotarzypus

Natarsia

sp. A

Nilotanypus fimbriatus

Proclachus (Holotanypics)

Ta.n.ypus

Psectrotanypus dyari

Thienernannirnyia grp.

40

---

TABLE 9 (Continued): LIST OF BENTHIC INVERTEBRATE TAXA COLLECTED IN

HESTER DENDY AND PONAR SAMPLES THE FROM THE CHICAGO AREA

WATERWAY SYSTEM BETWEEN 2001 AND 2004

Taxa (Continued)

INSECTA (Continued)

Diptera (True Flies)

Cor ynoraeura

Corynoneura lobata

Cricotopus

Cricotopus bicinctus

grp.

Cricotopus sylvestris

gip.

Cricotopus tremulus

grp.

Cricotopus trifascia

grp.

Cricotopus/Orthocladius

Euryhopsis

Heterotrissocladi-us

Nanocladiusi

Nanocladius crassicorrrus/rectirz.er•vis

Nanocladi.us distinctus

Orthocladlus

Porakiefferiella

Rheocricotopus robacki

Thieneinann.iella n. sp. 3

Thieneinanniella similis

T hienerr anniella xerza

Tvetenia discoloripes

grp.

Chironoanini

Chiron.omus

Clodopelma

Cryptochironomus

Cryptotendipes

Cryptotendipes sp. 15

Di.crot endipes'

Dicrotendipes f finidus

Dierotendipes neornodestus

Dicr•otendipes shnpsoni

Endoch.ironomus nigricans

Glyptotendipes

Harnishia

Micr-ochi.ronorrrus

Micropsectra

Microtendipes

Ta

xa (Continued)

INSECTA (Continued)

Diptera (True Flies)

Parachir•onornus

Paracladopelina

Paratendipes

Phaenopsectra

Phaenopsectr-a punctipes

Polypedilum f illax

grp.

Polypedifain flame

Polypedilun? illinoen.se

Polypedilum scalanum

grp.

Pseudochironomus

Saetheria

Stenochironoinus

Stictoch.ironomus

Tribelos fusciorne

Xenochironorrrus ter?olabis

Cladotanytarus'

Cladotanytarsus mangus

grp.

Cladotanytarsus vanderwulpi

grp.

Paratanytarsus

Rheotanparsus

Tanyta rsus

Tanparsus glabrescens

grp.

l

anytarsus

guerlu.s

grp.

GASTROPODA (Snails)

Amnicola

Carnpeloma decistun

h'errissia

Physa

Gyraulus

Helisoma

Menelus dilata.tus

Planorbella

Pleurocera

Valva.ta

Viviparus

41

---

TABLE 9 (Continued): LIST" OF BENTHIC INVERTEBRATE TAXA COLLECTED IN

HESTER DENDY AND PONAR SAMPLES FROM TIME CHICAGO AREA

WATERWAY SYSTEM BETWEEN 2001 AND 2004

Taxa (Continued)

PELECYPODA (Mussels and Clams)'

Corbicula,fluminea

Dreissena polymorpha

Sphaeriidae'

musculium

muses drum transverstim

Pisidium

Taxa (Continued)

PELECYPODA (Mussels and Clams)'

Pisidlum c0mpressum

Pisidiu

.

m nitidum

Sphaerium

Sphaerium

simile

Lasinigon.a coinplancila.

'Not counted as a discreet taxon,

42

---

generally constituted a low percentage of the overall number of organisms. However, five per-

cent of midges collected from LooEnis Street on the South Branch Chicago River in 2002 exhib-

ited deformities.

Calumet River System

.

The benthic samples from the Calumet River System largely

consisted of tolerant taxa, indicating; communities were moderately to highly stressed. EPT taxa

richness was low throughout, especially in the Grand Calumet River, Calu net-Sag Channel, and

the Calumet River,

Head capsule deformities were observed at a rate generally less than two

percent, except for at Cicero Avenue on the Calumet-Sag Channel, where approximately ten per-

cent of midge specimen collected exhibited head capsule deformities during 2003.

Des Plaines River System

.

The Des Plaines River System had relatively high total ben-

thic invertebrate and EPT richness compared to other watersheds. However, there was substan-

tial variability between and within some of the waterways in this system. Benthic communities

at sampling stations within the Des Plaines River System

ranged

from slightly to highly stressed,

but head capsule deformities were rare.

The Des Plaines River had the highest total richness

value in this system overall, although total taxi and EPT richness indicated a decreasing; down-

stream trend in benthic community quality. Based on taxa and EPT richness, Salt Creek stations

ranged from slightly to moderately stressed, but no downstream trend was identified.

Sediment Chemistry

Sediment quality can considerably impact overlying water quality, benthic community

structure, food chain dynamics, and other elements of freshwater ecosystems. Since sediment

acts as a reservoir for persistent or bioaccu nulative contaminants, sediment data reflects a long-

term record of quality.

The concentrations of the eight general chemistry constituents measured in sediment at

each of the 40 sampled stations are presented in Table 10, The 11 measured trace metal concen-

trations for these stations can be found in Table 11. 'f'able 12 contains the AVS, SEM, TOC, and

particle size data for the 40 sampling stations. There were 11 1 total organic priority pollutants

analyzed for each sample collected (listed in Table 3). Thirty-Four out of the 1 11 priority pollut-

ants were detected at least once in the samples, and 65 out of the 73 samples analyzed detected at

least one of these organic priority pollutants.

Tables 13-23 presents the concentrations of or-

ganic priority pollutants detected at each of the sampling stations.

Sediment

Toxicity

The results from the Chironumus tentans ten-day toxicity tests for each sediment sample

collected are presented in Table 24.

A significant difference in Chironumus survival from the

control indicates that the sediment is an unsuitable habitat for Chironumus survival. Significant

differences in Chironumus dried weight and/or Chironumus ash-free dried weight compared to

43

---

TABLE 10: CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SEDIMENT COLLECTED FROM THE CHICAGO AREA WATERWAY

SYSTEM BETWEEN 2001 AND 2004

Station

Station

Point'

Waterway

Year

Constituents (Expressed on a dry weight basis)

No.

Narne

TS

TVS

NH--N

(mg/kg)

NO,}NO3

(mg/kg)

TKN

(mJkg)

TP

(mor g)

Phenols

(mg/kg)

TCN

(mg/kg)

74

Lake Shore Dr.

C

Chica-o River

2002

34.5

14

38

<0.02

3,901

2,750

0.016

1.690

Lake Shore Dr.

S

Chicano River

2002

50.2

15

8

<0.02

2,279

1,370

0.008

0.532

100

Wells St.

C

Chicago River

2002

42.6

9

47

<0.02

3,282

2,106

0.011

0.695

Wells St.

S

Chica,,o River

2002

39.2

10

76

<0.02

3,714

2,274

0.012

1.678

39

Madison St.

C

S Branch Chicago River

2002

34.0

14

35

<0.02

3,231

3,451

0.029

1.658

108

Loomis St.

C

S Branch Chicago River

2002

56.6

11

6

<0.02

1,317

1,383

0.012

2.988

Loomis St.

S

S Branch Chicago River

2002

55.1

9

8

<0.02

847

938

0.006

0.481

99

Archer Ave.

C

S Fork S Branch Chgo. River

2002

35.3

18

228

ND

4,790

2,636

0.033

2.704

Archer Ave_

S

S Fork S Branch Chao. River

V

2002

38.0

15

353

ND

4,151

2,415

0.022

1.616

40

Damen Ave.

C

CSSC'

2002

41.1

15

96

ND

3,165

4,100

0.022

2.614

Damen Ave.

S

CSSC'

2002

40.6

15

95

ND

3,797

4,234

U20

3.397

75

Cicero Ave.

C

CSSC'

2002

54.4

14

13

ND

2,109

2,595

0.013

3.337

Cicero Ave.

S

CSSC'

2002

78.4

7

39

ND

590

505

0.007

0.191

41

Harlem Ave.

C

CSSC'

2002

69.5

6

15

ND

638

675

0.007

0.906

Harlem Ave.

S

CSSC'

2002

75.8

4

6

ND

629

687

0.004

0.492

92

Lockport Powerhouse

C

CSSC'

2002

539

10

4

0.39

2.421

ND

0.007

4.198

Lockport Powerhouse

S

CSSC'

2002

68.0

7

2

0.25

839

1,318

0.005

0.848

52

Wentworth Ave.

S

Little Calumet River

2003

45.6

10

99

0.88

3,429

17920

1.170

0.272

54

Joe Orr Rd.

C

Thorn Creek

2003

88.4

ND

4

4.90

100

118

0.018

0.020

Joe Orr Rd.

S

Thorn Creek

2003

76.3

ND

6

3.43

150

115

0.033

0.043

97

170`h St.

C

Thorn Creek

2003

67.7

5

5

0.82

611

1,344

0.080

0.047

170`° St.

S

Thorn Creek

2003

47.7

8

13

0.89

1,857

1,401

0.130

0.193

57

Ashland Ave.

S

Little Calumet River

2003

27.5

ND

36

2.28

1.948

1.845

0.316

0.178

49

Ewing Ave.

S

Calumet River

2003

62.3

5

25

1.24

971

387

0.586

0.156

50

Burnham Ave.

C

Wolf Lake

2003

36,2

8

7

0.64

492

91

0.116

0.149

Burnham Ave.

S

Wolf Lake

2003

67,5

3

1.3

1.28

1,411

121

0.033

0.068

---

TABLE 10 (Continued): CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SEDIMENT COLLECTED FROM THE CHICAGO AREA

WATERWAY SYSTEM BETWEEN 2001 AND 2004

Station

Station

Point'

Waterway

Year

Constituents (Expressed on a dry weight basis)

No,

Name

TS

TVS

NH3-N

NO,+NO3

TKN

TP

Phenols

TCN

(cIc)

(%}

(mg/kg)

(mglkg)

(mg/kg) (mg /kg) (mg/kg) (m-/kg}

55

1302" St.

C

Calumet River

2003

45.7

ND

27

1.52

1,472

617

0.593

0.123

130`h St.

S

Calumet River

2003

65.2

ND

14

1.79

410

214

0.072

0.031

86

Burnham Ave.

C

Grand Calumet River

2003

49.6

10

142

8.48

3,507

3,855

1911

0256

Burnham Ave.

S

Grand Calumet River

2003

21.9

24

84

4.49

8,494

5,923

3.342

0.412

56

Indiana Ave.

C

Little Calumet River

2003

44.3

8

64

1.15

2,070

1,796

0.458

0.120

Indiana Ave.

S

Little Calumet River

2003

61.7

4

12

1.41

619

824

0.424

0.089

76

Halsted St.

C

Little Calumet River

2003

68.6

19

40

1.64

I,664

1,173

0.325

0.124

Halsted St.

S

Little Calumet River

2003

78.5

3

6

1.28

250

561

0.414

0.043

58

Ashland Ave.

C

Calumet-Sag Channel

2003

40.7

10

210

1.57

3,476

3,056

3.331

0.317

Ashland Ave.

S

Calumet-Sag Channel

2003

56.2

5

59

1.94

1,694

1,761

2.852

0.226

59

Cicero Ave.

C

Calumet-Sag Channel

2003

48.9

15

57

1.31

2.371

3,760

1.627

0.198

Cicero Ave.

S

Calumet-Saa Channel

2003

57.5

7

30

0.89

1.599

5,393

2.168

0282

43

Route 83

C

Calumet-Sag Channel

2003

40.9

9

175

0.88

3.034

77471

2.059

0.232

Route 83

S

Calumet-Sao, Channel

2003

49.9

8

65

1.04

2,473

4,706

3.136

0.122

12

Lake Cook Rd.

C

Buffalo Creek

2004

73.9

3

21

2.58

177

166

0.046

0.057

Lake Cook Rd.

S

Buffalo Creek

2004

74.5

3

55

4.54

548

234

0.148

0.066

13

Lake Cook Rd.

C

Des Plaines River

2004

78.7

1

23

2.32

133

191

0.093

0.008

Lake Cook Rd.

S

Des Plaines River

2004

316

15

111

6.31

3,882

1,512

0.262

0.384

17

Oakton St.

C

Des Plaines River

2004

77.5

2

25

3.20

272

383

0.071

0.015

Oakton St.

S

Des Plaines River

2004

62.6

5

54

4.04

1,174

945

0.114

0.114

77

Elmhurst Rd.

C

Higgins Creek

2004

70.5

4

52

8.38

1,189

385

0.074

0.109

Elmhurst Rd.

S

Higgins Creek

2004

56.5

6

41

2.95

1,611

391

0.083

0.133

19

Belmont Ave.

C

Des Plaines River

2004

69.8

4

16

3.65

496

316

O.I53

0.057

Belmont Ave.

S

Des Plaines River

2004

40.0

10

131

6.23

3,840

1,319

0.317

0.482

20

Roosevelt Rd.

C

Des Plaines River

2004

58.0

13

16

2.59

I,133

551

0.198

0.059

Roosevelt Rd.

S

Des Plaines River

2004

45.2

13

118

7.7I

3,151

1,698

0.148

0.363

---

TABLE 10 (Continued): CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SEDIMENT COLLECTED FROM THE CHICAGO AREA

WATERWAY SYSTEM BETWEEN 2001 AND 2004

Station

Station

Point'

Waterway

Year

Constituents (Expressed on a dry weight basis)

No.

Name

TS

TVS

NH3-N

(mglkg)

NO,+NO3

(mg/kg)

TKN

(mJkg}

TP

(mg/ka)

Phenols

(mg/kg)

TCN

(mglkg)

79

Higgins Rd.

C

Salt Creek

2004

37.7

9

77

0.83

3,274

841

0.159

0.324

80

Arlington Hts. Rd.

C

Salt Creek

2004

813

3

19

4.18

427

126

0.060

0.028

Arlington Hts. Rd.

S

Salt Creek

2004

84.4

2

7

3.41

189

161

0.071

0.019

18

Devon Ave.

C

Salt Creek

2004

69.9

2

19

5.19

571

516

0.074

0.056

Devon Ave.

S

Salt Creek

2004

73.2

ND

14

4.13

481

468

0.085

0.049

24

Wolf Rd.

S

Salt Creek

2004

44.3

8

45

5.13

2,641

2,114

0.142

0.275

109

Brookfield Ave.

C

Salt Creek

2004

71.3

2

3

150

371

410

0.000

0.079

Brookfield Ave.

S

Salt Creek

2004

63.5

6

110

0.49

2,253

992

0.129

0.441

22

Ogden Ave.

C

Des Plaines River

2004

88.2

3

3

2.47

197

241

0.135

0.036

Ogden Ave.

S

Des Plaines River

2004

33.6

19

134

9.45

4,819

2,878

0.128

0.602

23

Willow Springs Rd.

C

Des Plaines River

2004

42.8

12

104

10.10

1,946

1,946

0.124

0.367

Willow Springs Rd.

S

Des Plaines River

2004

41.1

14

174

9.91

2,632

2,993

0.109

0.316

29

Stephen St.

C

Des Plaines River

2004

82.2

14

6

1.71

526

737

0.123

<0.003

Stephen St_

S

Des Plaines River

2004

32.4

18

174

10.40

4,314

2,996

0.377

0.160

110

Springinsguth Rd.

C

W Branch DuPage River

2004

71.0

4

23

1.33

764

162

0.100

0.082

Springinsguth Rd.

S

W Branch DuPage River

2004

76.6

3

19

1.00

613

169

0.076

0.050

89

Walnut Lane.

C

W Branch DuPage River

2004

82.5

2

8

5,10

280

201

0.103

0.050

Walnut Lane

S

W Branch DuPaae River

2004

74.6

2

17

2.06

530

236

0.142

0.042

64

Lake St.

C

W Branch DuPage River

2004

81.8

2

18

0.82

376

405

0.062

0.016

Lake St.

S

W Branch DuPage River

2004

68.4

3

37

2.14

908

609

0.094

0.039

90

Route 19

S

Poplar Creek

2004

73.0

3

30

1.21

669

406

0.144

<0.003

'C=Center, S=Side.

'Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal.

ND=No data.

---

TABLE 11: TRACE METALS IN SEDIMENT COLLECTED FROM THE CHICAGO AREA WATERWAY SYSTEM

BETWEEN 2002 AND 2004

Station

Station

Point'

Waterway

Year As

Cd

Cr

Cu

Fe

Pb

Mn

He,

Ni

Ag

No.

Name

(ma /kg dry weight)

74

Lake Shore Dr.

C

Chicago River

2002

<1

8.3

105

247

22,861

258

377

0.5600

43

4.8

701

Lake Shore Dr.

S

Chicago River

2002

<1

2.9

61

115

21,727

143

374

0.6000

31

<0.1

345

100

Wells St.

C

Chicago River

2002

<1

6.5

99

284

31700

996

367

0.9200

38

0.6

685

Wells St.

S

Chicago River

2002

<1

15.4

177

233

27,800

808

366

0.9800

63

9.7

666

39

Madison St.

C

S Branch Chicago River

2002

<1

13.7

240

349

29,600

619

381

0.4500

99

5.8

848

108

Loomis St.

C

S Branch Chicago River

2002

<I

3.6

68

87

17,600

226

257

0.4300

34

3.9

288

Loomis St.

S

S Branch Chicago River

2002

<1

15

61

88

20,300

344

351

0.2000

35

<0.1

593

99

Archer Ave.