Envisioning a 21st Century Chicago Waterway System
•Download as PPT, PDF•
0 likes•177 views
![[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Presentation Overview]()
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (18)
Similar to Envisioning a 21st Century Chicago Waterway System
Similar to Envisioning a 21st Century Chicago Waterway System (20)
More from Healthy Lakes, Healthy Lives
More from Healthy Lakes, Healthy Lives (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (19)
Envisioning a 21st Century Chicago Waterway System
- 1. Envisioning a Chicago Area Waterway System for the 21st Century A Joint Project of the Great Lakes Commission and the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative Great Lakes Restoration Conference 2011 Tim Eder, Executive Director, Great Lakes Commission Dave Ullrich, Executive Director, Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative October 14, 2011 Detroit, Michigan
Editor's Notes
- In the early 1900s a complex system of rivers and canals was built in the Chicago area to divert wastewater from Lake Michigan to the Illinois River. The waterways have become critical to the circulatory system of a great city. And are now also used for commercial and recreational boating, flood control and emergency response. The problem is that the waterways have become a highway for AIS. Not just into Lake Michigan, but downstream as well. In fact, the electric barrier on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal was installed originally to contain round gobies from moving downstream, but was too late. Issue became elevated in 2009-10 with discovery of Asian carp DNA. The media attention and public outcry since that time has been astounding. The threat from Asian carp is, by far, the highest profile issue in the region. Discovery of the DNA and the actions that followed, namely the litigation, created dissention among the Great Lakes states and divided the region. It was threatening the unity that was so critical to issues like passage of the Water Resources Compact, approval by the President of the GLRI, and Congressional support for its funding. We didn’t achieve those without a critical ingredient – speaking with a unified voice.
- In response, in February of 2010, the Commission adopted a resolution in support of ecological separation as the best long term solution and the Cities Initiative issued a “statement of unity” recognizing that developing such a solution must start with a unified, immediate, and significant commitment of resources and to an aggressive timetable. Our two organizations were then faced with the challenge of how do we accomplish this? How do you stop the flow of water to prevent movement of invasive species while accommodating the existing uses of this complex system? How do we move from ecological separation as a concept to a readily conceivable reality? Many questions that need to be answered such as how would it be done? Where would a barrier (or barriers) be located? What would the impacts be? How much would it cost?
- With a great deal of leadership from many people and the support of our members, we were able to launch this study last July to look at long-term solutions and options for achieving separation. Evaluate the economic, technical, and ecological feasibility of separation by illustrating scenarios to achieve it, along with associated costs, impacts and potential benefits of a re-engineered hydrologic system for greater Chicago The project has four key goals: 1. Preventing the movement of Asian carp and OTHER AIS 2. Improving transportation at the crossroads of America. It is widely known that Chicago is a major congestion point for truck and rail traffic 3. Improving water quality 4. Improve management of stormwater and reduce flooding.
- High-profile leadership – agree that study is needed; but have not endorsed a solution Privately funded by these 6 foundations – budget of $2 million
- Outreach and input is critical – Not a consensus building process. But, it is critical to understand users, benefits. For project to maintain the political credibility it has enjoyed so far, it is important that we reach out to, listen and understand users. Outreach and involvement of resource experts. Relying on experts for data and information. MWRD is critical. Have conducted one-on-one stakeholder interviews, as well as holding 3 meetings of the Advisory Committee to date (the final meeting is planned for October) Lead consultant – HDR – has conducted numerous interviews with stakeholders, held internal charrettes, peer reviews and data collection. Working with the Corps to share information and prepare technical products so they can be used in the GLMRIS study. We are also planning a series of public meetings for late October (details TBA)
- Phase I: During this phase the lead consultant and subconsultants were selected and a detailed study plan was developed. The Advisory Committee convened to provide advice on the study plan and the process for consultation throughout the project. Phase II: During this phase a preliminary array of separation options are being developed and evaluated. Stakeholders defined criteria for selecting and evaluating options. There has been a peer review of all work. Phase III: During this phase the range of options will be narrowed to a minimum of three and additional evaluation and analysis will be conducted. The final integration and summary reports will be prepared.
- Differences between CAWS21 and GLMRIS Ours is faster, identifying options for best permanent solution in the Chicago area; Corps is looking at all places in the watershed divide Corps is looking at a range of alternatives, including additional barriers, sonic devices, lights and other technologies Our study is focused on SEPARATION. Starting with the hypothesis that separation is feasible, setting about to determine how it might be accomplished, where, how much $$, over what time period.
- ***note to presenter: this slide has animation (the photos appear “on click” for north and south sides) Point of this slide is talk about and illustrate the complexity of the system – there are many uses and many people benefit from various uses Differences in north vs. south side of the system (very GENERALLY are): Southside is where the bulk of the commercial transport occurs. Northside uses include stormwater management and movement of wastewater; also tour boats and recreational users
- Can choose one location for a barrier south of confluence down towards Lockport; or an “ensemble” of barriers at locations on the north and south side of the system Generally, the closer the barriers are to the lake, the greater the flood control concerns; the farther from the lake, the flooding is less of a concern is water quality becomes more of a concern (discharges to the lake)
- Overview of some of the overarching things to consider when you start to look at building a barrier in the system
- Developing an “option” for this study is not just about identifying the location. Yes, each option will have a location(s), but it will also need to include other changes that need to or can be made to the system based on the barrier location to (a) make sure separation does not cause harm, i.e., mitigation measures for impacts of separation, and (b) look for opportunities to make improvements to the system as part of separation. In addition, we need to consider timing of implementation – when is the barrier constructed and when are other mitigation measures implemented and develop this timelime with consideration towards other “baseline” changes that are anticipated to the system, e.g., TARP.
- Narrowed it to 3 options to illustrate the range of issues (e.g., the “considerations” illustrated in the previous slide) Considerations outlined below general and meant to be examples (i.e., not exhaustive of all the range of impacts and potential mitigations); Also, remember that we are developing mitigation strategies and potential improvements for the things that are impacted by a separation barrier Example considerations for “Near Lake” option: Flooding: No outlet to the lake during storm events Water quality: Allows wastewater/effluent to continue to flow downstream (no need to upgrade WWTPs) Transportation: Restricts recreation and tour boat access to the lake and impacts commercial navigation on the southside
- Example considerations for “Mid System” option: Flooding: would still need to provide some sort of emergency bypass of the barriers in the near-term, until additional conveyance and storage capacity can be brought online Water quality: need to upgrade Northside WWTP to meet Lake MI discharge standards Transportation: allows tour boats to continue to access the lake from downtown and continue their operations, although there are still some issues with access to dry dock storage and maintenance facilities. Also, of the three options, creates the least amount of disruption to commercial navigation
- Example considerations for “Down River” option: Flooding: concerns with capacity of system to handle all the effluent Water quality: all wastewater discharges would then need to flow to the lake and would need to upgrade all of the WWTPs to treat the effluent to higher standards (very costly); also potential for stagnation in parts of the system that might not get enough flow Transportation: significant impact to commercial navigation