1. US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) Program
Photo: K. DeGrandchamp
LTC Kevin Lovell
Deputy Commander Chicago DistrictDeputy Commander, Chicago District
US Army Corps of Engineers
25 September 2015
US Army Corps of Engineers
BUILDING STRONG®

2. Agenda
 Understanding the Risk
 The Chicago Area Waterway
System
 Characterizing Risk
 USACE Strategy
 GLMRIS
 Electric Barriers
Installation of parasitic structure at Barrier IIB
Electric Barriers
 Monitoring
 Efficacy Study
GLMRIS Control Technologies
ANS Treatment Plant and ANS Lock
BUILDING STRONG®2
GLMRIS: Great Lakes and Mississippi Interbasin Study

3. Chicago Area Waterway System (CAWS)
 Only continuous pathway connecting the Great
Lakes and Mississippi River basins
 Consists of 78 miles of canals and modified Consists of 78 miles of canals and modified
streams
 Five outlets to Lake Michigan within the CAWS
 The Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal remains an
important pathway for navigation and the transport of
BUILDING STRONG®3
important pathway for navigation and the transport of
wastewater effluent and storm water runoff.

4. Characterizing Risk
4

5. FY11 FY13FY12FY10
USACE Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) Strategy
FY15 FY16FY14 FY17
1 Volt/in, pulses 4 ms at 5 hz 2.3 Volts/in, pulses 2.5 ms at 30 hzStandby mode
1
ERATION
Barrier I
Site PrepBarrier I Design
Barrier I Building
& Electronics
Barrier I Testing &
Commissioning
Project O&M
Funded
Operation of Electric Barriers
Asian Carp Monitoring
Demonstration Barrier
(2002) Barrier IIB (2011)
Perm Barrier I
concept
LINESOFOPE
Barrier IIA (2009)
eDNA Monitoring and Calibration
p g
Efficacy Study: Implement Solutions as Funding and Authority Permit
eDNA Monitoring by USFWS
2
3
Telemetry
Des Plaines River
Bypass (Int. I)
Efficacy Study: Implement Solutions as Funding and Authority Permit
Des Plaines Barrier
Modified Structural
Operations (Int. III)
O’Brien Lock
and Dam
3
Barrier Risk Reduction Study and EA (Int. IV)
Optimum Parameters Research (Int. II)
Additional research and reports as needed
Great Lakes and Mississippi River Interbasin Study (GLMRIS)4
GLMRIS
Report
Brandon Road Feasibility Study
5

6. BUILDING STRONG®

7. GLMRIS - Study Summary
4
 Authority
 (d) FEASIBILITY STUDY.-The Secretary, in consultation with appropriate Federal,
State, local, and nongovernmental entities, shall conduct, at Federal expense, a
feasibility study of the range of options and technologies available to prevent the
 Purpose
feasibility study of the range of options and technologies available to prevent the
spread of aquatic nuisance species between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River
Basins through the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal and other aquatic pathways.
p
 Identify aquatic pathways that may exist between the Great Lakes and
Mississippi River basins
 Focus Area I – Chicago Area Waterways
 F A II Oth P th Focus Area II – Other Pathways
 Inventory current and future potential aquatic nuisance species (ANS)
Asian Carp Dotted Duckweed Ruffe Spiny Water Flea
 Analyze possible ANS controls available to prevent ANS transfer between
Sea Lamprey
BUILDING STRONG®
 Analyze possible ANS controls available to prevent ANS transfer between
basins, via aquatic pathways
7

8. GLMRIS Study Area
2
3
1
2
LEGEND:
Basin Divide
Chicago Area Waterways (CAWS)
Eagle Marsh, IN
Little Killbuck Creek, OH
Ohio‐Erie Canal, OH
1
2
3
8

9. The GLMRIS Program
GLMRIS Program
• Chicago Lead
• Coordination of program elements
• Budget development and defense
• Stakeholder engagement, including ACRCC
related activitiesrelated activities
• Collaboration with ERDC and other
agencies on ANS research, including control
measures
Focus Area I - CAWS
• Chicago Lead
Focus Area II – Other Pathways
• Buffalo Lead
GLRI f d d
Chicago Lead
• GLMRIS Report released
Jan 2014
• GLRI funded
• Pathway assessments by state
• Summary Report released May
2013
Brandon Road
• Rock Island Lead
• One-way control point
Little Killbuck Creek, OHOhio – Erie Canal, OH
• Buffalo Lead
• Control implemented by
State of Ohio ith USACE
Eagle Marsh, IN
• Louisville Lead
• Highest risk pathway outside
CAWS
• Buffalo Lead
• Control implemented by
St t f Ohi
y p
identified in three alternatives
in GLMRIS Report
State of Ohio with USACE
support
• Complete by Sep 2017
• Control implemented by
NRCS with USACE support
• Phase I complete Nov 2015
State of Ohio
• Complete by Sep 2017
BUILDING STRONG®9

10. ANS of Concern
4
BUILDING STRONG®10

11. CAWS - Focus Area I4
 Complex multi-use waterway Complex, multi-use waterway
 Navigation
 Cargo
 Commercial – Passenger and
Governmental (Fire, Police, etc)
 Recreational
 Water Supply & Conveyance
 Municipal wastewater
 Industrial users
 Recreation
 Flood Risk Management
 Stormwater Stormwater
 Combined sewer overflow
 Primary connection between Great
Lakes & Mississippi River basinsLakes & Mississippi River basins
Collaboration
 Federal, State, Regional Agencies
 Native American Tribes
 Non governmental organizations
BUILDING STRONG®
 Non-governmental organizations
11

12. GLMRIS - Next Steps…
4
 Strategic control of ANS transfer is a shared responsibility
 Success of any ANS control strategy is directly linked to effective implementation
of both structural and nonstructural measuresof both structural and nonstructural measures
 Multi-agency – federal, state, local – and public responsibility
 GLMRIS Report
 Range of alternatives to prevent ANSg p
2-way transfer between the GL & MR
basins, via aquatic pathways
 Nonstructural measures
 Active management; biologic controls Active management; biologic controls
 Monitoring
 Education and outreach
 Laws and regulations
St t l lt ti Structural alternatives
 New/novel ANS control technologies
 Hydrologic separation
 “Hybrids” – combination of both
BUILDING STRONG®12

13. Brandon Road Study
4
Study Goal: Evaluatey
potential control options and
technologies at Brandon
Road Lock & Dam to reduceRoad Lock & Dam to reduce
the risk of upstream
interbasin transfer of ANS
while minimizing impacts to
waterway uses and users
and identify a recommendedy
plan.
13

14. Why Brandon Road?
4
 Effective – Control point can address
upstream transfer of Mississippi River
species through all CAWS pathwaysp g p y
 Avoids bypass via Lower Des Plaines
 Provides mechanical ‘fail-safe’ for controls
 Most rapidly-achievable structural option
 Relevant Identified in GLMRIS Relevant - Identified in GLMRIS
 Included in 3 of 6 structural alternatives
 Valuable - Opportunity to enhance
effectiveness of existing technologies, demonstrate new conceptsg g p
 Adaptive management  phased approach toward 2-way risk reduction
 Serves as a control point for species of particular public & stakeholder concern: Asian carp
 Adds defense in depth to existing controls at Romeoville
 Minimum Impacts A project at Brandon Road control point will seek to Minimum Impacts - A project at Brandon Road control point will seek to
minimize adverse impacts to existing waterway uses and users
 Responsive - Incorporates stakeholder input
 Communicated urgency for action
BUILDING STRONG®
g y
 Location-specific interest
14

15. Brandon Road Study
Activities To Be Completed
4
Activities To Be Completed
If flushing lock or channel in
TSP, then physical model
Jun 2015 Jan 2017 Jul 2018
Jan 2019
Activities and documentation to support a decision document
NEPA Scoping for BRLD, three public meetings December 2014
Nov 2017
NEPA Scoping for BRLD, three public meetings December 2014
Model Certification for selected Planning Models April 2016
ATR, IEPR, Policy Review, & NEPA Review May 2017
Agency Decision Milestone November 2017
Civil Works Review Board July 2018
15
Civil Works Review Board July 2018
Chief’s Report January 2019

16. Brandon Road Study
Alt ti t
4
Alternative concepts
 No New Federal Action – No New Federal Action –
Sustained Activities Alternative
N t t l Alt ti Nonstructural Alternative
 Swimmer Alternative
 Swimmer and Floater Alternative
 Swimmer, Floater, and Hitch Hiker, ,
Alternative (i.e., Lock Closure)
BUILDING STRONG®16

17. Brandon Road Study
GLMRIS Report ConceptsGLMRIS Report Concepts
• One-way (upstream)
control point
C t l• Controls
– Swimmers
 Electric Barrier
 Other Emergingg g
Technologies
- Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
- Hydroguns
- Acoustics, etc.
– Floaters
 Flushing lock
 Other concepts?
- Lock treatment (Hot
water, Ozone)
– Hitchhikers
 Not Addressed
 Possible opportunities
BUILDING STRONG®
- Lock Closure
- Lock Treatment
17

18. Other Aquatic Pathways - Focus Area II4
 Objectives
 Inventory of potential aquatic pathways
 Assess likelihood of ANS transfer
 Results
 18 Aquatic Pathway Assessment
Reports completed
 8 sites rated medium or high risk
 10 sites rated low risk and eliminated
from further study
 Highest Probability Location:
Eagle Marsh, Ft. Wayne, IN
 Interim measure implemented by Indiana
DNR
Temporary Fence by
Indiana DNR
 NRCS to implement long term measure with
USACE support
 Phase I to be completed by Nov 2015
BUILDING STRONG®18

19. GLMRIS
Stay in Touch!
4
On the Web…
l i l
y
glmris.anl.gov
Facebook
facebook.com/glmris
Twitter
Follow @GLMRIS
e-mail
glmris@usace.army.mil
BUILDING STRONG®19

20. CSSC Barriers
1
Demo Barrier
Barrier IIA Barrier IIB
BUILDING STRONG®20

21. CSSC Barriers
1
Barrier Date of Construction Voltage Frequency Pulse Duration
Activation Cost (volts/inch) (Hz) (ms)
Demo 2002 $2M 1.0 5 4
I 2017* TBD 2.3 34 2.5
IIA 2009 $7M 2.3 34 2.5
FY 2015 Work:
C & f
IIB 2011 $21M 2.3 34 2.5
 Continue design & construction of Permanent Barrier I
 Complete the Efficacy Study Interim Report IV
 Continue lab and field studies of barrier effectiveness
 Continue operation & maintenance of electric barriers
 Continue maintenance of Des Plaines River barrier Continue maintenance of Des Plaines River barrier
 Continue Asian carp monitoring in the CAWS with ACRCC
partners
FY 2016 Planned Work:FY 2016 Planned Work:
 Continue construction of Permanent Barrier I
 Continue operation & maintenance of electric barriers
 Continue maintenance of Des Plaines River barrier
 Continue Asian carp monitoring in the CAWS with ACRCC
BUILDING STRONG®
Continue Asian carp monitoring in the CAWS with ACRCC
partners
21

22. ACRCC 2015 CAWS Monitoring Plan
2
 Des Plaines Bypass Barrier Monitoring
 Focused below barrier traditional gear monitoring
 Seasonal intensive sampling above barrier
 Gear Development (Paupier and Mamou gears)
 eDNA monitoring of the CAWSeDNA monitoring of the CAWS
 Fixed Dual - DIDSON at the Barrier
 Small fish monitoring in the Upper Illinois
WaterwayWaterway
 Fish sampling at the Barrier
 Expansion of the acoustic network (telemetry)
 SONAR monitoring of fish abundance, location
and movements in the upper pools of the Illinois
Waterway
22

23. USACE Telemetry Network
Priority Areas:
 Individually coded transmitters implanted into
fish; locations detected by underwater receivers
2
y
1.1. At BarrierAt Barrier
2.2. Below BarrierBelow Barrier
3.3. Above BarrierAbove Barrier
 Objectives:
 Assess efficacy of barriers
 Examine movements of Asian carp at
population leading edge and through lock
and dams
VR2W Stationary Receivers (27) AboveAbove barrier: 39 tagsbarrier: 39 tags
CSSC (I-355 Barge slips): 15 C Carp
CSSC (Barriers): 12 C Carp, 12 LMB( )
Lower Lockport Pool: 71 tagsLower Lockport Pool: 71 tags
Lower Lockport pool: 46 C Carp, 1 FWD
*
Below Barrier: 117 tagsBelow Barrier: 117 tags
Between Barriers: 12 C Carp, 12 LMBBrandon Rd
Lock
BUILDING STRONG®
Brandon Rd: 20 C CarpBrandon Rd: 20 C Carp
Dresden Island : 25 BH Carp, 6 S Carp, 2 Hybrid, 13 SM Buffalo, 20 C Carp
Marseilles: 16 Bighead; 15 Silver
23

24. Efficacy Study3
A study of a range of factors that could potentially reduce the effectiveness of the electric barriers
Fall 2015
Final Interim IV
Report to HQUSACE
Jan 2011
Installation of
sluice gate
screens
complete
Jan 2010
ASA(CW)
approval of Interim
I report
Sep 2011
Complete Interim
IIA Report
Oct 2010
Construction of Interim I
bypass barriers
Complete
Oct 2011
Increase Barrier
II operational
parameters
Jul 2010
ASA(CW)
approval of
Interim III and
IIIA reports
Interim Report I: Measures to Eliminate Potential Barrier Bypasses
 Construct 13.5 miles of structures along Des Plaines River & block I&M Canal at natural flow divide
 Construction contract awarded 21 April 2010; complete as of 26 October 2010
Interim Report IIA: Determine Optimal Operating Parameterste epo t ete e Opt a Ope at g a a ete s
 What are the optimal operating parameters based on lab research and field testing
 Settings changed to 2.3v/in, 30 Hz, 2.5 ms in October 2011
Interim Report III: Modified Structural Operations
Efficacy Rpt IIIaEfficacy Rpt I
Interim Report III: Modified Structural Operations
 Screens installed on sluice gates at O’Brien Lock & Dam
Interim IIIA Report: Acoustic Bubble Barriers
 Recommends a demonstration acoustic-bubble-strobe (ABS) barrier near Brandon Road L&D( )
 Approved by ASA(CW) in July 2010, but currently no funding or authority to implement
Interim IV Report: Risk Reduction Study and Integrated Environmental Assessment
 Systematic risk assessment and discussion of risk reduction efforts
BUILDING STRONG®24
 Complete NEPA cumulative effects assessment

25. Chicago Districtg
l il
BUILDING STRONG®
www.lrc.usace.army.mil
25