Great Lakes and

Mississippi River 

Interbasin Study

The GLMRIS Report

USACE

01/06/2014

Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

iii

Table of Contents

GLMRIS REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................... 1

CHAPTER 1 OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 GLMRIS Report Roadmap....................................................................................................................... 2

1.2 Report Intent.............................................................................................................................................. 5

1.2.1 Goal.......................................................................................................................................................................................5

1.3 Study Authority.......................................................................................................................................... 6

1.3.1 Implementation Guidance ..........................................................................................................................................6

1.4 Intervening Legislation........................................................................................................................... 6

1.4.1 Implementing Guidance ..............................................................................................................................................7

1.4.2 90-Day Report .................................................................................................................................................................8

1.4.3 GLMRIS Report ................................................................................................................................................................9

1.5 Underlying Study Principles ................................................................................................................. 9

1.5.1 Problems ......................................................................................................................................................................... 10

1.5.2 Opportunities ................................................................................................................................................................ 12

1.6 The GLMRIS Report Objectives ..........................................................................................................13

1.7 Federal Objective ....................................................................................................................................14

1.8 Constraints and Limiting Factors ......................................................................................................17

1.8.1 Legal and Policy Constraints .................................................................................................................................. 18

1.8.2 Resourcing Constraints ............................................................................................................................................ 18

1.8.3 Environmental Constraints .................................................................................................................................... 19

1.8.4 Social Constraints ....................................................................................................................................................... 19

1.9 Remaining Requirements ....................................................................................................................19

1.10 Next Steps................................................................................................................................................20

1.11 Study Area Description.......................................................................................................................20

1.12 Project Management Plan .................................................................................................................21

1.12.1 Focus Area 1: Chicago Area Waterway System........................................................................................... 21

1.12.2 Focus Area 2: Other Aquatic Pathways .......................................................................................................... 24

1.12.3 Coordinated Study Oversight .............................................................................................................................. 26

1.12.4 GLMRIS Report Study Area Focus ..................................................................................................................... 26

1.13 Study Scoping.........................................................................................................................................26

1.13.1 Cooperating Agencies ............................................................................................................................................. 27

1.13.2 NEPA Public Scoping............................................................................................................................................... 27

1.14 Stakeholder Engagement...................................................................................................................28

1.14.1 Executive Steering Committee ........................................................................................................................... 28

1.14.2 Interim Products ...................................................................................................................................................... 28

1.14.3 Other Engagement Activities .............................................................................................................................. 30

1.15 Additional ANS Control Efforts ........................................................................................................31

1.15.1 Efficacy Studies ......................................................................................................................................................... 31

1.15.2 Studies by Other Organizations ......................................................................................................................... 33

1.16 Summary of Affected Environment................................................................................................33

1.16.1 Overview ...................................................................................................................................................................... 33

1.16.2 Baseline Conditions ................................................................................................................................................. 34

1.16.3 Future Without Project Conditions .................................................................................................................. 41

CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVE PLAN DEVELOPMENT ................................................................... 53

2.1 SMART Planning ......................................................................................................................................53

2.2 Options and Technologies....................................................................................................................53

2.2.1 Identified ANS of Concern (25435) ................................................................................................................ 54
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

iv

Table of Contents (Cont.)

2.2.2 Identified Spectrum of Controls (96) ................................................................................................................. 54

2.2.3 Identified ANS of High and Medium Risk of Adverse Impacts (3513) ........................................... 56

2.2.4 Controls Screening (96) ...................................................................................................................................... 62

2.2.5 High and Medium ANS Targeted Measures ..................................................................................................... 65

2.6 Alternative Development.....................................................................................................................71

2.6.1 Alternative Development Strategies .................................................................................................................. 71

2.6.2 Waterway Uses and Users Impacts Analysis .................................................................................................. 72

2.6.3 Initial Alternative Development (Plans for DMP I) ...................................................................................... 73

2.7 Alternative Plan Evaluation (DMP-I) ...............................................................................................78

2.8 Mitigation for Alternative Plan Impacts .........................................................................................81

2.8.1 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................................................................. 87

CHAPTER 3 ALTERNATIVE PLANS ................................................................................................. 88

3.1 Alternative Plan Description ..............................................................................................................88

3.2 ANS Risk Reduction................................................................................................................................88

3.3 Estimated Alternative Cost..................................................................................................................90

3.4 Estimated Alternative Implementation Duration.......................................................................90

3.5 Complexity of Regulatory Compliance ............................................................................................91

3.6 Adaptive Management of Alternative Plans..................................................................................91

3.7 Typical Non-Federal Sponsor Requirements................................................................................92

3.8 Alternative Plan 1: No New Federal Action – Sustained Activities .......................................93

3.8.1 Alternative Plan Description .................................................................................................................................. 93

3.8.2 ANS Risk Reduction ................................................................................................................................................... 95

3.9 Alternative Plan 2: Nonstructural Control Technologies .........................................................95

3.9.1 Alternative Plan Description .................................................................................................................................. 95

3.9.2 ANS Risk Reduction ................................................................................................................................................... 98

3.9.3 Estimated Alternative Cost .................................................................................................................................. 101

3.9.4 Estimated Alternative Implementation Duration...................................................................................... 102

3.9.5 Complexity of Regulatory Compliance ........................................................................................................... 102

3.10 Alternative Plan 3: Mid-System Control Technologies without a Buffer Zone............103

3.10.1 Alternative Plan Description ............................................................................................................................ 103

3.10.2 ANS Risk Reduction .............................................................................................................................................. 109

3.10.3 Estimated Alternative Cost ............................................................................................................................... 115

3.10.4 Estimated Alternative Implementation Duration ................................................................................... 117

3.10.5 Complexity of Regulatory Compliance......................................................................................................... 117

3.11 Alternative Plan 4: Control Technology Alternative with a Buffer Zone.......................118

3.11.1 Alternative Plan Description ............................................................................................................................ 118

3.11.2 ANS Risk Reduction .............................................................................................................................................. 125

3.11.3 Estimated Alternative Cost ............................................................................................................................... 131

3.11.4 Estimated Alternative Implementation Duration ................................................................................... 132

3.11.5 Complexity of Regulatory Compliance......................................................................................................... 133

3.12 Alternative Plan 5: Lakefront Hydrologic Separation..........................................................133

3.12.1 Alternative Plan Description ............................................................................................................................ 133

3.12.2 ANS Risk Reduction .............................................................................................................................................. 141

3.12.3 Estimated Alternative Cost ............................................................................................................................... 148

3.12.4 Estimated Alternative Implementation Duration ................................................................................... 149

3.12.5 Complexity of Regulatory Compliance......................................................................................................... 150

3.13 Alternative Plan 6: Mid-System Hydrologic Separation......................................................150

3.13.1 Alternative Plan Description ............................................................................................................................ 150

3.13.2 ANS Risk Reduction .............................................................................................................................................. 160
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

v 

Table of Contents (Cont.)

3.13.3 Estimated Alternative Cost ............................................................................................................................... 161

3.13.4 Estimated Alternative Implementation Duration ................................................................................... 162

3.13.5 Complexity of Regulatory Compliance......................................................................................................... 162

3.14 Alternative Plan 7: Mid-System Separation Cal-Sag Open Control Technologies 

with a Buffer Zone ..........................................................................................................................163

3.14.1 Alternative Plan Description ............................................................................................................................ 163

3.14.2 ANS Risk Reduction .............................................................................................................................................. 172

3.14.3 Estimated Alternative Cost ............................................................................................................................... 172

3.14.4 Estimated Alternative Implementation Duration ................................................................................... 174

3.14.5 Complexity of Regulatory Compliance......................................................................................................... 175

3.15 Alternative Plan 8: Mid-System Separation CSSC Open Control Technologies 

with a Buffer Zone ..........................................................................................................................175

3.15.1 Alternative Plan Description ............................................................................................................................ 175

3.15.2 ANS Risk Reduction .............................................................................................................................................. 185

3.15.3 Estimated Alternative Cost ............................................................................................................................... 185

3.15.4 Estimated Alternative Implementation Duration ................................................................................... 186

3.15.5 Complexity of Regulatory Compliance......................................................................................................... 187

CHAPTER 4 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS .......................................................................................... 188

4.1 Evaluation Criteria ..............................................................................................................................188

4.2 Time When Alternatives Reduce Risk to Low for 13 High and Medium Risk ANS.......191

4.3 Summary of Findings ..........................................................................................................................193

CHAPTER 5 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 196

CHAPTER 6 LIST OF ACRONYMS .................................................................................................. 202

INDEX ...................................................................................................................................................... 205 

List of Figures

ES.1 Focus Area 1: GLMRIS Report Chicago Area Waterway System (CAWS).......................................... 2

1.1 GLMRIS Study Area............................................................................................................................................... 20

1.2 Focus Area 1: GLMRIS Report Chicago Area Waterway System ........................................................22

1.3 Focus Area 2: Other Aquatic Pathways.........................................................................................................25

1.4 GLMRIS Management Structure ......................................................................................................................29

2.1 ANS Control Alternative Development Process ........................................................................................64

2.2 GLMRIS Lock............................................................................................................................................................66

2.3 ANS Treatment Plant Processes ...................................................................................................................... 68

2.4 Cross section of the Electrical Barrier........................................................................................................... 69

2.5 Screened Sluice Gates........................................................................................................................................... 71

2.6 GLMRIS Measure Locations...............................................................................................................................74

2.7 Flow of Water in the CAWS under Typical Flow Conditions ...............................................................82
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

vi

List of Figures (Cont.)

2.8 Flow of Water in the CAWS under a 0.2% Annual Chance Exceedance Event 

Flow Conditions...................................................................................................................................................... 83

3.1 Locations of ANS Prevention and Mitigation Measures within the CAWS.................................. 104

3.2 Locations of ANS Prevention Measures with Additional Details .................................................... 105

3.3 Location Details of Mitigation Measures................................................................................................... 106

3.4 Timeline for Mid-System Control Technologies without a Buffer Zone – Flow 

Bypass Alternative ............................................................................................................................................. 117

3.5 Locations of ANS Prevention and Mitigation Measures within the CAWS.................................. 119

3.6 Locations of ANS Prevention Measures with Additional Details .................................................... 120

3.7 Locations of Mitigation Measures with Additional Details................................................................ 121

3.8 Timeline for Technology Alternative with Buffer Zone – CAWS Buffer Zone Alternative.... 133

3.9 Locations of ANS Prevention and Mitigation Measures within the CAWS.................................. 135

3.10 Location Details of ANS Prevention Measures ....................................................................................... 136

3.11 Further Location Details of Mitigation Measures.................................................................................. 137

3.12 Timeline for Lakefront Hydrologic Separation Alternative .............................................................. 150

3.13 Locations of ANS Prevention and Mitigation Measures within the CAWS.................................. 152

3.14 Location Details Regarding ANS Prevention Measures ...................................................................... 153

3.15 More Location Details Concerning Mitigation Measures ................................................................... 154

3.16 Further Location Details Concerning Sediment Remediation Measures..................................... 155

3.17 Mid-System Hydrologic Separation Timeline......................................................................................... 162

3.18 Locations of ANS Prevention and Mitigation Measures within the CAWS.................................. 164

3.19 Location Details of ANS Prevention Measures ....................................................................................... 165

3.20 Location Details of Mitigation Measures................................................................................................... 166

3.21 Location Details of Sediment Remediation Measures ......................................................................... 167

3.22 Mid-System Separation Cal-Sag Open Control Technologies with a Buffer Zone – 

Hybrid Cal-Sag Open Alternative Timeline .............................................................................................. 174

3.23 Locations of ANS Prevention and Mitigation Measures within the CAWS.................................. 177

3.24 Location Details of ANS Prevention Measures ....................................................................................... 178

3.25 Location Details of Mitigation Measures................................................................................................... 179

3.26 Location Details of Sediment Remediation Measures ......................................................................... 180

3.27 Mid-System Separation CSSC Open Control Technologies with a Buffer Zone – 

Hybrid CSSC Open Alternative Timeline................................................................................................... 187
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

vii

List of Tables

ES.1 GLMRIS Evaluation Criteria Summary..........................................................................................................11

1.1 USACE Invasive Species Costs ..........................................................................................................................17

1.2 Pathway and Waterway Matrix .......................................................................................................................23

1.3 Focus Area 1 Product Teams ............................................................................................................................24

1.4 Locations and Dates for GLMRIS Public Scoping Meetings ..................................................................28

1.5 Interim Products of GLMRIS .............................................................................................................................30

1.6 Baseline and Future Conditions for Focus Area 1 Study Area Resources ......................................44

2.1 Aquatic Nuisance Species Occurring in Either the Mississippi River or Great Lakes 

Basin to Be Evaluated for Risk of Adverse Impacts.................................................................................55

2.2 Aquatic Nuisance Species of Concern for the Great Lakes Basin.......................................................60

2.3 Aquatic Nuisance Species of Concern for the Mississippi River Basin ............................................61

2.4 Screening Criteria for DMP-I .............................................................................................................................78

2.5 DMP-1 Evaluation Table .....................................................................................................................................80

2.6 Potential Waterway Impacts on Use and User Categories ...................................................................84

2.7 Impacts to CAWS Uses and Users that Are Expected from Each GLMRIS Alternative ..............85

3.1 ANS Risk of Negative Impacts from Establishment.................................................................................95

3.2 Potential Effectiveness of Nonstructural Measures for Controlling Interbasin 

Transfer of the ANS of GLMRIS Concern......................................................................................................96

3.3 Estimated Alternative Cost............................................................................................................................. 102

3.4 Mid-System Control Technologies without a Buffer Zone – Flow Bypass Alternative .......... 103

3.5 Costs of Mid-System Control Technologies without a Buffer Zone – Flow Bypass 

Alternative............................................................................................................................................................. 116

3.6 Financial Responsibilities for Mid-System Control Technologies without a 

Buffer Zone – Flow Bypass Alternative ..................................................................................................... 116

3.7 Technology Alternative with Buffer Zone – CAWS Buffer Zone...................................................... 118

3.8 Costs for Technology Alternative with Buffer Zone – CAWS Buffer Zone Alternative........... 131

3.9 Financial Responsibilities for Technology Alternative with Buffer Zone – 

CAWS Buffer Zone Alternative ...................................................................................................................... 132

3.10 Lakefront Hydrologic Separation................................................................................................................. 134

3.11 Lakefront Hydrologic Separation Costs..................................................................................................... 148

3.12 Financial Responsibilities for the Lakefront Hydrologic Separation Alternative.................... 149

3.13 Mid-System Hydrologic Separation............................................................................................................. 151

3.14 Mid-System Hydrologic Separation Costs ................................................................................................ 161

3.15 Mid-System Hydrologic Separation Financial Responsibility.......................................................... 161
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

viii

List of Tables (Cont.)

3.16 Mid-System Separation Cal-Sag Open Control Technologies with a Buffer Zone – 

Hybrid Cal-Sag Open Alternative ................................................................................................................. 163

3.17 Costs of Mid-System Separation Cal-Sag Open Control Technologies with a 

Buffer Zone – Hybrid Cal-Sag Open Alternative..................................................................................... 173

3.18 Financial Responsibilities for Mid-System Separation Cal-Sag Open Control 

Technologies with a Buffer Zone – Hybrid Cal-Sag Open Alternative........................................... 173

3.19 Mid-System Separation CSSC Open Control Technologies with a Buffer Zone – 

Hybrid CSSC Open Alternative ...................................................................................................................... 176

3.20 Costs for Mid-System Separation CSSC Open Control Technologies with a 

Buffer Zone – Hybrid CSSC Open Alternative.......................................................................................... 185

3.21 Financial Responsibilities for Mid-System Separation CSSC Open Control 

Technologies with a Buffer Zone – Hybrid CSSC Open Alternative ............................................... 186

4.1 Final Evaluation Criteria.................................................................................................................................. 188

4.2 GLMRIS Evaluation Criteria Summary....................................................................................................... 189

4.3 Alternatives That Reduce ANS Risk Rating to Low in Relation to Time of Alternative 

Implementation................................................................................................................................................... 192
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

ix

List of Appendices

Appendix A Alternative Development Analyses 

Appendix B Affected Environment & Habitat

Appendix C Risk Assessments

Appendix D Economic Analyses

Appendix E Hydrologic & Hydraulic Analyses 

Appendix F Water Quality Analyses

Appendix G Phase I HTRW Site Assessments

Appendix H Geotechnical Engineering

Appendix I Structural Engineering 

Appendix J Civil Design

Appendix K Cost Engineering 

Appendix L Real Estate

Appendix M Correspondence 

Appendix N Focus Area 2 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

x 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

ES-1 

GLMRIS Report Executive Summary

The Great Lakes and Mississippi River Interbasin Study (GLMRIS) Report presents a comprehensive 

range of options and technologies available to prevent the interbasin transfer of aquatic nuisance species 

(ANS) between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River through aquatic pathways. The United States 

Corps of Engineers (USACE) pursued a structured study process to identify ANS of Concern, and then 

formulated and analyzed a suite of options and technologies to prevent transfer between the two basins, 

specifically within the Chicago Area Waterway System (CAWS) (Figure ES.1). The alternatives 

presented do not address ANS transfer via non-aquatic pathways. Nor do the alternatives address ANS 

transfer from beyond the study area boundaries, i.e., transfer via Canada, the St. Lawrence Seaway, or the 

Gulf of Mexico. 

In recent years, successful invasions of ANS have severely impacted the economic and environmental 

resources of the Great Lakes and Mississippi River basins. Aquatic nuisance species threaten native 

plants and animals, reduce biodiversity, harm important terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, degrade water 

quality, transport diseases, and result in economic, political, and social impacts. For these reasons, 

invasive species are of national and global concern. ANS populations span geographic and jurisdictional 

boundaries; thus, efforts to manage invasive species must be coordinated across watershed and 

jurisdictional boundaries. According to the National Invasive Species Council’s 2008 Management Plan, 

the best defense against aquatic nuisance species is prevention, stemming the tide of new introductions.

Study Authority 

GLMRIS was authorized by Section 3061(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 

(WRDA 2007), Public Law 110-114. Specifically, the statute authorizes the Secretary of the Army 

(Secretary), acting through the Chief of Engineers, to conduct a feasibility study of the range of options 

and technologies available to prevent aquatic nuisance species from spreading between the Great Lakes 

and the Mississippi River basins. This authority differs from a traditional USACE feasibility study 

authorization in that it directs the identification and assessment of a range of available options and 

technologies, rather than requiring the recommendation of a single plan.

In March 2009, Headquarters of USACE (HQUSACE) issued implementing guidance for Section 3061 of 

WRDA 2007. The implementation guidance directed that the study would include an analysis of the 

impacts associated with the implementation of any alternative plans on existing uses and users of the 

CAWS and an assessment of the need to mitigate for any such impacts. 

In July 2012, the GLMRIS authority was modified by Section 1538 of the Moving Ahead for Progress in 

the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), Public Law 112-141. MAP-21 directs the Secretary to expedite the 

completion of the report for the study, and, if the Secretary determines a project is justified, to proceed 

directly to Preconstruction Engineering and Design (PED). MAP-21 also directs the Secretary to focus 

the report on the CAWS, and to include an analysis of hydrologic separation as a means to prevent the 

spread of aquatic nuisance species between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River basins.
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

ES-2 

Figure ES.1 Focus Area 1: GLMRIS Report Chicago Area Waterway System (CAWS)
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

ES-3 

USACE had originally scoped the GLMRIS effort to result in a recommended plan and an associated 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 

42 U.S.C.§ 4321 et seq., for completion in late 2015. Although not required by the study authority, the 

Secretary retains the discretion under the study authority to recommend a specific alternative. The 

enactment of MAP-21 compelled reevaluation of the breadth of the study, given the compressed timeline. 

As a result, USACE determined that sufficient time was not available to complete the detailed analyses, 

reviews, and coordination needed for selecting a recommended plan and completing an EIS. This Report 

does not include a NEPA analysis, because “planning and technical studies which do not contain 

recommendations for authorization or funding for construction, but may recommend further study” are 

categorically excluded from NEPA documentation requirements. See 33 C.F.R.§ 230.9 (d). NEPA 

compliance documentation, along with other additional detailed analyses and requirements, would need to 

be completed prior to USACE implementing a specific plan.

Per the MAP-21 authority, the GLMRIS Report focuses on the five direct connections of the CAWS 

between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River basins. USACE evaluated all potential aquatic 

pathways between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River basins, and then divided them into two focus 

areas. Focus Area 1 consists of the aquatic pathways within the CAWS, which are the only continuous 

aquatic connections between the basins. Focus Area 2 includes all of the other potential aquatic pathways 

between the basins. A summary of current activities in Focus Area 2 can be found in Appendix N of the 

GLMRIS Report and on the GLMRIS website (http://glmris.anl.gov). 

Description of the CAWS 

The CAWS is a complex, multipurpose waterway that has many uses and users that developed to 

accommodate the needs of the City of Chicago as its population grew and economy expanded. Uses and 

users of the CAWS include, but are not limited to, stormwater management, effluent conveyance, water 

supply and discharge, emergency response vessels, commercial navigation, recreational boating, sport 

fishing, and power generation. The CAWS is operated by the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District 

of Greater Chicago (MWRD) primarily to accommodate stormwater and effluent conveyance and the 

USACE for the purpose of commercial and recreational navigation. A change in waterway conditions 

resulting from the implementation of a given alternative may require significant adaptation on the part of 

users of the CAWS and extensive change of system operations. Major users that rely upon the current 

configuration or conditions of the CAWS may face significant challenges in updating their infrastructure 

and management practices in order to meet new requirements.

What Is in the GLMRIS Report? 

The GLMRIS Report presents “a range of options and technologies available” to prevent the transfer of 

ANS through aquatic pathways between the basins. The GLMRIS Report focuses on the aquatic 

connections between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River basins that are located within the CAWS. 

This report includes general information on effectiveness, impacts, and costs for each type of alternative 

that should be considered by a decision-maker.
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

ES-4 

The following objectives formed the basis for development of the GLMRIS Report alternatives:

GLMRIS Report Objectives 

1. Prevent Aquatic Nuisance Species Transfer – Study the range of options and technologies 

available to prevent, by reducing the risk to the maximum extent possible, additional ANS 

transfer through the CAWS and other aquatic pathways between the Mississippi River and Great 

Lakes basins. For GLMRIS, USACE has interpreted the term “prevent” to mean the reduction of 

risk to the maximum extent possible, because it may not be technologically feasible to achieve an 

absolute solution. 

2. User and Resource Mitigation – Address the need to mitigate impacts on significant natural 

resources and existing waterway uses and users as identified in GLMRIS Implementation 

Guidance, such as, commercial navigation, recreational navigation, stormwater management, and 

recreation. 

The GLMRIS Report includes the following features and analyses:

• Study Goals, Objectives, Opportunities, and Constraints. 

• Inventory of Baseline and forecast of Future Conditions for the Detailed Study Area. 

• Baseline and Future without Project (FWOP) Conditions detailed assessment. 

• Risk Assessment of ANS of Concern to support formulation of alternatives.

• Screening Criteria and Screened ANS Controls based on ANS of Concern for the 

CAWS. 

• General description of range of alternatives, including the No New Federal Action 

Alternative. 

• Location map(s) for each alternative. 

• Conceptual design for each alternative and mitigation requirements. 

• Cost estimate and Cost Risks Analyses for each alternative. 

• General regulatory requirements and potential regulatory issues. 

• Evaluation of alternatives. 

• Status of Focus Area 2 studies.

What Is Not in the GLMRIS Report? 

Although MAP-21 allows the Secretary to proceed to PED, if a plan is determined to be justified, 

additional technical investigation, policy evaluation, NEPA analysis, site-specific detailed design, and 

public and state/agency reviews would need to be accomplished prior to the recommendation of a specific 

alternative. The alternatives presented in the GLMRIS Report do not address ANS transfer via nonaquatic pathways, nor do they address ANS transfer beyond the study area boundaries, such as transfer 

via Canada, the St. Lawrence Seaway, or the Gulf of Mexico.

Specifically, the GLMRIS Report does not include: 

• Site Specific Investigations and Analyses;

• Site Specific Designs;

• Detailed Drawings, Quantities, and Cost Estimates;

• Detailed evaluations of impacts and with-project mitigation requirements; 

• Optimized designs for controls and any mitigation features;

• A Recommended Plan;
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

ES-5 

• Independent External Peer Review Report; 

• USACE Planning Model Certification; and 

• Completed NEPA compliance documentation. 

GLMRIS Report Findings 

The transfer of ANS between basins could result in significant environmental, economic, political, and 

social consequences. In recent years, successful invasions of ANS have severely impacted the economic 

and environmental resources of the Great Lakes and Mississippi River basins.

Each alternative is feasible and designed to meet the objectives stated in the Report. Each alternative 

presents a different strategy to prevent ANS transfer between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River 

basins through the CAWS aquatic pathways. This Report includes general information on effectiveness, 

impacts, and costs for each type of alternative that should be considered by a decision-maker.

GLMRIS is a unique study for USACE. While it focuses on a significant water resource issue, the 

geographic scope and complexity of this study are much greater than traditional studies. As a result, 

some elements of traditional water resources planning processes were incorporated into GLMRIS, but 

GLMRIS also includes the use of innovative planning methods, including the use of qualitative risk 

methods and SMART Planning tools and techniques that facilitated progress on the study. Further, 

because of the level of public interest, GLMRIS has included the release of interim products that 

represent portions of the baseline analyses completed for the study, as well as a very high level of 

stakeholder engagement. The GLMRIS Team included subject matter experts from across USACE and a 

fully integrated Agency Technical Review Team.

Through the planning process, the GLMRIS Team developed four strategies for preventing ANS transfer: 

Nonstructural; Technologies; Hydrologic Separation; and Combination of Technologies and Hydrologic 

Separation. From these strategies, a total of eight alternatives are presented in the GLMRIS Report, as 

briefly described below: 

Alternative Plan 1: No New Federal Action – Sustained Activities 

The No New Federal Action – Sustained Activities Alternative essentially describes the current and future 

actions of federal, state, and local agencies in combating ANS and serves as a comparison point for the 

remaining alternatives. This alternative assumes that all ongoing efforts supported by federal agencies 

discussed for the baseline and future-without-project conditions continue through the project planning 

horizon, which currently includes telemetry and eDNA for Asian carp and Research and Development of 

ANS Controls. For the purposes of this analysis and based on input from state and local agencies, it was 

assumed that ongoing state and local support for monitoring and response directed at Asian carp would 

continue for at least the next decade. This alternative also assumes the continued operation of the existing 

Electric Dispersal Barriers (Barrier IIA and Barrier IIB), construction and operation of new Permanent 

Electric Barrier I, and associated monitoring and response actions by USACE and others to support 

electric barrier operations. This alternative also assumes all other ANS education, outreach, monitoring, 

and prevention activities currently supported will continue. 

Alternative Plan 2: Nonstructural 

Nonstructural measures are ANS Controls that do not require implementation of structural features. The 

Nonstructural Alternative evaluated measures that: (1) may be implemented relatively quickly; (2) pose 

little or no risk to human health or safety; (3) would not require the construction of any type of 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

ES-6 

infrastructure; (4) could act to stop or slow the arrival at and passage of at least some ANS; and (5) have 

been or are being currently implemented for other ANS elsewhere in North America, which would ensure 

the measure is consistent with U.S. laws and regulations.

This alternative contemplates activities that are not traditionally performed by USACE. To achieve the 

risk reduction produced by this alternative may require that these measures be implemented by other 

stakeholder groups such as other federal agencies, state agencies, local municipalities, and 

non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Nonstructural control technologies most effectively reduce risk 

of establishment for fish and plant ANS. All nonstructural measures identified are effective Best 

Management Practices capable of complementing other ANS Controls. 

Examples of nonstructural control measures include removal (e.g., netting), chemical control (e.g., use of 

herbicides), controlled waterway use (e.g., inspection and cleaning of watercraft before or after entry to a 

water body), and educational programs. 

Nonstructural measures have been included as part of each proposed structural alternative discussed 

below. This facilitates opportunities to enhance structural measures with targeted nonstructural measures. 

For example, in the alternatives that contain a CAWS Buffer Zone, nonstructural measures could be 

deployed in a rapid response action in the Buffer Zone, should they be necessary. Further, nonstructural 

alternatives could be implemented quickly, while remaining elements of a primarily structural plan were 

being designed and constructed. 

Alternative Plan 3: Mid-System Control Technologies without a Buffer Zone 

This strategy focused on maintaining the current operations of the CAWS with a minimal number of 

control points. This alternative includes nonstructural measures and two single point ANS Control 

technologies located at Stickney (IL) and Alsip (IL). These technologies reduce the risk of transfer of 

ANS between basins in both directions. Additionally, the nonstructural measures discussed above would 

also be implemented as part of this alternative.

At both Stickney (IL) and Alsip (IL), a new GLMRIS Lock would be constructed on the Chicago Sanitary 

and Ship Canal (CSSC) and the Cal-Sag Channel, respectively. A GLMRIS Lock is an ANS Control 

system that includes a lock chamber, approach channels, electric barriers, and an ANS Treatment Plant. 

The lock chamber is specifically designed to allow for controlled directional flushing. The approach 

channels built on either side of the lock would include electric barriers to prevent fish from entering the 

lock chamber. An ANS Treatment Plant would provide ANS treated water for lockages to ensure ANS 

not affected by the electric barriers would not transfer during lockages. These locks would remain closed 

at all times unless a vessel needed to cross to the other side. Additionally, if there were a power failure 

with the electric barriers or another maintenance concern, the locks would remain closed to prevent 

passage of ANS. In addition, the normal flow of the CAWS would be diverted from the channel on the 

lake side of the new locks, through ANS Treatment Plants at each location, and then discharged back to

the river side of the new locks.

There would be significant impacts to Flood Risk Management under this alternative that would require 

construction of three stormwater reservoirs, conveyance tunnels, and associated infrastructure. 

Alternative Plan 4: Control Technology Alternative with a Buffer Zone 

This strategy focused on maintaining the current operations of the CAWS by analyzing the system and 

then creating a Buffer Zone within the CAWS. This Buffer Zone is the segment of the waterway located 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

ES-7 

between the lakefront and downstream controls points. The water within this zone would be composed of 

discharge from ANS Treatment Plants, treated Water Reclamation Plant (WRP) effluent, precipitation, 

and stormwater. The Buffer Zone provides for redundancy in control points in the system and serves as a 

zone where an ANS response action could occur, if necessary. The presence of a Buffer Zone allows for 

greater freedom in the selection of ANS Controls. Since transfer is managed at two points, the control 

technology at each point only needs to be effective in a single direction. Additionally, the nonstructural 

measures discussed above would be implemented as part of this alternative. 

This alternative creates an ANS-free Buffer Zone by installing ANS Control measures along all five 

aquatic connections between the CAWS and Lake Michigan and by installing ANS Control measures at 

the single downstream point of the CAWS at Brandon Road (IL). This is achieved by modifying or 

replacing the existing structures at Wilmette (IL), Chicago (IL), T.J. O’Brien (IL), and Brandon Road (IL) 

and by constructing physical barriers along the uncontrolled pathways of the Grand Calumet River and 

Little Calumet River at Stateline (IL/IN) and Hammond (IN). Specifically, GLMRIS Locks with their 

associated features including directionally flushing lock chambers, approach channels, electric barriers, 

and ANS treatment plants will be installed at Chicago, T.J. O’Brien, and Brandon Road. Screened sluice 

gates are also included at Wilmette, T.J. O’Brien, and Chicago.

This alternative would allow for the operation of the CAWS to remain relatively unchanged and is not 

anticipated to significantly impact CAWS uses and users.

Alternative Plan 5: Lakefront Hydrologic Separation

This strategy focused on preventing the mixing of untreated surface waters between the Great Lakes and 

Mississippi River basins through hydrologic separation. Additionally, this alternative minimizes water 

quality impacts to Lake Michigan. This alternative includes four physical barriers located at Wilmette 

(IL), Chicago (IL), Calumet City (IL), and Hammond (IN). Additionally, the nonstructural measures 

discussed above would also be implemented as part of this alternative.

There would be significant induced flooding, impacts to the water quality of the CAWS, and impacts to 

commercial and recreational navigation under this alternative. Additional flood risks would be mitigated 

by construction of two stormwater reservoirs, conveyance tunnels, and pertinent features. Impacts to 

water quality of the CAWS would be mitigated by construction of ANS Treatment Plants to provide ANS 

treated water to the CAWS. Impacts to commercial navigation would not be mitigated because CAWS 

operators indicated they would not be likely to use a multi-modal facility. Additionally, a multi-modal 

facility owned by CenterPoint Properties currently operates in Joliet, Illinois. Impacts to recreation 

navigation may be mitigated by construction of lake side boat storage. 

Alternative Plan 6: Mid-System Hydrologic Separation 

This strategy focused on preventing the mixing of untreated surface waters between the Great Lakes and 

Mississippi River basins through hydrologic separation. Additionally, this alternative minimizes induced 

flooding impacts to the Chicago area. This alternative has two physical barriers located at Stickney (IL) 

and Alsip (IL). Additionally, the nonstructural measures discussed above would also be implemented as 

part of this alternative.

There would be significant impacts to the water quality of the CAWS, to the water quality of Lake 

Michigan, and to commercial and recreational navigation under this alternative. Impacts to the water 

quality of the CAWS and Lake Michigan would be mitigated by construction of three stormwater 

reservoirs, conveyance tunnels and pertinent features, sediment remediation within the CAWS, and by 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

ES-8 

re-routing Water Reclamation Plant effluent to the river side of the hydrologic separation. Impacts to 

commercial navigation would not be mitigated because CAWS operators indicated they would not be 

likely to use a multi-modal facility. Additionally, a multi-modal facility owned by CenterPoint Properties 

currently operates in Joliet, Illinois.

Alternative Plan 7: Mid-System Separation Cal-Sag Open Control Technologies 

with a Buffer Zone 

This alternative combines both technologies and hydrologic separation strategies to minimize impacts to 

existing CAWS uses and users. This alternative includes three physical barriers located at Stickney (IL), 

Stateline (IL/IN), and Hammond (IN) that will hydrologically separate four of the five aquatic pathways 

between the CAWS and Lake Michigan. Along the remaining aquatic pathway, a Buffer Zone would be 

established by the construction of ANS Control measures at T.J. O’Brien (IL) and Brandon Road (IL). 

Screened sluice gates are also included at T.J. O’Brien. Additionally, the nonstructural measures 

described above would be implemented as part of this alternative.

The ANS Controls at T.J. O’Brien and Brandon Road include GLMRIS Locks with their associated 

features including directionally flushing lock chambers, approach channels, electric barriers, and ANS 

Treatment Plants.

There would be significant impacts to the water quality of the CAWS, the water quality of Lake 

Michigan, and commercial and recreational navigation under this alternative. Impacts to the water quality 

of the CAWS and Lake Michigan would be mitigated by construction of three stormwater reservoirs, 

conveyance tunnels and pertinent features, sediment remediation, and by construction of tunnels to reroute Water Reclamation Plant effluent to the riverside of the hydrologic separation. 

Alternative Plan 8: Mid-System Separation CSSC Open Control Technologies with 

a Buffer Zone 

This alternative combines both technologies and hydrologic separation strategies to minimize impacts to 

existing CAWS uses and users. This alternative includes a physical barrier located at Alsip (IL) 

hydrologically separating three of the five aquatic pathways between the CAWS and Lake Michigan. 

Along the two remaining aquatic pathways, a Buffer Zone would be established by installing ANS 

Control measures at Wilmette (IL), Chicago (IL), and Brandon Road (IL). Additionally, the nonstructural 

measures described above would be implemented as part of this alternative. 

The ANS Controls at Chicago and Brandon Road include GLMRIS Locks with their associated features 

including directionally flushing lock chambers, approach channels, electric barriers, and ANS Treatment 

Plants. Screened sluice gates are also included at Wilmette and Chicago.

There would be significant impacts to the water quality of the CAWS, the water quality of Lake 

Michigan, and commercial and recreational navigation under this alternative. Impacts to the water quality 

of the CAWS and Lake Michigan would be mitigated by construction of two stormwater reservoirs, 

conveyance tunnels and pertinent features, sediment remediation, and by construction of tunnels to reroute existing Water Reclamation Plant effluent to the riverside of the hydrologic separation.
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

ES-9 

Alternative Adaptive Management 

Adaptive Management is a decision process that promotes flexible decision-making that can be adjusted 

in the face of uncertainties as outcomes from management actions and other events become better 

understood. For the GLMRIS Alternatives, two components to adaptive management were identified. 

First, is the ANS Control measure working as intended? Second, if the measure is not working as 

intended, how easy is it to change, reverse, or adapt the measure to function more effectively?

Study evaluation processes were consistent across all alternatives. Staged implementation and associated 

incremental risk reduction were not specifically considered by the GLMRIS Team for the GLMRIS 

Report, but could be beneficial in future analyses. For some alternatives, there are common plan elements 

which could provide flexibility during implementation to modify the original alternative to another 

alternative under certain circumstances. For example, the Technology with an ANS Buffer Zone could be 

staged for the implementation of ANS Control measures at Brandon Road (IL) as the first system control 

point. Implementation of these ANS Control measures at Brandon Road (IL) could evolve from the 

Technology with ANS Buffer Zone Alternative into the Mid-System Separation CSSC Open Alternative 

or the Mid-System Cal-Sag Open Alternative. It is anticipated that the early implementation of the 

Technology with an ANS Buffer Zone measures at Brandon Road (IL) would allow for the timely 

evaluation of the implementability and efficacy of the measures in this plan, allowing minimal deviation 

from achievement of its ANS risk reduction in either the total implementation of this alternative or the 

evolution into either of the two identified hybrid alternatives.

Risk and Uncertainty 

Some risks and uncertainties are inherent in many of the complex concepts discussed in the GLMRIS 

Report. The costs and implementation schedules presented in the GLMRIS Report are commensurate 

with the five percent level of detail in design for each alternative. At the level of detail presented in the 

GLMRIS Report, some assumptions were made for all the alternatives to reach this comparable level of 

detail. Each cost and implementation schedule estimate assumes that: the necessary funding to fully 

efficiently complete the alternative will be provided annually; and the necessary Real Estate and 

necessary permits to implement the alternative can be acquired and obtained in a timely manner. These 

risks cannot be quantified at this time and could have impacts upon the costs and implementation 

schedules for each alternative in the GLMRIS Report. For additional information on cost risks, refer to 

Appendix K; for additional information on implementation schedule risks, refer to section 3.4 of the 

GLMRIS Report.

There also is a risk that one or more presently identified ANS may transfer between the basins prior to 

alternative implementation, but these alternatives may be effective at preventing the transfer of future 

ANS. For a full discussion, refer to Section 4.2 of the GLMRIS Report and Appendix C. 

After alternative implementation, there are still residual risks of adverse impacts due to ANS transfer and 

establishment for each GLMRIS Alternative. First, a “Low” risk rating does not indicate that “No” risk 

remains, but instead indicates that a Low level of risk remains after alternative implementation. For 

instance, after implementation of the Lakefront Hydrologic Separation Alternative the tubenose goby 

received a “Low” risk rating because the physical barriers are constrained by the storm size they were 

designed to withhold. For additional information, refer to Appendix C. Second, residual risk of transfer 

remains along the Great Lakes and Mississippi River basin divide outside of the CAWS. For additional 

information, refer to Appendix N. Lastly, regardless of the implementation of any alternative, residual 

risk of interbasin transfer through non-aquatic pathways remains. The GLMRIS Alternatives address, to 

some level, non-aquatic pathways because each alternative includes nonstructural measures, such as 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

ES-10

public education and monitoring, that may deter but not completely address ANS transfer through nonaquatic pathways. For additional detail on non-aquatic pathways, refer to Appendix A. 

There is uncertainty associated with the ability of each alternative to control ANS transfer through the 

CAWs, and this uncertainty is discussed as part of the alternative risk assessments. The alternatives 

presented in this report include measures or technologies, such as the GLMRIS Lock, which are at a 

conceptual level of design but use existing process engineering concepts applied to control ANS. While 

the technologies incorporated into the alternatives are known, the combination of technologies and 

application of the technologies in some instances are non-traditional. For instance, UV is frequently used 

for water treatment plants, and the flushing mechanism concept in the GLMRIS Lock is used in many 

different types of water treatment. However, these technologies have not previously been applied to 

control the transfer of ANS. In addition, while USACE currently operates an electric barrier, there are 

ongoing studies associated with improving its efficacy. The level of uncertainty associated with an 

alternative’s rated risk reduction for each High and Medium ANS is discussed in detail in the project risk 

assessments found in Appendix C. 

GLMRIS Alternatives Evaluation Criteria 

The following table outlines the criteria that could be utilized by decision-makers to evaluate the 

GLMRIS Alternatives. Descriptions of the evaluation criteria and associated metrics can be found on the 

back of the table.

The costs presented in the GLMRIS Report are commensurate with the five percent level of detail in 

design for each alternative. The cost and schedule estimates are appropriately used in this report as a 

means to compare the alternatives presented. The funding stream for an alternative is assumed to be 

sufficient to support annual progress to meet corresponding implementation timelines. These cost and 

schedule estimates are not intended to support authorizing language, and will change with more detailed 

designs of an alternative.
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014

ES-11

Table ES.1 GLMRIS Evaluation Criteria Summary

GLMRIS Alternatives Evaluation Criteria†

Effectiveness at 

Preventing 

Interbasin Transfer

(at time of 

implementation)

Implementation

(years)

Effects of GLMRIS Alternatives

Cost of the 

ANS Control 

and Mitigation 

Measures4

Nonstructural 

& OMRR&R 

Costs

(annual)4

Negative 

CAWS 

Environmental 

Impacts

Negative 

Water 

Quality 

Impacts

(CAWS)

Negative Water 

Quality Impacts

(Lake 

Michigan)

Water Quality 

Mitigation 

Measures Cost4

FRM 

(net change in 

EEAD – an 

annual 

impact)

FRM 

Mitigation 

Measures 

Cost4

Commercial 

Cargo Cost 

Impacts 

(annual cost)

NonCargo 

Navigation 

Impacts

Complexity of 

Regulatory 

Compliance

GLMRIS Alternatives

No New Federal Action

– Sustained Activities 

The No New Federal Action – Sustained Activities Alternative assumes that any currently funded ANS prevention actions are maintained to include the operation of the existing 

electric barrier in Romeoville, IL. All alternatives below are actions in addition to the No New Federal Action – Sustained Activities Alternative. For complete details on this 

alternative, please review Section 3.8.

Nonstructural Control 

Technologies 0 L L L N/A $0 N/A Likely minimal3 L L $–5 $68 M 

Mid-System Control 

Technologies without a 

Buffer Zone – Flow 

Bypass2

25 M L L N/A $1.1 M $9,100 M $0.75 M L M $15,500 M $210 M 

Technology 

Alternative with a 

Buffer Zone2 10 H L L $1,600 M $0.6 M $2,000 M $0.50 M M M $7,800 M $220 M 

Lakefront Hydrologic 

Separation2 25 H M Improves1 $500 M $66.0 M $14,500 M $210 M H H $18,300 M $160 M 

Mid-System 

Hydrologic 

Separation2 25 L H H $12,900 M $1.1 M $24 M $250 M M H $15,500 M $140 M 

Hybrid – Mid-System 

Separation Cal-Sag 

Open2 25 H M M $8,300 M $28.1 M $1,900 M $7.30 M M H $15,100 M $180 M 

Hybrid – Mid-System 

Separation CSSC 

Open2 25 M H M $4,300 M ($26.4 M) $145 M $8.80 M M H $8,300 M $160 M 

† Evaluation Criteria Descriptions are located on the reverse side of this table.

1 Under the Lakefront Hydrologic Separation Alternative, stormwater and CSOs would no longer be able to backflow to Lake Michigan, likely reducing beach closures and contaminant loading to Lake Michigan.

2 This alternative includes the nonstructural measures identified in the Nonstructural Alternative.

3 A quantified evaluation of the impacts of the Nonstructural Alternative was unable to be completed. Based on professional judgment, the impacts are believed to be likely minimal.

4 The costs presented in the GLMRIS Report are commensurate with the five percent level of detail in design for each alternative. The cost and schedule estimates are appropriately used in this report as a means to compare the alternatives presented. The funding 

stream for an alternative is assumed to be sufficient to support annual progress to meet corresponding implementation timelines. These cost and schedule estimates are not intended to support authorizing language, and will change with more detailed designs of an 

alternative.

5 Estimated initial costs for the Nonstructural Alternative are assumed negligible and sufficiently captured by the estimate for the annual OMRR&R Costs.
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014

ES-12

Effectiveness at Preventing Interbasin Transfer. This criterion qualitatively assesses the alternative’s effectiveness at preventing ANS transfer based on the number of High and Medium risk ANS of Concern whose risk of establishment can be 

reduced from High or Medium to Low. This criterion is also influenced by the comparative levels of uncertainty associated with the ANS Control measures proposed in each alternative. Plans are given a “star” [*] rating; with four “stars” being 

the most effective.

Implementation. This criterion is the total number of years it will take for the alternative to fully realize projected risk reduction benefits.

Negative CAWS Environmental Impacts. This criterion qualitatively evaluates the negative effects of an alternative on the existing environment limited to the footprint area of the alternative’s construction and the alternative’s impact on the 

connectivity of the habitats in the CAWS.

CAWS Ecosystem Mitigation Measures Costs. This criterion presents the estimated costs to mitigate some of the negative environmental impacts of an alternative.

Water Quality Impacts (CAWS). This qualitative rating is based upon the output of the CAWS DUFLOW model. DUFLOW simulates the water quality (WQ) in the CAWS under baseline, future without project, and future with project 

conditions. DUFLOW simulation results are used to generate a CAWS Water Quality Index for each project alternative based on the percent increase in Days Out of Regulatory Compliance for three indicator constituents (Fecal Coliform, 

Dissolved Oxygen, and Chloride). A detailed discussion of these analyses can be found in Appendix F – Water Quality Analyses.

Water Quality Impacts (Lake Michigan). This qualitative rating is based upon the output of the CAWS DUFLOW and Lake Michigan FVCOM models. DUFLOW calculates the loads of pollutants discharged to Lake Michigan for the baseline, 

future without project, and future with project conditions. DUFLOW simulation results are used to generate a Lake Michigan Water Quality Index for each project alternative, based on the mass of pollutant loads to Lake Michigan for six 

indicator constituents (Biochemical Oxygen Demand, Total Nitrogen, Total Phosphorus, Total Suspended Solids, Chloride, and Fecal Coliform). A detailed discussion of these water quality analyses can be found in Appendix F – Water Quality 

Analyses.

Water Quality Mitigation Measures Costs. This criterion presents the estimated costs to mitigate the Water Quality Impacts to both the CAWS and Lake Michigan of an alternative. Further detailed discussion of the mitigation measures can be 

found in Appendix F – Water Quality, and the associated cost analyses are described in more detail in Appendix K. 

Flood Risk Management (FRM). This criterion displays the FRM impacts as the equivalent expected annual damages (EEAD) associated with implementing each GLMRIS Alternative plan. In the without-project conditions, damages are 

expected to occur to various structures. However, the implementation of a GLMRIS plan will either increase the total damages in the Chicago area (represented as positive values in this column) or decrease total damages in the Chicago area 

(negative value). Specifically, the values presented represent the difference (i.e., net change) between the without-project condition (EEAD of $231.241 million) and the with-project conditions. Positive values represent induced damages in the 

Chicago area. Negative values represent a reduction in overall damages in the Chicago area. Values show the unmitigated impacts. A more detailed discussion of this analysis can be found in Appendix E – Hydrologic & Hydraulic Analyses 

and Appendix D – Economic Analyses.

FRM Mitigation Measures Costs. This criterion presents the estimated costs to mitigate the FRM impacts of an alternative. Further detailed discussion of the mitigation measures can be found in Appendices E, and J, and the associated cost 

analyses are described in more detail in Appendix K. 

Commercial Cargo Cost Impacts. Normally, it is cheaper to move bulk commodities via waterways (waterborne transportation) than it is on land (i.e., via truck and rail). The difference between the costs of moving commodities on land and the 

cost of moving them on a waterway is called “transportation cost savings.” This criterion displays the losses in transportation cost savings if a GLMRIS Alternative is implemented. Several of the GLMRIS Alternative plans include measures 

that would decrease the efficiency of moving goods on the waterway, so the cost of shipping these goods via waterways increases. Therefore, there are fewer savings associated with moving the goods via water versus land. The greater the 

losses in transportation cost savings, the greater the cargo navigation impacts. A more detailed discussion of these analyses can be found in Appendix D – Economic Analyses.

Non-Cargo Navigation Impacts. This criterion, based on professional judgment, qualitatively states the impact of an alternative on non-cargo navigation in the CAWS, to include recreational navigation. The alternatives will be given a ranking 

of “High,” “Medium,” or “Low.” A more detailed discussion of these analyses can be found in Appendix D – Economic Analyses.

Complexity of Regulatory Compliance. This criterion qualitatively states the level of regulation that the alternative will be subject to and incorporates the complexity of the associated compliance with those regulations. The alternatives will be 

given a ranking of “High,” “Medium,” “Low,” or “None.” “High” means a high level of difficulty achieving regulatory compliance would be associated with the alternative. All alternatives will be fully compliant with applicable regulations.

Cost of the Alternative (ANS Controls and Mitigation). This criterion is a parametric cost estimate of each alternative. The cost estimate will include the cost of construction of the alternative measures, including any mitigation that would be 

required as part of the alternative. Cost estimates underwent an abbreviated risk analysis to determine an appropriate contingency percentage to be included in the cost. These estimates include costs for all work necessary to implement an 

alternative, although some of these costs may be borne by entities other than USACE. Cost estimates do not include final quantities. The costs presented in the GLMRIS Report are commensurate with the five percent level of detail in design for 

each alternative. The cost and schedule estimates are appropriately used in this report as a means to compare the alternatives presented. The funding stream for an alternative is assumed to be sufficient to support annual progress to meet 

corresponding implementation timelines. These cost and schedule estimates are not intended to support authorizing language, and will change with more detailed designs of an alternative. Further detailed discussion of this analysis can be found 

in Appendix K – Cost Engineering.

Nonstructural & OMRR&R Costs. This criterion is an estimate of the nonstructural measures and the annual operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and rehabilitation (OMRR&R) costs of an alternative. Further detailed discussion of this 

analysis can be found in Appendix K – Cost Engineering. 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

1 

Chapter 1 Overview

The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), in consultation with other federal agencies, Native 

American tribes, state agencies, local governments, and nongovernmental organizations, is conducting the 

Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study (GLMRIS). In accordance with the study 

authorization, USACE has evaluated a range of options and technologies, including hydrologic 

separation, that are intended to prevent aquatic nuisance species (ANS) transfer between the Great Lakes 

and Mississippi River basins via aquatic pathways. Located entirely within the United States, the 

GLMRIS study area includes the Great Lakes (GL) and Mississippi River (MR) basins.

GLMRIS was conducted as an Ecosystem Restoration Study. USACE Policy on Ecosystem Restoration 

includes both restoration and protection of natural resources and should include proactive engineering 

measures. “Protection” may be the primary purpose of an ecosystem project if the subject area is a high 

quality native ecosystem that is likely to be significantly degraded by man or nature in the reasonably 

foreseeable future and degradation of current quality can be substantially reduced through implementation 

of proactive engineering measures. The GLMRIS Report includes the development of options and 

technologies to prevent the interbasin transfer of aquatic nuisance species that would, if implemented, 

protect the environmental, economic, and political/social resources of the Great Lakes and the Mississippi 

River basins.

In recent years, successful invasions of aquatic nuisance species (ANS) have severely impacted the 

economic and environmental resources of the Great Lakes and Mississippi River Basins. Aquatic 

nuisance species threaten native plants and animals, reduce biodiversity, harm important terrestrial and 

aquatic ecosystems, degrade water quality, transport diseases, and result in economic, political, and social 

impacts. For these reasons, invasive species are of national and global concern. ANS populations span 

geographic and jurisdictional boundaries; thus, efforts to manage invasive species must be coordinated 

across watershed and jurisdictional boundaries. According to the National Invasive Species Council’s 

(NISC) 2008 Management Plan, the best defense against aquatic nuisance species is prevention, 

stemming the tide of new introductions. 

Recent ANS invasions to the Great Lakes and Mississippi River Basins include zebra mussels, quagga 

mussels, Eurasian ruffe, and Asian carps. For example, Zebra mussels, a native of Russia, were found in 

Lake Erie in 1998, and now zebra mussels are found in each of the Great Lakes, in the navigable waters 

of the Eastern United States, and in the Mississippi River Basin. Zebra mussels have inflicted 

tremendous damage to native ecosystems and to facilities using water, like power plants and municipal 

water suppliers. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent by water users, to control and eradicate 

zebra mussels. And, as zebra mussel populations in an area increase, native mussels decrease — a strong 

indication that zebra mussels are the cause. These invasive mussels can clog water intake and delivery 

pipes and dam intake gates. They adhere to boats, pilings, and most hard and some soft substrates. The 

mussels negatively impact water delivery systems, fire protection, and irrigation systems and require 

costly removal maintenance. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has developed a Zebra 

Mussel/Quagga Mussel Action Plan to address the continued movement of these aquatic nuisance species 

into the Western United States. The spread of quagga and zebra mussels across the West brings the 

potential to extend devastating impacts into a geographic area already challenged with severe waterrelated problems (http://www.fws.gov/fisheries/ans/).
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

2 

1.1 GLMRIS Report Roadmap

GLMRIS is a unique study for USACE. While it focuses on a significant water resource issue, the 

geographic scope and complexity of this study is much greater than traditional studies. As a result, some 

elements of traditional water resources planning processes were incorporated into GLMRIS, but GLMRIS 

also includes the use of innovative planning methods, including the use of qualitative risk methods, and 

“SMART Planning” tools and techniques that facilitated progress on the study. Further, because of the 

level of public interest, GLMRIS has included the release of Interim Products that represent portions of 

the baseline analyses completed for the study, as well as a very high level of stakeholder engagement. 

The GLMRIS Team included subject matter experts from across USACE and a fully integrated Agency 

Technical Review Team (ATR Team).

The study process for GLMRIS was developed in a stepwise fashion taking into account study authority, 

additional legislative direction, USACE policy, and agency implementation guidance. Scoping of the 

study considered the geographic extent of the study area — i.e., the Mississippi River and Great Lakes 

basins, as well as the need for more detailed analyses in specific portions of these large watersheds. The 

scoping process included the problem, as broadly identified in the study authority, opportunities to affect 

the problem, as well as physical, legal, and policy constraints. The scoping process included both internal 

and external scoping exercises designed to help USACE map out the study approach. USACE evaluated 

the range of options and technologies available, to prevent the spread of aquatic nuisance species between 

the Great Lakes and Mississippi River Basins in a manner that would protect or preserve environmental 

resources, rather than in a manner that restores impacted environmental resources back to pre-impact 

condition. 

Another key consideration was how to characterize the existing environmental, social-political, economic, 

and physical resources for a study conducted at such a large geographic scale. Evaluation of the affected 

environment was developed in some detail for the resources within the Chicago Area Waterway System 

(CAWS). A number of economic analyses were completed as part of the inventory and forecasting to 

include fisheries and their dependent industries. The information developed as part of inventory and 

forecasting will be used to assess impacts of project alternatives, rather than to place a value on the 

resources to be protected. Economic methods that provide a value for large natural resources, such as the 

Great Lakes, are not part of USACE study processes, but provide an assessment of economic parameters 

that could change in the future. Economic and related analyses also provide a means to evaluate the 

potential impacts of alternatives on existing uses and users of the waterways. For some uses and users, an 

economic evaluation was the most appropriate means of categorizing impacts. For other uses and users, 

more qualitative methods, including risk assessments, were considered the best available tools to utilize. 

The proposed study process, including individual analyses, was documented in a Project Management 

Plan (PMP). The PMP is available on the GLMRIS website at glmris.anl.gov. 

Twelve (12) scoping meetings were conducted at key locations in the Great Lakes and Mississippi River 

basins. The scoping processes further informed the study problem, opportunities, and constraints. A 

summary of the study scoping process is available at glmris.anl.gov. 

The following paragraphs include a general description of the key elements of GLMRIS. More detailed 

discussions on key study elements and the initial steps in the USACE Planning Process are set forth later 

in this chapter.

Step One of GLMRIS focused on the first step of the USACE Planning Process as defined in Water 

Resource Council report known as the “Principles and Guidelines” (WRC 1983): problem identification. 

This step includes development of the study goal, understanding of the problems and opportunities that 

could be addressed by a civil works projects, and those factors that could limit or constrain the analysis.
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

3 

Problem. The problem, as broadly defined in the study authority (Section 3061(d), Water Resources 

Development Act of 2007 (WRDA 2007)), is the transfer of aquatic nuisance species between the Great 

Lakes and Mississippi River basins. In order to determine which species the study should focus on, 

USACE developed a preliminary literature-based assessment of possible aquatic nuisance species. 

Initially more than 250 species were identified that were present in one basin and had the potential to 

invade the other basin, become established, and negatively impact the receiving basin. The initial list of 

species was reduced from more than 250 to 35, based on additional research, including confirmation that 

some of the species were already present in both basins. The species list and the process used to develop 

the list was reviewed by technical experts within USACE and other resource agencies including U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 

To further refine the list of ANS, a risk-based approach was utilized. The GLMRIS Risk Assessment 

methodology was modeled after a methodology used by the National ANS Task Force and the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) APHIS program was incorporated into the problem 

identification process. The Risk Assessment was conducted in consultation with the USDA-APHIS and 

USACE subject matter experts. The model considered both probability and consequences in the 

development of a risk rating for each of the 35 species. The analysis was conducted for four time steps: 

baseline (T0); ten years after baseline (T10); twenty-five years after baseline (T25); and fifty years after 

baseline (T50). The result of this qualitative analysis was a probability of establishment for each of the 35 

species. The results were characterized as High, Medium, or Low probabilities of establishment for each 

species for the four time steps. Thirteen species were identified as having a High or Medium probability 

of establishment. These thirteen species were the focus of the next major steps in the Planning Process 

and plan formulation, which included the identification of aquatic nuisance species control technologies, 

and the formulation of alternatives. 

Opportunity. The opportunities afforded for the study were informed by the authority and study 

problem. For GLMRIS, that opportunity is, in a broad sense, protection of the environmental and 

economic resources of the Mississippi River and Great Lakes basins from the impacts of ANS. From a 

basin perspective, the study included an assessment of the significance of the resources. The assessment 

identified both the technical and institutional significance of the resources of the Great Lakes and 

Mississippi River basins. Study opportunities were further refined based on both internal and external 

scoping efforts.

Constraints. The internal and external scoping process for GLMRIS also helped to define the 

constraints that would bound the universe of potential solutions to address the identified problem. 

Constraints identified were tied to the study authority, to the political-social boundaries of the basins, and 

to the resources of the two basins. The constraints were further refined based on additional analysis.

Step Two of GLMRIS focused on the second step of the Planning Process: inventory of resources and 

forecast of future without project conditions. As part of this stage of the study process, the GLMRIS 

Team developed and released of a number of Interim Products to the public. The Interim Products are 

detailed in Section 1.6.2 and are available on the project website glmris.anl.gov. 

Inventory and Forecast. From the basin-wide perspective to the more Detailed Study Area (CAWS), 

additional analyses were needed to fully understand the current state of the environmental, physical, 

economic, social, and political resources, as well as forecast impacts to those resources and uses and users 

of the CAWS through the period of analysis for both with and without project conditions. These uses and 

users include commercial and recreational navigation, stormwater conveyance and flood risk 

management, wastewater treatment plant effluent conveyance, industrial uses (withdrawal and discharge), 

and hydropower. 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

4 

Very detailed analyses of existing economic, environmental and physical resources in the Chicago Area 

Waterways Study areas were scoped and completed for the CAWS portion of the GLMRIS Detailed 

Study Area. The CAWS contains five direct connections between the Mississippi River and the Great 

Lakes basins. These analyses included:

• Environmental resources, including threatened and endangered species (T&E 

species) and cultural and historic resources for baseline and future conditions; 

• Hydrologic and hydraulic modeling (H&H modeling) of the CAWS and connected 

areas for baseline and future conditions; 

• Water quality modeling for the CAWS and near shore and southern Lake Michigan 

for baseline and future conditions; 

• Economic analyses of commercial and recreational navigation; commercial, 

recreational, and tribal fishing for the Great Lakes, Mississippi, and upper Ohio River 

basins; regional economics; and flood risk analysis of commercial and residential 

properties within the 500-year floodplain of the CAWS; and 

• Assessment for current uses and users of the CAWS.

Because it was anticipated that project alternatives could significantly modify the uses of the CAWS, 

models and other tools were developed to consider the effects of alternatives on the CAWS and on the 

uses and users of the CAWS. The tools identified impacts as well as providing a means, in some cases, of 

evaluating the effectiveness of mitigation. For example, H&H modeling for baseline and future 

conditions was used to quantify impacts to river stages of various alternatives and the need and magnitude 

of mitigation to address those river stage impacts. Further, H&H modeling was able to quantify the 

impacts on connected areas, including commercial, industrial, and residential basements from changed 

conditions in the waterway. Damage assessments were informed by output from the H&H modeling for 

substantial portions of the CAWS.

Various methods were utilized to quantitatively describe and assess the value of economic activities and 

resources that could be impacted in future with and without project conditions. Basin level assessments, 

such as fishing related activities, were conducted to identify possible negative impacts of ANS transfer 

and establishment. CAWS level assessments, such as navigation, flood risk management, water supply 

(including industrial use and discharges), and hydropower, were conducted to identify possible negative 

impacts of implementation of GLMRIS Report alternatives. When possible, the potential impacts to 

resources were quantified, but were otherwise qualitatively described. 

Step Three of GLMRIS follows the third step of the Planning Process: Plan Formulation. Plan 

Formulation was initiated with the development of the research-based ANS Controls Paper. The paper, 

released as an Interim Product in March 2012, documented all potential technologies that could be applied 

to prevent the transfer of ANS between the Mississippi River and Great Lakes basins. These measures 

were used as building blocks by the GLMRIS Team to develop alternative plans.

The GLMRIS Report was carefully organized to present the significant amount of completed analyses in 

a logical, stepwise fashion. The Main Report includes three chapters focusing on the Planning Process. 

Appendices include documentation of detailed analysis. Chapter 1 of the GLMRIS Report focuses on the 

study goal, problems, opportunities, objectives, and constraints for study. The chapter also includes 

limited discussion on prior studies, scoping, and stakeholder engagement in the study process. Chapter 1 

includes discussion on both Focus Area 1 (CAWS) and Focus Area 2 (Other Pathways). Following 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

5 

Chapter 1, the GLMRIS Report discusses only Focus Area 1, the CAWS. Additional information about 

Focus Area 2 and the study results may be found in Appendix N – Focus Area and on the GLMRIS 

project website, glmris.anl.gov. 

Chapter 2 of the GLMRIS Report introduces the Risk Assessment process, the identification of the 

“High” and “Medium” risk ANS, and the formulation process utilized to develop alternative plans. Also 

in Chapter 2, uses and users of the CAWS that could be impacted by GLMRIS Alternatives are identified. 

The implementation of a plan to prevent ANS transfer is likely to impact one or more of the other uses 

and users of the CAWS.

Chapter 3 of the GLMRIS Report presents a range of eight alternatives comprised of options and 

technologies that can address the transfer of ANS between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River basins. 

Each alternative description includes: the ANS Controls used to reduce the risk of ANS transfer; impacts 

to the CAWS uses and users; mitigation measures to minimize the impacts to uses and users; the risk 

reduction effected by the alternative; the anticipated cost of the alternative; and the estimated time to 

implement the alternative.

Chapter 4 of the GLMRIS Report presents fifteen evaluation criteria for the eight GLMRIS Alternatives

that could be used to compare the alternatives and is consistent with Step 4 of the Planning Process. A 

tradeoff analysis was not completed, and no alternative has been identified as the tentatively selected 

plan, nor is any preference or overall ranking of the alternatives shown in Chapter 4. 

Steps 5 and 6 of the Planning Process, Comparing Alternative Plans and Selecting a Plan, are not part of 

the GLMRIS Report. Consistent with the study authorization set forth in Section 3061 of WRDA 2007, 

the GLMRIS Report presents “a range of options and technologies available” to prevent the transfer of 

ANS between the basins, and does not select a recommended plan. Because it does not contain a 

recommendation, the report does not include National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance 

documentation. The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) legislation does allow 

the Secretary of the Army to proceed to project preconstruction engineering and design (PED) if a project 

is deemed to be justified, and steps five and six of the Planning Process and the associated NEPA 

compliance documentation would need to be completed as part of the selection of a specific plan. 

1.2 Report Intent

The intent of this GLMRIS Report is to present a range of options and technologies, summarized in a 

series of alternatives, to prevent the transfer of ANS between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River 

basins through aquatic pathways. This report does not include a recommended plan, but does include 

potential effects of the developed alternatives on aquatic and riparian environments, cultural and 

archaeological resources, and social and economic resources.

1.2.1 Goal

The overarching goal of this study is to develop a range of options and technologies to protect the Great 

Lakes and Mississippi River aquatic ecosystems from ANS that could transfer via aquatic pathways 

connecting the Great Lakes and Mississippi River basins.

The technical and institutional significance of the Great Lakes and Mississippi River basins and 

documented impacts associated with historical interbasin ANS transfer through other aquatic pathways 

including the CAWS, combined with future risk of transfer through the CAWS and other aquatic 

pathways, provide the need and purpose for GLMRIS. Several species transferred from the GL to the MR 

basin through the CAWS, including the zebra mussel, white perch, and round goby. Two Asian carp 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

6 

species, imported to the United States, have caused significant environmental impacts within the 

Mississippi River basin, including the Illinois River and Illinois Waterway, and pose a threat to the GL 

basin. Numerous other ANS, in addition to fish and mussels, may also use the CAWS as a dispersal 

pathway. The significance of the resources, the observed adverse impacts resulting from past transfer of 

ANS, and the potential for future ANS transfer support the goal to protect the Great Lakes and 

Mississippi River ecosystems.

1.3 Study Authority

The Great Lakes and Mississippi River Interbasin Study was authorized in Section 3061(d) of 

WRDA 2007, Public Law 110-114 as follows:

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 spread of aquatic nuisance species between the 

Great Lakes and Mississippi River Basins through the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal and other 

aquatic pathways.

This authority differs from traditional USACE feasibility study authorizations in that it directs the 

identification and assessment of a range of available options and technologies, and it does not require the 

recommendation of any one option. It also authorizes completion of study activities at full federal 

expense. 

1.3.1 Implementation Guidance

In March 2009, the HQUSACE issued implementing guidance for Section 3061 of WRDA 2007. The 

implementation guidance directed:

The feasibility study authorized by Section 3061(d) shall provide a thorough and comprehensive 

analysis of the options and technologies that could be applied to prevent the inter-basin transfer of 

aquatic nuisance species between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River through aquatic 

pathways. The impacts associated with the implementation of any of the final alternative plans 

shall include an impact analysis on all current uses of the CSSC. The analysis shall address the 

need to mitigate or provide alternative facilities or measures for the other users including 

commercial navigation, recreational navigation, storm water management and recreation. The 

study will be at 100% Federal expense and will be budgeted in accordance with the annual budget 

EC [Engineer Circular]. The study shall be conducted in consultation with appropriate Federal, 

state, local and nongovernmental entities. No work may be initiated on this study until funds are 

specifically appropriated by Congress for the study.

This implementing guidance was influential in the drafting of the Project Management Plan, the scoping 

of study activities, and the development of a robust stakeholder engagement strategy, which are discussed 

later in this chapter.

1.4 Intervening Legislation

In July 2012, the GLMRIS authority was modified by Section 1538 of Public Law 112-141 of the Moving 

Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). MAP-21 directs the Secretary of the Army 

(Secretary) to expedite the completion of the report for the study authorized by Section 3061(d) of 

WRDA 2007 and, if the Secretary determines a project is justified in the completed report, to proceed 

directly to PED.
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

7 

USACE has compiled this document, the Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study Report 

(GLMRIS Report), per the statute enacted by the MAP-21 legislation. The full text of Section 1538 of 

MAP-21 is as follows:

(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

(1) HYDROLOGICAL SEPARATION.—The term ‘‘hydrological separation’’ means a physical 

separation on the Chicago Area Waterway System that— 

(A) would disconnect the Mississippi River watershed from the Lake Michigan watershed; and

(B) shall be designed to be adequate in scope to prevent the transfer of all aquatic species between 

each of those bodies of water.

(2) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary of the Army, acting through the 

Chief of Engineers.

(b) EXPEDITED STUDY AND REPORT.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall— 

(A) expedite completion of the report for the study authorized by section 3061(d) of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 2007 (Public Law 110–114; 121 Stat. 1121); and

(B) if the Secretary determines a project is justified in the completed report, proceed directly to 

project preconstruction engineering and design.

(2) FOCUS.—In expediting the completion of the study and report under paragraph (1), the 

Secretary shall focus on— 

(A) the prevention of the spread of aquatic nuisance species between the Great Lakes and 

Mississippi River Basins, such as through the permanent hydrological separation of the Great 

Lakes and Mississippi River Basins; and

(B) the watersheds of the following rivers and tributaries associated with the Chicago Area 

Waterway System:

(i) The Illinois River, at and in the vicinity of Chicago, Illinois.

(ii) The Chicago River, Calumet River, North Shore Channel, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, 

and Cal-Sag Channel in the State of Illinois.

(iii) The Grand Calumet River and Little Calumet River in the States of Illinois and Indiana.

(3) EFFICIENT USE OF FUNDS.—The Secretary shall ensure the efficient use of funds to 

maximize the timely completion of the study and report under paragraph (1).

(4) DEADLINE.—The Secretary shall complete the report under paragraph (1) by not later than 

18 months after the date of enactment of this Act.

(5) INTERIM REPORT.—Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the 

Secretary shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of representatives and 

Senate, the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate, and the Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a report describing— 

(A) interim milestones that will be met prior to final completion of the study and report under 

paragraph (1); and

(B) funding necessary for completion of the study and report under paragraph (1), including 

funding necessary for completion of each interim milestone identified under subparagraph (A).

1.4.1 Implementing Guidance

In August 2012, the HQUSACE issued implementing guidance for Section 1538 of MAP-21. The 

implementation guidance directed:

Originally enacted in Section 3061(d) of WRDA 2007, the GLMRIS study authority requires the 

Secretary, in consultation with other entities, to fund at full federal expense a feasibility study of 

the range of options and technologies available to prevent aquatic nuisance species from spreading 

between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River Basins. Section 3061(d) differs from a 

traditional Corps feasibility study authority in several ways. First it directs the study to be 

conducted at full federal expense, in contrast to cost sharing requirements generally mandated for 

Corps studies of water resources development projects by Section 105 of WRDA 1986. Second, 

Section 3061(d) does not require participation by a non-federal sponsor in the study, instead 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

8 

directing USACE to perform the study ‘in consultation with appropriate federal, state, local, and 

nongovernmental entities.’ This also contrasts with the traditional feasibility study process of the 

Corps, which requires a binding agreement with a non-federal interest at the earliest stages of a 

study. Finally, Section 306l(d) uses a different description for the GLMRIS effort than that found 

in a traditional feasibility study authorization. Section 306l(d) requires a ‘feasibility study of the 

range of options and technologies available’ to prevent aquatic nuisance species from spreading 

between the Mississippi River Basins and the Great Lakes, rather than targeting a Corps 

recommended solution to traditional water resources problem. These distinctive aspects of the 

GLMRIS authority require a different study from that normally undertaken by USACE, but still 

allow the agency considerable discretion in fulfilling the study's mandate.

Section 1538 adds several requirements to GLMRIS, including a completion deadline and 

additional reporting and content requirements, but largely retains GLMRIS’s original scope as 

well as its lack of study cost sharing or any requirement of a non-federal study sponsor. Section 

1538 also continues to leave to the Secretary's discretion whether to identify a GLMRIS project 

for possible implementation, by stating that only if the Corps determines a project to be justified, 

will that project be required to proceed directly into PED. In short, Section 1538 does not direct 

specific changes to the GLMRIS study's scope or process, focusing instead on directing the Corps 

to quickly complete the study and include if at all possible a determination of whether any 

GLMRIS project is justified. This has allowed and will continue to allow USACE, in complying 

with the GLMRIS authority's requirements, to adopt a number of useful aspects of its traditional 

feasibility study process including the goal of finding a non-federal interest to partner with 

USACE in implementing a project if authorized by Congress.

This implementing guidance also provided direction on the drafting of the 90-day report required by the 

MAP-21 legislation:

USACE has determined that the GLMRIS study as currently planned by the district cannot be 

accomplished by the deadline imposed by the MAP-21 Act. That plan called for completion of the 

Focus Area I (CAWS) portion of the study in 2015 and completion of the Focus Area II (Other 

Pathways) portion of the study in 2018. Over the past two years, aggressive consideration of the 

plan has not resulted in effective ways to maintain all elements of the plan while accelerating the 

completion date. As described above, the 90-day report will explain what elements of the plan 

will be used for the report required by Section 1538. This explanation will include detail 

regarding how that will impact the ultimate product.

1.4.2 90-Day Report

In October 2012, USACE submitted the 90-Day Report outlining the milestones to be met prior to the 

completion of the 18-month GLMRIS Report and the funding necessary to complete those milestones. In 

its approach to considering how to satisfy the requirements set forth in the MAP-21, USACE took into 

account the deadline established by the MAP-21, the funds anticipated in fiscal year 2013, and the 

original GLMRIS study schedule, including necessary technical work, design and evaluation, 

environmental compliance analysis, required reviews, and stakeholder involvement. While the Corps 

had scoped the GLMRIS effort to result in a recommended plan and an associated EIS that would be 

completed in late 2015, the passage of the MAP-21 legislation compelled the reevaluation of the breadth 

of the study on a compressed timeline. As a result, even with additional funds, USACE determined that 

sufficient time was not available to complete the detailed analyses, reviews, and coordination needed for a 

recommended plan and EIS. For this reason, additional funding was not requested toward the completion 

of the GLMRIS Report under the expedited timeline.

As previously noted, this Report does not include an EA or EIS under NEPA, because “planning and 

technical studies which do not contain recommendations for authorization or funding for construction, but 

may recommend further study” are categorically excluded from NEPA documentation requirements. See 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

9 

33 C.F.R. 230.9 (d). Although an EA is not required, the GLMRIS 90-day report initially indicated that 

USACE planned to use an EA format in this Report to simply “assist agency planning and decisionmaking,” 40 C.F.R. 1501.3(b). However, as this report was further developed, USACE determined that 

the clarity of communication was better served by integrating the discussion of environmental impacts 

studied to date throughout the report, rather than placing them in a separate EA format. As discussed in 

Section 1.8.3, NEPA compliance documentation would need to be completed before USACE could make 

any recommendation for a specific alternative under GLMRIS.

1.4.3 GLMRIS Report

Due to the requirements enacted by Section 1538 of MAP-21, the GLMRIS Team refocused study efforts 

toward meeting the 18-month deadline. The requirements contained in MAP-21 cut approximately 

20 months from the study schedule, thereby impacting the scope and breadth of analysis that could be 

completed. The analysis presented in this report will provide Congress and other stakeholders with an 

analysis of potential alternatives, and other information that may be informative for decision-makers. It 

does not contain sufficient analysis to develop a recommended plan, nor have other critical analyses been

completed and documented in this report. The GLMRIS Report focuses on methods to prevent the 

transfer of aquatic nuisance species between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River basins, including 

hydrological separation as required by MAP-21. The analyses concentrate on the specifically named 

watersheds in MAP-21 associated with the Chicago Area Waterway System (CAWS). Therefore the 

majority of this report will concentrate on efforts in Focus Area 1, providing a summary of the efforts to 

date from Focus Area 2 in Appendix N – Focus Area 2. 

1.5 Underlying Study Principles

The USACE Planning Process follows the six-step process defined in the principles and guidelines set 

forth in WRC (1983). This process is a structured approach to problem solving which provides a rational 

framework for sound decision-making. The six steps are:

Step 1 – Identifying Problems and Opportunities 

Step 2 – Inventorying and Forecasting Conditions 

Step 3 – Formulating Alternative Plans 

Step 4 – Evaluating Alternative Plans

Step 5 – Comparing Alternative Plans

Step 6 – Selecting a Plan

USACE decision-making is generally based on the accomplishment and documentation of all of these 

steps. Steps 5and 6 of the Planning Process, Comparing Alternative Plans and Selecting a Plan, are not 

included in the GLMRIS Report. Consistent with the study authorization set forth in Section 3061 of 

WRDA 2007, the GLMRIS Report presents “a range of options and technologies available” to prevent the 

transfer of ANS between the basins, and does not select a recommended plan. The MAP-21 legislation 

does allow the Secretary to proceed to PED if a project is deemed to be justified, and Steps 5 and 6 of the 

Planning Process would need to be completed as part of the selection of a specific plan. 

It is important to stress the iterative nature of the Planning Process. As more information is acquired and 

developed, it may be necessary to reiterate some of the previous steps. The six steps, though presented 

and discussed in a sequential manner for ease of understanding, usually occur iteratively and sometimes 

concurrently. Iterations of steps are conducted as necessary to formulate efficient, effective, complete, 

and acceptable plans.
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

10

Another critical underlying study principle is the incorporation of risk into the conduct of the study. As 

noted in USACE Planning Guidance Notebook (ER1105-2-100) and in USACE (2006): 

“Planners shall characterize, to the extent possible, the different degrees of risk and uncertainty 

inherent in water resources planning and to describe them clearly so decisions can be based on the 

best available information. Risk-based analysis is defined as an approach to evaluation and 

decision making that explicitly, and to the extent practical, analytically incorporates considerations 

of risk and uncertainty.” (ER1105-2-100)

“Risk and uncertainty are intrinsic in water resources planning and design.” (USACE 2006) 

This approach provides the study team with methods to capture and quantify the extent of risk and 

uncertainty for some planning and design components. Examples include uncertainty with parameters 

used for numerical modeling including stream gage data, rainfall data, soil parameters, and other materialbased parameters. Numerical modeling methods include methodology to account for uncertainty related 

to input parameters. Another area of uncertainty is project design and cost estimates. In order to address 

cost-related risk and uncertainty, USACE conducts a Cost-Schedule Risk Assessment (CSRA). The 

CSRA results in documentation of the design and cost related risk and uncertainty and provides a 

methodology to set appropriate contingencies for the cost estimates.

USACE also utilizes qualitative risk assessments for some water resources studies. Recently, USACE 

adopted a risk-based approach to decision-making as part of the Planning Modernization Program. For 

GLMRIS, a qualitative risk process was used to assess risks associated with ANS, as well as determine 

the level of risk for various project alternatives. The approaches employed are consistent with risk 

assessment tools employed by the National ANS Task Force and the USDA. More discussion on the 

ANS Risk Assessment is contained in Chapter 2. 

1.5.1 Problems

1. Impact from Aquatic Nuisance Species – ANS cause significant environmental, economic, and 

social/political impacts within the MR and GL basins.

The need for action to remove, contain, and prevent non-native species from impairing native ecosystems 

and healthy economies was made extensively apparent as long ago as the 1950s, but with much more 

notoriety over the past 20 years. As discussed in the ANS White Paper, intentional and accidental species 

introductions are often associated with declines in native species richness and an overall decrease in 

biological diversity. Many consider the negative effects posed by invasive species to be of national and 

global significance, with these effects further compounded by habitat loss, impairments to natural 

processes, and commercial species depletion. In many instances, the addition of one aggressive nonnative species can displace several native species that share similar ecological traits. It is estimated that 

over 50,000 non-native species may have been introduced to the United States, which range from wellintentioned introductions like reed canary grass (Phalaris aurundinacea), to well-controlled agricultural 

species such as the corn cultivar (Zea maize), to accidental events such as the transfer of the round goby 

(Neogobius melanostomus) (Pimentel, et al. 2005). Approximately 10 percent of all introduced species 

studied become established, and only 10 percent of established species are considered invasive 

(Groves 1991). This approximation, known as the tens rule, implies that approximately 1 percent of all 

introduced species will become invasive (Jeschke and Strayer 2005; Pyšek and Richardson 2006). 

The introduction of ANS has had dramatic effects on natural resources and economies, with continued 

degradation of natural places such as the Chesapeake Bay and the Florida Everglades, as well as the Great 

Lakes and Upper Mississippi River basins. Pimental et al. (2005) estimated that invasive species cost the 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

11

United States more than $120 billion in damages every year. Additionally, when non-native species are 

introduced to complex ecosystems in which they did not evolve, their populations can grow rapidly, 

inducing further dispersal to other suitable areas.

The impacts of ANS are well documented for resources with specific emphasis on adverse effects. 

Environmental impacts include interspecies competition for space and resources, food chain disruption, 

and physical and chemical alteration of habitats. Economic impacts consist of commercial and 

recreational costs or lost time incurred due to changes created by ANS. These include costs necessary to 

manage the effects of an established species or lost time following regulations to ensure these species are 

not further spread. Social impacts include those associated with recreation losses, time losses, aesthetic 

degradation, and public services (drinking water, food production). Public opinion regarding the species 

impacts versus costs to address those impacts may also influence the management of ANS, and can even 

determine whether a particular species is considered a nuisance species.

2. Transfer of ANS through Aquatic Pathways – Currently, the CAWS and other aquatic 

pathways along the MR and GL basin divide provide opportunity for ANS to transfer and cause 

environmental, economic, and social/political impacts within the invaded basin.

GLMRIS defines pathways as determined by the Pathways Work Team, which is a partnership between 

the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force (ANSTF) and the National Invasive Species Council (NISC) 

Prevention Committee. This task force defines pathways as the means by which species are transported 

from one location to another. Pathways may be classified as natural pathways and man-made pathways. 

Natural pathways include natural migration and population spread of organisms, river and ocean currents, 

wind patterns, unusual weather events, and spread via migratory waterfowl. Man-made pathways include 

constructed channels, such as the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, and the Calumet-Sag Channel. 

Currently, GLMRIS is evaluating a subset of ANS poised to transfer via aquatic pathways from one basin 

to the other. These species are identified in the Non-Native Species of Concern and Dispersal Risk for the 

Great Lakes and Mississippi River Interbasin Study (http://glmris.anl.gov/documents/docs/NonNative_Species.pdf) and were assessed in the Risks of Adverse Impacts from the Movement through the 

CAWS and Establishment of Aquatic Nuisance Species between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River 

Basins. The five (5) CAWS pathways provide a complete year-round aquatic connection between the two 

basins that could allow the interbasin transfer for all 35 of the ANS of Concern. 

3. Transfer of ANS through Non-Aquatic Pathways – Non-aquatic pathways between the MR 

and GL basins provide a means for ANS to transfer and cause significant environmental, 

economic, and social/political impacts in the invaded basin.

Transfer of ANS is not limited to aquatic pathways. While impacts of non-aquatic transfer may be similar 

to aquatic transfer, effects may be realized at differing rates and magnitudes, depending on the transfer 

points and mechanisms. The GLMRIS authority includes provisions that direct the study to focus on 

ANS transfer via aquatic pathways, but the report acknowledges non-aquatic pathways for completeness.

4. Impacts of New Aquatic Nuisance Species – Aquatic pathways into the GL and MR basins 

along their unshared boundaries provide a means for new ANS to be introduced and cause 

significant environmental, economic, and social/political impacts.

Shared boundaries are those basins or watersheds that border the Great Lakes and Mississippi River 

basins, such as the Mobile Basin would be to the lower Mississippi River or the Atlantic Slope 

watersheds would be to the Ohio River basin. Species introduced to these basins outside of the study area 

also possess the potential for transfer into either the GL or MR basin. Historically, this was the primary 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

12

means of introduction of ANS into the Great Lakes basin (i.e., the Welland Canal, transoceanic shipping). 

In the event of a new ANS introduction, additional risk characterization could be performed to evaluate 

the probability of establishment for this newly identified species, and whether additional measures would 

need to be implemented to address the new ANS.

1.5.2 Opportunities

1. Control of Aquatic Nuisance Species – Control ANS spread between the GL and MR basins to 

avoid environmental, economic, and social/political impacts from ANS on the basins. 

USACE interprets the language in Section 3061(d) of WRDA 2007, which directs the Secretary of the 

Army to study options and technologies to “prevent” the spread of ANS between the GL and MR basins, 

as an opportunity to prevent or reduce the risk of ANS interbasin transfer to the maximum extent possible, 

because it may not be technologically feasible to achieve an absolute solution. While many agencies have 

taken and will continue to take action to prevent the spread of aquatic nuisance species, there are no largescale actions currently planned by others that will reduce the risk of interbasin transfer for a suite of 

problematic species. Opportunity exists for this study to investigate options and technologies that target 

ANS species or groups of species poised to transfer via the aquatic pathways connecting the Great Lakes 

and Mississippi River basins.

2. Control ANS Transfer through Aquatic Pathways – Protect the GL and MR basins from the 

significant environmental, economic, and social/political impacts of ANS by controlling the 

transfer of ANS through the Chicago Area Waterway System and other aquatic pathways along 

the MR and GL basin divide.

The divide separating the GL and MR basins spans nearly 1,500 miles that is breached by the permanent 

CAWS connection and a number of smaller viable aquatic pathways. The scope of the GLMRIS 

authority includes only the study of options and technologies available to prevent the spread of ANS via 

aquatic pathways between the MR and GL basins. Opportunity exists for this nontraditional study to 

investigate and to assess effective methods for dispersal prevention (risk reduction to the maximum extent 

possible) for ANS species that may transfer via the aquatic pathways.

3. Control ANS Transfer through Non-Aquatic Pathways – Protect the GL and MR basins from 

significant environmental, economic, and social/political impacts by controlling ANS transfer 

through non-aquatic pathways between the MR and GL basins.

Although non-aquatic pathways are beyond the GLMRIS study scope, recognizing that these pathways 

exist and pose a threat for interbasin transfer is critical to successful ANS transfer prevention and 

management. In order to minimize or eliminate ANS transfer in a whole systems context, these nonaquatic pathways require the attention of federal, state, and local governments, as well as public 

education, support, and involvement via avenues other than GLMRIS.

4. Control New Aquatic Nuisance Species – Protect the GL and MR basins from significant 

environmental, economic, and social/political impacts by controlling ANS transfer through 

aquatic pathways into the GL and MR basins along their unshared boundaries. 

Although outside the scope of the GLMRIS study authority, monitoring and effective management of 

ANS in basins adjacent to the study area, along with efforts to control introduction via aquatic pathways, 

may provide an opportunity to minimize environmental and economic impacts to the MR and GL basins. 

Identification of new species with the potential for introduction from outside the MR and GL basins 

would require planning and cooperation between governments and the public to prevent or minimize the 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

13

impacts of new ANS transfer. The global nature of modern commerce and travel will continue to 

encourage ANS transfer, making education and public outreach more important at an international level. 

1.6 The GLMRIS Report Objectives

Study objectives are statements that describe the desired results of the Planning Process by identifying the 

problems and realizing the opportunities associated with the study purpose and need. These objectives 

were used for the development and evaluation of alternative plans. Objectives must be clearly defined 

and provide information on the effect desired, the subject of the objective (what will be changed by 

accomplishing the objective), the location where the expected result will occur, the timing of the effect 

(when would the effect occur), and the duration of the effect.

As the GLMRIS authority is specifically focused on preventing ANS transfer via aquatic pathways, 

objectives are quite limited and are specifically directed at two of the four problem/opportunity 

statements, presented in Section 1.3: (1) Aquatic Nuisance Species and (2) Aquatic Pathways. 

Problem/opportunity statements (3) Non-Aquatic Pathways and (4) New Aquatic Nuisance Species are 

considered as part of the ANS risk assessment methodology, but are not specific objective of GLMRIS.

1. Prevent Aquatic Nuisance Species Transfer – Study the range of options and technologies 

available to prevent, by reducing the risk to the maximum extent possible, additional ANS 

transfer through the CAWS and other aquatic pathways between the MR and GL basins. For 

GLMRIS, USACE has interpreted the term “prevent” to mean the reduction of risk to the 

maximum extent possible, because it may not be technologically feasible to achieve an absolute 

solution.

The ultimate effect desired for this objective is the prevention of the transfer and subsequent 

establishment of new ANS to the Great Lakes and Mississippi River basins through aquatic pathways. 

USACE defines prevention as the reduction of risk to the maximum extent possible, because it may not 

technologically feasible to achieve an absolute solution. The risks and subsequent effects of ANS 

colonization of these habitat acres were assessed throughout the Great Lakes and Mississippi River 

basins. Measures developed to meet this objective need to result in the protection of aquatic resources 

including habitats and associated environmental, economic, and social resources. Effectiveness of plans 

developed from ANS control measures can be evaluated through a qualitative risk assessment. 

2. User and Resource Mitigation – Address the need to mitigate impacts on significant natural 

resources and existing waterway uses and users as identified in GLMRIS Implementation 

Guidance such as commercial navigation, recreational navigation, stormwater management, and 

recreation. 

The analysis shall address the need to mitigate the impacts of potential options and technologies on 

natural resources (such as water quality and ecosystems) and existing waterway uses and users (including 

commercial navigation, recreational navigation, and stormwater management). Technologies considered 

may be nonselective, meaning that there is no way to ensure that their implementation as a control for 

ANS transfer does not have potential for detrimental impacts to nontarget species. The array of 

alternative plans shall include an impact analysis associated with plan implementation on all current uses 

of the CAWS to the extent possible. The level and breadth of the impact analysis is not a NEPA analysis.
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

14

1.7 Federal Objective

The federal objective of water and related land resources planning is to contribute to national economic 

and/or ecosystem development in accordance with applicable national environmental statutes, executive 

orders, and other federal planning requirements and policies. USACE decisions regarding invasive 

species prevention, control, and management are guided by Executive Order 13112, Invasive Species; 

Executive Order 13340, Protection and Restoration of the Great Lakes; and the USACE Invasive Species 

Policy.

Protection of the nation’s environment is achieved when damage to the environment is avoided or 

reduced and important cultural and natural aspects of our nation’s heritage are preserved. Various 

environmental statutes and executive orders assist in ensuring that water resource planning is consistent 

with protection (see www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/laws/publiclaws.shtml). The objectives and 

requirements of applicable laws and executive orders are considered throughout the Planning Process in 

order to meet the federal objective. The following laws and executive orders that are applicable to this 

study include, but are not limited to: 

• Invasive Species (E.O. 13112) 

• Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention & Control Act of 1990, as amended 

(16 U.S.C.§ 4701 et seq.) 

• National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C.§ 4701 et seq.)

• Lacey Act, as amended (18 U.S.C.§ 42) 

• Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C.§ 7712) 

• Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.§ 1531 et seq.) 

• Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C.§ 661) 

• Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended (16 U.S.C.§ 703 et seq.) 

• Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds (E.O. 13186)

• Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended (33 U.S.C.§ 1251 et seq.) 

• Safe Drinking Water Act of 1986 as amended (42 U.S.C.§ 300f) 

• National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.§ 4321 et seq.) 

• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended (42 U.S.C.§ 6901, 

et seq.) 

• Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, as 

amended (42 U.S.C.§ 9601)

• Coastal Zone Management Act, as amended (16 U.S.C.§ 1451–1466) 

• Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C.§ 7401 et seq.) 

• Protection and Restoration of the Great Lakes (E.O. 13340) 

• Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality (E.O. 11514) 

• Floodplain Management (E.O. 11988) 

• Protection of Wetlands (E.O. 11990) 

• Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C.§ 1271 et seq.)

• Federal Water Project Recreation Act, as amended (16 U.S.C.§ 460L-12) 

Executive Order 13112, Invasive Species – This executive order calls for actions “to prevent the 

introduction of invasive species and provide for their control and to minimize the economic, ecological, 

and human health impacts that invasive species cause....” Utilizing the laws of the United States of 

America, including the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C.§ 4321 et 

seq.), Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990, as amended (16 U.S.C.§ 

4701 et seq.), Lacey Act, as amended (18 U.S.C.§ 42), Federal Plant Pest Act (7 U.S.C.§ 150aa et seq.), 

Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974, as amended (7 U.S.C.§ 2801 et seq.), Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.§ 1531 et seq.), and other pertinent statutes. 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

15

Executive Order (E.O.) 13112 established the National Invasive Species Council (NISC), a group of 

various federal agencies, and the Invasive Species Advisory Committee (ISAC), a group of 

30 non-federal stakeholders from diverse constituencies (representing state, tribal, local, and private 

concerns) around the Nation, to advise NISC on invasive species issues. In addition, E.O. 13112 called 

on NISC to prepare and issue the first national plan to deal with invasive species. 

Completed in 2001, the National Invasive Species Management Plan, Meeting the Invasive Species 

Challenge (2001 Plan), served as a comprehensive “blueprint” for federal action on invasive species, as 

well as NISC’s primary coordination tool. This coordination tool provided the first comprehensive 

national plan for invasive species action. It called for about 170 specific actions within nine categories of 

activity, about 100 of which have been established or completed. Actions identified in the 2001 Plan 

continue to be implemented.

The 2008–2012 National Invasive Species Management Plan (2008 Plan) was the first revision of the 

2001 Plan. The 2008 Plan focused upon five “Strategic Goals”: Prevention; Early Detection and Rapid 

Response; Control and Management; Restoration; and Organizational Collaboration. To accomplish 

these strategic goals, critical support for efforts such as research, data and information management, 

education and outreach, and international cooperation elements were included in the plan. The 2008 Plan 

identified prevention as the first line of defense, and calls for preventing the introduction and 

establishment of invasive species to reduce their impact on the environment, the economy, and health of 

the United States.

Executive Order 13112 also includes specific duties for federal agencies in regard to invasive or nuisance 

aquatic species. Excerpts from the order relating to federal agencies are contained in the following 

paragraphs: 

Section 2. Federal Agency Duties.

(a) Each Federal agency whose actions may affect the status of invasive species shall, to the extent 

practicable and permitted by law,

(1) identify such actions;

(2) subject to the availability of appropriations, and within Administration budgetary limits, use 

relevant programs and authorities to: (i) prevent the introduction of invasive species; (ii) detect 

and respond rapidly to and control populations of such species in a cost-effective and 

environmentally sound manner; (iii) monitor invasive species populations accurately and reliably; 

(iv) provide for restoration of native species and habitat conditions in ecosystems that have been 

invaded; (v) conduct research on invasive species and develop technologies to prevent 

introduction and provide for environmentally sound control of invasive species; and (vi) promote 

public education on invasive species and the means to address them; and

(3) not authorize, fund, or carry out actions that it believes are likely to cause or promote the 

introduction or spread of invasive species in the United States or elsewhere unless, pursuant to 

guidelines that it has prescribed, the agency has determined and made public its determination that 

the benefits of such actions clearly outweigh the potential harm caused by invasive species; and 

that all feasible and prudent measures to minimize risk of harm will be taken in conjunction with 

the actions.

(b) Federal agencies shall pursue the duties set forth in this section in consultation with the 

Invasive Species Council, consistent with the Invasive Species Management Plan and in 

cooperation with stakeholders, as appropriate, and, as approved by the Department of State, when 

Federal agencies are working with international organizations and foreign nations.
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

16

Executive Order 13340, Protection and Restoration of the Great Lakes – identified the Great Lakes 

as a national treasure and defined a federal policy to support local and regional efforts to restore and 

protect the Great Lakes ecosystem through the establishment of regional collaboration. A number of 

activities have been accomplished by federal agencies working in partnership with state, tribal, and local 

governments in response to the executive order. USACE has been a major participant in these activities. 

The executive order established the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force, composed of Secretaries from 

the Departments of State, Army, Agriculture, Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, Homeland 

Security, Interior, Transportation, the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 

and the Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality. The Task Force worked with the governors 

of the eight Great Lakes states, mayors, and tribal leaders to establish the Great Lakes Regional 

Collaboration. This partnership of federal, state, tribal, and local governments was officially formed in 

December 2004 at a ceremony in Chicago. The initial goal of the collaboration was to develop a strategy 

for the protection and restoration of the Great Lakes within 1 year (http://www.glrc.us). The 

collaboration developed the strategy by using teams consisting of 1,500 stakeholders for the following 

eight priority issues identified by the Great Lakes governors and mayors of which those in bold pertain to 

this study: 

1. Toxic contaminants 5. Contaminated sediments/AOCs 

2. Non-point source pollution 6. Indicators/information 

3. Coastal health 7. Sustainable development 

4. Habitat/species 8. Invasive species

USACE Invasive Species Policy Goals and Objectives

The USACE Invasive Species Management Plan was finalized in March 2009 in response to the National 

Invasive Species Management Plan and Executive Order 13112. In executing USACE missions, districts 

are faced with numerous and diverse issues concerning invasive species. These problems occur on Corps 

managed and/or administered lands and waters, lands, and waters being proposed for Federal Civil Works 

projects, and Corps lands utilized for out grants and permits. This policy is applicable to the entire 

spectrum of Civil Works programs and projects and meets the spirit of the National Invasive Species 

Management Plan. It supports USACE Environmental Operating Principles and will be applied to 

invasive species issues in the execution of all Civil Works Programs including operations, civil works, 

regulatory actions, and engineering research and development. Specific USACE objectives to achieve the 

intent of the national invasive species management plan (HQUSACE, March 2009) as it pertains to 

GLMRIS include: 

Leadership and Coordination Goal: Work strategically, using all Corps scientific, management, 

and partnership resources in unison to manage invasive species.

• Partner/coordinate with local, state, and federal agencies and non-governmental organization 

(NGOs) to manage invasive species at the project, regional, and national levels; examples include 

the Cooperative Weed Management Areas; Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force; Federal 

Interagency Committee on the Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds; and the 100th 

Meridian Initiative.

Prevention Goal: Prevent introduction and establishment of invasive species to reduce their impact 

on the environment, economy, and health of the United States.

• Identify pathways by which invasive species could potentially invade Corps-managed projects.

• Take steps to intercept pathways that are recognized as significant sources for the unintentional 

introduction of invasive species.
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

17

• Implement a process for identifying high priority invasive species that are likely to be introduced 

unintentionally.

• Develop a communication plan to share information about invasive species infestations on Corps 

projects.

Early Detection and Rapid Response Goal: Develop and enhance the capacity to identify, report, 

and effectively respond to newly discovered/localized invasive species.

• Develop monitoring plans for Corps-managed projects.

• Take steps to improve detection and identification of introduced invasive species.

• Each district and project should assess how their current management may be contributing to 

invasive species problems.

• Develop a program for coordinating rapid response to incipient invasions on Corps projects.

Control and Management Goal: Contain and reduce the spread and populations of established 

invasive species to minimize their harmful impacts.

• Develop and issue a protocol for ranking priority of invasive species control projects at local, 

regional, and ecosystem-based levels.

• Develop and implement control measures for invasive species in accordance with budget 

appropriations.

• Develop partnerships to leverage funding.

• Develop budget packages through the annual budgetary process to acquire funding to complete 

control measures.

• Develop exclusion and sanitation methods for preventing spread of invasive species.

• Develop assessment and monitoring plans for invasive species management areas.

Costs associated with Invasive Species Management for USACE projects, in accordance with the 

National Plan average approximately $130M per year (Table 1.1), with the majority of those costs 

allocated for ANS Control and Management. 

1.8 Constraints and Limiting Factors

Constraints or limiting factors include issues that restrict the Planning Process or implementation of 

features. Constraints that need to be considered are legal, policy, and resource constraints, as well as 

environmental factors. Legal and policy constraints are those defined by law and Corps policy and 

guidance. Resource constraints are those associated with limits on knowledge, expertise, experience, 

ability, data, information, money, and time. Environmental constraints are those that may adversely 

impact significant natural resources. The following constraints are specifically applicable to the study 

effort:

Table 1.1 USACE Invasive Species Costs

Strategic Goal

FY 2012

Actual

Expenditures

FY 2013

Estimated

FY 2014

President’s

Budget

Prevention Totals $16,749,079 $22,511,054 $8,477,825

Early Detection & Rapid Response Totals $7,855,293 $8,397,343 $9,225,489

Control and Management Totals $87,101,418 $66,785,775 $89,515,363

Research Totals $3,676,000 $4,648,000 $690,000

Restoration Totals $15,363,875 $26,828,950 $19,653,975

Education & Public Affairs Totals $2,879,213 $2,611,424 $2,796,070

International Cooperation Totals $1,261,000 $1,356,000 $1,505,000

Cumulative Total $134,886,478 $133,138,546 $131,833,722
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

18

1.8.1 Legal and Policy Constraints

• Study Authorization is limited to examining options and technologies that are 

available to prevent the transfer between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River 

basins through aquatic pathways. Human-mediated transfer, such as transport by 

persons on watercraft, bait bucket transfers, aquarium releases, pet trade, aquaculture 

practices, cultural practices, or overland transfer of ANS, is not within the purview of 

the study authority. In addition, the spread of ANS by attachment to nonaquatic 

animals, such as transport by migratory waterfowl, is also outside of the scope of this 

study. 

• Prevention of ANS transfer between the GL and MR basins through aquatic 

pathways includes the reduction of risk to the maximum extent possible, because it 

may not be technologically feasible to achieve an absolute solution although that is 

the desired end state.

• Shared Boundaries are recognized in terms of potential ANS transfer between the 

United States and Canada and between the Great Lakes basin and the Atlantic Slope 

drainage and between the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico. However, it is 

not within the study authority to address ANS issues between international 

boundaries or beyond the interface of the Great Lakes and Mississippi River basins. 

Despite this constraint, a commensurate level of involvement, coordination, and 

communication was pursued during the study scoping process, and in follow on 

public and stakeholders coordination outside of the Detailed Study Area, which 

includes other state and bi-national agencies.

• Law and Policies must be complied with if applicable. These include but are not 

limited to applicable statutes, regulations, treaties, court decrees, executive orders, 

and USACE policies. Regulatory requirements will be considered in the 

development of alternative plans, including mitigation features. Detailed 

assumptions regarding requirements relating to project features are discussed in 

Section 2.5. 

1.8.2 Resourcing Constraints

• Project Schedule and Resourcing limitations may preclude acquiring and/or 

analyzing certain data sets for planning level designs, costs, or benefits. Analyses for 

the GLMRIS Report were scaled to meet the MAP-21 schedule requirements. 

USACE had initially scoped GLMRIS to include the development of a recommended 

plan and associated NEPA compliance documentation. However, after the MAP-21 

legislation was enacted, USACE determined that the time required to complete a 

recommended plan and associated NEPA compliance documentation would exceed 

the 18-month report timeframe in the MAP-21 Act. As a result, the GLMRIS Report 

does not include a recommendation, but instead presents a range of options and 

technologies available to prevent the transfer of ANS between the Great Lakes and 

Mississippi River basins. The GLMRIS Report also documents additional analyses 

that would be needed prior to the identification of a recommended plan for 

implementation. Additionally, the Agencies and Stakeholders collaboration and 

contribution of resources and information may be limited in time and funding to 

provide necessary data and support.
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

19

1.8.3 Environmental Constraints

• Induced Flooding. The alternatives should avoid or minimize potential changes to 

hydraulic and hydrologic regimes. Small changes in flood stages can have significant 

effects within the study area due to flat topography. Identified measures must ensure 

that implementation would not result in adverse effects to properties, facilities, or the 

environment. Project features that would induce flooding will require consideration 

of additional measures to mitigate for flood impacts.

• Water Quality Degradation. The alternatives should avoid or minimize potential 

adverse effects on water quality of natural bodies of water such as Lake Michigan, 

the Illinois River, and the Des Plaines River. Any measure or alternative plans that 

would cause noncompliance with state water quality standards may require 

mitigation measures.

1.8.4 Social Constraints

• Use Change for Waterway Users. The alternatives should avoid or minimize 

potential changes to the infrastructure and operating parameters of the CAWS in 

terms of navigation, recreation, and water uses.

1.9 Remaining Requirements

The 90-day report identified milestones to be met prior to the completion of this report and the funding 

necessary to complete them. It included an inventory of additional analyses and legal and policy 

requirements that would not be addressed in the GLMRIS Report. The 90-day report noted that the 

following additional analyses would need to be completed after January 2014, but prior to recommending 

a specific alternative:

• Site-specific investigations and analyses;

• Site-specific designs;

• Detailed drawings, quantities, and cost estimates;

• Detailed evaluations of impacts and with-project mitigation requirements; 

• Optimized designs for controls and any mitigation features;

• A recommended plan; 

• Independent external peer review report;

• USACE Planning model certification; and

• Completed NEPA compliance documentation. 

Upon completion of analyses to date for the GLMRIS Report, this list remains an accurate synopsis of the 

remaining requirements needed prior to the recommendation of a specific alternative.

Involvement of a non-federal sponsor(s) willing to cost share a plan is required by USACE policy in order 

to recommend authorization of a project. See Engineer Regulation 1105-2-100 at 4-3. Under current law, 

non-federal sponsors are required to pay for 35% of environmental restoration projects implemented by 

USACE, and such projects may not be implemented until a non-federal sponsor enters into an agreement 

and assumes obligations on a variety of matters including cost sharing, real estate acquisition, and 

operation and maintenance activities. See 33 U.S.C.§ 2213(c)(7), (j). Thus implementation of a 

GLMRIS Alternative could not proceed unless a non-federal sponsor is identified, or the statutory 

authorization for implementation of a GLMRIS Alternative specifically changes these requirements.
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

20

1.10 Next Steps

Absent further direction and pending the availability of funding, the engagement of stakeholders will be a 

critical next step to try to identify and build consensus toward a collaborative path forward for GLMRIS. 

The completion of additional detailed investigations into one or more of the conceptual alternatives 

presented in this document would refine current assumptions and allow the team to fill gaps in critical 

datasets. Future study efforts to recommend a specific alternative would include state, agency, and public 

review/comment, as well as completion of statutory requirements including Model Certification and 

Independent External Peer Review. Portions of alternatives that do not fall within USACE mission areas 

may be referred to other entities for their consideration. 

1.11 Study Area Description

The GLMRIS study area includes the Great Lakes and Mississippi River basins within the United States 

with attention given to bordering watersheds (Figure 1.1). Potential aquatic pathways between the basins 

exist along the boundary between the two watersheds, indicated by the red/white dashed line. This 

interface is the primary concentration of the study. USACE has defined a Detailed Study Area to include 

the regions where the largest economic, environmental and social impacts of project alternatives are 

anticipated. The Detailed Study Area consists of the Upper Mississippi and Ohio River basins (shown in 

Green) and the Great Lakes basin (shown in Brown). Future ANS may transfer beyond the Detailed 

Study Area, as was observed by the spread of the zebra mussel from the Great Lakes to the Mississippi 

River basin; therefore, the General Study Area encompasses the lower Mississippi River basin and 

tributaries (shown in grey). 

Figure 1.1 GLMRIS Study Area
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

21

Not included within the study area are locations where watersheds direct flow to a basin other than the 

Mississippi River or Great Lakes basins (e.g., Hudson River, Delaware River, Susquehanna River, 

Chesapeake Bay, or Souris-Red-Rainy River basins). The Great Lakes and Mississippi River basins also 

have open surface water pathways to the Atlantic Ocean via the Gulf of Mexico, which are used for 

international commercial navigation, among other uses. For example, on the Great Lakes side are the 

Saint Lawrence Seaway and Erie Canal, and on the Mississippi River basin side are the Port of New 

Orleans and the Lock and Dam facilities on the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers upstream of their confluence. 

Evaluation of alternatives to prevent ANS transfer through those aquatic pathways is outside the scope of 

GLMRIS.

1.12 Project Management Plan

In accordance with the Study Authority and Implementation Guidance, study efforts were initiated upon 

receipt of Congressional Appropriations in June 2009. USACE established a study team to begin drafting 

a Project Management Plan (PMP), which defines project requirements, identifies expected outcomes, 

and guides project execution and decision-making authority. Primary uses of the PMP include the 

facilitation of communication among project participants, the delegation of project study team 

responsibilities, the definition of assumptions, and the documentation of the processes toward establishing 

a baseline plan for the scope of the study. The PMP exists as a “living” document that can be adjusted, as 

necessary and with the appropriate approval process, as a project evolves.

The PMP defines the project study area, as described above, and further details the operational 

management of GLMRIS activities into two Focus Areas. As the watershed boundary between the Great 

Lakes and Mississippi River basins covers a geographically large expanse, it was determined early in the 

study development process that overall programmatic management of study efforts would be conducted 

by the Great Lakes and Ohio River Division, located in Cincinnati, OH. As USACE studies are usually 

managed at the local District level, the PMP established that the Chicago District would concentrate 

resources on the CAWS — designated as Focus Area 1 — while the remainder of the watershed 

boundary, Focus Area 2, would be studied under the direction of the Buffalo (NY) District. This division 

of resources enhanced the ability to accelerate efforts on the respective tracks of study, but necessitated 

close coordination between the study teams. 

1.12.1 Focus Area 1: Chicago Area Waterway System

For the GLMRIS Report, the Chicago Area Waterway System (Figure 1.2) consists of approximately 

128 miles of waterways in the Chicago Metropolitan area used for conveyance of stormwater runoff and 

municipal wastewater effluent, commercial and recreational navigation, and flood control. Many of the 

waterways are man-made canals and channels, while others are natural streams, many of which have been 

dredged, realigned, widened, and straightened. The absence of gradual sloping banks, shallow littoral 

zone habitat, and bends result in a limited habitat for aquatic biota. Homogenous silty sediments that 

restrict macroinvertebrate and fish populations are deposited throughout much of the CAWS due to the 

unnatural stream flow dynamics (MWRD 2008). Water quality is also impaired throughout the system 

and fails to support many of the designated uses for the waterways (IEPA 2012). 

The CAWS contains five aquatic pathways between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River basins. As 

shown in Figure 1.2, each of these pathways has a single connection point to the Great Lakes basin: 

(1) Wilmette Pumping Station, (2) Chicago River Controlling Works (CRCW), (3) Calumet Harbor, 

(4) Indiana Harbor and Canal, and (5) Burns Small Boat Harbor. All five pathways share a common 

connection point with the Mississippi River basin at the Brandon Road Lock and Dam. The pathways are 

comprised of a combination of twelve waterways: North Shore Channel (NSC); North Branch Chicago 

River (NBCR); North Branch Canal (NBC); South Branch Chicago River (SBCR); Chicago River;
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

22

Figure 1.2 Focus Area 1: GLMRIS Report Chicago Area Waterway System
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

23

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal (CSSC); Little Calumet River (LCR); Calumet-Sag Channel, Calumet 

River; West Branch of the Grand Calumet River (GCR); Indiana Harbor and Canal (IHC); and, Burns 

Ditch/Burns Small Boat Harbor (Burns SBH).

Table 1.2 identifies which waterways comprise the five aquatic pathways in the CAWS.

The CAWS is a complex, multipurpose waterway that has many uses and users that developed to 

accommodate the needs of the City of Chicago as its population grew and economy expanded. Uses and 

users of the CAWS include, but are not limited to: stormwater management; effluent conveyance; water 

supply and discharge; emergency response vessels; commercial navigation; recreational boating; sport 

fishing; and power generation. The CAWS is operated by the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of 

Greater Chicago (MWRD) primarily to accommodate stormwater and effluent conveyance and USACE

for the purposes of commercial and recreational navigation. A change in waterway conditions resulting 

from the implementation of a given alternative may require significant adaptation on the part of users of 

the CAWS and extensive change of system operations. Major users that rely upon the current 

configuration or conditions of the CAWS may face significant challenges in updating their infrastructure 

and management practices in order to meet new requirements.

Table 1.2 Pathway and Waterway Matrix

Waterway

Pathway

North Shore ChannelNBCRNorth Branch CanalSBCRChicago RiverCSSCLittle CalCal-Sag ChannelCalumet RiverWest Branch Grand CalIndiana HarborBurns Ditch

Wilmette X X X X X

CRCW X X X

Calumet Harbor X X X X

Indiana Harbor X X X X

Burns SBH X X X X

Focus Area 1 CAWS Team Organization

In Focus Area 1, the CAWS Team was diversified into functional teams, comprised of regional or 

multidisciplinary collections of technical specialists. These Product Teams incorporate expertise from 

across the USACE organization, including subject-matter experts from USACE Centers of Expertise, 

District-based regional technical experts, and the USACE Engineering Research and Development

Center. Product Teams focused on broad topic areas that represented key data-gathering and modeling 

needs for the study. Each Product Team and Sub-Team includes a local (Chicago District-based) Team 

Lead, who serves as the nucleus of the study team. Team and Sub-Team Leads are responsible for 

oversight of team activities, compilation of information in a coordinated, hierarchical manner, and 

communication with the CAWS Project Management staff.

Table 1.3 identifies the Project Management and Product Team elements in Focus Area 1 and provides a 

brief description of the responsibilities of the teams.
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

24

Table 1.3 Focus Area 1 Product Teams

Role Mission Summary

Project Management Team Coordinate all elements of study activities among functional teams; 

responsible for staff-level implementation of all aspects of GLMRIS.

Navigation and Economics Team

- Cargo Navigation Sub-Team

- Non-Cargo Navigation Sub-Team

- Fisheries Sub-Team

- Flood Risk Management Sub-Team

Compile baseline information on economic aspects of the study area, 

including commercial and recreational navigation, fisheries, regional 

economics, hydropower, and water quality; conduct with-project 

analyses for cargo navigation, flood risk, and regional economics, and 

evaluate mitigation for impacts of various alternatives.

Natural Resources Team

- NEPA Sub-Team

Identify and quantify significant natural resources relevant to problems 

and opportunities; identify existing ANS, possible habitat, and 

potential transfer mechanisms; quantify baseline risks associated with 

ANS transfer. Initiate scoping processes and baseline analyses 

consistent with NEPA. 

Hydrology and Hydraulics Team Develop and apply hydrologic models to address relevant data 

requirements, including the identification of flood risks, and identify 

flood impact mitigation requirements for various alternative plans.

Environmental Quality Team Identify and quantify existing water quality constraints, including the 

forecasting and modeling of future conditions; identify other 

environmental factors including air quality, industrial users, and 

hazardous, toxic, or radioactive waste sites; and evaluate water quality 

impacts of various alternatives.

Technology Team Identify controls for identified ANS of Concern and estimate the cost 

to construct, operate, and maintain such ANS Controls; forecast 

effectiveness of controls on reducing ANS transfer risks.

Communications Team Establish a strategy for GLMRIS to ensure effective communication of 

pertinent, project-related information to project stakeholders and the 

public; facilitate an internal communications framework; and 

facilitated receipt of comments from stakeholders.

Plan Formulation Team Comprised of representatives from each of the above functional teams; 

responsible for the integration of the multiple study components, 

including coordination of the GLMRIS Report.

1.12.2 Focus Area 2: Other Aquatic Pathways

Focus Area 2 of GLMRIS evaluates potential surface-water connections between the Great Lakes and 

Mississippi River basins in the states of New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin, and 

Minnesota (Figure 1.3). Any surface water connections within the state of Illinois are incorporated within 

Focus Area 1 of GLMRIS. Focus Area 2 encompasses all natural and man-made aquatic surface water 

pathways and hydraulic connections that exist or may form intermittently between the basins outside of 

the CAWS. The focus of this investigation is along the approximately 1,500-mile basin divide that 

delineates the Great Lakes basin drainage from the drainage of the Mississippi River basin.

Focus Area 2 Other Aquatic Pathways Team Organization

In Focus Area 2, the Other Aquatic Pathways Team followed a parallel “team of teams” approach. Due to 

the significant natural variability associated with the hydrology and biology the vast geographic area 

following the watershed boundary, the Other Aquatic Pathways Team identified available experts from 

both within USACE as well as from outside sources. Local, state, and federal hydrologists and biologists 

were engaged to identify and assess conditions at each potential aquatic pathway along the basin divide. 

In addition, a sub-team within Focus Area 2 was formed to complete the ANS Controls Report for Eagle 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

25

Figure 1.3 Focus Area 2: Other Aquatic Pathways
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

26

Marsh. This team was led by USACE Louisville District which collaborated closely throughout the 

development of the report with the Indiana Department of Natural Resources (INDNR), U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), White House Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ), Little River Wetlands Project, Maumee River Basin Commission, Allen County Soil and 

Water Conservation District, and the Allen County Surveyor's Office. The entire report is available at: 

http://glmris.anl.gov/documents/interim/fa2/index.cfm. 

Staff from several USACE Districts as well as from state departments of natural resources, USGS, 

USFWS, and NOAA worked collaboratively to complete the Preliminary Risk Characterization in 2010. 

Following this report and its recommendations, a broader team of aquatic biologists, water resource 

scientists, and engineers was assembled to complete 18 detailed site investigations and provide input and 

guidance during the assessments. Pathway assessment teams were formed for each potential pathway 

location and were organized by state, all under project management by USACE. Approximately 

30 personnel from eight USACE Districts participated. Additionally, over 30 professionals from other 

federal and state organizations made significant contributions to these investigations over a 2.5 year 

period, including natural resource agencies, environmental quality agencies, conservation/protection 

agencies, as well as other state and local organizations. Many of these other agency personnel were 

embedded directly on the pathway assessment teams in the field assisting with ratings and providing data 

and professional judgment in the areas of aquatic biology, ANS, and hydrology. Approximately 

20 individuals from eight organizations also helped to complete independent technical reviews on the 

draft pathway assessment reports as well as a Summary Report for Focus Area 2 (FA2). The significance 

of the contributions from all of these non-USACE organizations cannot be overstated, and added greatly 

to the scientific rigor, thoroughness, and timely completion of the FA2 assessments. Further detail is 

provided in Appendix N to this report, as well as within the specific pathway assessment reports that are 

available at the website provided above.

1.12.3 Coordinated Study Oversight

To ensure consistent communication and coordination during the study, USACE leadership from the 

Great Lakes and Ohio River Division (LRD), as well as the Mississippi River Valley Division (MVD), 

formed an executive-level oversight committee known as the Senior Executive Review Group (SERG). 

The SERG is comprised of the Commanding Generals and Senior Executive Service representatives from 

LRD and MVD, District Commanders and Deputies for Project Management, or their designees, as well 

as the LRD and MVD Regional Integration Team representatives from Headquarters, USACE. The 

SERG meets quarterly to receive updates on the progress and direction of GLMRIS, and works directly 

with the Program Manger and Focus Area Project Managers to provide internal guidance in accordance 

with USACE policies and directives.

1.12.4 GLMRIS Report Study Area Focus

The MAP-21intervening legislation (Section 1.4) directed USACE to focus the GLMRIS Report on the 

Chicago Area Waterway System. As such, the alternatives presented in Chapter 3 were developed for 

Focus Area 1. Additional information about study activities for Focus Area 2 can be found in 

Appendix N.

1.13 Study Scoping

At the initiation of the GLMRIS effort, the USACE project team originally scoped the study to include

the development of a recommended plan and an associated Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

27

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). As part of that effort, NEPA public scoping meetings 

were conducted and cooperating agencies were sought. 

After the enactment of Section 1538 of Public Law 112-141 of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st 

Century Act (MAP-21), which required the submission of this Report on an expedited timeline, USACE 

determined that a recommended plan and the associated EIS could not be completed within the 18-month 

timeframe set forth in the MAP-21 legislation. Thus, the GLMRIS Report does not include a 

recommendation but, consistent with the unique authority in Section 3061 of WRDA 2007, presents “a 

range of options and technologies available” to prevent the transfer of ANS between the basins. As a 

result, this Report does not include NEPA documentation such as an EIS, because “planning and technical 

studies which do not contain recommendations for authorization or funding for construction, but may 

recommend further study” are categorically excluded from NEPA documentation requirements. See 

33 C.F.R. 230.9 (d). Although MAP-21 allows the Secretary to proceed to Preconstruction Engineering 

and Design (PED) if a project is found to be justified, NEPA compliance documentation, along with other 

additional analyses and requirements, would need to be completed prior to USACE recommending a 

specific plan.

1.13.1 Cooperating Agencies

In late 2009, USACE transmitted federal agency and Tribal scoping letters to agencies and tribes within 

the study area. The letters invited recipients to join the study team and participate in a collaborative 

GLMRIS effort. Cooperating Agency agreements were formalized with the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In addition, a formal 

memorandum of understanding (MOU) was signed by the U.S. Geological Survey to support GLMRIS 

efforts.

1.13.2 NEPA Public Scoping

As discussed above in Section 1.10, the USACE project team originally scoped the study to include an 

EIS under NEPA. When preparing an EIS, NEPA, requires the preparation and implementation of public 

participation plans to guide the public and stakeholder involvement process. A Notice of Intent (NOI) to 

prepare the GLMRIS Draft EIS was first published in the Federal Register on November 16, 2010, and a 

subsequent notice on February 14, 2011, announced additional NEPA public scoping meetings. The 

NOIs invited interested members of the public to provide comments on the scope and objectives of the 

EIS, including identification of issues and alternatives that should be considered in the EIS analysis.

Public scoping meetings were held to solicit comments from the public at twelve (12) locations within the 

Great Lakes and the Mississippi River basins. These meetings occurred between December 2010 and 

March 2011. Dates and locations of the public scoping meetings are listed in Table 1.4. During the 

scoping period, the public was provided with several methods for submitting comments or suggestions on 

GLMRIS, including via an online comment form on the project website, through standard mail, or in 

person at the public meetings; either by testifying or submitting written comments. The public scoping 

comment period started with the publication of the first NOI and ended March 31, 2011. 

Public comments were gathered and displayed on the GLMRIS project website, glmris.anl.gov. A report 

summarizing the NEPA scoping effort, titled Great Lakes and Mississippi River Interbasin Study 

Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Summary Report (USACE 2011), is also available online. 

However, as discussed in detail in Section 1.10, after Section 1538 of MAP-21 was enacted, USACE 

determined that a recommended plan and the associated EIS could not be completed within the 18-month 

timeframe set forth in the MAP-21 legislation. Thus, the GLMRIS Report does not include a 

recommendation or associated NEPA documentation. 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

28

Table 1.4 Locations and Dates for GLMRIS Public Scoping Meetings

City Date Location

Chicago, IL Dec.15, 2010 University of Chicago, Gleacher Center 

Buffalo, NY Jan. 11, 2011 Buffalo Conference Center, Hyatt Regency 

Cleveland, OH Jan. 13, 2011 Great Lakes Science Center 

Minneapolis, MN Jan. 20, 2011 University of Minnesota, McNamara Alumni Center 

Green Bay, WI Jan. 25, 2011 NE Wisconsin Technical College, Center for Business & Industry 

Traverse City, MI Jan. 27, 2011 Northwestern Michigan College, Hagerty Conference Center 

Cincinnati, OH Feb. 1, 2011 University of Cincinnati, Tangeman Center 

St. Louis, MO Feb. 8, 2011 Great Lakes River Museum, Alton, IL 

Vicksburg, MS Feb. 10, 2011 Vicksburg Convention Center 

Milwaukee, WI Feb. 15, 2011 O’Donnell Park Complex, Miller Room 

New Orleans, LA Feb. 17, 2011 Port of New Orleans Administration Building 

Ann Arbor, MI Mar. 18, 2011 Eagle Crest Conference Center, Ypsilanti, MI

1.14 Stakeholder Engagement

Through the scoping process with federal, state, and local agencies, as well as the initial public scoping 

effort, the study team recognized the critical nature of stakeholder engagement in the execution of 

GLMRIS. In accordance with the USACE Implementation Guidance, the GLMRIS Team developed a 

variety of methods to obtain input to the study process from appropriate federal, state, local, and 

nongovernmental entities and the public. Key efforts included the establishment of a multi-agency 

advisory committee, the release of interim study products, and a strong presence on the internet and social 

media.

1.14.1 Executive Steering Committee

As a supplement to the internal USACE study management structure, the PMP established the GLMRIS 

Executive Steering Committee (ESC). The purpose of the ESC was to provide macro-level study 

consultation and facilitate coordination among various federal, state, and bi-national agency interests and 

activities. The ESC is comprised of a collaborative body of federal, state, and regional governmental 

authorities that provide advice to the overall study by maintaining a working knowledge of GLMRIS, 

advising the study management team, and facilitating coordination among partner agencies. Agencies

were contacted to identify shared responsibilities among ANS prevention efforts, as well as acknowledge 

existing activities, while providing input on GLMRIS study efforts. ESC meetings are held quarterly, 

usually in conjunction with meetings of the Asian Carp Regional Coordinating Committee (ACRCC). 

The formation and function of the ESC is consistent with the GLMRIS study authorization, which 

directed the Secretary to consult with appropriate agencies in the conduct of the study. Figure 1.4 

displays the GLMRIS Management Structure.

1.14.2 Interim Products

Recognizing the significant stakeholder and public interest that GLMRIS generated during the scoping 

phase of the study, USACE decided to produce interim reports during the study process. A nontraditional practice in USACE studies, GLMRIS Interim Products were developed during the datagathering phases of the study to give insight to study progress, as well as to provide new study-related 

information to the public and stakeholder groups on a regular basis.
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

29

Figure 1.4 GLMRIS Management Structure
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

30

Interim Products were generated during the data-gathering phase, and included the results of baseline data 

collection for physical, environmental, and economic features of the study. USACE resources were 

dedicated to develop these documents and ensure that appropriate levels of technical review were 

completed, such that these reports could be released to the public. It was also recognized that potential 

intermediary actions might be identified as a result of these Interim Products to further focus study efforts 

or prompt interim actions. 

The Interim Products that were completed and released for GLMRIS are contained in Table 1.5. In all, 

the Focus Area 1 Team released eight (8) Interim Products covering a range of baseline environmental, 

economic, and social/cultural data, as well as the identification of ANS of Concern for the CAWS study 

area and an inventory of ANS Controls that may be applicable to one or more of the “ANS of Concern” 

identified for the CAWS. The Focus Area 2 Team evaluated potential aquatic pathways that exist or are 

likely to form across the nearly 1,500-mile basin divide separating the Mississippi River and Great Lakes 

basin watersheds. Following a preliminary characterization report, individual pathway assessment 

documents were assembled for each of the 18 identified sites, as well as an overall summary report.

Table 1.5 Interim Products of GLMRIS

Product Release Date

Focus Area 1

ANS White Paper Jul 2011

NEPA Scoping Report Sep 2011

Commercial Non-Cargo Navigation Baseline Sep 2011

Commercial Cargo Navigation Baseline Dec 2011

ANS Control Technology Report Apr 2012

Commercial Fisheries Baseline May 2012

Subsistence Fishing Review Jul 2012

Pro-Tournament Fishing Review Jul 2012

Focus Area 2

Preliminary Pathway Characterization Report Nov 2010

Final Pathway Characterization Report Sep 2012

Specific Pathway Reports (18) Sep 2012 through Mar 2013

Eagle Marsh ANS Controls Report Aug 2013

1.14.3 Other Engagement Activities

The identification and engagement of nongovernmental and community stakeholders who are interested 

in GLMRIS is a critical aspect of the overall study effort. In addition to the NEPA scoping effort that 

took place near the beginning of the study process, the GLMRIS Team continued to actively organize and 

participate in stakeholder meetings in an effort to promote coordination between agency groups, as well 

as the public, NGOs, and other project stakeholders. USACE primarily engaged and communicated with 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

31

stakeholders via a strong online and social media presence. The GLMRIS Team established a dedicated 

website, glmris.anl.gov, to capture study activities and inform stakeholders, and cultivated a regular 

presence on social media sites including Facebook and Twitter.

Interim Products were rolled out to the public and stakeholder groups via media releases and dedicated 

telephonic forums, as well as announced and posted to online resources. Updates on GLMRIS activities 

are provided at bi-weekly ACRCC meetings to inform and coordinate with other governmental agencies, 

and the GLMRIS Team participates at the scheduled public sessions that the ACRCC hosts on a regular 

basis. Information on upcoming events, summaries of ongoing efforts, and repositories of Interim 

Product information are all centralized on the GLMRIS website. The GLMRIS Team continues to strive 

to enhance stakeholder engagement through dissemination of information on the GLMRIS website, via 

social media, by publishing a quarterly newsletter, and participating in variety of publicly available 

meetings, conferences, and stakeholder engagement forums.

1.15 Additional ANS Control Efforts

During the public scoping period in late 2010 through early 2011, numerous comments were received by 

USACE demonstrating public and environmental stakeholder concern regarding the possible transfer of 

two Asian carp species, the Bighead and Silver carp, through the CAWS into the Great Lakes. The public 

scoping meetings and subsequent stakeholder engagement events allowed USACE the opportunity to 

highlight ongoing activities to prevent Asian carp transfer into the Great Lakes that are being conducted 

concurrently with GLMRIS efforts.

As a member of the Asian Carp Regional Coordinating Committee (ACRCC), USACE is committed to 

preventing Asian carp from utilizing potential aquatic pathways to transfer into the Great Lakes. USACE 

is contributing to this effort through the implementation of a four-pronged strategy, which includes 

(1) operation of electric barriers in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal (CSSC), (2) conducting studies 

to evaluate the effectiveness of the electric barriers, (3) participating in extensive monitoring of the CSSC 

for Asian carp, and (4) conducting GLMRIS. Additional detailed information on USACE efforts against 

Asian carp can be found at www.lrc.usace.army.mil. 

It is additionally important to differentiate between the scope and objectives of GLMRIS in comparison to 

other concurrent studies relating specifically to Asian carp and the CAWS. These other studies can be 

broadly differentiated into two categories: Efficacy Studies and Studies by Other Organizations. 

1.15.1 Efficacy Studies

In addition to GLMRIS, Section 3061(b)(1)(D) of WRDA 2007 directs the Secretary to conduct a study 

of a range of options or technologies for reducing impacts of hazards that may reduce the efficacy of the 

Electrical Dispersal Barrier System located on the CSSC. USACE has specifically focused the efficacy 

studies on efforts that could reduce the potential for Asian carp to enter Lake Michigan.

The Efficacy Study was developed as a series of interim reports by USACE. Completed reports include: 

Interim I, Dispersal Barrier Bypass Risk Reduction Study and Integrated Environmental Assessment; 

Interim II, Electrical Barrier Optimum Operating Parameters; Interim III, Modified Structures and 

Operations, Chicago Area Waterways and Integrated Environmental Assessment; and Interim IIIA, Fish 

Deterrent Dispersal Deterrents/Barriers, Illinois and Chicago Area Waterways and Environmental 

Assessment. The completed and approved studies are posted on the Chicago District website at 

www.lrc.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorksProjects/ANSPortal/Efficacy.aspx.
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

32

An additional Efficacy Study report, the Interim IV Efficacy Study Report, will be finalized in 2014. The 

report will document the improvements made to increase the efficacy of the Electric Barriers Project. 

Further, the report will include a risk analysis of the Electric Barriers Project, which will inform future 

improvements to the project. The report will also document efforts by other agency members of the 

ACRCC including monitoring, telemetry, controls, and population reduction. The Corps may complete 

additional Efficacy Studies in the future to document modifications to the project or to document 

additional recommendations consistent with the study authority. Summaries of the Efficacy Studies 

follow. 

(1) Interim I, Dispersal Barrier Bypass Risk Reduction Study and Integrated Environmental 

Assessment – This interim report was approved by the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil 

Works (ASA (CW)) on 12 January 2010 to construct measures to prevent Asian carp from 

bypassing the electrical barrier system during flood events on the Des Plaines River and through 

culverts in the Illinois and Michigan (I&M) Canal. USACE awarded a construction contract on 

21 April 2010 for the construction of the bypass barrier. Construction of the bypass barrier was 

completed in October 2010. 

(2) Interim IIA, Electrical Barrier Optimal Operating Parameters: Phase A, Laboratory 

Research and Safety Tests – This interim report provided an evaluation of tests conducted to 

determine the optimal operating parameters for the barriers. A follow-on report may be released 

after additional tests and evaluation of risk factors have been completed. The subsequent report 

will be used primarily to further inform barrier operations. 

(3) Interim III, Modified Structures and Operations, Chicago Area Waterways Risk Reduction 

Study and Integrated Environmental Assessment – This interim report presented an evaluation of 

the potential for risk reduction that might be achieved through potential changes in the operation 

of the CAWS structures, such as locks, sluice gates, and pumping stations, in consultation with 

the multi-agency working group. This report included an assessment of operational changes that 

could be implemented as needed by agencies that are responsible for fish population management 

efforts such as electrofishing, spot piscicide application, or intensive commercial fishing efforts 

by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and Illinois Department of Natural Resources 

(IDNR). This report was approved by the ASA (CW) on 13 July 2010. Installation of the sluice 

gate screens at the Chicago River Controlling Works at the Chicago Harbor Lock and at the 

Controlling Works at T.J. O’Brien Lock and Dam was completed in January 2011. 

(4) Interim IIIA, Fish Deterrent Barriers, Illinois and Chicago Area Waterways Risk Reduction 

Study and Integrated Environmental Assessment – This interim report investigated and evaluated 

additional deterrent measures within USACE authority that could be quickly employed to 

potentially reduce the risk of the Asian carp dispersing into the Great Lakes. This report focuses 

on evaluating measures that apply readily available fish deterrent and guidance technologies at 

key locations in the CAWS and downstream in the Illinois Waterway (IWW). This analysis was 

initially included in the scope of Interim III, but was cycled out to consider fielding a developing 

technology that was thought to be quickly deployable and relatively inexpensive. This report was 

approved by the ASA (CW) on 13 July 2010. 

(5) Interim IV Efficacy Study Report – This interim report will incorporate by reference the first 

four interim reports, documents the results of ongoing testing and analysis related to the Barriers 

Project, includes a systematic risk assessment of identified barrier failure modes, and identify 

upcoming risk reduction efforts for the Electric Barriers Project. Further, the report will include a 

comprehensive Environmental Assessment for the Electric Barriers Project. This report will

document the efforts of the ACRCC, and various working groups to address the risks posed by 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

33

Asian carp to the Great Lakes. The Interim IV Efficacy Study Report will also include a 

discussion of improvements to the Electric Barriers Project that have been completed by USACE 

since the enactment of WRDA 2007 that serve to increase the performance of the project and 

reduce risk associated with barrier failure modes. The Interim IV Efficacy Study Report will also 

include updates on other efforts to increase the efficacy of the Electric Barriers Project and 

further reduce risk related to potential bypasses of the project by Asian carp. These updates 

include work by USACE, as well as other federal and state agencies as part of the ACRCC. 

Additional topics will include: monitoring and response actions, eDNA monitoring; other modes 

of transit including ballast water, and commercial harvesting.

1.15.2 Studies by Other Organizations

In November 2008, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC) released a preliminary report 

documenting conditions of the CAWS, including history, uses, habitat, hydrology, and water quality. The 

GLFC report also documented potential separation technologies and scenarios toward the elimination of 

ANS transfer into the Great Lakes through the CAWS. The authors of the GLFC report cited “ecological 

separation” — prohibition of the movement or interbasin transfer of aquatic organisms between the 

Mississippi and Great Lakes basins via the CAWS — as the long-term approach to achieving protection 

for the Great Lakes and eliminating the risk of irreversible ecosystem damage. The text of the report can 

be found online at www.greatlakes.org/asian/carp. 

In January 2012, the Great Lakes Commission (GLC) and Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative 

(Cities Initiative or CI) released the results of a dedicated, 18-month study that focused on developing and 

evaluating alternatives to physically separate the Great Lakes and Mississippi River watersheds in the 

CAWS. Hydrologic separation was identified by the GLC/CI as the most practical method for preventing 

the movement of aquatic nuisance species between the basins. The technical findings of the GLC/CI 

study are detailed in a combination of reports and appendices, available online at www.glc.org, and are 

summarized in a report titled Restoring the Natural Divide: Separating the Great Lakes and the 

Mississippi River Basins in the Chicago Area Waterway System. 

1.16 Summary of Affected Environment

1.16.1 Overview

This section is a brief summary of the current conditions that exist in the study area, which are detailed in 

Appendix B – Affected Environment & Habitat. Appendix B includes documentation on baseline and 

future-without project conditions, for basin-wide as well as CAWS-specific resources. Future-without 

project conditions represent the projected or forecast conditions for resources within the study area for 

50 years, beginning in 2017. The baseline year of 2017 was selected for several reasons, set forth in 

Appendix B, including the anticipated completion dates of the Thornton Reservoir and Stage 1 of the 

McCook Reservoir; the Corps’ Electric Barrier System will be augmented by the operation of Permanent 

Barrier I and the adoption of new water quality standards for the CAWS. The GLMRIS Report utilized a 

50-year period of analysis. The appendix includes a general overview of the environment of the Great 

Lakes and Mississippi River basins for affected resources in varying levels of detail, with detailed 

assessments for CAWS specific resources. Detailed assessments were prepared for the report including: 

the ANS Risk Assessment; Water Quality Analyses (CAWS and Lake Michigan); and Hydrologic and 

Hydraulic Modeling (CAWS). The appendix also summarizes future-without project conditions related to 

efforts of local, state, and federal agencies in the areas of ANS control, CAWS operations, and water 

quality regulation. 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

34

1.16.2 Baseline Conditions

The development of the Metropolitan Chicago region is to some extent the development of the area 

waterways and the lakefront to accommodate the needs of a growing city. As the city and the 

surrounding region developed from settlement to city, the natural landscape and waterways were 

modified. The occasional overland connection between the Chicago and Des Plaines Rivers was known 

historically as Mud Lake. This ephemeral overland connection between Lake Michigan and the Illinois 

River was converted to a permanent connection over time, beginning with the construction of the I&M 

Canal in 1848, just 11 years after the City of Chicago was incorporated. In 1871 much of city was 

destroyed in the Great Chicago Fire. Reconstruction of the city was rapid, including the need for 

navigation channels to connect the growing city to other ports. The construction of the Chicago Sanitary 

and Ship Canal by 1900 completed the reversal of the Chicago River. In 1937, the Chicago River 

Controlling Works were constructed at the mouth of the Chicago River and Lake Michigan. Additional 

channels were dug and completed, including the Calumet-Sag Channel, which reversed the flow of the 

Little Calumet River. A controlling works was constructed first at Blue Island in 1922. The current lock 

and controlling works, the T.J. O’Brien Lock and Dam, were constructed closer to the mouth of the 

Calumet River by 1965. 

The newly constructed waterways served multiple functions for the City of Chicago. The waterways 

received sewage and floodwaters and conveyed the flow away from the city’s water supply, homes, and 

businesses. The waterways also served to transport commodities between the Great Lakes cities and ports 

to the east and the Mississippi River cities and ports to the west and south. Existing rivers were 

straightened and channelized. By the start of the 20th century, most of the area’s natural resources had 

been impacted or altered to facilitate growth of the City of Chicago and to support commerce. In addition 

to the development of the waterways, the physical landscape of the region was modified as residents 

strove to make this muddy low-lying area habitable. Modifications also included the development of 

large areas of landfill along the lakefront and the construction of timber crib revetments to protect the 

shoreline from wind and waves. USACE is currently working with the City of Chicago and the Chicago 

Park District to reconstruct 9.2 miles of original lakefront revetment which will protect critical 

infrastructure.

In addition to shoreline protection, USACE and other federal and local agencies are working to restore 

ecosystems throughout the metropolitan area including the lakefront and the CAWS. Every weekend 

throughout the year, volunteers gather at numerous locations to work on restoring the preserves and 

natural habitats. An example of this type of effort is the North Branch Restoration Project which is 

currently restoring fourteen sites along the North Branch of the Chicago River. The restoration projects 

support local flora and fauna, as well as migratory species that utilize Lake Michigan as a part of a 

globally significant flyway. Ecosystem restoration within the Mississippi River basin is also occurring at 

many locations including the Emiquon Project along the Illinois River. The Emiquon Project is one of 

the largest floodplain projects in the Midwest. The Mississippi River Environmental Management 

Program (EMP) is restoring and monitoring over 100,000 acres of aquatic habitat with the completion of 

54 projects. An additional 81,000 acres of restored habitat will result from the completion of 36 more 

projects currently under construction or in design.

Concerns about public health resulted in the formation of the Sanitary District of Chicago and the 

construction of sewage treatment plants in the early 1900s. Additional capital projects, including the 

Deep Tunnel Project initiated in the 1960s, were constructed to reduce the discharge of raw sewage to 

area waterways. Currently, USACE is working with MWRD to construct two large reservoirs designed to 

store flow from the Deep Tunnels until the water can be treated at a water reclamation plant (WRP). The 

McCook and Thornton Reservoirs will significantly reduce the amount and frequency of combined sewer 

overflows (CSOs), and will also lower water levels in the CAWS, reducing flood risks to area residents.
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

35

As regulatory requirements have changed over the past 50 years, water quality in the region has 

improved. The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) and the EPA are working to address the 

quality of discharges to the CAWS. The intent of recent regulations and enforcement actions have been 

focused on improving the water quality of the CAWS. Since 1972, most segments of the CAWS have 

been designated for Secondary Contact use, which includes fishing, kayaking, canoeing, boating, and 

other activities where water contact is minimal or incidental, but excludes swimming and other Primary 

Contact activities. Based on information generated through a Use Attainability Analysis (UAA) 

conducted by IEPA, it was determined that recreation in and on the water is attainable for many segments 

of the CAWS. In 2012, EPA approved new and revised use designations that better protect recreation on 

the CAWS. “Primary Contact Recreation” use designations are now in effect for 8 of 17 CAWS 

segments, consistent with recreational goal uses under Section 101(a)(2) of the Clean Water Act. 

Aquatic Nuisance Species

Improved water quality has also increased the potential for the transfer of ANS between the Great Lakes 

and Mississippi River basins. Recent transferred ANS include the zebra mussel, quagga mussel, and 

round goby. The CAWS has been the focus of significant efforts by local, state, and federal resources 

agencies to address problems related to potential transfer of ANS between the Great Lakes and 

Mississippi River basins over the past several years. Many of the efforts that have been undertaken since 

2009 have been supported by the ACRCC. The ACRCC is a bi-national organization led by the White 

House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). Supporting member agencies include: the City of 

Chicago (CoC); the Department Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DoF/OC); the Great Lakes Fishery 

Commission (GLFC); the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR); the Illinois Environmental 

Protection Agency (IEPA); the Indiana Department of Natural Resources (INDNR); the Michigan 

Department of Natural Resources (MDNR); the Michigan Office of the Great Lakes (MGL); the 

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR); the New York Department of Environmental 

Conservation (NYDEC); the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR); the Pennsylvania 

Department of Environmental Protection (PDEP); the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC); 

the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR); the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 

(OMNR); the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (MWRD); the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE); 

United States Coast Guard (USCG); United States Department of Transportation/Maritime 

Administration (USDOT/MA); United States Department of Agriculture (USDA); United States 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); and the 

United States Geological Survey (USGS).

The ACRCC’s 2013 Framework documents the member agencies efforts in the upcoming year to address 

the problem of ANS in the CAWS, particularly Asian carp. As noted in the 2013 ACRCC Framework, 

Asian carp, particularly bighead, silver, and black carp, pose a significant threat to the waters that 

they invade. One of the most severe aquatic invasive species (AIS) threats facing the Great Lakes 

today is movement of Asian carp species through the Chicago Area Waterway System (CAWS) 

and possibly other pathways that can connect the Great Lakes to the Mississippi River Basin. The 

Administration is implementing an unprecedented and comprehensive set of actions to prevent 

introduction and establishment of Asian carp populations in the Great Lakes.

These actions are being carried out by the ACRCC, with support from federal, state, provincial, and local 

agencies, and from private stakeholders and citizens. The ACRCC implements actions for protecting and 

maintaining the integrity and safety of the Great Lakes ecosystem from an Asian carp invasion via all 

viable pathways. The ACRCC management strategy and current and future actions are reported annually 

in the Asian Carp Control Strategy Framework (ACRCC 2013). 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

36

Actions that comprise the Framework’s strategy include:

• Prevention and development of prevention technologies; 

• Monitoring and development of monitoring technologies;

• Development of control technology and impact mitigation; and 

• Other supporting actions (education, outreach, and regulatory support). 

The primary role of USACE in the ACRCC includes the construction, operation, and maintenance of the 

Electric Dispersal Barriers located on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal (CSSC) in Romeoville, IL. 

USACE personnel also play key roles in the Monitoring and Rapid Response Workgroup (MRRWG) of 

the ACRCC as participants in monitoring programs and in the development of monitoring techniques and 

strategies to evaluate and improve the functionality of the Electric Dispersal Barriers. These efforts 

include the use of telemetry and DIDSON cameras to evaluate barrier effectiveness and participation in 

interagency use and refinement of environmental DNA (eDNA). While eDNA sample collection and 

testing have been transferred to the USFWS, USACE is completing calibration studies on the 

methodology. 

In addition, USACE has developed a series of studies to improve the efficacy of the Electric Barriers 

Project. These studies, completed by USACE as a series of interim reports, documented interim measures 

that could be undertaken to address identified problems within the project study area and as potentially 

implementable technologies and actions to deploy in support of this multi-agency effort were identified. 

To date, USACE has completed four Efficacy Studies: Interim I, Interim II, Interim III and Interim IIIA, 

and will complete the Interim IV Efficacy Study in 2014. Recommendations from three of the four 

completed studies have been implemented including the construction of the Des Plaines and I&M Canal 

Bypass Barriers, modification of barrier operating parameters, and the installation of fish screens on 

sluice gates at two lakefront controlling works. The Efficacy Studies were not intended to evaluate 

permanent solutions to ANS interbasin transfer. In all cases, permanent solutions to the interbasin 

transfer of aquatic nuisance species were deferred to GLMRIS.

A 2011 GLMRIS white paper identified 254 aquatic nuisance species as being present in the MR basin 

and GL basin (Veraldi et al. 2011). Screening and evaluation of these species narrowed the field to 

35 species of concern, 10 of concern for potential transfer to the GL basin, and 25 of concern for potential 

transfer to the MR basin. The ANS risk assessment characterized the risk of each of these 35 species 

undergoing interbasin transfer and determined that 13 species pose a High or Medium risk of adverse 

impacts to either basin (Hlohowskyj et al. 2012). Risk is understood as the likelihood of adverse impacts 

resulting from the establishment of ANS in the new basin. The level of risk associated with each species 

is characterized by considering both the probability and consequences of establishment. 

The adverse impacts caused by interbasin ANS transfer may be environmental, economic, and 

social/political. Environmental impacts may include disruptions to important ecosystem functions such as 

nutrient cycling and primary production, and may alter food web dynamics. ANS establishment may also 

result in adverse impacts to habitat quality and availability, competition and predation, biodiversity, and 

species protected under the Endangered Species Act. Adverse economic impacts of ANS establishment 

may include loss of consumer surplus, decreased coastal property values, and reductions in charter boat 

activity, recreational fishing, commercial fish abundance, and service industry jobs and income. ANS 

establishment may result in increased water treatment costs and increased maintenance costs for water 

withdrawal structures and fouled boat hulls. Interbasin ANS transfer also has the potential to result in 

social/political consequences, including the perceived impacts to swimming, fishing, hunting, and boating 

and changes to related regulations.
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

37

Significance of Resources

As part of the baseline assessment, preliminary assessments were completed on the significance of the 

Great Lakes and Mississippi River ecosystems in terms of institutional and technical recognition. The 

analysis provides some background into the importance of the resources that are proposed for protection, 

and also supports the criteria that will be used to evaluate each of the alternative plans developed for this 

report.

Institutional Recognition. Significance based on institutional recognition of the importance of an 

environmental resource is acknowledged in the laws, adopted plans, and other policy statements of public 

agencies, tribes, or private groups. Sources of institutional recognition include public laws, executive 

orders, rules and regulations, treaties, and other policy statements of the Federal Government; plans, laws, 

resolutions, and other policy statements of states with jurisdiction in the planning area; laws, plans, codes, 

ordinances, and other policy statements of regional and local public entities with jurisdiction in the 

planning area; and charters, bylaws, and other policy statements of private groups. The following are the

laws, regulations, and federal programs that demonstrate the value of the Great Lakes, Mississippi River,

and the Chicago Area Waterway System to the nation.

• Boundary Waters Treaty, U.S.-Gr. Br., Jan. 11, 1909, 36 Stat. 2448 

• Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C.§ 1251–1387 

• Atmospheric Deposition to the Great Lakes, Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C.§ 7412(m) 

• Coastal Zone Management Act, 16 U.S.C.§ 1451–1466 

• Great Lakes Coastal Barrier Act of 1988, Pub. L. No. 100-707 

• Great Lakes Critical Programs Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-596 

• Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Tissue Bank Act, 16 U.S.C.§ 943–943c 

• Great Lakes Fishery Act of 1956, 16 U.S.C.§ 931–939c 

• Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002, 33 U.S.C.§ 1271a 

• Great Lakes Legacy Reauthorization Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-365 

• Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act, 16 U.S.C.§ 941–941g 

• Great Lakes Fishery and Ecosystem Restoration, 42 U.S.C.§ 1962d-22 

• Great Lakes Oil and Gas Drilling Ban, 42 U.S.C.§ 15941

• Great Lakes Oil Pollution Research and Development Act, Pub. L. No. 101-537 

• Great Lakes Planning Assistance Act of 1988, 33 U.S.C.§ 426p 

• Great Lakes Shoreline Mapping Act of 1987, Pub. L. No. 100-220 

• Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact, Pub. L. 110-342 

• Great Lakes Tributary Models, 33 U.S.C.§ 2326b 

• Great Lakes Restoration Initiative

• Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, United States-Canada.

• Mississippi National River and Recreation Area, 16 U.S.C.§ 460zz–460zz-6 

• Mississippi River Commission, 33 U.S.C.§ 641–653a 

• Mississippi River Corridor Study Commission Act of 1989, Pub. L. 101-398 

• Pollution Control in the Great Lakes, 33 U.S.C.§ 1258 

• Upper Mississippi River Wild Life and Fish Refuge Act, 16 U.S.C.§ 721–731

• Establishment of the Great Lakes Basin Commission, Exec. Order No. 11,345 

• American Heritage Rivers, Exec. Order No. 13,061 

• Marine Protected Areas, Exec. Order No. 13,158 

• Great Lakes Interagency Task Force, Exec. Order No. 13,340

• Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes, Exec. Order No. 13,547 

• Blue Pike Activities in the Great Lakes

• Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge

• Ecosystem Management in the Lower Great Lakes
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

38

• Episodic Events, Great Lakes Experiment

• Evaluation and Restoration of Great Lakes Estuaries and Tributaries

• USFWS Implementation of the August 7, 2000 Consent Decree regarding the 

1836 Fisheries Treaty

• Great Lakes Basin Program for Soil Erosion Sediment Control, 16 U.S.C.§ 3839bb-3 

• Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy

• Great Lakes Coastal Program

• Great Lakes Lake Sturgeon Rehabilitation Program

• Great Lakes Monitoring Program

• Great Lakes National Program Office, 33 U.S.C.§ 1268 

• GLNPO Pollution Prevention Grant Assistance Program, 42 U.S.C.§ 13104 

• Great Lakes Remedial Action Plans and Sediment Remediation

• HHS Great Lakes Human Health Effects Research Program

• Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network 

• Lakewide Management Plans

• Lake Ontario Atlantic Salmon Reintroduction Program

• Lake Ontario/St. Lawrence River American Eel Restoration Program

• Lower Great Lakes Lake Trout Restoration Program

• Lower Great Lakes Ruffe Surveillance Program

• Mississippi River Basin Healthy Watersheds Initiative

• Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient (Hypoxia) Task Force

• National Fish Hatchery System - Great Lakes Operations

• Navigation and Ecosystem Sustainability Program (NESP) 

• NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory

• NPS Midwest Region Great Lakes Strategic Plan Activities

• RCRA Subtitle C State Program Support Great Lakes Initiative

• State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference

• Upper Mississippi River Restoration – Environmental Management Program

• EPA Coastal Environmental Management Program

Public Recognition. Public recognition means that some segment of the general public recognizes the 

importance of an environmental resource, as evidenced by people engaged in activities that reflect an 

interest or concern for that particular resource. Such activities may involve membership in an 

organization, financial contributions to resource-related efforts, and providing volunteer labor and 

correspondence regarding the importance of the resource.

Stakeholder Organizations. Many private citizens of the area are concerned about the overall health of 

the Great Lakes and Mississippi River basins and the problems associated with the transfer of ANS. 

Organizations exist throughout the area promoting better water quality, invasive species removal and 

control, restoration of natural habitat, and the cleaning up of potential sources of pollutants. These 

stakeholder organizations recognize the significance of the Great Lakes and would support the removal of 

any threat to the health of the Great Lakes. Great Lakes stakeholders include the following organizations: 

Great Lakes Forever; Alliance for the Great Lakes; John G. Shedd Aquarium; Great Lakes Program 

(supported by The Nature Conservancy); Great Lakes Bird Conservation; Great Lakes Information 

Network (GLIN); and the Great Lakes Commission (GLC) There are also many stakeholder 

organizations that would support the removal of any threat to the health of the Mississippi River basin 

which includes the Illinois Waterway. Mississippi River stakeholder organizations include: the

Mississippi Interstate Cooperative Resource Association (MICRA); the Upper Mississippi River 

Conservation Committee (UMRCC); the Lower Mississippi River Conservation Committee (LMRCC); 

the Mississippi River Delta Restoration Commission; the Upper Mississippi River Basin Association; the 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

39

National Audubon Society Upper Mississippi River Campaign; the Nature Conservancy Great Rivers 

Partnership; the McKnight Foundation; and the American Rivers.

Drinking Water. Over 32 million people receive their drinking water from the Great Lakes. About 

8 million people in Illinois receive their drinking water from Lake Michigan. Local municipalities have 

the responsibility to provide adequate and clean drinking water to their populace, which largely depends 

on the Great Lakes’ water quality. Additionally, over 30 million people rely on the Mississippi River for 

drinking water.

Sport Fishing Industry. The sport fishing industry contributes to the economy of the Great Lakes and 

Mississippi River basins. Numerous companies operate guided fishing tours and boat trips throughout the 

Great Lakes and Mississippi River basins or support small boat harbors scattered across these regions. 

Suitable fishing is a good indicator of the health of these ecosystems, which can be negatively impacted 

by the destruction of aquatic habitat and an increase in pollution.

Recreation. The Great Lakes support many water-related recreational opportunities including swimming, 

beach-going, boating, sailing, kayaking, canoeing, and the use of jet skis and water skis. Similar 

recreational opportunities are available in tributaries and connected lakes, as well as in the Mississippi 

River basin. These two watersheds touch include portions of 37 states, so the opportunities afforded by 

recreation touch a significant portion of the nation’s population. It was estimated that there were over 

12 million daily recreational visits to the Upper Mississippi River in 1990, supporting over $1.2 billion in 

national economic impacts (1990 price levels) and over 18,000 jobs nationwide (Carlson et al 1995). The 

Upper Mississippi River System has 10 National Wildlife Refuges within its boundaries and supports a 

paddlewheel tour boat industry. 

Technical Recognition. Technical recognition means that the resource qualifies as significant based on 

its “technical” merits, which are based on scientific knowledge or judgment of critical resource 

characteristics. Whether a resource is determined to be significant may vary based on differences across 

geographical areas and spatial scale. While technical significance of a resource may depend on whether a 

local, regional, or national perspective is undertaken, typically a watershed or larger (e.g., ecosystem, 

landscape, or ecoregion) context should be considered. Technical significance should be described in 

terms of one or more of the following criteria or concepts: scarcity, representation, status and trends, 

connectivity, limiting habitat, and biodiversity. The Upper Mississippi River System is the only 

U.S. river system designated as both a nationally significant navigation system and a nationally 

significant ecosystem by the Federal Government.

Status and Trends. Efforts are underway at federal, state, and local levels to improve and restore the 

portions of the Great Lakes and Mississippi River basins. The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI), 

an Administration Initiative, includes funding for projects that will serve to restore the Great Lakes 

including aquatic ecosystem restoration, remediation of Areas of Concern, and addressing the transfer of 

ANS. GLRI currently supports a number of ACRCC efforts focused on the control of silver and bighead 

carp. Support is also being provided by the IDNR, IEPA, USGS, and USFWS on efforts related to 

monitoring and the development of new monitoring methodology. Additional regional initiatives 

including ongoing efforts by the Great Lakes Commission/St. Lawrence Seaway Cities Initiative to 

develop a collaborative solution to the transfer of ANS between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River 

basins.

The current condition of the Upper Mississippi River System is heavily influenced by its agriculturedominated basin and by the dams, channel training structures, dredging, and levees that regulate flow 

distribution during most of the year. Although substantial improvements in some conditions have 

occurred since the 1960s because of improvements in sewage treatment and land use practices, the system 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

40

still faces substantial challenges including: high sedimentation rates in some backwaters and side 

channels; an altered hydrologic regime resulting from modifications of river channels, the floodplain, and 

land use within the basin, and from dams and their operation; loss of connection between the floodplain 

and the river, particularly in the southern reaches; non-native species (e.g., common carp, Asian carp 

[Hypophtalmichthys spp.], zebra mussels); high levels of nutrients and suspended sediments; and 

degradation of floodplain forests (Johnson and Hagerty 2008). 

Improvements in the environmental resources of these two large watersheds can be expected to continue 

throughout the study period, based on the laws regulating the protection and improvement of these 

watersheds. These improvements support both native and resident aquatic species which include ANS. 

Consequently, there is a high level of concern that some ANS have the ability to significantly alter the 

environmental and dependent economic resources of these two watersheds. These concerns have been 

voiced by scientists, governmental agencies, and the public. 

Connectivity. The shoreline of Lake Michigan serves as a significant visual north-south sight-line for 

millions of migratory birds including a signification fraction of the total number of neotropical songbirds. 

The completion of aquatic ecosystem restoration projects along the shoreline enhances the flyway 

ecosystem and improves the potential for successful migration for both local and migratory species. 

Nearly half of North America’s bird species and about 40 percent of its waterfowl spend at least part of 

their lives in the Mississippi River flyway. There are at least 34 migratory fish species in the Upper 

Mississippi River System that rely upon connected habitats to complete their life cycle.

As noted above, there have been continuing improvements to the aquatic habitat throughout the 

Mississippi River and Great Lakes basins. Improvements in water quality, physical habitat, and natural 

processes that maintain them are ongoing. These efforts include hydrologic regime reestablishment, dam 

removal, river meandering, reconnecting floodplains, reintroduction of fire, etc. Efforts to restore the 

natural characteristics of aquatic systems help to combat ANS. The prime reason ANS successfully 

colonize an area after invasion is due to impairments in the natural system, which opens up new niches 

for pioneer species. For example, one measure to increase native species richness and reduce non-native 

species richness would be to remove dams and other control structures that inhibit riverine meandering 

and reduced connection to the floodplain. Structure removal reduces conditions favorable to some 

invasive species. An example is the removal of the Hofmann Dam in suburban Riverside, IL. The three 

post-construction monitoring events have shown a notable increase in the number of native riverine 

specialist species and a concurrent reduction in the abundance of common carp.

Biodiversity. The presence of Asian carp in the Great Lakes could cause declines in abundances of native 

fish species. Asian carp will compete with native fish for food—native fish like ciscos, bloaters, and 

yellow perch, which in turn are fed upon by predator species including lake trout and walleye. The Great 

Lakes are home to federally and/or state-listed threatened or endangered fish, mollusks, plants, mammals, 

insects, and reptiles. Other Great Lakes invasives have been implicated in adverse effects on 

approximately 46 percent of the local federally listed endangered plant and animal species. Introduction 

of Asian carp to the region could further harm these organisms and threaten their existence in the Great 

Lakes (ACRCC 2013). In the Upper Mississippi River System, non-native fishes composed a high 

percentage of total fish biomass (about 30–60 percent) in all locations monitored by the Long Term 

Resources Monitoring Program. Most of the non-native biomass is from common carp, but the numbers 

and biomass of invading Asian carps have increased substantially. A high percentage of non-native fishes 

in the community is generally considered an ecological impairment (Johnson and Hagerty 2008). 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

41

1.16.3 Future Without Project Conditions

A significant amount of documentation was developed to fully define baseline conditions and define the 

significance of environmental resources for the GLMRIS Report. Baseline conditions, and by extension 

future conditions, were broadly evaluated to include not only the specific problems to be addressed by 

this study, but also to describe the natural environment, the human environment, and the uses of the 

waterway that will be considered as part of formulated plans. In addition to the discussion in the previous 

section, Appendix B – Affected Environment & Habitat, and other technical appendices document the 

evaluations that have been complete to fully define baseline conditions.

Quantification of target resources expected to change is not the only consideration for determining the 

future without project conditions. For the GLMRIS Report, USACE utilized a 50-year period of analysis. 

It is also important to have a general idea of area activities, plans, operations and significant changes that 

lie in the future. USACE sent letter requests (Appendix M – Correspondence) to agencies whose 

missions: (1) could impact relevant future conditions in and around the CAWS; and, (2) address ANS 

prevention, control, and abatement in the Mississippi River and Great Lakes basins. USACE requested 

information for a 50-year time period ending in 2067. Information gathering meetings were held with the 

agencies to discuss the information required. USACE presented an overview of GLMRIS and detailed 

how each respective agency’s actions could impact planning for the study. After the submission deadline 

date passed, nonresponsive agencies were contacted by phone or email. Any agency that did not respond 

was assumed to not impact GLMRIS.

Responder-provided ANS control efforts are currently underway by many federal, state, and local 

agencies. Respondents to GLMRIS information requests reported projects underway to address the 

interbasin transfer of the silver carp, bighead carp, black carp, and ruffe: 

• The Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) plan calls for the monitoring 

mapping and control of ANS within the State of Illinois. The identified species 

include: ruffe, round goby, alewife, and Asian carp.

• The Iowa Department of Natural Resources (Iowa DNR) ANS management plan 

reports both bighead and silver carps reside in its waters. As part of its management 

efforts, Iowa DNR conducts watercraft inspections, public outreach and education, 

fish monitoring, and commercial fishing operations to prevent the spread of these 

species.

• The City of Chicago has passed an ordinance making it illegal to possess live Asian 

carp in the city.

• The Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife has backed legislation to outlaw the 

transport of live Asian carp throughout the state. Other ANS control efforts include: 

monitoring, detection, commercial fishing, and public education.

• The Michigan Department of Natural Resources has developed an Asian Carp 

Management Plan that proposes improvements to ANS prevention and detection 

measures, interagency information sharing, and eradication efforts, should any Asian 

carp be detected in the state. The plan states that it will prevent transport and release 

of Asian carp and fish stocking efforts, through legislation, education, and increased 

inspections. The state will develop an Asian carp task group. Additional tasks 

include: detect through use of eDNA, education, surveys, and the monitoring of fish 

passage systems; gather population data where Asian carps are detected; eradication 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

42

of Asian carps, if populations are detected, through use of chemicals, electric 

dispersal barriers, commercial fishing, or any new technologies as they are 

developed. 

• The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) Plan establishes actions 

such as watercraft cleaning, establishing deterrent barriers, lock closures, education, 

and preventing spread through bait transport. The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat 

Commission (PAFBC) ANS Plan will utilize tools to include information education, 

identification, legislation, prevention, control, and research.

• The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is the lead for eDNA 

monitoring for Asian Carp, to monitor the presence of the fish so that appropriate 

management actions can be taken to combat the spread of the fish. It is are also an 

active participant in the ACRCC and in the Monitoring and Rapid Response Work 

Group of the ACRCC.

• The International Joint Commission (IJC) ANS Control Plan identified the need for 

an initial and/or continued training program for different levels of the Incident 

Command System (ICS) for all potential responders, the development of formalized 

and centralized communication protocols and rapid response Standard Operating 

Procedures, and, finally, better planning of facilities and technologies for use during 

rapid response.

• In 1991, the Ruffe Control Committee was formed with the stated goal to prevent or 

delay the further spread of ruffe through the Great Lakes and prevent their spread to 

other inland lakes and watersheds. As of 1996, the committee members have 

representatives from the following organizations: USFWS, Minnesota Department of 

Natural Resources, Great Lakes Commission, U.S. Coast Guard, Michigan Sea 

Grant, U.S. Department of Agriculture, EPA, National Biological Service, University 

of Minnesota, Great Lakes Sport Fishing Council, Port Authority of Duluth, 

Chippewa-Ottawa Treaty Fishery Management Authority, and Canadian Department 

of Fisheries and Oceans.

While many agencies have taken and will continue to take action to prevent the spread of aquatic 

nuisance species, there are no actions currently planned by others that will reduce the risk of interbasin 

transfer for all 13 High and Medium risk species.

Actions by USACE related to GLMRIS that are expected to continue through future conditions for this 

study include the following: 

ANS:

• Operation and maintenance of the Electric Dispersal Barriers Project on the Chicago 

Sanitary and Ship Canal; 

• Monitoring of fish in the vicinity of the barrier to ensure that target species do not 

pose a threat to bypass the Electric Dispersal Barriers Project;

• Continue to evaluate ways to improve the functionality and efficacy of the Electric 

Dispersal Barriers Project and document these evaluations in efficacy studies;
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

43

• Support regional monitoring efforts including electro-fishing, netting, and rapidresponse actions with the CAWS and IWW; and

• Support efforts to improve monitoring and control techniques for ANS in concert 

with other resource agencies.

Flood Risk Management:

• Construction of the McCook Stage I and Stage II Reservoirs;

• Support construction activities at the Thornton Reservoir under construction by 

MWRD; and

• Completion of the Little Calumet River Flood Control Project in NW Indiana.

Complete Other Relevant Studies including:

• Bubbly Creek (South Fork, South Branch Chicago River) Aquatic Ecosystem 

Restoration Feasibility Study and 

• Calumet River and Harbor Dredged Material Management Plan. 

Table 1.6 includes a summary of conditions for various study area resources for baseline and futurewithout project conditions. Detailed future-without project conditions analyses have been completed for 

resources where the GLMRIS Team anticipates significant impacts due to ANS transfer and 

establishment and implementation of alternatives. These analyses are also documented in Appendix B – 

Affected Environment & Habitat and in other technical appendices. The projection of future-without 

project conditions forms the basis for fully evaluating study problems and opportunities, as well as 

providing the base against which alternatives may be evaluated.
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014

44

Table 1.6 Baseline and Future Conditions for Focus Area 1 Study Area Resources

Resource Baseline Condition Future-without-project Condition

PHYSICAL 

RESOURCES

 Air Quality Air quality in the vicinity of the CAWS is highly affected by local 

industries, power generating stations, and vehicle traffic. As a 

result, the area air quality has been designated as nonattainment for 

several criteria pollutants. A criteria pollutant is a pollutant for 

which National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) have been 

established under the Clean Air Act (CAA). A nonattainment 

designation is based on the exceedances or violations of the air 

quality standard. 

Counties in the project area are currently in nonattainment or 

maintenance for a number of criteria air pollutants, and due to the 

industrial nature of the area it is expected that these designations will 

continue into the future study period. The maintenance plan 

establishes measures to control emissions to ensure the air quality 

standard is maintained into the future. 

 Water Quality Since 1972, most segments of the CAWS have been designated for 

Secondary Contact use, which includes fishing, boating and other 

activities where water contact is minimal or incidental, but excludes 

swimming and other Primary Contact activities. Based on 

information generated through a Use Attainability Analysis (UAA) 

conducted by IEPA, it was determined that recreation in and on the 

water is attainable for many segments of the CAWS. High counts of 

fecal coliform indicator bacteria impair many of the waterways for 

recreational use, and chemical constituents such as phosphorus, 

mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and dissolved oxygen 

(DO) impair many of the waterways for aquatic life. In 2012, EPA 

approved new and revised use designations that better protect 

recreation on the CAWS. “Primary Contact Recreation” use 

designations are now in effect for 8 of 17 CAWS segments, 

consistent with 101(a)(2) recreational goal uses.

Numerical water quality modeling can be used to inform FWOP 

conditions for some constituents. Substantial improvements in DO 

concentrations during storm periods can be seen at all locations for 

both baseline and future without project conditions, because CSO 

flows are being captured in the reservoirs. The review of the 

compliance results show that Baseline and Future conditions yield 

much higher compliance with the IEPA proposed DO standards at 

the locations prone to low compliance under the Current condition 

(e.g., Loomis Street, Cicero Avenue on the CSSC, and Bubbly 

Creek). MWRD modeling of required diversion to maintain water 

quality is expected in 2014. This will inform future decisions about 

water quality mitigation required for GLMRIS project alternatives. 

It is also expected that IEPA and EPA will continue to re-evaluate 

portions of the CAWS that do not meet Section 101 (a)(2) of the 

CWA states the national goal of achieving "water quality which 

provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and 

wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water" wherever 

attainable. When states adopt WQS that do not include Section 

101(a)(2) uses for a particular water body segment, they are required 

to re-examine the water body segment every three years to 

determine if any new information has become available. States may 

demonstrate to EPA that section 101(a)(2) uses are not attainable on 

a water body, and EPA may approve new and/or revised WQS for 

those waters. It is expected that IEPA will continue to re-examine 

those areas that do not meet the intent of Section 101(a)(2) in the 

future, and that there will be ongoing efforts for all segments of the 

CAWS to meet those requirements. 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014

45

Table1.6 (Cont.)

Resource Baseline Condition Future-without-project Condition

 Sediment 

 Quality

CAWS sediment quality has been degraded by historical industrial 

activities and unregulated discharges to the waterways prior to the 

Clean Water Act. In general, CAWS sediments are contaminated 

throughout with persistent organic pollutants such as polyaromatic 

hydrocarbons (PAHs) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), heavy 

metals, dioxins and furans, and oil and grease. Overall, the surficial 

sediments are less contaminated than the deeper sediments 

throughout the system. Ongoing sediment remediation includes 

work at the Indiana Harbor and Canal, the Bubbly Creek Aquatic 

Ecosystem Restoration Study, and the Calumet Harbor DMMP, 

which is evaluating the need for confined disposal of Calumet River 

and Harbor sediment, as well as sediments from the Cal-Sag 

Channel. The Calumet River and Harbor sediments are currently 

confined in the Chicago Area CDF, which is nearing capacity. 

Improvements in sediment quality will be dependent on sediment 

remediation through the actions of local, federal and state agencies. 

Efforts to address sediment quality, especially sediments containing 

legacy pollutants require years of coordination, planning and often 

times legal actions. For some portions of the waterway, authorities 

exist and interested parties are pursuing improvements in water 

quality. The Great Lakes Legacy Act provides EPA with the 

authority to remediate sediment in Great Lakes AOCs. Within the 

CAWS, sediment remediation has been focused on two Areas of 

Concern (AOC): the Indiana Harbor/Grand Calumet River and the 

Waukegan Harbor. Currently, EPA is conducting a remediation 

project on the Grand Calumet River (GLRI) that compliments 

navigation dredging in the Indiana Harbor and Canal by the USACE. 

There is a possibility that sediment remediation could occur within 

the Cal-Sag Channel, and Bubbly Creek within the planning horizon 

for the GLMRIS, implemented either as Corps projects, or by state 

and local entities. Because of the long planning horizon for 

sediment projects, it is not currently anticipated that sediment in 

other reaches of the CAWS would be remediated. 

 Land Use Many of the drainage areas of the CAWS such as the upper CSSC, 

Chicago River and Calumet River are fully built out with little 

change in the land use over the last few decades. The overall land 

use trend of the CAWS watershed appears to be stabilizing with 

little relative change expected in the near future, based on 

extrapolation of the latest observed data.

No significant changes in land use are anticipated during the study 

planning horizon. 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014

46

Table1.6 (Cont.)

Resource Baseline Condition Future-without-project Condition

 Hydrology &

 Hydraulics

Natural fluvial geomorphology and processes within the CAWS is 

significantly altered from natural condition due to the years of 

anthropogenic activities. The majority of the CAWS is comprised of 

man-made canals with sporadic remnant fragments of natural stream 

and slough that flow into the navigable waterway.

Numerical modeling for the GLMRIS Report included an 

assessment of future conditions. An evaluation of changes that 

could impact either the hydrologic or hydraulic modeling was 

completed. The evaluation considered changes such as land use, the 

implementation of Green Infrastructure within the City of Chicago, 

the impacts of climate change, and the implementation of significant 

flood storage projects (McCook, Stage I, Thornton and McCook 

Stage II). Based on the analysis, assumptions regarding future 

conditions takes into account the effect of Thornton and McCook 

Stage-1 reservoirs in the hydrologic analysis for the baseline 

condition, and it includes the additional effect of the McCook Stage2 reservoir in the hydrologic analysis for the future condition. 

Regarding the potential or continued changes in climate, land use, 

and implementation of green infrastructures in the future, it was 

assumed in the current study that the effects induced by these factors 

are quantitatively undeterminable with acceptable confidence or 

would be mostly offset amongst themselves. (See Appendix D for 

additional details on the future condition analysis.)

BIOLOGICAL 

RESOURCES

 Summary of 

 CAWS Area 

 Habitat

The shoreline of Lake Michigan within the study area was modified 

through development and the construction of shore protection 

projects affecting both habitat and littoral process. Modifications 

protected critical infrastructure, facilitated recreational opportunities 

and added to the aesthetic value of the city's waterfront to residents 

and visitors. The CAWS is composed of man-made channels and 

channelized river segments, providing little habitat in channels and 

varied habitat along natural rivers and channelized streams. 

Ongoing regional efforts to restore segments of the Lake Michigan 

Shoreline and the CAWS are being supported by various local, state 

and federal agencies. GLRI funding is supporting study and 

implementation. 

Restoration of CAWS Area Habitat is expected to continue within 

the future planning horizon by local, state, and federal agencies, 

based on the significance of the resources. However, opportunities 

for restoration will be constrained by the several factors including 

the availability of suitable sites, the current condition of the site, and 

history of site usage. The focus on Great Lakes restoration is 

currently anticipated to continue through fiscal year 2019. 

Restoration efforts are also supported by USACE through the Great 

Lakes Fishery and Ecosystem Restoration Program, and small 

Continuing Authorities (Section 206 and Section 1135).
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014

47

Table 1.6 (Cont.)

Resource Baseline Condition Future-without-project Condition

 Plant 

 Communities

Generally, the riparian areas along the CAWS are highly disturbed 

lands with small patches of volunteer plant communities. 

Forested areas are a mixture of wet floodplain forest and mesic 

woodland with small areas of emergent marsh. Riverbanks are 

wooded with openings dominated by herbaceous species. 

Some improvements to plant communities may be seen in the future 

planning horizon with the implementation of restoration projects 

over time within the study area. Increases in the use of Best 

Management Practices for storm water runoff, and continued 

stewardship of public lands and open space could result in improved 

plant communities. The opportunities to improve plant communities 

will be constrained by numerous factors including land use, the 

current condition of the sites, water quality and the history of site 

usage. 

Macroinvertebrates A majority of the CAWS is dominated by urban and industrial 

development which has changed the majority of the landscape and 

left patches of remnant high quality habitats fragmented. Hence, a 

majority of the insect species found within the CAWS corridor are 

those that are known to thrive in degraded habitats. An increase in 

species richness is only found within the remnant high quality 

habitats that are scattered throughout the riparian corridor. 

Some improvement in the health of the macroinvertebrate 

communities may be seen within the study planning horizon based 

on more stringent water quality requirements and restoration within 

the basin through other authorities. However, the opportunities to 

improve this resource will be limited by available sites, site 

conditions and the suitability of the habitat for macroinvertebrates. 

 Fishes The Chicago and Calumet River Systems largely support tolerant 

fish species that colonized from the Des Plaines River, Lake 

Michigan, and several small streams that flowed into the 

constructed channels and canals. In 2011, a total of 58 species 

were recorded from the CAWS. Based on the 2011 collections, 

the majority of fish species that occur are either non-native (9 

species) or ecologically tolerant, which means they are able to 

thrive in degraded habitats. 

Some improvement in the health of the area fish communities may 

be seen within the study planning horizon based on more stringent 

water quality requirements and restoration within the basin through 

other authorities. However, the opportunities to improve this 

resource will be limited by available sites, site conditions and the 

suitability of the habitat for fishes. Further, because of concerns 

related to two ANS fish species, it is likely that non-target fish 

species will be affected by non-selective ANS control techniques 

being promulgated by the ACRCC, and state and local agencies. 

BIOLOGICAL 

RESOURCES

 Reptiles &

 Amphibians

Similar to other taxa within the Chicago region, the richness of 

amphibian and reptile species has been in decline since European 

settlement began in the early 1800s. The Chicago region is 

currently a mosaic of urban, industrial, and small natural habitats. 

Natural areas within the riverine corridors of the Chicago and 

Calumet River Systems are where amphibians and reptiles are 

most likely to be abundant. Of the 50 amphibian and reptile 

species that have historically occurred in the Chicago region, 

approximately 18 species are considered common in the region 

currently.

Some improvement in the health of the reptile & amphibian 

communities may be seen within the study planning horizon based 

on more stringent water quality requirements and restoration within 

the basin through other authorities. However, the opportunities to 

improve this resource will be limited by available sites, site 

conditions and the suitability of the habitat for reptiles and 

amphibians. 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014

48

Table 1.6 (Cont.)

Resource Baseline Condition Future-without-project Condition

 Birds Within the Chicago region, natural areas scattered along the 

Chicago and Calumet River Systems provide crucial foraging and 

breeding habitat for migratory birds. Since 1970, over 300 species 

of birds have been recorded from the Chicago region. Although the 

Chicago and Calumet River Systems have become highly degraded 

and riparian habitats have been fragmented by industrialization, the 

river systems still provide limited habitat for migratory neotropical 

bird species as well as resident species. 

Some improvement in the health of the resident and migratory bird 

communities may be seen within the study planning horizon based 

on more stringent water quality requirements and restoration within 

the basin along the Lake Michigan flyway through other authorities. 

However, the opportunities to improve this resource will be limited 

by available sites, site conditions and the suitability of the habitat 

for both resident and migratory birds. 

 Mammals The mammalian community within the study area has been 

degraded due to hydrologic and geomorphic alterations and 

fragmentation of habitats by industrialization. Open space within 

the region includes Forest Preserves composed of 

anthropogenically induced bottomland forest. Other open space 

includes former industrial sites. 

Some improvement in the health of the mammal communities may 

be seen within the study planning horizon based on more stringent 

water quality requirements and restoration within the basin through 

other authorities. However, the opportunities to improve this 

resource will be limited by available sites, site conditions and the 

suitability of the habitat for mammals.

 Aquatic Nuisance

 Species

Thirty-five species were identified as having a potential risk for 

both transferring from one basin to another, and a potential risk in 

that if they do disperse, the invaded ecosystem type would be 

moderately to severely affected by their colonization.

The future-without project conditions for ANS has a specific 

assessment performed to support GLMRIS. The Risk Assessment 

identified 13 species that had a High or Medium risk of 

establishment within either the Great Lake (ANS coming from the 

Mississippi River Basins) or the Mississippi River (ANS coming 

from the Great Lakes). 

 Summary of

 CAWS Natural

 Areas & Parks

Natural areas, parks and other significant open spaces were 

identified along the CAWS. Utilizing GIS analytical tools, all of 

these areas were selected within 1,000-feet of CAWS waterways. 

Approximately 231 parks, nature preserves, natural areas, and 

greenways were identified.

The future-without project conditions for natural areas, parks and 

significant open spaces is not expected to change dramatically over 

the planning horizon. 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014

49

Table 1.6 (Cont.)

Resource Baseline Condition Future-without-project Condition

 Threatened &

 Endangered

 Species

There are thirteen federally-listed and proposed to be listed 

species within the study area. The high quality, but vulnerable 

ecosystem at Lockport Prairie, supports three federally listed 

species: the federally endangered Leafy Prairie Clover and Hine’s 

Emerald Dragonfly, and the federally threatened Lakeside Daisy. 

Lockport Prairie is located near 159th Street adjacent to the Des 

Plaines River within a few miles of the Barriers Project. One 

state endangered species, Nycticorax nycticorax black-crowned 

night heron has been observed in the study area. Currently, no 

black-crowned night heron colonies are identified within the 

project area.

No significant changes anticipated affecting T&E Species within 

the planning horizon for the study. 

CULTURAL & 

ARCHEOLOGICAL 

RESOURCES

 Prehistoric

 Archeological Sites

The Chicago Portage National Historic Site is the only known 

prehistoric archaeological sites located on the Chicago Area 

Waterway.

No significant changes anticipated affecting Prehistoric 

Archeological sites within the planning horizon for the study. 

 Historic Archeological

 Sites

The Chicago Portage National Historic Site is the only known 

historical archaeological sites located on the Chicago Area 

Waterway.

No significant changes anticipated affecting Historic 

Archeological sites within the planning horizon for the study. 

 Historic Structures The three counties in northeastern Illinois contain a large number 

of listed historic structures the National Register of Historic 

Places. Chicago maintains its own list of City Landmarks and 

Historic Districts totaling 256 individual structures and 47 

historic districts. Numerous properties in northern Indiana are 

listed on the National Register of Historic Places. 

Three properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places 

in Illinois could be affected by changes in the operation of the 

CAWS during the planning horizon for this study. These 

properties are located within historic districts associated with the 

CAWS and the IWW (downstream of Brandon Road L&D). 

INFRASTRUCTURE The CAWS is both a natural and artificial system for the 

conveyance of sanitary and storm water. Predominate direction 

of flow for the CAWS is towards the Mississippi River but has 

the capacity to convey extreme storm water overflow events to 

Lake Michigan. In addition to the natural riverine and canal 

system the region has invested heavily in the conveyance of storm 

water through a complex network of combined sewer and 

separated storm water network

The term infrastructure includes many elements that could be 

explored in the urban area of the CAWS. For the future without 

project conditions, infrastructure was assumed to be related to 

transportation in and around the waterway and water quality of 

the waterway and Lake Michigan. Agencies responsible for these 

actions were queried. Improvements are expected in water 

quality and in some facets of waterway regulation. Upgrades to 

area Water Reclamation Plants are expected within the planning 

horizon. No additional modifications to waterway regulation, 

including ballast water, are expected. 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014

50

Table 1.6 (Cont.)

Resource Baseline Condition Future-without-project Condition

RECREATION The numerous community and county parks in the six counties 

provide a wide range of public recreational facilities including 

tennis courts, field houses, and soccer and baseball facilities. 

Chicago’s Lake Michigan shoreline includes 29 public beaches: 

The Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore provides public beaches 

for swimming and surfing. The undeveloped nature of large 

portions of the area makes it a popular destination for outdoor 

sports including picnicking, bird watching, hunting, fishing and 

boating.

No significant changes in area recreation are anticipated during 

the study planning horizon. 

HTRW An HTRW investigation has not been conducted for this phase of 

the study, due to the expansive area being considered in the study, 

and the lack of detailed alternatives. In general, properties along 

the CSSC, South Branch Chicago River(SBCR), Calumet River, 

Grand Calumet River (Grand Cal), Indiana Harbor and Canal, 

Cal-Sag Channel, and Little Calumet River (Little Cal) 

downstream of the Cal-Sag Channel confluence are likely to have 

Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) due to current or 

past industrial uses.

No significant changes in HTRW within the study area are 

expected during the planning horizon.

ECONOMICS

 Commercial Fisheries This document establishes the current value (in pounds and 

dollars) of commercial fishing in the Great Lakes, Upper 

Mississippi River and Ohio River Basins. 

USACE was not able to obtain sufficient information to quantify 

impacts or establish the timing of ANS transfer on commercial 

fisheries. Therefore, a FWOP condition was not developed.

 Recreational Fishing This document establishes the current value (in dollars) of 

recreational fishing activities in the Great Lakes, Upper 

Mississippi River and Ohio River Basins by utilizing the travelcost method. Expenditure data associated with recreational 

fishing activities was also collected.

USACE was not able to obtain sufficient information to quantify 

impacts or establish the timing of ANS transfer on targeted 

recreational fisheries. Therefore, a FWOP condition was not 

developed. However, a contingent valuation model was 

developed in order to identify future changes in the value of

recreational fishing if USACE is able to obtain sufficient 

information to quantify the impact of ANS in the future.

 Charter Fishing This document establishes the current revenues associated with 

charter fishing activities within the Great Lakes Basin. A charter 

fishing industry within the Upper Mississippi River and Ohio 

River Basins was not able to be identified. 

USACE was not able to obtain sufficient information to quantify 

impacts or establish the timing of ANS transfer on targeted 

charter fisheries. Therefore, a FWOP condition was not 

developed.
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014

51

Table 1.6 (Cont.)

Resource Baseline Condition Future-without-project Condition

 Subsistence Fishing This report describes the cultural and economic importance of 

subsistence fishing activities within the Great Lakes, Upper 

Mississippi River and Ohio River Basins.

USACE was not able to obtain sufficient information to quantify 

impacts or establish the timing of ANS transfer on targeted 

subsistence fisheries. Therefore, a FWOP condition was not 

developed. 

 Pro-Fishing

 Tournaments

This literature review identifies the key characteristics of 

professional fishing tournaments within the Great Lakes, Upper 

Mississippi River, and Ohio River Basins.

USACE was not able to obtain sufficient information to quantify 

impacts or establish the timing of ANS transfer on targeted profishing species. Therefore, a FWOP condition was not 

developed. 

 Commercial Cargo

 Navigation

This report establishes the current commercial cargo navigation 

movements (by commodity type and quantity) within the CAWS, 

as well as historic trends.

This document provides a projection of future cargo navigation 

movements on the CAWS. This is represented via commercial 

cargo commodity type, quantity (tonnages), and associated 

transportation cost savings associated with the project evaluation 

period (2017-2066).

 Non-Cargo Navigation This report provides a description of non-cargo navigation vessels 

that utilize the CAWS - such as passenger vessels, water taxis, 

recreational vessels, and government vessels. The document also 

highlights lock usage characteristics.

This document provides an estimate of current passenger vessel 

revenues, as well as projections during the 50-year project 

evaluation period. Surveys were also conducted in order to 

determine willingness to pay to keep the CAWS locks open for 

use of recreational vessels.

 Flood Risk

 Management

This document serves to characterize the flood risk in Chicago 

Metro Area - and is displayed via expected annual damages 

(EAD) for the years between 2017 (when McCook Phase I is to 

become operational) and 2029 (when McCook Phase II is to 

become operational).

This document serves to characterize the future flood risk in 

Chicago Metro Area - and is displayed via expected annual 

damages (EAD) for the years between 2029 (when McCook 

Phase II is to become operational) and 2066 (the last year of the 

50-year project evaluation period).

 Water Quality This document identifies the major sources of water that enter the 

CAWS, as well as the major water uses on the CAWS. A 

complimentary document was produced that displays the beaches 

along the Chicago shoreline (to include locations, amenities, and 

an estimate of beach usage).

The CAWS document highlights water treatment costs for the 

main dischargers to the CAWS during the project evaluation 

period (2017-2066). The Lake Michigan water quality document 

identifies the beaches that are expected to exist in the FWOP 

condition, as well as estimated beach usage during the project 

evaluation period.

 Water Supply This assessment establishes a baseline of water use for water 

originating from Lake Michigan, diverted along the Illinois 

shoreline, and distributed to users in the Chicago area.

The water supply baseline assessment was a qualitative review -

therefore, a FWOP condition was not developed.

 Hydropower This document estimates the current economic value (dollars per 

year) of Lockport Powerhouse (hydropower generation).

This document estimates the future economic value (dollars per 

year) of Lockport Powerhouse (hydropower generation).
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014

52

Table 1.6 (Cont.)

Resource Baseline Condition Future-without-project Condition

 Regional Economics This document estimates the current economic contribution 

(measured via sales and jobs) of commercial fishing, recreational 

fishing, charter fishing, cargo navigation, and non-cargo 

navigation activities within the GLMRIS detailed study area 

(Great Lakes, Upper Mississippi River, and Ohio River basins).

The activities expected to change in the FWOP condition are 

commercial, recreational, and charter fishing. However, USACE 

was not able to obtain sufficient information to quantify impacts 

or establish the timing of ANS transfer on the targeted fisheries. 

Therefore, a FWOP condition was not developed. 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

53 

Chapter 2 Alternative Plan Development

This chapter of the GLMRIS Report provides a description of the process that was used to scope, refine, 

and identify the alternative plans described in this document, including strategies for project 

implementation and stakeholder engagement and the refinement of the ANS Controls identified for use in 

the alternatives. Per the direction in the MAP-21 authority, this report focuses primarily on the activities 

in Focus Area 1, which is comprised of the watersheds of the rivers and tributaries associated with the 

Chicago Area Waterway System. A more complete description of the analyses and results of the Other 

Aquatic Pathways (Focus Area 2) characterization and probability assessment are summarized in 

Appendix N – Focus Area 2. 

2.1 SMART Planning

In 2012, the USACE organization formally adopted a new framework revising the traditional approach to 

the formulation of Corps planning studies. Termed “SMART Planning,” the name given for this 

transformational initiative highlights the key characteristics describing the goals of new planning studies: 

Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Risk-Informed, and Timely. This modernization initiative strives to 

improve upon the efficiency of USACE plan delivery and enhance accountability for planning products. 

Under the transformational framework, USACE is emphasizing the use of a risk-informed decisionmaking approach, focusing on the level of detail necessary to make decisions as the study effort 

progresses toward identifying possible alternatives. In SMART Planning, it is recommended that the 

level of detail is commensurate with the issues being evaluated. A risk register is used to identify risks 

early in the process, including the recognition of data gaps and the identification of necessary data 

required to reduce unacceptable uncertainty in alternative evaluation and comparison. 

The new process is not intended to eliminate salient detail from the integrated feasibility process, 

especially with regard to environmental compliance under NEPA and engineering analyses related to life 

safety. Rather, the framework emphasizes the development of data in correspondence to the timing of 

study efforts, and commensurate with the level of detail describing the alternatives. In this vein, the 

efforts undertaken to date to develop the GLMRIS Report, as well as the level of detail of the information 

contained within this document, positively align with the intent of the SMART Planning framework. 

GLMRIS is also well positioned to adhere to the agency’s adoption of the SMART Planning framework 

as the study has developed a risk-informed process for collecting the appropriate level of detail and 

utilizing risk-based tools to identify ANS of Concern and screen alternative measures.

2.2 Options and Technologies

To tackle the problem of preventing ANS from transferring between basins, the first step was to 

determine the specific ANS at risk for transfer. The GLMRIS Team began by identifying ANS of 

Concern; the process is discussed in detail in Section 2.2.1. The GLMRIS Team identified ANS Controls 

that could affect the identified ANS of Concern; the development of the ANS Controls Paper is detailed 

in Section 2.2.2. The GLMRIS Team then conducted a qualitative Risk Assessment to further refine the 

list of ANS of Concern specific to the CAWS. The Risk Assessment process, discussed in detail in 

Section 2.2.3 resulted in the development of a list of 13 High and Medium risk species. The full suite of 

ANS Controls were screened down to include the only those controls determined to be most effective at 

preventing the transfer of the High and Medium risk ANS. The ANS Controls screening process is 

detailed in Section 2.2.4, and the final array of ANS Controls is detailed in Section 2.2.5.
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

54 

2.2.1 Identified ANS of Concern (25435) 

The Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) White Paper: Non-native Species of Concern and Dispersal Risk 

for the GLMRIS was drafted to document the occurrence of aquatic non-native species within the 

Great Lakes and Mississippi River basins, the associated risk of dispersal, and the likelihood of 

becoming invasive. A total of 254 non-native aquatic species were initially identified as occurring in 

one or both basins of the entire study area. Of the 254 non-native aquatic species, a total of 103 were 

found to already have established populations in both basins and were subsequently removed from the 

list. In addition, 31 species were removed from the list because they were not yet located in either 

basin, are known to be extensively transported via terrestrial pathways, or were not considered as a 

potential for becoming invasive or a nuisance. The remaining list of 120 non-native and native species 

was finalized to a list of 35 ANS of Concern, which were identified as having a potential risk for both 

transferring from one basin to another, becoming invasive if they would disperse and would 

moderately to severely affect the invaded ecosystem. Those species are found in Table 2.1. A 

flowchart of the ANS of Concern screening process can be found in Appendix A. 

2.2.2 Identified Spectrum of Controls (96)

In December 2011, USACE published the ANS Control Paper and produced by the GLMRIS 

Technology Team. This paper identified 96 ANS Controls that could be applied to prevent ANS 

transfer via aquatic pathways. USACE has interpreted the term “prevent” to mean the reduction of 

risk to the maximum extent possible, because it may not be technologically feasible to achieve an 

absolute solution. USACE used the following criteria to determine whether a control should be 

included as an alternative: 

1. The control is potentially effective at preventing the transfer of the ANS of Concern – CAWS via 

aquatic pathways;

2. The control, if used according to specified conditions, will pose minimal risk to human health and 

safety; and 

3. The Control is currently available or is under research and development.

Shortly after the investigation began, the Technology Team learned even though extensive research had 

been conducted on a variety of ANS issues and concerns, comparatively little research had been 

completed on many of the 35 ANS of Concern – CAWS. The team identified the eight (8) organism 

categories as the “Organisms of Concern – CAWS” and expanded its research to include Controls 

effective for these groups of species: algae, annelid, bryozoans, crustacean, fish, mollusk, plant, and 

protozoan. As the study progressed, VHS, a virus, was added to the list of ANS of Concern; however, the 

ANS Control Report does not include a separate discussion of virus specific controls. Upon review, 

certain controls in the ANS Controls Report were found to be effective on VHS. 

The Technology Team included a particular ANS control based on the team’s expertise and the 

documented use of the control on the Organisms of Concern – CAWS in an aquatic pathway. However, 

the controls identified in the ANS Control Paper may not be effective at controlling all growth forms or 

life stages of a particular organism. For example, a herbicide may be effective against a mature plant to 

which it is applied, but may not impact seeds already present in the soil. Similarly, algaecides may kill 

algal cells present in water, but not impact algal spore viability, and piscicides (such as rotenone) kill 

juvenile and adult fish but do not impact fish eggs. 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

55 

Table 2.1 Aquatic Nuisance Species Occurring in Either the Mississippi 

River or Great Lakes Basin to Be Evaluated for Risk of Adverse Impacts

Mississippi River Basin Species

Species 

Type Common Name Scientific Name

Fish

Bighead carp Hypophthalmichthyes nobilis

Black carp Mylopharyngodon piceus

Inland silverside Menidia beryllina

Northern snakehead Channa argus

Silver carp Hypophthalmichthys molitrix

Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris

Crustacean Scud Apocorophium lacustre

Plants

Cuban bulrush Oxycaryum cubense

Dotted duckweed Landoltia punctata

Marsh dewflower Murdannia keisak

Great Lakes Basin Species

Species 

Type Common Name Scientific Name

Fish

Blueback herring Alosa aestivalis

Ruffe Gymnocephalus cernuus

Sea lamprey Petromyzon marinus

Threespine stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus

Tubenose goby Proterorhinus semilunaris

Crustacean

Bloody red shrimp Hemimysis anomala

Fishhook waterflea Cercopagis pengoi

Harpacticoid copepod Schizopera borutzkyi

Parasitic copepod Neoergasilus japonicas

Waterflea Daphnia galeata galeata 

Plants

Reed sweet grass Glyceria maxima

Swamp sedge Carex acutiformis

Water chestnut Trapa natans

Algae

Cryptic algae Cyclotella cryptica

Diatom Stephanodiscus binderanus

Grass kelp Enteromorpha flexuosa

Red algae Bangia atropurpurea

Mollusk

Eurpoean fingernail clam Sphaerium corneum

European stream valvata Valvata piscinalis

Greater European pea clam Pisidium amnicum

Protozoa

Testate amoeba Psammonobiotus communis

Testate amoeba Psammonobiotus dziwnowi

Testate amoeba Psammonobiotus linearis

Bryozoans Freshwater byrozoan Lophopodella carteri

Virus Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia Virus Novirhabdovirus
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

56 

The identified controls range from those that are currently used to manage ANS, such as aquatic 

herbicides, algaecides, benthic barriers, irrigation water chemicals, light attenuating dyes, molluscicides, 

piscicides, and introduced predatory fish species (biological control), to controls that are currently in 

research and development.. For those currently in use, information regarding the targeted use, proper

application, and operating constraints impacting their effectiveness are generally known. These controls 

could be used to target ANS populations where ANS are currently found instead of targeting an ANS 

when it arrives or is newly detected at an interbasin transfer location. 

Some controls addressed ANS transfer by modifying the flow conditions of a water body. Examples of 

these modifications include vertical drop barrier (controls upstream transfer by requiring upstream 

movement through a waterfall), accelerated water velocity (water traveling at high velocities controls

upstream swimming or migration), and hydrologic separation (controls the flow of water within a channel 

or contains water within an enclosure). Technologies such as ultrasound, ultraviolet light, and electron 

beam irradiation would require water to be routed through or come in contact with a treatment system. 

Some controls consist of the physical removal of ANS from a target water body. These controls include 

mechanical harvesting (using machinery to remove plant ANS), manual harvesting (using manual labor to 

remove plant ANS), dredging and diver dredging, controlled harvest/overfishing (fishing or netting of 

fish), and a variety of nonmechanical and mechanical screens. Mechanical and manual harvesting, 

dredging and diver dredging, and controlled harvest/overfishing are additional examples of controls that 

can be implemented to reduce or eliminate the ANS populations where ANS are currently established

versus targeting an ANS when it arrives or is newly detected at an interbasin transfer location. 

Another set of controls calls for modifying the water quality of a water body as means of controlling ANS 

transfer. These controls include altering the water quality with chemicals such as alum (removes 

phosphorus from water, inhibiting algae growth and reproduction), gases such as carbon dioxide, ozone or 

nitrogen, oxygen-depleting chemicals, and lethal temperature (raising the water temperature to lethal 

levels). 

The identified ANS Controls were further refined and served as management measures used for 

alternative development. The ANS Control Paper can be found on the GLMRIS website, glmris.anl.gov. 

2.2.3 Identified ANS of High and Medium Risk of Adverse Impacts (3513) 

The GLMRIS Team used a risk-based approach to identifying which ANS would be the focus of plan 

development. The goal was to identify which of the 35 ANS are a High or Medium risk of causing 

adverse impacts to a new basin. The ANS would cause these negative impacts by using a CAWS 

pathway for interbasin transfer and then becoming established in the new basin. This assessment was 

based on available information about the species.

For each ANS evaluated, the risk assessment was based on two components: (1) the probability of an 

ANS entering and becoming successfully established in a new basin; and (2) the negative consequences 

of that establishment on ecological, economic, and social aspects of the new basin’s environment. The 

combination of these two components together provide an assessment of the risk of adverse impacts that 

could occur as a result of the establishment of a “new” ANS (each basin currently includes previously 

established ANS) in a new basin. This may be depicted by the following risk model: 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

57 

Risk (likelihood) of 

adverse impacts 

occurring as a result of 

the establishment of 

ANS X in Basin Y

= 

Probability of ANS X 

becoming established in 

Basin Y (Basin Y becomes 

exposed to ANS X) 

×

The consequences of 

ANS X becoming 

established in Basin Y 

(the effects to Basin Y of 

exposure to ANS X)

The establishment assessment addresses the highlighted term of the risk model:

Risk (likelihood) of 

adverse impacts 

occurring as a result of 

the establishment of 

ANS X in Basin Y

= 

Probability of ANS X 

becoming established in 

Basin Y (Basin Y becomes 

exposed to ANS X) 

×

The consequences of 

ANS X becoming 

established in Basin Y 

(the effects to Basin Y of 

exposure to ANS X)

This term examines the probability that an ANS will successfully transfer from one basin to the other 

using one or more of the CAWS aquatic pathways and become established in the new basin. The 

probability of establishment is determined as follows:

Pestablishment = Ppath × Parrival × Ppassage × Pcolonize × Pspread

where:

Ppath = Probability that a complete aquatic pathway is available for interbasin

transfer;

Parrival = Probability that the ANS will arrive at the pathway from its current

distribution within a specified time; 

Ppassage = Probability that the ANS can successfully move through the aquatic 

pathway from one basin to the other; 

Pcolonize = Probability that the ANS can establish a colony in the newly invaded

basin;

Pspread = Probability that the ANS can spread to elsewhere in the new basin; 

and 

Pestablishment = Probability of the ANS becoming established in the new basin. 

Each of these probability categories is discussed in detail in Appendix A – Alternative 

Development Analyses. 

Probability Ratings 

For the establishment assessment (see Section 3.2.6), each of the probability elements is assigned one of 

the following qualitative likelihood ratings:

High = The event (e.g., successful passage through a pathway) will almost certainly 

occur; 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

58 

Medium = The event is likely to occur, but it is not certain;

Low = The event will likely not occur, but is possible; and 

None = The event is certain not to occur (it is impossible). 

The application of these ratings to each probability element is described in Section 3.2.3. 

Note that these probability elements are multiplicative, and thus Pestablishment takes on the lowest 

probability rating of the other probability elements. For example, if the lowest qualitative rating for any of 

the five non-Pestablishment probability elements is Medium, then the likelihood rating for Pestablishment

would be Medium. Alternately, if the lowest rating were Low, then Pestablishment would be Low. 

Consequence Ratings

The consequence assessment qualitatively considers three categories of consequences: environmental, 

economic, and social. The overall consequences from the establishment of a new ANS are estimated as:

Overall 

Consequences = Environmental Consequences + Economic Consequences + Social/Political Consequences

where:

Environmental Consequences = Effects on ecosystem structure and function, 

including effects on resident species, populations, 

communities, and habitats.

Economic Consequences = Effects on economic activities, such as changes in 

employment, unemployment, and earnings; changes 

in labor force and income.

Social/Political Consequences = Perceived effects on leisure, recreation or 

subsistence activities, as well as changes in 

regulatory requirements.

Overall Consequences = Qualitative combination of all environmental, 

economic, and social consequences.

Each of these consequence categories is discussed in detail in Appendix A – Alternative Development 

Analyses. Note that these consequence elements are additive, which differs from the probability 

elements. The overall consequence rating is not driven by the lowest rated consequence element.

For each ANS-specific consequence assessment, it is assumed that the ANS has successfully become 

established in the new basin. In addition, any consequences that may be associated with the new 

establishment are either “localized” or “widespread.” The term “localized” means that the potential 

spatial extent of any indicated consequences may be limited in the new basin due to the specific biotic and 

abiotic (e.g., physical, chemical, and/or climatological) habitat requirements and the relatively limited 

availability and distribution of suitable habitat (i.e., the habitat for the ANS occurs in disjunct and widely 

separated locations). In contrast, “widespread” means that the potential spatial extent of consequences 

may occur throughout the basin due to the general availability of suitable habitat for the ANS throughout 

the basin (e.g., in large contiguous patches or in numerous locations throughout the basin). With these 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

59 

assumptions, each of the three consequence categories was assigned one of the following qualitative 

ratings:

High (H) = High consequence rating due to the larger number of consequence categories

affected, the nature and severity of the consequences, and the broader spatial 

extent of the consequences.

Medium (M) = Medium consequence rating due to the number of consequence categories 

affected, the nature and severity of the consequences, and the spatial extent of 

the consequences. 

Low (L) = Low consequence rating due to the lower number of consequence categories 

affected, the lesser nature and severity of the consequences, and the more 

localized extent of the consequences.

None (N) = No consequences are anticipated.

These ratings are broad and flexible in their application, and their assignment is based on the amount of 

consequence information that is available for that ANS (or closely related species), the anticipated 

distribution of the ANS in the new basin, and the interpretations of this information by the GLMRIS Risk 

Assessment Team.

Three consequence categories (environmental, economic, and sociopolitical) were considered in the risk 

assessment, each with several consequence subcategories. To determine a consequence level for each of 

these three categories, the Risk Assessment Team considered (1) the number of consequence 

subcategories that could be affected following ANS establishment, (2) the nature and severity of the 

potential effects of those subcategory consequences as suggested by the available scientific literature and 

best professional judgment of the Risk Assessment Team, and (3) the spatial extent (localized or 

widespread) of where subcategory effects may be incurred. For each consequence category, the greater 

the number of subcategories potentially affected and the greater the severity and spatial extent any 

associated affects, the greater the consequence rating assigned to that ANS. For example, an ANS 

becoming widespread in a new basin and severely affecting all seven of the environmental subcategories 

could be assigned a High environmental consequence level. In contrast, an ANS with a very localized 

distribution and minimally affecting only one or two of the environmental subcategories could be 

assigned a Low environmental consequence rating. An overall consequence rating for an ANS was 

assigned based on the environmental, economic, and social consequence ratings assigned for that species. 

See the Risk Assessment methodology report in Appendix C for a detailed description of the assignment 

of consequences.

Results of Risk Assessment

The complete risk assessment including methodology, summary report and detailed risk assessments for 

each of the 35 species can be found in Appendix C – Risk Assessments. The following summary 

identifies which species were found to pose a High or Medium risk to their invaded basin. 

Risks of Species Invading the Great Lakes Basin. No species were found to pose a High risk to the 

Great Lakes basin. Three species — scud, silver carp and bighead carp — were found to pose a Medium 

risk to the basin (Table 2.2). Seven species — northern snakehead, black carp, skipjack herring, inland 

silverside, Cuban bulrush, dotted duckweed, marsh dewflower — were found to pose a Low risk to the 

basin. 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

60 

Table 2.2 Aquatic Nuisance Species of Concern for the Great Lakes Basin

Species Mode of Interbasin Transfer

Species Posing High Risk

None

Species Posing Medium Risk

Scud (Apocorophium lacustre) Passive drift, hull fouling

Silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix) Active swimming

Bighead carp (Hypophthalmichthys nobilis) Active swimming

Species Posing Low Risk

Northern snakehead (Channa argus) Active swimming

Black carp (Mylopharyngodon piceus) Active swimming

Skipjack herring (Alosa chrysochloris) Active swimming

Inland silverside (Menidia beryllina) Active swimming

Cuban bulrush (Oxycaryum cubense) Passive drift

Dotted duckweed (Landoltia punctata) Temporary vessel attachment, passive drift

Marsh dewflower (Murdannia keisak) Passive drift, temporary vessel attachment

Risks of Species Invading the Mississippi River Basin. Ten species were found to pose a High or 

Medium risk to the Mississippi River basin (Table 2.3). Two pose a High risk: bloody red shrimp and 

fish hook water flea; and eight, grass kelp, red algae, diatom, reed sweet grass, threespine stickleback, 

tubenose goby, ruffe and Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia Virus, pose a Medium risk to the Mississippi 

River basin. Fifteen species — sea lamprey, blueback herring, parasitic copepod, waterflea, harpacticoid 

copepod, European fingernail clam, greater European peaclam, European stream valvata, testate amoeba 

(psammonobiotus communis), testate amoeba (psammonobiotus dziwnowi), testate amoeba 

(psammonobiotus linearis), cryptic algae, water chestnut, swamp sedge, freshwater bryozoans — were 

found to pose a Low risk to the basin. 

Risk Assessment Limitations

While the risk assessment characterizes the potential for each ANS to undergo interbasin transfer, become 

established in the new basin, and adversely impact the new basin and its resources, the risk assessment is 

not intended to provide a definitive estimation of risks associated with each ANS or quantify the 

magnitude of potential consequences of an ANS invasion. Risk ratings consider how ecosystem structure 

and function, economic activity, and the regulatory environment might be affected following ANS 

establishment and attempt to evaluate the nature and severity of potential environmental, economic, and 

social/political effects. The characterization of potential consequences also considers whether these 

impacts would be localized or widespread in spatial extent. However, there are relatively few published 

studies or other available information on a number of ANS of Concern, and when more detailed 

information was available for selected species, it was considered beyond the scope of GLMRIS to try to 

quantify potential future consequences of ANS invasions. GLMRIS focuses on prevention of ANS 

transfer between the MR and GL basins, so it does not address the original establishment of ANS in either 

basin. 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

61 

Table 2.3 Aquatic Nuisance Species of Concern for the Mississippi River Basin

Species Mode of Interbasin Transfer

Species Posing High Risk

Bloody red shrimp (Hemimysis anomala) Passive drift 

Fishhook waterflea (Cercopagis pengoi) Passive drift, hull fouling

Species Posing Medium Risk

Grass kelp (Enteromorpha flexuosa) Passive drift, temporary vessel attachment

Red algae (Bangia atropurpurea) Passive drift, temporary vessel attachment

Diatom (Stephanodiscus binderanus) Passive drift, temporary vessel attachment

Reed sweet grass (Glyceria maxima) Passive drift

Threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) Active swimming

Tubenose goby (Proterorhinus semilunaris) Active swimming

Ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernuus) Active swimming

Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia (Novirhabdovirus sp.) Passive drift; host & hull transport

Species Posing Low Risk

Sea lamprey(Petromyzon marinus) Active swimming, temporary vessel attachment

Blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis) Active swimming

Parasitic copepod (Neoergasilus japonicas) Host fish movement, passive drift

Waterflea (Daphnia g. galeata) Passive drift, hull fouling

Harpacticoid copepod (Schizopera borutzkyi) Passive drift

European fingernail clam (Sphaerium corneum) Passive drift, temporary vessel attachment

Greater European peaclam (Pisidium amnicum) Passive drift, temporary vessel attachment

European stream valvata (Valvata piscinalis) Passive drift, temporary vessel attachment

Testate amoeba (Psammonobiotus communis) Passive drift

Testate amoeba (Psammonobiotus dziwnowi) Passive drift

Testate amoeba (Psammonobiotus linearis) Passive drift

Cryptic algae (Cyclotella cryptica) Passive drift, temporary vessel attachment

Water chestnut (Trapa natans) Passive drift, temporary vessel attachment

Swamp sedge (Carex acutiformis) Passive drift, temporary vessel attachment

Freshwater bryozoan (Lophopodella carteri) Passive drift, hull fouling

Residual Risk

One of the most important caveats of the analyses presented in this document is the study’s statutorily 

derived focus on the aquatic pathway. The transport or dispersal of ANS outside of the aquatic pathway is 

considered a residual risk for the GLMRIS effort.

In GLMRIS, all risk assessments, proposed measures, and alternative plans are centered upon aquaticbased mechanisms through which ANS could arrive at and transfer through aquatic pathways. These 

include active movement (swimming or crawling), passive drift via currents, and vessel-mediated 

movement. Vessel movement was included in GLMRIS to account for the significant existing use of the 

CAWS by commercial cargo, passenger, emergency services, government, and recreational navigation 

traffic. Any vessel that remains within the waterway as it moves between the basins via the CAWS is 

considered a relevant mode of potential transfer between the basins. This includes the transfer via ballast 

and bilge water, due to the inter-basin movement of commercial cargo vessels via the CAWS, as well as 

hull fouling by organisms semi-permanently attached to vessels below the waterline. However, transport 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

62 

by recreational or other types of smaller vessels that are put on trailers or otherwise portaged over land 

from one basin to the other was considered outside the scope of this study. 

Methods of ANS transport and spread outside of the aquatic pathway can be grouped into three general 

categories: (1) transportation-related mechanisms; (2) living industry-related mechanisms; and, 

(3) miscellaneous mechanisms. Some examples of transportation-related mechanisms include aircraft; 

overland transportation of recreational boats and other craft; vehicles; transportation/relocation of dredged 

material, topsoil and fill; hikers, hunters, and anglers; travelers (including their luggage); pets and plants. 

Living industry refers mainly to aquaculture, horticulture, and agriculture, as well as the aquarium trade, 

the use of live bait, and releases from aquariums or water gardens. Miscellaneous mechanisms represents 

a catch-all category to include a variety of modes of movement including transport on or within other 

plants and animals, disposal of solid waste/garbage, land or water alterations, and natural spread. Humanmediated dispersal may transport certain ANS at greater distances, or in higher numbers, than those ANS 

could disperse naturally. Humans are also likely to be instrumental in the secondary spread of ANS 

following initial establishment.

Appendix C identifies other pathways for the GLMRIS ANS of Concern to disperse, and presents a 

discussion of the most likely non-aquatic transfer methods. A review of applicable literature indicates that 

no matter what actions are pursued to prevent interbasin transfer of ANS via the aquatic pathway, there 

remains the risk for the species to be transferred by one or more of the non-aquatic transfer mechanisms. 

This circumstance is very important to consider when considering a long-term recommendations for 

prevention of ANS transfer; the risks and risk reduction methodology presented within this study do not 

consider those non-aquatic pathways. Recreational use, particularly in the vicinity of the CAWS, may be 

of more concern for interbasin transfer than the other non-aquatic transfer mechanisms due to the number 

of individuals that participate in hunting, fishing, boating, and other water sports in the vicinity, as well as 

the number of transfer mechanisms associated with recreation (e.g., equipment, clothing, vehicles). 

Interbasin transfer is also possible from private aquaria and water gardens, accidental and unregulated 

stocking, and the live food fish market.

2.2.4 Controls Screening (96) 

After USACE identified the High and Medium risk ANS of Concern, the revised species list was used to 

screen the ANS Controls down to a smaller subset of controls that could be used as measures in GLMRIS 

Alternatives. Initially, the controls were screened based on the following criteria:

• Remove all ANS Controls that are NOT potentially effective against the High and 

Medium risk ANS in various life stages.

– The original list of ANS of Concern included controls for bryozoans, mollusks, and

protozoa. The controls were screened and only those that were potentially effective for 

the organism types for the High and Medium risk algae, crustaceans, fish, and plants 

were retained. The viral hemorrhagic septicemia virus was identified as a Medium risk 

species after this process was completed, but alternatives were developed to reduce the 

risk of VHS to the maximum extent possible. 

• Remove all the biocides for industrial use that are NOT used for conventional 

municipal drinking water or wastewater treatment.

– The overarching plan formulation strategy was to formulate plans that were based on 

proven technologies that were backed by research and field application; therefore, nonconventional biocides were removed. Using these technologies was thought to reduce the 

uncertainty associated with an alternative’s effectiveness and also potentially expedite 

design and regulatory permitting. 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

63 

• Remove the controls that are under research and development (R&D) that may NOT 

be available within ANS’ time period for arrival to the pathway.

– The risk assessment identified the probability of an ANS was anticipated to arrive at the 

CAWS pathway. The R&D controls potentially effective for each of the ANS were 

compared to the applicable ANS’s arrival to the pathway. If based on a review of 

information regarding the status of R&D such as whether the control was solely a 

concept; had undergone bench scale, larger scale laboratory, or field testing; or had 

published research on its effectiveness was included in this assessment. The controls that 

were thought to not be developed sufficiently by the time an ANS’s probability of arrival 

to the CAWS reached Medium or High, these controls were discarded. 

In November of 2012, USACE held a three-day meeting with stakeholders from the Executive Steering 

Committee. The intention of this meeting was to review the results of the ANS Controls screening process 

and to solicit any new information regarding the ANS Controls. As a result of the meeting, lethal 

temperature was removed from the list of available controls. It was determined that while lethal 

temperatures were viable controls in a closed setting, they would not be effective in the open, freeflowing channels of the CAWS. It was determined to be infeasible to keep a section of the CAWS frozen 

in such a way that it would act as a physical barrier. A less energy intensive option was installing 

physical barriers. As for elevated water temperature, it was determined to be problematic and energy 

intensive to heat and adequately mix a large enough cross-section of an open flowing system to control 

upstream movement and to kill species that would be passing through the heated water. Additionally, the 

elevated water temperature would cause significant downstream water quality impacts. Water 

temperature is a regulated water quality constituent. USACE also hosted a 30-day public comment period 

on the GLMRIS website to solicit comments on the available controls per organism type. The comments 

are also posted on the website. For additional information on the controls screening process refer to 

Technology Team Screening Charts in Appendix A – Alternative Development Analyses. 

Figure 2.1 is a flowchart illustrating how USACE identified ANS Controls that would be used in the 

development of alternatives. This flowchart also includes the next phase of the study process, which is 

plan development and assessment of risk reduction. 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

64 

Figure 2.1 ANS Control Alternative Development Process
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

65 

2.2.5 High and Medium ANS Targeted Measures 

This section includes descriptions of the ANS control measures that remained after the controls screening 

process that were refined into detailed plan measures. These measures were used to develop the 

alternatives detailed in Chapter 3. If future controls are developed that would more effectively address 

certain ANS, or if future controls would be equally effective but have fewer impacts, further analysis 

would need to be conducted and incorporated into the study. Refer to Appendix I for addition details on 

the GLMRIS Lock, electric barrier, screened sluice gates, and physical barrier and refer to Appendix F for 

additional detail on the ANS Treatment Plant. 

GLMRIS Lock

The purpose of the GLMRIS Lock is to allow for vessel transportation while reducing the risk to the 

maximum extent possible of passive drift GLMRIS species transferring during lockages. After a vessel 

enters the lock and sector gates close, the GLMRIS Lock’s pump-driven filling and emptying system 

removes water from one end and, on the opposite end, fills the lock with water, therefore maintaining a 

pool for vessels during the lockage. Pumped inflow flushes and replaces the water originating in the lock 

(Figure 2.2). Depending on the alternative, the source of the filling water could originate from an ANS 

Treatment Plant or an adjacent Buffer Zone. Flushing operations may be conducted for lockages of 

vessels traveling upstream or downstream. Additional details on these processes are contained in 

Appendix A. This measure will be effective at controlling the passage of ANS that move via passive 

means, such as floating plants, spores, and eggs. However, this measure will not control the passage of 

species that are known to be hull foulers because the operation of the GLMRIS Lock will not dislodge 

attached organisms.

GLMRIS Locks were considered for implementation at a number of locations within the CAWS. 

However, special design features were added to the GLMRIS Lock proposed at the current location of the 

Chicago Lock and Controlling Works. During high winds, Lake Michigan waves currently overtop the 

lakefront structures near the Chicago Lock and splash into the CAWS. In order to prevent the potential 

overtopping/bypass of this control point, breakwater rubble mounds would be constructed lakeside of the 

GLMRIS Lock to reduce incoming wave energy and the potential for an overtopping bypass. 

For additional details on the evaluation of the GLMRIS Lock, refer to Appendix A.
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

66 

Figure 2.2 GLMRIS Lock
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

67 

ANS Treatment Plant (ANSTP)

The purpose of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Treatment Plant (ANSTP) (Figure 2.3) is to remove aquatic 

nuisance species from Lake Michigan basin water before discharging it to the Mississippi River basin side 

of a control point. ANSTP effluent will supply ANS-treated water to the GLMRIS Locks and will also be 

used to mitigate water quality impacts of GLMRIS project alternatives, such as low flows, stagnant zones, 

and low dissolved oxygen concentrations. 

Design of the ANSTP is based on treatment processes typically used in municipal water and wastewater 

treatment. Treatment technologies included in the ANSTP would include a combination of screening, 

filtration, and ultraviolet radiation (UV) to remove or deactivate High and Medium risk GLMRIS ANS of 

Concern and their various life stages currently found in the Great Lakes basin. In the first treatment step, 

self-cleaning screens will exclude ANS and other organic matter greater than 0.75 inch (19.05 mm). 

Organisms passing the 0.75-inch screens would proceed to either filtration or UV treatment, depending on 

project location.

UV treatment performance is affected by water clarity, as suspended particles can shade and encase target 

species and prevent the UV light from reaching them. Transmittance of UV light can also be inhibited by 

some dissolved species, such as iron, nitrate, and natural organic matter. Water quality data collected by 

MWRD between 2007 and 2011 indicates that screening and UV treatment is likely to be an effective 

treatment process at the Wilmette, Chicago, and T.J. O’Brien project locations, due to their close 

proximity to Lake Michigan and the low turbidity and suspended solids concentrations typically found in 

Lake Michigan water. Water quality data also indicate that higher turbidity and suspended solids 

concentrations at the Stickney and Alsip project locations may substantially reduce the effectiveness of 

UV treatment. Consequently, pre-filtration is included in ANS treatment process prior to UV treatment at 

Stickney and Alsip. 

UV radiation is a well-established technology for disinfecting drinking water and domestic wastewater. 

While it effectively inactivates bacteria, viruses, protozoa, and spores, different strains of bacteria and 

viruses to react differently to UV due to variations in DNA content and how that DNA absorbs UV light. 

Limited literature is available on the effect of UV treatment on some GLMRIS target species, as 

discussed in Appendix C. Site-specific dose-response tests will be required to determine the UV dose 

necessary to inactivate target species and determine the influence of local water quality. Pilot-scale 

testing will be required to evaluate dose requirements, possible interferences, and other design questions. 

Future work would be needed to determine if additional treatment processes would be required. 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

68 

Figure 2.3 ANS Treatment Plant Processes
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

69 

Electric Barrier

The purpose of an electric barrier is to reduce the risk to the maximum extent possible of fish transfer into 

an invading basin via operation of the GLMRIS Lock. The electrical barrier consists of steel electrodes 

mounted across the bed of the lock approach channel and on-land power generation and distribution 

equipment. The on-land equipment sends a pulsing direct current through the electrodes, creating an 

electric field in the water that repels and stuns fish, preventing them from entering the lock while allowing 

boat to freely pass (Figure 2.4). 

The electrodes consist of steel bars resting on concrete blocks on the approach channel bottom. The active 

electrodes and associated parasitic arrays span the width of the channel bottom. The parasitic arrays are 

situated on either side of the electrode field and are designed to reduce the amount of electricity that 

extends upstream and downstream beyond the area designed for fish deterrence. 

Electric barriers are complex electrical and mechanical systems that must periodically be powered down 

for maintenance. These shutdowns are required in order to perform necessary tasks such as replacement 

of parts, tune-ups, cleaning, etc. Electric barriers are also susceptible to power outages and generator 

failures. Regardless of the cause, fish can swim past the electric barrier when a barrier is inactive. If the 

electric barrier is placed immediately before a GLMRIS Lock, when maintenance is required or during a 

Figure 2.4 Cross section of the Electrical Barrier
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

70 

power failure, the lock would remain closed until response crews clear fish from the approach channel 

and electrical barrier area, and the electric barrier is once again operational. 

There are several safety concerns related to operation of electric barriers: the potential of the electrified 

water to generate sparking within or between barges or other vessels; the potential risks that the electrified 

water poses to people who contact it; potential risks created by on-land ground currents; potential risks 

from exposure to airborne electromagnetic fields; and electrical hazards to which workers onsite may be 

exposed. Operation of the electric barriers also has other potential side effects such as accelerated 

corrosion of metal in the vicinity and interference with other nearby electronic equipment. These safety 

concerns and operational impacts must be understood and considered when construction of a new electric 

barrier is considered. 

The U.S. Coast Guard may implement special rules and a Safety Zone and Regulated Navigation Area to 

mitigate such risks. Currently the Coast Guard restricts vessels less than 20 feet in length from passing 

through the electric barriers in Romeoville, IL. 

The efficacy of the electric barrier will continue to be studied by USACE under Section 3061(b)(1)(d) of 

WRDA 2007, and any additional findings relevant to the barrier’s efficacy will be factored into any future 

studies on GLMRIS Alternatives including this component. Currently, there are ongoing studies about 

the efficacy of the electric barrier against very small fish. More detail on these efforts is set forth in 

Appendix B. At this point, the electric barrier was determined to be the most effective technology for 

preventing fish passage, not including physical barriers. However, any new information about any other 

technologies that could be a more effective deterrent against fish passage will be considered in any 

ongoing studies. Refer to Section 1.15.1 for additional detail on current efforts to improve the efficacy of 

the existing electric barrier.

Screened Sluice Gates

The purpose of the screened sluice gates (Figure 2.5) is to allow for the passage of flood waters from the 

CAWS to Lake Michigan while still reducing the risk to the maximum extent possible the transfer of GL 

ANS fish into the Mississippi River basin. This measure is only included in those alternatives that include 

an ANS Buffer Zone in the CAWS. Therefore, during large storm events, these gates may be opened at 

Wilmette Pumping Station, Chicago River Controlling Works, and T.J. O’Brien Lock and Dam to 

facilitate a system backflow. Water would pass through the screened sluice gates designed with a 0.4-inch 

screen mesh. The 0.4-inch opening is expected to control the passage of the following adult GL High and 

Medium risk ANS fish from Lake Michigan to the CAWS: tubenose goby, ruffe (Fuller et al. 2012), and 

threespine stickleback (Bergstrom 2002). 

Additionally, standard operating procedures for operating the screened sluice gate would be to 

accommodate the system’s flood risk management requirements while reducing the risk to the greatest 

extent possible of the transfer of ANS between the basins during backflows. Besides the adult GL ANS 

fish, the remainder of the GL High and Medium risk ANS are passive drift species and are not able to 

travel against a current. Consequently, these gates would be opened when conditions in the CAWS 

provide for flow exiting the CAWS into Lake Michigan. 

Similar to existing conditions, if the flow were to ever exceed the capacity of the screened sluice gates, 

the lock structures at Chicago (IL) and T.J. O’Brien (IL) would be opened to pass water. Under these 

situations, it is anticipated that the rate of flow would control the transfer of ANS that rely on passive 

drift, and fish would still not be able to transfer due to the presence of electric barriers. Further study may 

examine whether screened sluice gates are necessary where adjacent lock structures provide the ability to 

backflow stormwater. 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

71 

Figure 2.5 Screened Sluice Gates

Physical Barriers

The purpose of the physical barriers is to prevent the transfer of untreated surface water in the CAWS, 

thus severing the aquatic pathway. The physical barrier itself can be designed for multi-purpose uses, 

such as park space or pedestrian bridges, however intended to block an aquatic pathway. For this report, 

the physical barriers design consisted of concrete and steel sheet pile. If any alternative that includes a 

physical barrier is selected for further study, additional design and coordination of the structure would be 

conducted to ensure that structure is accurately described and estimated. 

2.6 Alternative Development

2.6.1 Alternative Development Strategies

Acknowledging that each potential approach to the problem of ANS transfer would present its own 

unique benefits and drawbacks, the GLMRIS Team proposed approaches that were optimized for 

implementation time, flood-risk management, and water quality. Accordingly, the team developed five 

approaches: Nonstructural; Technologies without a Buffer Zone; Technologies with a Buffer Zone; 

Hydrologic Separation; and a Combination of Technologies and Hydrologic Separation. The Buffer Zone 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

72 

is defined as the channel area between sets of upstream and downstream controls within the CAWS. Each 

strategy is described below. 

Nonstructural

This strategy focused on the development of one or more alternatives that could be implemented without 

any physical construction allowing for rapid implementation of a project. 

Technologies without a Buffer Zone

This strategy focused on maintaining the current operations of the CAWS with a minimal number of 

control points.

Technologies with a Buffer Zone

This strategy focused on maintaining the current operations of the CAWS by analyzing the system and 

then creating a Buffer Zone within the CAWS. This Buffer Zone is the segment of the waterway located 

between the lakefront and downstream controls points. The water within this zone would be composed of 

discharge from ANSTP, treated WRP effluent, precipitation and stormwater. The Buffer Zone provides 

for redundancy in control points in the system and serves as a zone where an ANS response action could 

occur, if necessary.

Hydrologic Separation 

In 2011, the GLMRIS Team met with local, state, and federal agencies to gather input on considerations 

for the design and evaluation of a Hydrologic Separation of the Great Lakes basin and the Mississippi 

River basin at the CAWS.

The meeting provided insight on the complexity associated with the implementation of a Hydrologic 

Separation, which helped define the scope of analysis for this alternative. The meeting participants 

developed the following definition of Hydrologic Separation for GLMRIS: 

Hydrologic separation (Hydro-Sep) – the use of physical means to permanently separate two, or 

more, previously connected watersheds, in order to prevent the mixing of all untreated surface 

waters of the disconnected watersheds.

The key statement in this definition is “prevent mixing of all UNTREATED surface waters.” This allows 

for water that has moved through a water treatment plant to move from one basin to the other. 

Combination of Technologies and Hydrologic Separation 

The last alternative development strategy the PDT used was to combine both technologies and hydrologic 

separation strategies and to minimize impacts to existing CAWS uses and users. 

2.6.2 Waterway Uses and Users Impacts Analysis

At the 2011 stakeholder meeting, a list of CAWS uses and users was developed by meeting participants. 

These uses and users shaped how all the GLMRIS Alternatives were formulated, with the specific goal of 

minimizing impacts to the identified uses and users. Where impacts to a Use or User could not be 

minimized within the design of a particular alternative, mitigation measures for those impacts were 

considered for that alternative. The uses and users for this analysis were identified as the following:
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

73 

Chicago Area Waterway System Uses: 

• Water Quality CAWS – Under the Clean Water Act and associated state laws, water 

quality in the CAWS is protected for designated uses such as Aquatic Life, Fish 

Consumption, Public Food Processing Water Supplies, Primary Contact Recreation, 

Secondary Contact Recreation, Indigenous Aquatic Life, and Aesthetic Quality. State 

agencies have established water quality standards to protect these designated uses and 

regulate discharges to the CAWS to ensure that the water quality standards are 

achieved. Water quality standards include antidegradation policies that prevent 

deterioration of the waterway’s existing uses.

• Water Quality Lake Michigan – Under the Clean Water Act and associated state 

laws, water quality in Lake Michigan is protected for designated uses such as Aquatic 

Life, Fish Consumption, Public Food Processing Water Supplies, Primary Contact 

Recreation, Secondary Contact Recreation, and Aesthetic Quality. State agencies 

have established water quality standards to protect these designated uses and regulate 

discharges to the Lake Michigan basin to ensure that the water quality standards are 

achieved. Water quality standards include antidegradation policies that prevent 

deterioration of existing water quality in Lake Michigan.

• Flood Risk Management (FRM) – The CAWS is used to convey floodwater away 

from the Chicago area to minimize the risk of flood damages impacts. 

• Human Safety – The CAWS provides Emergency Responders access to critical 

facilities. 

• Ecosystem – The CAWS provides habitat for a variety of species.

Chicago Area Waterway System Users: 

• Commercial Cargo Navigation – Commercial shippers utilize the CAWS to move 

goods within the Chicago area and to the rest of the nation. 

• Non-Cargo Navigation (includes recreational navigation) – The CAWS offers 

recreational boating opportunities, public transportation in the form of water taxis, 

and provides the Coast Guard and other organizations with abilities to utilize the 

waterway.

• Hydropower – Lockport Lock and Controlling Works utilizes the CAWS flow to 

create electricity through a hydroelectric plant. Power generated at this facility is 

used for operations, and is not sold.

2.6.3 Initial Alternative Development (Plans for DMP I)

Figure 2.6 displays the locations of ANS control measures and mitigation measures for all GLMRIS 

Alternatives. Each alternative does not contain a measure at every location on this figure.
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

74 

Figure 2.6 GLMRIS Measure Locations
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

75 

Nonstructural

The nonstructural alternative evaluated measures that: (1) may be implemented relatively quickly (T0); 

(2) pose little or no risk to human health or safety; (3) would not require the construction of any type of 

infrastructure; (4) could act to stop or reduce (slow) the arrival at and passage of at least some ANS; and 

(5) have been or are being currently implemented for other ANS elsewhere in North America, which 

would ensure the measure is consistent with U.S. laws and regulations.

Examples of nonstructural control measures include removal (e.g., netting), chemical control (e.g., use of 

herbicides), controlled waterway use (e.g., inspection and cleaning of watercraft before or after entry to a 

water body), and educational programs. Additional details on this alternative is included in Appendix A – 

Alternative Development Analyses. 

Traditionally, USACE does not actively administer many of the nonstructural measures that were 

considered in the GLMRIS Report. The GLMRIS PDT believes that these nonstructural measures would 

have to be coordinated with stakeholder groups such as other federal agencies, state agencies, local 

municipalities, and NGOs. Implementation would require the collaboration of many agencies to effect 

shared responsibility of this alternative.

A nonstructural component has been included as part of each proposed structural alternative. The 

inclusion of nonstructural measures will facilitate opportunities to enhance structural measures with 

targeted nonstructural measures. For example, in the alternatives that contain a CAWS Buffer Zone, 

nonstructural measures could be deployed in a rapid response action in the Buffer Zone, should they be 

necessary. Further, nonstructural alternatives could be implemented quickly, while remaining elements of 

a primarily structural plan were being designed and constructed. 

Technologies without a Buffer Zone

Concurrent with the screening of the ANS Controls, the GLMRIS PDT evaluated which of these controls 

may effectively work at single point locations to control the transfer of ANS in both directions. The PDT 

chose to locate these technologies at the same control points that the Hydrologic Separation alternatives 

were located. This was done in anticipation that application of these control technologies may have some 

FRM impacts to the CAWS and that the Hydrologic Separation locations were going to be evaluated 

specifically on their FRM impacts. 

Preliminary Technologies without a Buffer Zone Alternatives

• Lakefront Technologies without a Buffer Zone. This alternative has four ANS 

control technology locations at Wilmette (IL), Chicago (IL), Calumet City (IL), and 

Hammond (IN). The ANS control technology at each location involved diverting the 

flow of the CAWS through water treatment plants, having a GLMRIS Lock to 

maintain navigation and electric barriers on either end of the GLMRIS Lock. This 

maintained many of the current operational capabilities of the CAWS but has 

significant impacts to FRM and human safety. 

• Mid-System Technologies without a Buffer Zone. This alternative has two ANS 

control technology locations, in Stickney (IL) and Alsip (IL), that are roughly located 

where the divide between the Mississippi River basin and Great Lakes basin existed

more than 100 years ago. The ANS control technology at each location involved 

diverting the flow of the CAWS through water treatment plants and having a 

GLMRIS Lock to maintain navigation and electric barriers on either end of the 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

76 

GLMRIS Lock. This maintained many of the current operational capabilities of the 

CAWS but has significant impacts to FRM and human safety. 

• Downstream Hydrologic Separation. This alternative has a single ANS control 

technology location, initially considered near the Lockport Controlling Works, where 

all five pathways in the system could be controlled at a single point. The ANS control 

technology at this location involved diverting the flow of the CAWS through water 

treatment plants and having a GLMRIS Lock to maintain navigation and electric 

barriers on either end of the GLMRIS Lock. This maintained many of the current 

operational capabilities of the CAWS but has significant impacts to FRM and human 

safety. 

Technologies with a Buffer Zone

The presence of a Buffer Zone allows for greater freedom in the selection of ANS Controls. Since 

transfer is managed at two points, the control technology at each point only needs to be effective in a 

single direction.

Hydrologic Separation 

The GLMRIS PDT recognized from the outset that any Hydrologic Separation scenario was going to have 

a significant impact on navigation of the CAWS. Hydrologic Separation alternatives were formulated to 

either minimize flood risk management (FRM) impacts on the CAWS or minimize water quality (WQ) 

impacts to Lake Michigan. During the development of the Hydrologic Separation alternatives, potential 

optimization of barrier locations with a specific focus on minimizing impacts to navigation was 

coordinated with the Navigation and Economics Team. 

Seventeen initial scenarios were simulated using Hydrologic and Hydraulic (H&H) Models of the CAWS. 

Modeling scenarios included various combinations of separation locations for each of the five primary 

connections. Upon evaluation, three Hydrologic Separation alternatives were selected for continued 

analysis. The fourteen scenarios that were screened out included combinations of the three selected 

alternatives. Alternatives were screened out because they did not meet the strategies of protecting the 

water quality of Lake Michigan or minimizing FRM impacts of the CAWS as effectively as the three 

alternatives below, based on the modeling results. Additional discussion on the site screening analysis is 

included in Appendix E.

Preliminary Hydrologic Separation Alternatives 

Three Hydrologic Separation alternatives were identified from the H&H modeling efforts for continued 

evaluation. They are as follows:

• Lakefront Hydrologic Separation. This alternative started initially with five 

physical barriers, one for each aquatic pathway in the system that connected the 

CAWS to Lake Michigan. This alternative was further refined to a total of four 

physical barriers with a single barrier to block the connections of the Calumet River 

and Grand Calumet River systems between the CAWS and Lake Michigan. The four 

physical barrier locations are Wilmette (IL), Chicago (IL), Calumet City (IL), and 

Hammond (IN). This alternative minimized the impacts to the water quality of Lake 

Michigan, but has significant impacts to FRM, human safety, and navigation. 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

77 

• Mid-System Hydrologic Separation. This alternative has two physical barrier 

locations, in Stickney (IL) and Alsip (IL), that are roughly located where the divide 

between the Mississippi River basin and Great Lakes basin existed more than 100 

years ago. This alternative minimized the impacts to FRM in the Chicago area, but 

has significant impacts to the water quality of Lake Michigan, the ecosystem, and 

navigation. 

• Downstream Hydrologic Separation. This alternative has a single physical barrier 

location, in the vicinity of the Lockport Controlling Works, where all five pathways 

in the system could be controlled at a single point. This alternative has significant 

impacts to the water quality of the CAWS, water quality of Lake Michigan, FRM in 

the Chicago area, human safety, navigation, and hydropower. 

Physical barriers were included in the hydraulic models at specific points in the waterways. Further study 

of a specific alternative would be needed to optimize an exact location for a specific physical barrier.

Combination of Technologies and Hydrologic Separation 

The CAWS is a complex system with five aquatic connections between the Great Lakes and Mississippi 

River basins. As discussed above, the control strategies identified consisted of single methodologies, 

i.e., the Technologies Strategy seeks to control those connections through the use of various measures, 

and the Hydrologic Separation Strategy seeks to sever all of these connections outright. Since each 

approach has merit, additional alternatives were developed that consisted of hybrid of these two 

strategies.

Four different combinations of the two independent strategies were developed into four alternatives. The 

combinations were developed by applying one strategy to the CSSC arm of the CAWS and the two 

aquatic pathways it contains and another strategy to the Cal-Sag arm of the CAWS and the three aquatic 

pathways it contains. 

The first pair of these combinations focused on applying the measures identified in the Technology with a 

Buffer Zone Alternative to the Cal-Sag arm of the CAWS. These would allow a significant portion of 

commercial navigation to continue largely unaffected. The CSSC arm of this alternative would have 

either the Mid-System Hydrologic Separation at Stickney (IL) or the Lakefront Hydrologic Separations at 

Chicago (IL) and Wilmette (IL).

The second pair of these combinations focused on applying the measures identified in the Technology 

with a Buffer Zone Alternative to the CSSC arm of the CAWS. The Cal-Sag arm of this alternative would 

have either the Mid-System Hydrologic Separation at Alsip (IL) or the Lakefront Hydrologic Separations 

at Calumet City (IL) and Hammond (IN). 

Preliminary Combination of Technologies and Hydrologic Separation Alternatives 

• Mid-System Separation Cal-Sag Open Control Technologies with a Buffer Zone.

This alternative has a physical barrier on the CSSC at Stickney (IL). At Brandon 

Road (IL) and T.J. O’Brien (IL), GLMRIS Locks and electric barriers would installed 

and create an ANS-free Buffer Zone between the two locations. There would be 

physical barriers at Stateline (IL/IN) and Hammond (IL) to address potential ANS 

transfer on the Grand Calumet and Little Calumet Rivers. This alternative would 

have significant impacts to water quality of Lake Michigan, and water quality of the 

CAWS.
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

78 

• Lakefront Separation Cal-Sag Open Control Technologies with a Buffer Zone. 

This alternative has physical barriers at Wilmette (IL) and Chicago (IL). At Brandon 

Road (IL) and T.J. O’Brien (IL), GLMRIS Locks and electric barriers would installed 

and create an ANS-free Buffer Zone between the two locations. There would be 

physical barriers at Stateline (IL/IN) and Hammond (IL) to address potential ANS 

transfer on the Grand Calumet and Little Calumet Rivers. This alternative would 

have significant impacts to the water quality of the CAWS, FRM, human safety, and 

noncommercial navigation.

• Mid-System Separation CSSC Open Control Technologies with a Buffer Zone. 

This alternative has a physical barrier on the Cal-Sag Channel at Alsip (IL). At 

Brandon Road (IL) and Chicago (IL), GLMRIS Locks and electric barriers would 

installed and create an ANS-free Buffer Zone between the two locations. There 

would be new sluice structures constructed at Wilmette (IL) to address ANS transfer 

on the North Shore Channel. At the time of DMP-1, the PDT determined that this 

alternative would have significant impacts to the water quality of the CAWS, water 

quality of Lake Michigan, and commercial navigation.

• Lakefront Separation CSSC Open Control Technologies with a Buffer Zone. 

This alternative has physical barriers at Calumet City (IL) and Hammond (IN). At 

Brandon Road (IL) and Chicago (IL), GLMRIS Locks and electric barriers would 

installed and create an ANS-free Buffer Zone between the two locations. There 

would be new sluice structures constructed at Wilmette (IL) to address ANS transfer 

on the North Shore Channel. This alternative would have significant impacts to the 

water quality of the CAWS, FRM, human safety, and commercial navigation.

2.7 Alternative Plan Evaluation (DMP-I)

In January 2013, USACE conducted a meeting of the Project Delivery Team (PDT) at all levels of the 

organization. The meeting was attended by GLMRIS PDT members from Chicago District, St. Paul 

District, Huntington District, Alaska District, Jacksonville District, Lakes and Rivers Division, 

HQUSACE, IWR, the Office of the ASA-CW, and Argonne National Laboratory. The format of the 

meeting followed the SMART Planning Process. The goal of the meeting included the development of 

alternatives and consensus on methods to screen and evaluate alternatives.

At this meeting, the USACE team developed the path forward for GLMRIS through the formulation of 

two Decision Management Plans (DMPs). These DMPs were written for two distinct points in the study 

process. The first DMP (referred to hereon as DMP-1) addressed the immediate future of the study, and 

determined a screening process for the twelve alternatives that USACE was evaluating at the time. This 

list of twelve needed to be screened so that USACE could focus time and resources on the further 

development of specific alternatives. The screening criteria and associated metrics that were identified for 

DMP-1 are summarized in Table 2.4.

Table 2.4 Screening Criteria for DMP-I 

Criterion Metric

Lifecycle Cost of the Project Qualitative Ranking of 1–12 

Impacts to Waterway Uses List uses (WQ, FRM, etc.)

Impacts to Waterway Users List Users (Rec. Nav., Commercial Nav., etc.)

Required by Law or Policy Yes or No
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

79 

When preliminary information had been developed for each alternative, the GLMRIS PDT held a team 

meeting to evaluate each alternative utilizing the DMP-1 criteria.

For the “Lifecycle Cost of the Project” criterion, the PDT discussed each alternative and associated 

features, then ranked the alternatives on their total anticipated costs relative to each other. The ranking 

“1” was the anticipated highest cost alternative, with the ranking “12” being the anticipated lowest cost 

alternative. 

For the criteria “Impacts to Waterway Uses” and “Impacts to Waterway Users,” the GLMRIS Team

identified for each alternative which waterway uses and users would be impacted, and whether it would 

be a significant impact. These were rough order of magnitude determinations based on the extensive 

knowledge of the study area across multiple disciplines of the GLMRIS Team. These impacts were then 

listed next to each alternative in a matrix. The Impacts to waterway uses and users shown in DMP-1 are 

UNMITIGATED impacts.

The final criterion, “Required by Law or Policy,” recognizes that USACE has committed to fully 

evaluating a Hydrologic Separation alternative and that at least a single Hydrologic Separation alternative 

would be contained in the GLMRIS Report and should not be screened out of the Planning Process. 

The PDT retained at least one alternative from each Formulation Strategy, including Hydrologic 

Separation, which is consistent with the MAP-21 authorizing language.

During the screening analysis, alternatives within each formulation strategy were assumed to have equal 

risk reduction. There was no formal analysis of risk reduction for each plan conducted at this point in 

study. Alternatives were screened based on a comparison of their costs and their unmitigated impacts to 

waterways uses and users, meaning that an alternative within a formulation strategy that had a lower cost 

or fewer significant impacts to waterway uses and users was preferred and retained for further analysis. 

Screening Results

The following are the screening results from DMP-1 (Table 2.5). 

Nonstructural

The Nonstructural Alternative was retained for further analysis.

Technologies without a Buffer Zone

The screening process outlined in DMP-1 resulted in removing the Lakefront and Downstream 

Technologies without a Buffer Zone Alternatives from further consideration. The three 

alternatives outlined in the strategy all had similar impacts. The Mid-System location of the 

Technologies without a Buffer Zone Alternative was retained further analysis because it had

the lowest relative cost of the three. 

Technologies with a Buffer Zone

The Technology with a Buffer Zone Alternative was retained for further analysis. 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

80 

Table 2.5 DMP-1 Evaluation Table

Screening Criteria

Alternative

Lifecycle 

Costs

Impacts to 

Uses

Impacts to 

Users Screening Decision

Non Structural Alternatives

Nonstructural 12 HS

ECO Retained

ANS Control Technologies without a Buffer Zone Alternatives

Lakefront 3 

FRM

HS

ECO

NCNAV Removed – Cost and 

significant impacts

Mid-System 7 

FRM

HS

ECO

Retained

Downstream 1 

FRM

HS

ECO

Removed, Cost and significant 

impacts

ANS Control Technologies with a Buffer Zone

Technology Alternative 11 HS

ECO NCNAV Retained – Cost, minimal impacts

Hydrologic Separation* 

*Analysis of hydrologic separation was included consistent with the MAP-21 Act requirements

Lakefront 4 

WQCAWS

FRM

HS

CNAV

NCNAV

Retained – Protects WQ of 

Lake MI

Mid System 6 

WQCAWS

WQLM

FRM

ECO

CNAV

HP

Retained – Reduces FRM and 

HS impacts

Downstream 2 

WQCAWS

WQLM

FRM

HS

ECO

CNAV

HP

Removed – Cost and 

significant impacts

Combination of Control Technologies with a Buffer Zone and Hydrologic Separation

Combination Mid-System 

Separation Cal-Sag Open 8 

WQCAWS

WQLM

FRM

HS

ECO

CNAV

HP

Retained – Cost and 

minimized significant impacts

Combination Lakefront 

Separation Cal-Sag Open 5 

WQCAWS 

FRM

HS

ECO

CNAV

NCNAV

Removed – Combination MidSystem Separation Cal-Sag 

Open Alternative achieves the 

same with lower cost and less 

significant impacts

Combination Mid-System 

Separation CSSC Open 10

WQCAWS

WQLM

FRM

HS

ECO

CNAV

HP

Retained – Cost and 

minimized significant impacts
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

81 

Table 2.5 (Cont.)

Screening Criteria

Alternative

Lifecycle 

Costs

Impacts to 

Uses

Impacts to 

Users Screening Decision

Combination of Control Technologies with a Buffer Zone and Hydrologic Separation (Cont.)

Combination Lakefront 

Separation CSSC Open 9 

WQCAWS

FRM

HS

ECO

CNAV

Removed – Combination MidSystem Separation CSSC Open 

achieves the same risk 

reduction with lower cost and 

less significant impacts

Hydrologic Separation 

The screening process outlined in DMP-1 resulted in removing the Downstream Hydrologic 

Separation Alternative from further consideration. The impacts of the Downstream Hydrologic 

Separation Alternative were almost identical to the Mid-System Hydrologic Separation 

Alternative but the anticipated costs were significantly higher. Both the Lakefront Hydrologic 

Separation Alternative and the Mid-System Hydrologic Separation Alternative were retained 

for further consideration because of their differences in impacts to waterway uses and users. 

This was expected based on the formulation strategies to protect the water quality of Lake 

Michigan and to minimize the FRM impacts to the Chicago area.

Combination of Technologies and Hydrologic Separation 

The screening process outlined in DMP-1 resulted in removing the Combination Lakefront 

Hydrologic Separation Cal-Sag Open Alternative and the Combination Lakefront Hydrologic 

Separation CSSC Open Alternative from further consideration. The Lakefront–Technology 

combinations were screened because they has more significant impacts to waterway uses and 

users and were higher cost than the Mid-System–Technology combinations. 

2.8 Mitigation for Alternative Plan Impacts

As DMP-1 succinctly identifies, every alternative in GLMRIS has some impacts to waterway uses and 

users. USACE would have an obligation to provide mitigation for some of these impacts, such as 

potential flooding impacts. While the mitigation for some impacts, such as water quality impacts, may fall 

within the responsibility of third parties, these impacts and associated costs were included in the 

development of the alternatives for completeness from an engineering, environmental, regulatory, and 

social perspective.

Because the CAWS supports many uses and users, evaluation of alternatives impacts and mitigation was 

very complex. It is difficult to affect a single use or user of the waterway without also having an effect on 

additional uses and users. 

The following figures provide perspective on the flow regime of the CAWS under both typical flow 

conditions (Figure 2.7) and flow conditions during a storm with a 0.2% annual chance exceedance (ACE) 

(Figure 2.8). ACE represents the chance that a storm will occur in a given year. In many areas of the 

CAWS during the 0.2% ACE event, flow is opposite of the direction under normal weather conditions. 

This event causes additional difficulties in determining appropriate mitigation measures for alternatives.
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

82 

Figure 2.7		Flow of Water in the CAWS under Typical Flow Conditions
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

83 

Figure 2.8 Flow of Water in the CAWS under a 0.2% Annual Chance Exceedance

Event Flow Conditions
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

84 

Types of Impacts to Uses/Users

Table 2.6 identifies types of impacts to each waterway use and user category that was considered during 

GLMRIS Alternatives development. This list is not comprehensive.

Table 2.7 identifies the type of impacts to CAWS uses and users that are expected from each GLMRIS 

Alternative. A more detailed description of the impacts of each alternative may be found in Chapter 3, 

Alternative Plans, under the description of each alternative. 

Table 2.6 Potential Waterway Impacts on Use and User Categories

Use/User Type of Impact

CAWS Ecosystem

Loss or impairment of aquatic habitat. 

Loss or impairment of riparian habitat.

Loss or impairment of connectivity between habitats.

Water Quality CAWS Loading levels for a variety of constituents such as 

dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform bacteria, and chloride.

Water Quality Lake Michigan

Loading Levels of a variety of constituents such as 

CBOD, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, total suspended 

solids, chloride, and fecal coliform bacteria.

Flood Risk Management (FRM)

Stage (increase in water levels of the CAWS).

Induced flooding overbank.

Induced flooding sewer backup. 

Human Safety

Emergency response delays. 

Electric barrier restrictions.

Increased risk to life safety due to flooding.

Commercial Cargo Navigation Delay to shipping times.

Inability to navigate the existing channel.

Non-Cargo Navigation Restrictions on entering existing locks. 

Inability to navigate existing channel. 

Hydropower Reduction in flow through hydroelectric plant. 

Mitigation Assumptions

Design of mitigation for each GLMRIS Alternative was based on several specific assumptions:

1. Current local and state Lake Michigan managed water uses and CAWS operation are not 

impacted by this project unless stated. The current operational constraints, controls, and 

management will remain in place unless stated. A full discussion of alternative impacts to 

CAWS uses and users can be found in Appendix A. 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

85 

Table 2.7 Impacts to CAWS Uses and Users that Are Expected from Each GLMRIS Alternative No New Federal Action Nonstructural Control Technology without a Buffer Zone – Flow Bypass Control Technology with a Buffer Zone Lakefront Hydrologic Separation Mid-System Hydrologic Separation Hybrid 

– Mid-System 

Separation Cal-Sag 

Open

Hybrid – Mid-System 

Separation CSSC Open

Use/User Type of Impact

CAWS 

Ecosystem

Loss or impairment of aquatic habitat. X X X X X X

Loss or impairment of riparian habitat. X X X X

Loss or impairment of connectivity 

between habitats.

X X X X X X 

Water 

Quality 

CAWS

Loading levels for a variety of 

constituents such as dissolved oxygen, 

fecal coliform bacteria, and chloride.

X X X X 

Water 

Quality 

LM

Loading levels of a variety of 

constituents such as CBOD, total 

nitrogen, total phosphorus, total 

suspended solids, chloride, and fecal 

coliform bacteria.

X X X 

FRM

Stage (increase in water levels of the 

CAWS). X X X X X X 

Induced flooding overbank. X X X X X X

Induced flooding sewer backup. X X X X X X

Human 

Safety

Emergency response delays. X X X X X X

Electric barrier restrictions. X X X X

Increased risk to life safety due to 

flooding. X X X X X X 

Commercial

Cargo 

Navigation

Delay to shipping times. X X X X X

Inability to navigate the existing 

channel. X X X X 

Non-Cargo 

Navigation

Restrictions on entering existing locks. X X X X X

Inability to navigate existing channel. X X X X

Hydropower Reduction in flow through 

hydroelectric plant X X X 

2. After consulting with state and federal regulators, mitigation measures were designed to be 

consistent with current and reasonably anticipated regulatory agency requirements. Final 

mitigation requirements are subject to the approval of various state and federal regulatory 

bodies. A full discussion of alternative impacts and mitigation measures to CAWS uses and 

users can be found in Appendix A.

It was assumed that the current or more stringent water quality standards for Lake Michigan 

and the CAWS would be the applicable standards for the alternative. It is likely not 

practicable to meet Lake Michigan discharge standards and antidegradation requirements for 

most flows, due to the difficulty of treating trace anthropogenic compounds and removing 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

86 

chloride, among other water quality treatment challenges. A full discussion of impacts of 

each alternative to the water quality of Lake Michigan can be found in Appendix F. 

3. Due to the sensitivity of Lake Michigan and the difficulty in meeting both short-term and 

long-term water quality protection requirements, all treated waters will be discharged to the 

downstream or “river” side of a barrier or control point. A full discussion of this assumption 

can be found in Appendix A. 

4. For H&H modeling, the Lake Michigan water level was set at 580 NAVD. This is a longterm average lake level that represents neither high nor low lake level conditions. This 

assumption was considered valid for the modeling simulations, but formulation did consider 

the potential impacts of high lake level conditions for with project conditions. For a full 

discussion of climate change considerations and this assumption, refer to Appendix B. 

5. For H&H modeling, the 0.2% ACE event (500-year storm event) at a 24-hour precipitation 

duration was used as the design event. A critical duration analysis was completed to identify 

the modeling duration. The selection of the 0.2% ACE event as the design event was based 

on an analysis of historic events, including several significant events in the past five years. 

For a full discussion of this assumption, refer to Appendix B. 

6. In designing the floodwater storage needed to size any new GLMRIS reservoirs, the planned 

CUP reservoirs capacity was assumed to be available for the 0.2% ACE event. In the event 

of back-to-back 0.2% ACE events, the identified capacity would not be sufficient to mitigate 

impacts. The likelihood of back-to-back 0.2% ACE events occurring in a given year is very 

low. A full discussion of this assumption can be found in Appendix E. 

7. Currently excavated sites may be available to meet the total identified storage requirement 

needs. However, for this report, the cost of constructing each reservoir includes the complete 

excavation. For any alternative that includes a reservoir, further analysis would need to be 

conducted to determine an exact location for the reservoir(s) and to refine the cost estimate. 

8. After considerable investigation, mitigation for commercial navigation was not included as 

part of any GLMRIS Alternative. Based on the findings of the Navigation and Economics 

PDT, most commercial shippers would not utilize a multi-modal facility due to additional rehandling costs. It would be more cost-effective to use another mode of transportation entirely, 

rather than re-handle commodities within the CAWS. A complete discussion of the 

evaluation completed is contained in Appendix A – Alternative Development Analyses. 

9. Lifting barges or recreation vessels out of water and around or above any physical barrier was 

not considered during formulation. Based on knowledge of vessel design, for many vessels it 

would not be technically feasible to lift the vessels out of water. Additionally lifting vessels 

around barriers would increase the risk of ANS transfer via hull fouling, and ballast and bilge 

water, and prevention of transfer from hull fouling is one of the main benefits of hydrologic 

separation with physical barriers when compared with the technology alternatives. 

10. The locations of ANS control technologies would require further investigation to ensure they 

were not being bypassed by an unknown aquatic connection, such as an interconnected local 

sewer system. For the evaluation of effectiveness of alternatives, it was assumed that these 

connections, if they existed, were identified and had been eliminated. 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

87 

2.8.1 Mitigation Measures

The following are descriptions of the mitigation measures that remained after detailed analysis. For full 

detailed on the development of these mitigation measures and additional mitigation measures that were 

considered see Appendix A. 

ANS Treatment Plant

In addition to functioning as an ANS control measure, ANSTPs were also used as water quality 

mitigation measures in some GLMRIS Alternatives. The technology would remain the same as was 

described in Section 2.2.5. 

Conveyance Tunnel

The purpose of conveyance tunnels in GLMRIS Alternatives is to create a controlled environment for 

stormwater or wastewater to be collected and diverted to a storage reservoir. The diversion of these flows 

would reduce FRM and water quality impacts of some alternatives.

Reservoirs

The purpose of reservoirs in GLMRIS Alternatives is to provide storage for excess flows. By storing the 

excess flows before treating and/or releasing the water back into the CAWS, negative FRM and/or water 

quality impacts to the environment can be avoided.

Sediment Remediation

Physical barriers included in GLMRIS Alternatives 6, 7, and 8 will increase the potential for 

contaminated sediments in the Chicago and Calumet River systems to impact Lake Michigan. Sediment 

is naturally suspended and transported in the direction of flow. The proposed physical barriers will 

change the flow direction in parts of the CAWS and direct sediment and dissolved contaminants from the 

CAWS toward Lake Michigan, instead of to the Mississippi River basin. CAWS sediment quality has 

been degraded by historical industrial activities and unregulated discharges to the waterways prior to the 

Clean Water Act. As described in Appendix B, CAWS sediments are contaminated throughout with 

persistent organic pollutants such as polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls 

(PCBs), heavy metals, dioxins and furans, and oil and grease.

Comprehensive sediment investigation is recommended to determine the chemical concentrations in the 

sediment and the extent of remediation necessary to prevent degradation to the Lake Michigan 

environment. It is anticipated that extensive sediment remediation will be needed for the proposed 

alternatives to be considered environmentally acceptable.

The conceptual design for sediment remediation is based on the work performed by EPA and others on 

the Grand Calumet River Area of Concern (AOC). The West Branch Grand Calumet River project 

excavated 3–4 feet of sediment for disposal in an upland commercial landfill. A reactive carbon mat 

designed to capture residual contaminants released from the remaining underlying contaminated sediment 

was installed and secured by a two-foot sand layer. Riprap was added for scour protection. A similar 

approach is assumed for remediating sediments on the Lake Michigan side of proposed hydrologic 

separation barriers; however, any contaminated sediment would be properly addressed pursuant to 

applicable laws and regulations.
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

88 

Chapter 3 Alternative Plans

This chapter discusses the alternative plans considered, including the No New Federal Action – Sustained 

Activities Alternative. Each alternative plan includes the following subsections: Alternative Plan 

Description; ANS Risk Reduction; Estimated Alternative Cost; Estimated Alternative Implementation 

Duration; and Complexity of Regulatory Compliance. 

3.1 Alternative Plan Description

Each section includes a description of the alternative plan, including ANS control measures, impacts to 

CAWS uses and users and mitigation measures to address impacts.

3.2 ANS Risk Reduction

While the intent of the GLMRIS authority speaks to prevention of interbasin transfer of ANS, the options 

and technologies available to meet this goal may, in fact, reduce risk to varying degrees. USACE has 

interpreted the term “prevent” to mean the reduction of risk to the maximum extent possible, because it 

may not be technologically feasible to achieve an absolute solution. For example, one may suggest that 

an alternative such as hydrologic separation could effectively prevent the transfer of ANS through an 

aquatic pathway; however, the efficacy of this particular alternative is tied to engineering constraints that 

would be overwhelmed by storm events larger than those used to design the physical barrier. The 

GLMRIS hydrologic separation alternatives were designed to meet an extreme storm event, the 0.2%ACE

event. Additionally, ANS may transfer between basins through non-aquatic pathways such as humanmeditated transport — importation, catching, transport, and subsequent release, etc. — and other nonaquatic transfer such as algae attached to a duck’s feathers, etc. The GLMRIS Team has endeavored to 

develop alternatives that adhere as closely as possible to the ideal of prevention as outlined by the study 

authority.

Without the availability of observed or practical data to measure the effectiveness of a particular 

alternative, the team developed a predictive model to help forecast the efficacy of a plan based on the best 

available information. To this end, a qualitative risk assessment was conducted to evaluate the potential 

risk of ANS transferring between the basins through the CAWS, establishing in the newly invaded basin 

and causing adverse environmental, economic, and sociopolitical consequences. This risk assessment is 

referred to as the “Without Project” risk assessment.

Alternatives were formulated for the 13 ANS of Concern that exhibited “High” or “Medium” risk in the 

“Without Project” risk assessment. Qualitative risk assessments were used to evaluate whether the 

implementation of each GLMRIS Alternative (referred to as the “With Project” condition) could result in 

risk reduction. The alternatives were formulated to control one or more of the following: 

• The presence of a continuously available aquatic pathway (the CAWS) connecting 

the MR and GL basins;

• The arrival of ANS from its current location to the CAWS pathway; or 

• The interbasin transfer of ANS through the CAWS aquatic pathway. 

The “With Project” risk assessments were conducted using the methodology developed for the GLMRIS 

risk assessment, which can be found in Appendix C: the GLMRIS Assessment Approach for 

Characterizing the Risks of Adverse Impact from the Movement through the CAWS and Establishment of 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

89 

Aquatic Nuisance Species in the Great Lakes and Mississippi River Basins. As a result of evaluating the 

CAWS as a system, for most alternatives, the ANS control measures of an alternative vary for each 

pathway. A with-project risk assessment was conducted for all five CAWS pathways to determine which 

pathway or pathways have the highest risk of adverse impacts. The effectiveness of the alternative is 

based on the highest-rated pathway. As with the “Without Project” risk assessments, the “With Project” 

risk assessments were conducted for four time steps encompassing a 50-year time period. The four time 

steps are defined as follows: 

T0 = Potential for establishment based on the current distribution of the ANS;

T10 = Potential for establishment 10 years from T0; 

T25 = Potential for establishment 25 years from T0; and

T50 = Potential for establishment 50 years from T0. 

Residual Risk

After implementation of a GLMRIS Alternative, residual risk would remain in the aquatic pathway and in 

the non-aquatic pathway. Residual risk in the aquatic pathway refers to the risk of transfer through the 

aquatic pathway along the GL and MR basin divide but outside the CAWS (See Appendix N for 

information on aquatic pathways along the basin divide), and the risk remaining after implementation of 

the GLMRIS Alternatives in the CAWS. As for the risk of transfer along the GL and MR basin divide 

outside of the CAWs, no attempt was made to reflect this risk in the risk assessments described here. As 

for the risk remaining in the CAWS aquatic pathway, if an alternative reduces the “High” or “Medium” 

ratings of one or more of the probability elements to a “Low,” then the resultant risk of adverse impacts 

for that ANS due to transfer through the CAWS would be reduced to “low.” A “Low” risk rating does 

not indicate that “no” risk remains. 

For instance, after implementation of the Lakefront Hydrologic Separation Alternative, the tubenose goby

received a “Low” risk rating because the physical barriers are constrained by the storm size they were 

designed to withhold. No combination of High or Medium risk ANS and alternative received a risk rating 

of “None.” A rating of “None” would indicate there is no risk of adverse impacts due to transfer through 

the CAWS aquatic pathway. 

As for residual risks in the non-aquatic pathway, the GLMRIS Alternatives address, at some level, nonaquatic pathways because each alternative includes nonstructural measures, such as public education and 

monitoring, that may deter but not completely address ANS transfer through non-aquatic pathways (see 

Appendix A for additional detail on non-aquatic pathways). However, residual risk of interbasin transfer 

through non-aquatic pathways would remain, although no attempt was made to reflect this risk in the risk 

assessments described here. 

Effectiveness at Preventing Interbasin Transfer (At time of implementation)

A rating was assigned to each alternative that was based on the number of ANS whose probability of 

establishment was lowered at one or more time steps because of the alternative. The higher number of 

stars in the “Effectiveness at Preventing Interbasin Transfer (at time of implementation)” column in 

Table 4.2 indicates which alternative controls more species, relative to the other alternatives. A greater 

number of stars means an alternative is likely to control more species. The number of stars is also 

influenced by the comparative levels of uncertainty associated with the impact an alternative has on the 

elements of P(establishment). Note, the top-ranked alternatives cannot guarantee the complete 

elimination of negative consequences that would result from ANS transfer and establishment, given that 

an absolute solution guaranteeing the complete prevention of ANS transfer may not be feasible or even 

technologically possible. The ratings do not consider the duration needed to implement the alternative 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

90 

relative to the likely timing of arrival and passage of “High” and “Medium” risk species. This more 

detailed analysis is generally discussed in Chapter 4.

3.3 Estimated Alternative Cost

Each section includes a discussion of the estimated cost of all the project components and mitigation 

measures associated with the alternative. While the mitigation for some impacts may fall within the 

responsibility of third parties, these impacts and associated costs were included in the development of the 

alternatives for completeness from an engineering, environmental, regulatory, and social perspective.

The costs presented in the GLMRIS Report are commensurate with the five percent level of detail in 

design for each alternative. The cost and schedule estimates are appropriately used in this report as a 

means to compare the alternatives presented. These cost and schedule estimates are not intended to 

support authorizing language, and will change with more detailed designs of an alternative. 

3.4 Estimated Alternative Implementation Duration

The duration of the implementation period is dependent upon a variety of factors, some of which may be 

controlled by third parties. This section lists the assumptions in the schedule. 

Risks to Implementation

There are a few key risks that have the potential to increase the implementation time and therefore the 

overall costs. These risks cannot be quantified at this time and could have impacts upon the presented 

implementation schedule for each alternative. For the purposes of the GLMRIS Report, the following 

risks were not taken into account due to a high level of uncertainty. Further evaluation of these risks to the 

implementation schedule and costs will be completed prior to a recommendation for authorization: 

• Funding. The assumption is timely funding to support progress annually. Delays 

could result in a construction inflationary impact of 3-4 percent annually 

compounded over several decades. The GLMRIS Team felt that such an unknown 

would create risks and add contingencies far beyond the goal of simple comparison 

between measures and alternatives.

• Real Estate. The GLMRIS Team excluded the risk of needed real estate for each 

measure, alternative, and site location. Real estate implementation of each 

alternative assumes that the navigation servitude can be asserted for project lands 

required below the ordinary high water mark and for interference with riparian rights. 

The GLMRIS Team assumes a 24-month real estate acquisition period which would 

be completed prior to contract award. This risk of obtaining the identified real estate 

could be extremely high for certain locations, but any significant real estate 

formulation has not yet occurred.

• Permitting. The GLMRIS Team also excluded the risk of obtaining the necessary 

permits for construction of various measures at various locations. The risk of delays 

or project modifications associated with obtaining the necessary permits could be

extremely high for certain locations. However, it is very difficult to predict such 

future permit issues with certainty.
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

91 

3.5 Complexity of Regulatory Compliance

Each alternative will need to comply with all applicable laws and regulations. In light of the potential 

impacts of some of the alternatives on water quality and FRM, the regulatory requirements for mitigation 

measures could be significant or complex. Alternative plans and mitigation measures were designed to be 

consistent with anticipated regulatory agency requirements based on consultations with the relevant 

agencies. Alternatives with more complex regulatory requirements have a higher risk of cost increases 

and schedule delays. The potential complexity of compliance with regulatory requirements is discussed 

in more detail for each alternative below. 

3.6 Adaptive Management of Alternative Plans

Adaptive Management is a decision process that promotes flexible decision-making that can be adjusted 

in the face of uncertainties as outcomes from management actions and other events become better 

understood. For the GLMRIS Alternatives, two components to adaptive management were identified. 

First, is the ANS control measure working as intended? Second, if the measure is not working as 

intended, how easy is it to change, reverse, or adapt the measure to function more effectively?

For the first component of adaptive management, “Is the ANS Control measure working as intended?,” 

each GLMRIS Alternative would be sufficiently flexible to ensure the ability to optimize operation or 

implementation of a measure currently included in an alternative. Based on the identification of new 

information, procedures, or technologies that address uncertainties, current measures in the plan could be 

altered or replaced. Adaptive management could allow for an existing ANS control measure to be 

replaced with a new ANS control measure that is likely to be more effective. Adaptive management 

would also allow for refinement of procedures or techniques based on the identification of new ANS or 

adjustment to changes in ANS behaviors and/or responses to ANS Controls. Adaptive management plans 

for a specific alternative would be further developed, if that alternative was recommended for future 

study. 

Additionally, supportive nonstructural measures specific to the species and location could be 

implemented by federal, state, and local agencies to reduce, stop, or eradicate populations of the ANS. 

The nonstructural measures could include public education to reduce spread/transfer of ANS, monitoring 

and reporting of ANS infestations to inform adaptive management strategies for an alternative, assist with 

targeted control of specific ANS, and long-term monitoring efforts to assess whether the implementation 

of structural measures is successful.

The second component of adaptive management, “If the measure is not working as intended, how easy is 

it to change, reverse, or adapt the measure to function more effectively?,” requires a more detailed 

consideration of the design elements of a particular plan. Certain ANS control measures, depending on 

their application, would require substantial investment before the effectiveness of the risk reduction could 

be verified. For example, a physical barrier could require construction of FRM mitigation measures such 

as a conveyance tunnel and storage reservoir prior to construction of the physical barrier itself. The 

mitigation would prevent both flood damages to homes and businesses in the region and any unintended 

bypasses caused by changes in the hydraulic conditions. While a physical barrier may require less 

adaptive management to ensure effectiveness, it typically involves longer implementation time and more 

significant investment before it would achieve ANS risk reduction. On the other hand, nonstructural 

measures and other technology-based ANS control measures could be implemented more rapidly than a 

physical barrier and offer more flexibility in their application. These measures would also likely require 

more involved adaptive management plans. For example, an electric barrier may require continuous 

monitoring of ANS and active management and research to maximize effectiveness, while a physical 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

92 

barrier will continue to block to a waterway as long as hydraulics and hydrology of the CAWS remain 

consistent with the design assumptions of the physical barrier. 

For some alternatives, there are common plan elements which could provide flexibility during 

implementation to modify the original alternative to another alternative under certain circumstances. For 

example, the Technology with an ANS Buffer Zone could be staged for the implementation of ANS 

control measures at Brandon Road (IL) as the first system control point. Implementation of these ANS 

control measures at Brandon Road (IL) could evolve from the Technology with ANS Buffer Zone 

Alternative into the Mid-System Separation CSSC Open Alternative or the Mid-System Cal-Sag Open 

Alternative. It is anticipated that the early implementation of the Technology with an ANS Buffer Zone 

measures at Brandon Road (IL) would allow for the timely evaluation of the implementability and 

efficacy of the measures in this plan, allowing minimal deviation from achievement of its ANS risk 

reduction in either the total implementation of this alternative or the evolution into either of the two 

identified hybrid alternatives.

Similarly, the potential exists to transform the completed implementation of the Mid-System Control 

Technologies without a Buffer Zone Alternative into the Mid-System Hydrologic Separation scenario. 

The flood-risk management infrastructure constructed as part of the Mid-System Control Technologies 

without a Buffer Zone would likely be sufficient to handle storm flows in a hydrologic separation regime. 

However, other necessary mitigation including the re-routing of municipal wastewater treatment flows, as 

well as measures to protect the water quality of Lake Michigan — including capture of combined sewer 

overflows and sediment remediation — would need to be accomplished before bringing a the full MidSystem Hydrologic Separation Alternative online. As such, the full ANS risk reduction potential for this 

alternative would not be realized as early as if it were being constructed from the outset. 

3.7 Typical Non-Federal Sponsor Requirements

Involvement of a non-federal sponsor(s) willing to cost-share a plan is required by USACE Policy in 

order to recommend authorization of a project. See Engineer Regulation 1105-2-100 at 4-3. Under 

current law, non-federal sponsors are required to pay for 35 percent of environmental restoration projects 

implemented by USACE, and such projects may not be implemented until a non-federal sponsor enters 

into an agreement and assumes obligations on a variety of matters including cost-sharing, real estate 

acquisition, and operation and maintenance activities. See 33 U.S.C.§ 2213(c)(7), (j). Thus, 

implementation of a GLMRIS Alternative could not proceed unless a non-federal sponsor is identified or 

the statutory authorization for implementation of a GLMRIS Alternative specifically changes these 

requirements.

Following authorization for construction of a project, the sponsor enters into a Project Partnership 

Agreement (PPA) to define the responsibilities of each party. The sponsor must normally agree to the 

following: 

1. Provide without cost to the United States all lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and 

disposal areas (LERRDs) necessary for the construction and subsequent maintenance of the 

project. 

2. Provide without cost to the United States all necessary alterations of buildings, utilities, 

highways, bridges, sewers, and related and special facilities. 

3. Hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction and subsequent 

maintenance of the project, except damages due to the fault or negligence of the United States or 

its contractors. 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

93 

4. Maintain and operate the project after completion without cost to the United States. 

5. Prevent future encroachment, which might interfere with proper functioning of the project. 

6. Assume responsibility for all costs in excess of applicable federal cost limitations. 

7. If the value of the sponsor’s contribution above does not equal or exceed 35 percent of the project 

cost, provide a cash contribution to make the sponsor’s total contribution equal to 35 percent. 

8. The non-federal share of the cost of water quality features generally shall be 100 percent. Before 

there can be a federal interest to cost share a water quality improvement feature, the state must be 

in compliance with water quality standards for the current use of the water to be affected.

9. Upon achieving state water quality standards for current water uses, USACE may cost share 

improvements to water quality, if deemed cost-effective and important to ecosystem structure and 

function. 

Under Corps’ policies, civil works projects may generally not be used to address existing environmental 

contamination. For purposes of the GLMRIS Report, the alternatives described include all of the project 

components and associated mitigation measures necessary for implementation of the alternative, 

including remediation of contaminated sediments and mitigation measures to address water quality 

impacts. It is possible that none of the mitigation measures identified as part of an alternative would be 

eligible for cost sharing with USACE. In the cost estimate section of each alternative, USACE has 

identified who may be financial responsible for measures in each alternative.

3.8 Alternative Plan 1: No New Federal Action – Sustained Activities

The No New Federal Action – Sustained Activities Alternative essentially describes the current and future 

actions of federal, state, and local agencies in combating ANS and serves as a comparison point for the 

remaining alternatives. This alternative assumes that all ongoing efforts supported by federal agencies 

discussed for the baseline and future-without-project conditions continue through the project planning 

horizon, which currently includes telemetry and eDNA for Asian carp and R&D of ANS Controls. For 

the purposes of this analysis and based on input from state and local agencies, it was assumed that 

ongoing state and local support for monitoring and response directed at Asian carp would continue for at 

least the next decade. This alternative also assumes the continued operation of the existing Electric 

Dispersal Barriers (Barrier IIA and Barrier IIB), construction and operation of new Permanent Electric 

Barrier I, and associated monitoring and response actions by USACE and others to support Electric 

Barrier operations. This alternative also assumes all other ANS education, outreach, monitoring, and 

prevention activities currently supported will continue. 

3.8.1 Alternative Plan Description

The No New Federal Action – Sustained Activities Alternative assumes that the 13 identified species of 

concern will continue to represent a High or Medium risk of establishment in the invaded basins. Current 

activities related to ANS within the CAWS have been factored into the species risk assessment, which 

had planning time lines of 0, 10, 25, and 50 years. As discussed in Chapter 1, and Appendix B, Affected 

Environment & Habitat, the efforts reported by local, state, and federal agencies to support ANS control 

were considered as part of the baseline and future-without-project conditions. 

The National Invasive Species Council (NISC) was established by Executive Order (EO) 13112 and 

charged with providing coordination, planning and overall leadership for federal invasive species 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

94 

programs. The NISC is co-chaired by the Secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture, and Commerce and its 

members include the Secretaries of State, Defense, Homeland Security, Treasury, Transportation, Health 

and Human Services, the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), as well as the Administrators of the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and 

U.S. Agency for International Development (http://www.invasivespecies.gov/main_nav/mn_about.html). 

Important NISC actions and duties include the development of a National Invasive Species Management 

Plan (NISC 2008) and annual reporting of an invasive species interagency crosscut budget. The 

interagency crosscut budget exercise provides an estimate of invasive species funding across federal 

agencies and was designed to encourage federal cooperation on invasive species issues that may benefit 

from an interagency approach. The February 2013 NISC interagency crosscut budget report indicated 

that more than $2 billion dollars was spent in 2011 and in 2012 for invasive species activities across eight 

NISC member agencies (NISC 2013). 

For the without-project-condition, the following local, state, and federal actions are expected to continue: 

Commercial Harvesting of Asian Carp

GLRI supported the State of Illinois’ initiation of commercial harvesting of Asian carp on the Illinois 

River through the issuance of a grant. It is anticipated that an effort like this would only be employed for 

commercially viable species, and that there are local funds available to take over the program when GLRI 

funding is terminated. Constrained budgets could reduce or eliminate programs like this, which would 

reverse the gains made in terms of population levels of ANS. This effort is expected to continue through 

the first future time step (10 years).

Electrofishing and Response Actions for Asian Carp

USACE has participated in fixed site electrofishing, as part of the MRRWG Monitoring and Response 

Plan (MRP), since 2010. USACE and partner agencies have concentrated electrofishing efforts on 

habitats located downstream of the Electric Dispersal Barriers. These efforts supplement the existing 

efforts downstream of the barriers as outlined in the 2011 and 2012 MRP. Objectives of ongoing 

monitoring efforts are to (1) assess the risk of aquatic nuisance species to challenge the Electric Dispersal 

Barriers and (2) track the leading edge of Asian carp. Monitoring and response actions will continue for 

the next 10 years or so. Agencies are planning to continue monitoring and telemetry for the foreseeable 

future. USACE’s efforts are expected to continue as part of Barrier O&M. Efforts by other agencies are 

expected to continue through the first future time step (10 years). 

Electric Dispersal Barriers Project for Asian Carp

The electric barriers in the CSSC will continue to be operated. Future conditions will include the 

operation of Permanent Barrier I and Barrier IIA/IIB. Efforts will continue to evaluate the functionality 

and efficacy of the project and may result in proposed modifications, improvement, or new construction 

to increase the effectiveness of this ANS control. Monitoring to determine barrier effectiveness will also 

continue. 

Research and Development

GLRI has supported R&D activities related to ANS monitoring and control for the past several years. It is 

expected that GLRI support for these activities would continue through 2019. R&D efforts are assumed to 

continue throughout the planning horizon for the study. 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

95 

While many agencies have taken and will continue to take action to prevent the spread of aquatic 

nuisance species, there are no actions currently planned by others that will further reduce the risk of 

interbasin transfer for all 13 High and Medium risk species.

3.8.2 ANS Risk Reduction

Table 3.1 contains the baseline conditions assessment; it does not contain any risk reduction due to 

GLMRIS Alternatives. 

Table 3.1 ANS Risk of Negative Impacts from Establishment

T0 T10 T25 T50

Species Posing Risk of Adverse Impact to Great Lakes Basin 

Scud (Apocorophium lacustre) M M M M 

Silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix) L L M M

Bighead carp (Hypophthalmichthys nobilis) L L M M 

Species Posing Risk of Adverse Impact to Mississippi River Basin

Bloody red shrimp (Hemimysis anomala) H H H H 

Fishhook waterflea (Cercopagis pengoi) L L M H

Grass kelp (Enteromorpha flexuosa) L M M M 

Red algae (Bangia atropurpurea) M M M M

Diatom (Stephanodiscus binderanus) M M M M 

Reed sweet grass (Glyceria maxima) L L L M

Threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) M M M M 

Tubenose goby (Proterorhinus semilunaris) L M M M

Ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernuus) L L L M 

Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia (Novirhabdovirus sp.) M M M M 

3.9 Alternative Plan 2: Nonstructural Control Technologies

3.9.1 Alternative Plan Description

Several nonstructural measures could potentially be applied to the 13 ANS of Concern. Table 3.2 

summarizes the potential effectiveness of the various categories of nonstructural approaches for 

controlling the interbasin transfer of ANS of Concern. The Nonstructural Measures Alternative consists of 

implementing all of the applicable nonstructural measures in Table 3.2. The Nonstructural Alternative 

assumes that all of the applicable nonstructural measures be implemented because they represent Best 

Management Practices that may reduce the speed or potential for ANS interbasin transfer at a given time.

This alternative contemplates activities that are not traditionally performed by USACE. To achieve the 

risk reduction produced by this alternative may require that these measures be implemented by other 

stakeholder groups such as other federal agencies, state agencies, local municipalities, and NGOs. For this 

report, it is assumed that all of these measures are fully implemented at either the federal, state, or local 

level. Because the Federal Government cannot direct the activities of state or local entities, further 

evaluation would be required to determine whether these risk-reduction measures should be directly 

performed by federal agencies.
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

96 

Table 3.2 Potential Effectiveness of Nonstructural Measures for Controlling Interbasin 

Transfer of the ANS of GLMRIS Concern

Taxon Nonstructural Approach Potential Effectiveness

Virus

(VHSv)

Education and Outreach Educating the public to identify and not use infected 

baitfish may reduce the likelihood of spread via 

baitfish. Voluntary cleaning of watercraft and other 

recreational equipment may slow transfer via these 

vectors.

Monitoring Would only provide early identification of spread and 

not affect transfer. Monitoring would require 

designated responsible agency involvement.

Pesticides/Antimicrobial Use of pesticides with active ingredients that are 

registered by the EPA to clean boat hulls, trailers, 

nets, and other equipment may slow transfer.

Antifouling Materials May reduce transport on hulls of watercraft.

Ballast and Bilge Management May reduce passage via this vector.

Laws and Regulations Mandatory disinfection of watercraft and live bait 

restrictions may slow spread. Uncertain how quickly 

new laws and regulations could be passed and 

implemented. There is also some uncertainty 

associated with the level of enforcement, compliance, 

and effectiveness of laws and regulations.

Algae

(Diatom;

Grass kelp;

Red algae)

Education and Outreach Educating public to perform voluntary cleaning of 

watercraft and other recreational equipment may slow 

transfer via these vectors.

Monitoring Would provide early identification of spread but not 

likely affect transfer. Monitoring would require the 

designated responsible the designated responsible 

agency involvement.

Pesticides Algaecides may be effective in localized areas, but 

maintaining needed concentrations in large or flowing 

water bodies limits effectiveness. Concerns regarding 

impacts to non-target species. 

Antifouling Materials Both biocide- and non-biocide-based materials may 

reduce transport on hulls of watercraft.

Habitat Alteration Improving water quality may reduce suitable habitat 

and limit occurrence and spread. Limited applicability 

to the CAWS and possibly below Brandon Road Lock 

and Dam.

Ballast and Bilge Management May limit passage via this vector.

Laws and Regulations Little effect anticipated, although mandatory

disinfection of watercraft and ballast and bilge water 

management may slow spread. Uncertain how quickly 

new laws and regulations could be passed and 

implemented.
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

97 

Table 3.2 (Cont.)

Taxon Nonstructural Approach Potential Effectiveness

Rooted SemiAquatic 

Vegetation

(Reed sweet 

grass) 

Education and Outreach Educating public to perform voluntary cleaning of 

watercraft and other recreational equipment may limit 

spread via these vectors. Public identification of new 

populations, if linked with aggressive response action, 

could control spread.

Monitoring Would provide early identification of spread but not 

likely affect transfer. Monitoring would require the 

designated responsible agency involvement. Early 

identification of new populations, if linked with 

aggressive response action, could control spread and 

transfer.

Pesticides Aquatic herbicides may be very effective, especially if 

application occurs quickly following discovery of new 

invasions. Application in large or flowing water 

bodies may limit effectiveness. Concerns regarding 

impacts to non-target species. 

Antifouling Materials Non-biocide-based materials may reduce transport on 

hull soft watercraft.

Manual or Mechanical Removal A variety of approaches may be applicable, and could 

be successful in controlling spread if implemented 

soon after new populations are reported. May limit 

establishment of new populations.

Habitat Alteration May limit establishment of new populations.

Ballast and Bilge Management May reduce passage via this vector, but effectiveness 

unknown.

Laws and Regulations Little effect anticipated, although mandatory 

disinfection of watercraft and ballast and bilge water 

management may slow spread. Uncertain how quickly 

new laws and regulations could be passed and 

implemented.

Crustaceans

(Fishhook 

waterflea;

Scud;

Bloody red 

shrimp)

Education and Outreach Educating public to perform voluntary cleaning of 

watercraft and other recreational equipment may limit 

spread.

Monitoring Would provide early identification of spread but not 

likely affect transfer. Monitoring would require the 

designated responsible agency involvement. 

Pesticides Pesticides may be effective in localized areas, but 

maintaining needed concentrations in large or flowing 

water bodies limits effectiveness. Disinfection of boat 

hulls and other recreational equipment may slow 

spread via this vector. Concerns regarding impacts to 

non-target species. 

Antifouling Materials Non-biocide-based materials may reduce transport on 

hulls of watercraft. Effectiveness of biocide-based 

materials unknown.
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

98 

Table 3.2 (Cont.)

Taxon Nonstructural Approach Potential Effectiveness

Crustaceans

(Fishhook 

waterflea;

Scud;

Bloody red 

shrimp) 

(Cont.)

Habitat Alteration The application of chemical compounds to alter water 

quality may limit or prevent movement of the species.

Ballast and Bilge Management May reduce passage via this vector, but effectiveness 

unknown.

Laws and Regulations Mandatory disinfection of watercraft and ballast and 

bilge water management may slow spread. Uncertain 

how quickly new laws and regulations could be passed 

and implemented.

Fish

(Bighead 

carp;

Silver carp;

Tubenose 

goby;

Ruffe;

Threespine 

stickleback)

Education and Outreach Educating public to not use the ANS as baitfish may 

reduce likelihood of accidental introduction via 

baitfish use and disposal.

Monitoring Would provide early identification of spread but not 

likely affect transfer. Monitoring would require the 

designated responsible agency involvement. Early 

identification of new populations, if linked with 

aggressive response action, may limit spread and 

transfer.

Pesticides Piscicides may be effective in localized areas, but 

maintaining needed concentrations in large or flowing 

water bodies limits effectiveness. Concerns regarding 

impacts to non-target species. 

Manual or Mechanical Removal Controlled harvest and overfishing may be effective in 

maintaining low numbers in localized area, potentially 

slowing the advance into new areas.

Habitat Alteration Limited applicability in localized areas.

Ballast and Bilge Management Importance of transfer via ballast or bilge water is 

unknown but may be very limited. Effectiveness of 

management is also unknown.

Laws and Regulations Unknown if new legislation would be effective. 

Uncertain how quickly new laws and regulations 

could be passed and implemented.

New and ongoing development of nonstructural measures would be taken into account through an 

adaptive management plan associated with the Nonstructural Alternative. As effective nonstructural 

measures are introduced, they would be considered for use under the Nonstructural Alternative.

Nonstructural measures are not anticipated to have significant impacts to waterway uses and users. There 

is a chance that there could be a slight impact if a chemical application, such as rotenone, is required by 

adaptive management or rapid response plan. In that case, steps may be taken to mitigate or minimize the 

impacts to the environment (to include impacts to native species). See Appendix A – Alternative 

Development Analyses for additional information of the Nonstructural Alternative.

3.9.2 ANS Risk Reduction

The Nonstructural Alternative includes measures that are assumed to be implemented quickly (T0). An 

exception would be nonstructural measures that are dependent on the passage of new laws or regulations, 

because of the uncertainty regarding the time required to pass and implement new laws or regulations. 

The anticipated risk reduction resulting from implementation of the Nonstructural Alternative is described 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

99 

below. Because risk reduction of the Nonstructural Alternative depends on actions of numerous agencies 

and the public, the uncertainty associated with this alternative is generally higher than that obtained with

hydrologic separation alternatives. A detailed discussion of this risk assessment analysis including 

uncertainty pertaining to the alternative’s effectiveness for each of the 13 High and Medium risk species

can be found in Appendix C –Risk Assessments.

ANS Potentially Invading the Great Lakes Basin

Scud (Apocorophium lacustre) 

The scud (Apocorophium lacustre) has been reported from the Mississippi River, Ohio River, and Illinois 

River (Grigorovich et al. 2008; USGS 2011). This ANS has been found in the Illinois River less than 

32.2 km (20 mi) from Brandon Road Lock and Dam; however, the last survey for this species was 

conducted in 2008, so it may currently be even closer to this dam (USGS 2011; Grigorovich et al. 2008). 

The Nonstructural Alternative would not reduce the scud’s risk of establishment in the GL basin 

compared to the risk identified in the No New Federal Action – Sustained Activities conditions. Please 

see Appendix C – With Project Risk Assessments for the Nonstructural Alternative for the scud. The 

scud is already present at the CAWS and can be transported via vessel movement. The Nonstructural 

Alternative does not impact vessel movement in the CAWS.

Silver Carp and Bighead Carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix and Hypophthalmichthys 

nobilis) 

The silver and bighead carp have been found in the Des Plaines River in Rock Run Rookery (ACRCC 

2013). The rookery is approximately 4 miles downstream from the Brandon Road Lock and Dam. The 

Nonstructural Alternative would not reduce the risk of establishment of the bighead or silver carp when 

compared to the No New Federal Action – Sustained Activities conditions. Under the No New Federal 

Action – Sustained Activities conditions, numerous nonstructural measures to address bighead and silver 

carp are already being implemented by federal, state, and local entities. After evaluating the nonstructural 

measures currently available, no additional nonstructural measures were identified that would further 

decrease the probability of passage of the species into the Great Lakes Basin. If in the future, if new 

nonstructural technologies are developed that would be effective against these species, further analysis 

would need to be conducted. A detailed discussion of this analysis can be found in Appendix C – Risk 

Assessments.

ANS Potentially Invading the Mississippi River Basin

The Nonstructural Alternative would not reduce the risk of establishment of the following Great Lakes 

High and Medium risk ANS: diatom (Stephanodiscus binderanus), red algae (Bangia atropurpurea), 

fishhook water flea (Cercopagis pengoi), bloody red shrimp (Hemimysis anomala), threespine stickleback 

(Gasterosteus aculeatus), ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernuus), and VHSv (Novirhabdovirus). Nonstructural 

measures would not eliminate the aquatic pathway between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River basins. 

The diatom, red algae, fishhook water flea, bloody red shrimp, threespine stickleback and VHSv have 

already arrived in the lower Lake Michigan Basin and cannot be controlled with nonstructural measures

such as aquatic pesticides or piscicides due to their widespread distribution. Though not currently 

identified as being in the southern Lake Michigan Basin, the ruffe has dispersed throughout various parts 

of the Great Lakes and also cannot be successfully controlled with nonstructural measures. 

The Nonstructural Alternative would reduce the probability of establishment of the following Great 

Lakes ANS: 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

100 

Grass Kelp (Enteromorpha flexuosa) 

A 2003 study indicated that the closest population to the CAWS of E. flexuosa is in Muskegon Lake in 

Michigan, as well as in two nearby inland lakes and lagoons (Sturtevant 2011). Nonstructural measures, 

such as aquatic herbicides, would target reducing the abundance of grass kelp in these lakes. The 

comprehensive implementation of the Nonstructural Alternative as described in the risk assessment is 

expected to control this species’ dispersion beyond its current locations. Thus, these measures would 

reduce the likelihood this species would arrive at the CAWS and establish in the MR basin. 

The comprehensive implementation of the Nonstructural Alternative as identified in the risk assessment 

would reduce the risk of E. flexuosa from Medium to Low for time steps T10, T25, and T50. 

Risk of Adverse Impacts from Movement through the CAWS 

and Establishment in the MR Basin at T0–T50

Alternative T0 T10 T25 T50

No New Federal Action

– Sustained Activities Low Medium Medium Medium 

Nonstructurala Low Low Low Low

a The shaded cells and bold italics indicate there is a reduction in the risk rating.

Reed sweet grass (Glyceria maxima) 

Reed sweet grass is established in Oak Creek (a tributary of Lake Michigan) in Milwaukee County, 

Wisconsin (Howard 2012). In 2006, a small, localized population was discovered growing at Illinois 

Beach State Park, north of Waukegan, Illinois. The population was treated with herbicides and 

eradicated, and monitoring for this species in the vicinity has been implemented (Howard 2012). The 

Nonstructural Alternative for this species would include measures such as monitoring followed by aquatic 

herbicide treatment, if it is encountered. The comprehensive implementation of the Nonstructural 

Alternative as described in the risk assessment is expected to control this species’ dispersion beyond its 

current locations. Thus, these measures would reduce the likelihood this species would arrive at the 

CAWS and establish in the MR basin. 

The comprehensive implementation of this GLMRIS Alternative as identified in the risk assessment 

would reduce the T50 risk rating from a Medium to a Low. 

Risk of Adverse Impacts from Movement through the CAWS 

and Establishment in the MR Basin at T0–T50

Alternative T0 T10 T25 T50

No New Federal Action

– Sustained Activities Low Low Low Medium 

Nonstructurala Low Low Low Low

a The shaded cell and bold italics indicate there is a reduction in the risk rating.
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

101 

Tubenose Goby (Proterorhinus semilunaris) 

The tubenose goby has spread throughout Lake St. Clair in Michigan and its tributaries (Jude et al. 1992), 

as well as portions of the Detroit River system. This species is commonly collected in the DuluthSuperior harbor of Lake Superior (Kocovsky et al. 2011), and a population has become established and 

self-sustaining in the western basin of Lake Erie (Kocovsky et al. 2011). The tubenose goby is an active 

swimmer, but is able to disperse more quickly through ballast water transfer. The management of vessel 

ballast/bilge water in waters where tubenose gobies occur is expected to delay the time it would take for 

this species to arrive at the CAWS pathway and reduces the likelihood it will arrive at the CAWS at T10. 

Because the tubenose goby is an active swimmer, even with ballast/bilge water management, it is 

expected that this species can swim from its current location to the CAWS by T25. 

The comprehensive implementation of the Nonstructural Alternative as identified in the risk assessment 

would reduce the risk of tubenose goby from a Medium to a Low at T10. 

Risk of Adverse Impacts from Movement through the CAWS 

and Establishment in the MR Basin at T0–T50

Alternative T0 T10 T25 T50

No New Federal Action

– Sustained Activities Low Medium Medium Medium 

Nonstructurala Low Low Medium Medium 

a The shaded cell and bold italics indicate there is a reduction in the risk rating.

3.9.3 Estimated Alternative Cost

At this time, it is difficult to estimate costs that could be incurred with the implementation of a 

comprehensive Nonstructural Alternative that includes one or more of the nonstructural measures 

discussed in Table 3.2. Costs will be affected by specific implementation requirements of the approaches 

selected; the more involved an approach and the more frequently it must be applied, the greater the 

expected cost. However, annual costs for a nonstructural program that employs several of the 

nonstructural measures considered may be expected to be in the millions of dollars within any one state.

For example, annual operating costs have been estimated at $8,500,000 for an overall program that 

includes education and outreach, monitoring, pesticide application, removal, biological control, ballast 

and bilge inspection, watercraft inspection, and research (personal communication, Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources). In that program, education and outreach activities account for 

approximately half (about $4,000,000) of the estimated annual cost, while monitoring and pesticides 

account for nearly as much (about $1,000,000 and $2,000,000 combined). Monitoring can cost 

$2,500,000 to $5,000,000 and mechanical removal between $500,000 and $1,000,000. Assuming similar 

programs and associated costs for Minnesota, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New 

York (the other Great Lakes states), an estimated annual cost for a Nonstructural Alternative 

encompassing the eight states may be as high as $68,000,000. 

When amortized over the 50-year project evaluation period (2017 through 2066), the total cost of 

nonstructural measures is estimated at $1.5 billion in Fiscal Year 2013 dollars.
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

102 

Table 3.3 below identifies what could possibly be the annual costs for the Nonstructural Alternative. The 

states identified in the table are the Great Lakes states. The actual costs of the nonstructural alternative 

would be dependent on coordination with a number of participating local, state, and federal agencies and 

could be higher or lower than the value presented. Estimated initial costs for the Nonstructural 

Alternative are assumed negligible and sufficiently captured by the estimate for the annual OMRR&R 

Costs. Further detailed discussion of this analysis can be found in Appendix K – Cost Engineering.

Table 3.3 Estimated Alternative Cost

Nonstructural Alternativea

Nonstructural Measures Annual Cost

Education and outreach $4,000,000

Monitoring $1,000,000

Pesticides $2,000,000

Watercraft inspection and 

research $1,500,000 

Total Annual Cost per State $8,500,000 

States nearest to the CAWS 

participating

Minnesota, Wisconsin, 

Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, 

Michigan, Pennsylvania, 

and New York

Total Annual Cost of the 

Nonstructural Alternative $68,000,000

a Costs are shown as 2014 program-year dollars.

3.9.4 Estimated Alternative Implementation Duration

The nonstructural measures evaluated are ones that may be implemented relatively quickly (T0); as such, 

the Nonstructural Alternative could be implemented almost immediately with proper coordination. One 

exception would be any nonstructural measure dependent on new laws or regulations, because of the 

uncertainty on how quickly new laws and regulations could be passed and implemented.

3.9.5 Complexity of Regulatory Compliance

The Nonstructural Alternative is anticipated to have a low level of complexity associated with regulatory 

compliance. Although some nonstructural measures, such as pesticides, may require regulatory 

coordination and permitting actions, most measures require little additional regulatory compliance. These 

measures have been successfully employed over the past several years.
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

103 

3.10 Alternative Plan 3: Mid-System Control Technologies 

without a Buffer Zone

3.10.1 Alternative Plan Description

Table 3.4 summarizes the measures included in the Mid-System Control Technologies without a Buffer 

Zone, the type of measures and the locations (Figures 3.1-3.3) of the measures. 

Table 3.4 Mid-System Control Technologies without a Buffer 

Zone – Flow Bypass Alternative

Mid-System Control Technologies without a Buffer Zone – Flow 

Bypass Alternative

Location Measure Type of Measure

Basin Wide Nonstructural ANS Control

TBD within the 

Chicago Area 

CAWS Ecosystem 

Mitigation To Be Determined

Stickney (IL)

GLMRIS Lock

Electric Barrier × 2 ANS Control

ANS Treatment Plant

McCook (IL)

Conveyance Tunnel

11.4 Billion Gallon FRM Mitigation

Reservoir

Oak Lawn (IL) 0.2 Billion Gallon 

Reservoir FRM Mitigation

Alsip (IL)

GLMRIS Lock

Electric Barrier × 2 ANS Control

ANS Treatment Plant

Thornton (IL)

15.8 Billion Gallon 

Reservoir FRM Mitigation

Conveyance Tunnel 

This alternative includes nonstructural measures and two single point ANS control technologies located at 

Stickney (IL) and Alsip (IL). These technologies reduce the risk of transfer of ANS between basins in 

both directions. Additionally, the nonstructural measures discussed in Section 3.2 of this report would 

also be implemented as part of this alternative.

At both Stickney (IL) and Alsip (IL), a new GLMRIS Lock would be constructed on the CSSC and the 

Cal-Sag, respectively. Approach channels from Lake Michigan and the Mississippi River directions 

would be built on either side of the lock and would include electric barriers to prevent fish from entering 

the lock chamber during lockages. An ANS Treatment Plant would provide the water for lockages to

ensure ANS not affected by the electric barriers would not be allowed to transfer during lockages. These 

locks would remain closed at all times unless a vessel needed to cross to the other side. Additionally, if
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

104 

Figure 3.1		Locations of ANS Prevention and Mitigation Measures within the CAWS
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

105 

Figure 3.2 Locations of ANS Prevention Measures with Additional Details
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

106 

Figure 3.3 Location Details of Mitigation Measures
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

107 

there were a power failure with the electric barriers or another maintenance concern, the locks would 

remain closed to prevent passage of ANS.

The normal flow of the CAWS would be diverted from the channel on the lakeside of the new locks, 

through ANS Treatment Plants at each location, and then discharged back to the riverside of the new 

locks.

Please refer to the Attachment Map Package Mid-System Control Technologies without a Buffer Zone for 

additional mapping details. 

ANS Treatment Plants for ANS Control

• ANS Treatment Plant at Stickney (IL) – 700 MGD capacity, 5.6-acre footprint.

• ANS Treatment Plant at Alsip (IL) – 900 MGD capacity, 7.2-acre footprint. 

CAWS Ecosystem Impacts

The construction of this alternative would not significantly alter the already homogenized 

aquatic habitat (e.g., substrate and geomorphology of stream channel) within the CAWS. The 

ANS Treatment Plant would treat all organism collected, a nonselective application of 

treatment. This would impact native fish and other native aquatic organisms that make up the 

food web of the CAWS. This disruption would impact ecosystem function and structure. A 

Medium impact is anticipated. A more detailed discussion of this analysis can be found as an 

Attachment to Appendix A. 

CAWS Ecosystem Mitigation Measures

CAWS ecosystem mitigation measures may be required for impacts to significant natural 

resources as a result of plan implementation. Since site-specific designs have not been 

completed, impacts have not been assessed and mitigation measures have not been 

developed; however, the GLMRIS Team identified placeholder costs for ecosystem 

mitigation measures that are at a commensurate level of detail for each alternative. Further 

analysis and design for any selected alternative would include an assessment of plan impacts

and identification of mitigation requirements as required under NEPA. These evaluations 

would be fully coordinated with the appropriate resource agencies.

Water Quality CAWS Impacts 

Water quality impacts to the CAWS are expected to be minimal under this alternative. The 

ANS Control measures proposed are not expected to change the direction of flow or 

operation of the waterway system. Therefore, water quality impacts are expected to be similar 

to the future-without project condition.

Water Quality Lake Michigan Impacts 

There are no negative impacts to Lake Michigan under this alternative because the ANS 

Control measures proposed are not expected to change the direction of flow or operation of 

the waterway system. Therefore, water quality impacts are expected to be similar to the future 

without project condition.
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

108 

Flood Risk Management (FRM) Impacts 

All normal flow of the CAWS would be diverted through the new ANS Treatment Plants. 

During storm events, the additional flow above normal would need to be stored until the 

CAWS would be able to receive it without FRM impacts. Also, the flow on Thorn Creek, an 

aquatic connection with the potential to bypass the Alsip (IL) physical barrier, would need to 

be captured and stored during storm events. 

Without any mitigation measures, this alternative yields a net change in equivalent expected 

annual damages EEAD of $1,149,000 annually due to the locks at Stickney (IL) and Alsip 

(IL) that cannot be opened during storm events. This net change in EEAD represents the 

additional damages to buildings and their contents that are expected to occur on a yearly basis 

as a result of this alternative. In the without-project conditions, damages are expected to 

occur to various structures. However, the implementation of a GLMRIS plan will either 

increase the total damages in the Chicago area or decrease total damages in the Chicago area. 

Specifically, the values presented represent the difference (i.e., net change) between the 

without-project condition (EEAD of $231.241 million) and the with-project conditions. A 

more detailed discussion of this analysis can be found in Appendix D – Economic Analyses.

To mitigate for impacts to FRM two new reservoirs and the necessary stormwater collection 

system (via tunnels) would be constructed. These new reservoirs and tunnels would be very 

similar in nature to the existing TARP in the Chicago area. These reservoirs would store 

stormwater up to the 0.2% ACE event, route the water through existing wastewater treatment 

plants, and then discharge the water into the CAWS such that it joins the Mississippi River 

basin. A more detailed discussion of this analysis can be found in Appendix E – Hydrologic 

& Hydraulic Analyses and Appendix J – Civil Design.

Flood Risk Management (FRM) Mitigation Measures 

• Conveyance tunnel along the CSSC to McCook (IL) estimated at 5 miles long 

and 14 feet in diameter.

• A new 11.4 billion gallon reservoir at McCook (IL) would address FRM impacts 

on the North Shore Channel, Chicago River, and CSSC in the system. 

• Conveyance tunnel from Alsip (IN) to Thornton (IL) estimated at 5 miles long 

and 16 feet in diameter.

• A new 15.8 billion gallon reservoir at McCook (IL) would address FRM impacts 

on the Calumet, Grand Calumet and Little Calumet Rivers in the system.

• A new 0.2 billion gallon reservoir at Oak Lawn (IL) would address FRM impacts 

on Thorn Creek, a potential bypass of the physical barrier in Alsip (IL) on the 

Cal-Sag Channel in the system.

Human Safety Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Without any mitigation measures, construction and proposed operation of the lock structures 

in this alternative would induce flooding of the CAWS during the 0.2% ACE event. This 

induced flooding would increase life safety risks associated with large storm events. The 

FRM mitigation would act as mitigation for human safety for the induced flooding.
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

109 

Construction of the electric barriers at Stickney (IL) and Alsip (IL) would also have impacts 

to human safety. Their installation would have to be coordinated with the U.S. Coast Guard, 

and restrictions on small watercraft traversing the barriers would be imposed. 

Commercial Navigation Impacts 

The Mid-System Control Technologies without a Buffer Zone would result in a loss of 

commercial cargo navigation transportation cost savings of $0.75 million annually. This 

alternative includes adding locks in the CAWS, so commercial cargo movements are likely to 

be impacted by increased lockage times. Increased lockage times translate into greater overall 

shipping times, which translate into decreases in transportation cost savings. A more detailed 

discussion of this analysis can be found in Appendix D – Economic Analyses.

Impacts to commercial navigation would not be mitigated, because no mitigation measures 

were identified that would effectively address the impacts. A full discussion on this topic is 

included in Section 2.5, Mitigation Assumptions, and in Attachment 6 (Commercial Cargo 

Reports) to Appendix D – Economic Analyses and Appendix A. 

Noncommercial Navigation (includes recreational navigation) Impacts 

The Mid-System Control Technologies without a Buffer Zone to noncommercial navigation 

would likely include: 

• The new locks will require additional time for vessels attempting the “loop”

around North America. 

• Passenger and government vessels will experience additional costs and delay 

when taking a trip through the location of the new locks. 

• Vessels under 20 feet will not be able to pass through the electronic barriers

(current U.S. Coast Guard restriction). 

The Mid-System Control Technologies without a Buffer Zone would have a low impact to 

noncommercial navigation. A more detailed discussion of this analysis can be found in 

Appendix D – Economic Analyses.

3.10.2 ANS Risk Reduction

This alternative includes nonstructural measures assumed to be implemented quickly (T0). An exception 

would be nonstructural measures dependent on the passage of new laws or regulations, because of the 

uncertainty of the time required to pass and implement new laws or regulations. The remaining structural 

measures are assumed to be implemented at T25 and in part, are generally discussed below. This 

alternative includes measures, such as the GLMRIS Lock, which are at a conceptual level of design but 

use existing process engineering concepts applied to control ANS. While the technologies are known, the 

combination of technologies and application of the technologies are non-traditional. For instance, UV is 

frequently used for water treatment plants, and the flushing mechanism concept in the GLMRIS Lock is 

used in many different types of water treatment. However, these technologies have not previously been 

applied to control the transfer of ANS. In addition, while USACE currently operates an electric barrier, 

there are ongoing studies associated with improving its efficacy. As a result, the uncertainty associated 

with the technologies’ impact on ANS passage is higher than the uncertainty of ANS passage associated 

with the hydrologic separation alternatives. The hydrologic separation alternative includes physical 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

110 

barriers, which have uncertainty based on the size of the design storm event. A detailed discussion of this 

risk assessment analysis, including a more detailed explanation regarding the measures and uncertainty 

for this alternative, are found in Appendix C – Risk Assessments.

This alternative would be implemented at T25 and would reduce the risk ratings of the following species: 

ANS Potentially Invading the Great Lakes Basin

Scud (Apocorophium lacustre) 

The scud (Apocorophium lacustre) has been reported from the Mississippi River, Ohio River, and Illinois 

River (Grigorovich et al. 2008; USGS 2011). This ANS has been found in the Illinois River less than 

32.2 km (20 mi) from Brandon Road Lock and Dam; however, the last survey for this species was 

conducted in 2008, so it may currently be even closer to this dam (USGS 2011; Grigorovich et al. 2008). 

This alternative would not reduce the scud’s risk of establishment in the GL basin compared to the risk 

identified in the No New Federal Action – Sustained Activities conditions. Please see Appendix C – Risk 

Assessments for the scud. The scud is already present at the CAWS and can be transported via vessel 

movement. This alternative provides for continued vessel movement in the CAWS and would not reduce 

the risk of the scud.

Bighead Carp (Hypophthalmichthys nobilis) 

The bighead carp have been found in the Des Plaines River in Rock Run Rookery (ACRCC 2013). The 

rookery is approximately 4 miles downstream from the Brandon Road Lock and Dam. This alternative 

includes nonstructural measures and creates control points for this species with construction of electric 

barriers, ANSTPs, and GLMRIS Locks. 

Nonstructural measures such as piscicides, overfishing, etc., are expected to limit the population of 

bighead carp below these control points. Ballast and bilge water management are expected to control the 

transfer of eggs, larvae, and fry through the GLMRIS Lock. 

The electric barrier is expected to control swimming fish from entering the GLMRIS Lock. The pumpdriven filling and emptying system of the GLMRIS Lock would flush the lock with water from the 

ANSTP and is expected to control the transfer of bighead carp eggs, larvae, and fry that may passively 

drift into the lock. These control points would reduce the likelihood that the species would pass through 

the CAWS. 

The comprehensive implementation of this alternative as identified in this risk assessment would reduce 

the risk of bighead carp from Medium to Low at T25 and T50. 

Risk of Adverse Impacts from Movement through the CAWS 

and Establishment in the MR Basin at T0–T50

Alternative T0 T10 T25 T50

No New Federal Action

– Sustained Activities Low Low Medium Medium 

GLMRIS Alternativea Low Low Low Low

a The shaded cells and bold italics indicate there is a reduction in the risk rating.
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

111 

Silver Carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix) 

The silver carp have been found in the Des Plaines River in Rock Run Rookery (ACRCC 2013). The 

rookery is approximately 4 miles downstream from the Brandon Road Lock and Dam. This alternative 

includes nonstructural measures and electric barriers, ANSTPs, and GLMRIS Locks to create control 

points within the system for this species. 

Nonstructural measures such as piscicides, overfishing, etc., are expected to limit the population of silver

carp below these control points. Ballast and bilge water management are expected to control the transfer 

of eggs, larvae, and fry through the GLMRIS Lock. 

The electric barrier is expected to control swimming fish from entering the GLMRIS Lock. The pumpdriven filling and emptying system of the GLMRIS Lock would flush the lock with water from the 

ANSTP and is expected to control the transfer of silver carp eggs, larvae, and fry that may passively drift

into the lock. This control point would reduce the likelihood that the species would pass through the 

CAWS.

The comprehensive implementation of this alternative as identified in this risk assessment would reduce 

the risk of silver carp from Medium to Low at T25 and T50. 

Risk of Adverse Impacts from Movement through the CAWS 

and Establishment in the MR Basin at T0–T50

Alternative T0 T10 T25 T50

No New Federal Action

– Sustained Activities Low Low Medium Medium 

GLMRIS Alternativea Low Low Low Low

a The shaded cells and bold italics indicate there is a reduction in the risk rating.

ANS Potentially Invading the Mississippi River Basin

This alternative would not reduce the risk of adverse impacts from transfer of the following ANS through 

the CAWS and establishment in the MR basin: diatom (Stephanodiscus binderanus), red algae (Bangia 

atropurpurea), fishhook waterflea (Cercopagis pengoi), and VHSv (Novirhabdovirus sp.). These four 

species are either hull foulers or may transfer via temporary vessel attachment through the GLMRIS 

Lock. This alternative does not include a measure that successfully addresses hull fouling or vessel 

attachment.

Grass Kelp (Enteromorpha flexuosa) 

A 2003 study indicated that the closest population to the CAWS of E. flexuosa is in Muskegon Lake in 

Michigan, as well as in two nearby inland lakes and lagoons (Sturtevant 2011). In addition to other 

measures, this alternative includes nonstructural measures and GLMRIS Locks and ANSTPs to create

control points within the system for this species. 

The ANSTPs’ UV treatment is expected to inactivate grass kelp from Lake Michigan water. The water 

treated by the ANSTP would be used to flush the GLMRIS Lock and would be diverted to the CAWS for 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

112 

water quality purposes and maintenance of current hydrologic conditions. The GLMRIS Lock is not 

expected to control grass kelp’s entry into or passage through the CAWS by vessels. Grass kelp may 

temporarily attach to vessels, but the GLMRIS Lock would not dislodge algae from vessel hulls.

Nonstructural measures, such as aquatic herbicides, would target reducing the abundance of grass kelp 

where it is found. Nonstructural measures as described in the risk assessment are expected to control this 

species’ dispersion beyond its current locations. Thus, these measures would reduce the likelihood this 

species would arrive at the CAWS and establish in the MR basin. 

The comprehensive implementation of this GLMRIS Alternative as identified in the risk assessment 

would reduce the risk of E. flexuosa from Medium to Low for time steps T10, T25, and T50. 

Risk of Adverse Impacts from Movement through the CAWS 

and Establishment in the MR Basin at T0–T50

Alternative T0 T10 T25 T50

No New Federal Action

– Sustained Activities Low Medium Medium Medium 

GLMRIS Alternativea Low Low Low Low

a The shaded cells and bold italics indicate there is a reduction in the risk rating.

Reed sweet grass (Glyceria maxima) 

Reed sweet grass is established in Oak Creek (a tributary of Lake Michigan) in Milwaukee County, 

Wisconsin (Howard 2012). In 2006, a small, localized population was discovered growing at Illinois 

Beach State Park, north of Waukegan, Illinois. The population was treated with herbicides and 

eradicated, and monitoring for this species in the vicinity has been implemented (Howard 2012). 

In addition to other measures, this alternative includes nonstructural measures and GLMRIS Locks and 

ANSTPs to create control points within the system for this species. 

The ANSTP’s UV treatment is expected to inactivate reed sweet grass from Lake Michigan water. The 

water treated by the ANSTP would be used to flush the GLMRIS Lock and would be diverted to the 

CAWS for water quality purposes and maintenance of current hydrologic conditions. The GLMRIS Lock 

is not expected to control reed sweet grasses’ entry into or passage through the CAWS by vessels. Reed 

sweet grass may temporarily attach to vessels, but the GLMRIS Lock would not dislodge it from vessel 

hulls. 

Though the control points containing GLMRIS Locks are not expected to be effective for reed sweet 

grass, nonstructural measures such as monitoring followed by aquatic herbicide treatment, if it is 

encountered, are expected to control its arrival to the CAWS. Nonstructural measures as described in the 

risk assessment are expected to control this species’ dispersion beyond its current locations. Thus, these 

measures would reduce the likelihood this species would arrive at the CAWS and establish in the MR 

basin. 

The comprehensive implementation of this GLMRIS Alternative as identified in the risk assessment 

would reduce the T50 risk rating from Medium to Low. 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

113 

Risk of Adverse Impacts from Movement through the CAWS 

and Establishment in the MR Basin at T0–T50

Alternative T0 T10 T25 T50

No New Federal Action

– Sustained Activities Low Low Low Medium 

GLMRIS Alternativea Low Low Low Low

a The shaded cell and bold italics indicate there is a reduction in the risk rating.

Bloody Red Shrimp (Hemimysis anomala) 

The species is established within Lake Michigan having been documented offshore of Jackson Harbor in 

2007 and Waukegan Harbor in 2006 (Kipp et al. 2011). This species is not known to be a hull fouler or to 

temporarily attach to vessels. In addition to other measures, this alternative includes nonstructural 

measures and GLMRIS Locks and ANSTPs to create control points for this species. 

The pump-driven filling and emptying system of the GLMRIS Lock would control its passage during 

lockages. The ANSTPs’ UV treatment is expected to inactivate the bloody red shrimp from Lake 

Michigan water. The water treated by the ANSTP would be used to flush the GLMRIS Lock and would 

be diverted to the CAWS for water quality purposes and maintenance of current hydrologic conditions. 

These measures will reduce the likelihood this species would pass through the CAWS. 

The comprehensive implementation of this GLMRIS Alternative as identified in the risk assessment 

would reduce the risk rating from High to Low at T25 and T50, assuming no prior establishment of the 

bloody red shrimp in the MR basin prior to T25. However, because the bloody red shrimp’s probability of 

establishment is High at T0 and T10, there is a High probability that it may have transferred to and 

established in the MR basin prior to the implementation of this alternative.

Risk of Adverse Impacts from Movement through the CAWS 

and Establishment in the MR Basin at T0–T50

Alternative T0 T10 T25 T50

No New Federal Action

– Sustained Activities High High High High

GLMRIS Alternativea High High Low Low

a The shaded cells and bold italics indicate there is a reduction in the risk rating.

Threespine Stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) 

The threespine stickleback is considered established in southern Lake Michigan, and it has been found in 

the North Shore Channel, which connects to the Wilmette Pumping Station. This alternative includes 

nonstructural measures and electric barriers, GLMRIS Locks, and ANSTPs to create control points within 

the system for this species. 

The electric barrier is expected to control the entry of swimming fish into the lock, while the pump-driven 

filling and emptying system of the GLMRIS Lock would control the passage of eggs, larvae, and fry. The 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

114 

water treated by the ANSTP would be used to flush the GLMRIS Lock and would be diverted to the MR 

basin side of the control point for water quality purposes and maintenance of current hydrologic 

conditions. The ANSTP is expected to screen or inactivate all life stages of fish from the water. These 

measures would reduce the likelihood the threespine stickleback would pass through the CAWS.

The comprehensive implementation of this GLMRIS Alternative as identified in the risk assessment 

would reduce the risk rating from Medium to Low at T25 and T50, assuming no prior establishment of the 

threespine stickleback in the MR basin prior to T25. However, because the threespine stickleback’s 

probability of establishment is High at T0 and T10, there is a High probability that it may have transferred 

to and established in the MR basin prior to the implementation of this alternative.

Risk of Adverse Impacts from Movement through the CAWS 

and Establishment in the MR Basin at T0–T50

Alternative T0 T10 T25 T50

No New Federal Action

– Sustained Activities Medium Medium Medium Medium 

GLMRIS Alternativea Medium Medium Low Low

a The shaded cells and bold italics indicate there is a reduction in the risk rating.

Ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernuus) 

The ruffe is not widespread, and there are no high-density populations in Lake Michigan outside of Green 

Bay (Bowen and Goehle 2011). This alternative includes nonstructural measures, and electric barriers, 

GLMRIS Locks, and ANSTPs to create control points within the system for this species. 

The electric barrier is expected to control the entry of swimming fish into the CAWS, while the pumpdriven filling and emptying system of the GLMRIS Lock is expected to control the passage of eggs, 

larvae, and fry during lockages. The water treated by the ANSTP would flush the GLMRIS Lock and 

would be discharged to the MR basin side of the control point for water quality purposes and maintenance 

of hydrologic conditions in the CAWS. The ANSTP is expected to screen or inactivate all life stages of 

fish from the water. These measures will reduce the likelihood this species would pass through the 

CAWS.

The comprehensive implementation of this GLMRIS Alternative as identified in the risk assessment 

would reduce the risk rating from Medium to Low at T50. 

Risk of Adverse Impacts from Movement through the CAWS 

and Establishment in the MR Basin at T0–T50

Alternative T0 T10 T25 T50

No New Federal Action

– Sustained Activities Low Low Low Medium 

GLMRIS Alternativea Low Low Low Low

a The shaded cell and bold italics indicate there is a reduction in the risk rating.
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

115 

Tubenose Goby (Proterorhinus semilunaris) 

The tubenose goby has spread throughout Lake St. Clair in Michigan and its tributaries (Jude et al. 1992), 

as well as the Detroit River system, and is commonly collected in the Duluth-Superior harbor of Lake 

Superior (Kocovsky et al. 2011). A population of tubenose gobies has become established and selfsustaining in the western basin of Lake Erie (Kocovsky et al. 2011). This alternative includes 

nonstructural measures and electric barriers, GLMRIS Locks, and ANSTPs to create control points within 

the system for this species. 

The tubenose goby is an active swimmer but is able to disperse more quickly through ballast water 

transfer. The management of ballast/bilge water in ships that travel in waters where tubenose gobies 

occur is expected to delay the time it would take this species to arrive at the CAWS pathway and reduces 

the likelihood it will arrive at the CAWS at T10. Because the tubenose goby is an active swimmer, even 

with ballast/bilge water management, it is expected this species can swim from its current location to the 

CAWS by T25. 

The electric barrier is expected to control the entry of swimming fish into the CAWS, while the pumpdriven filling and emptying system of the GLMRIS Lock is expected to control the passage of eggs, 

larvae, and fry during lockages. The water treated by the ANSTP would flush the GLMRIS Lock and 

would be discharged to the MR basin side of the control point for water quality purposes and maintenance 

of current hydrologic conditions. The ANSTP is expected to screen or inactivate all life stages of fish

from the water. These measures will reduce the likelihood this species would pass through the CAWS.

The comprehensive implementation of this GLMRIS Alternative as identified in the risk assessment 

would reduce the risk rating from Medium to Low at T10, T25, and T50. 

Risk of Adverse Impacts from Movement through the CAWS 

and Establishment in the MR Basin at T0–T50

Alternative T0 T10 T25 T50

No New Federal Action

– Sustained Activities Low Medium Medium Medium 

GLMRIS Alternativea Low Low Low Low

a The shaded cells and bold italics indicate there is a reduction in the risk rating.

3.10.3 Estimated Alternative Cost

The costs presented in the GLMRIS Report (Table 3.5) are commensurate with the five percent level of 

detail in design for each alternative. The cost and schedule estimates are appropriately used in this report 

as a means to compare the alternatives presented. These cost and schedule estimates are not intended to 

support authorizing language, and will change with more detailed designs of an alternative. Further 

detailed discussion of this analysis can be found in Appendix K – Cost Engineering. 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

116 

Table 3.5 Costs of Mid-System Control Technologies without a 

Buffer Zone – Flow Bypass Alternative

Mid-System Control Technologies without a Buffer Zone – Flow 

Bypass Alternativea

ANS Control Measures Costs $4,032,000,000 

CAWS Ecosystem Mitigation Measures Costs $44,000,000

Water Quality Mitigation Measures Cost NA

FRM Mitigation Measures Cost $9,140,000,000 

Design/Construction Management $2,257,000,000

LERRDs $70,000,000 

OMRR&R Cost (annual) $145,500,000 

Nonstructural Costs (annual) $68,000,000

Cost of the Alternative 

(Does not include annual costs) $15,543,000,000 

a Costs are shown as 2014 program-year dollars.

USACE recognizes that while all the measures shown in this alternative description are required to 

achieve the stated risk reduction, not all measures may be a financial responsibility of USACE. The 

following chart (Table 3.6) identifies who may be financial responsible for measures in this alternative.

Table 3.6 Financial Responsibilities for Mid-System Control Technologies without a Buffer 

Zone – Flow Bypass Alternative

Mid-System Control Technologies without a Buffer Zone – Flow Bypass Alternative

ANS Control Measures 

(Part of Cost of the 

Alternative)

Mitigation Measures – 

Part of USACE Base 

Project (Part of Cost of 

the Alternative)

Mitigation – Paid by 

Others or Added to 

USACE Project by 

Congress (Part of Cost 

of the Alternative)

Mitigation – Paid by Others 

(Part of Cost of the 

Alternative)

GLMRIS Lock 

@ Stickney (IL)

CAWS Ecosystem 

Restoration

Nonstructural

Electric Barrier × 2 

@ Stickney (IL)

Conveyance Tunnel

ANS Treatment Plant 

@ Stickney (IL)

New 11.4 Billion Gallon 

Reservoir @ McCook (IL)

GLMRIS Lock 

@ Alsip (IL)

New 0.2 Billion Gallon 

Reservoir @ Oak Lawn (IL)

Electric Barrier × 2 

@ Alsip (IL)

Conveyance Tunnel

ANS Treatment Plant 

@ Alsip (IL)

New 15.8 Billion Gallon 

Reservoir @ Thornton (IL)
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

117 

3.10.4 Estimated Alternative Implementation Duration

The schedule in Figure 3.4 assumes that the construction of all features is completed by the end of the 

implementation period. Opportunities for staged implementation to provide for earlier risk reduction may 

exist, but would need to be further investigated in future study. This schedule also assumes that the 

project has a non-federal sponsor; receives capability funding; completes required lands acquisitions; 

obtains required permits; and is compliant with USACE policy requirements. Lastly, the schedule 

assumes conditional activities required by non-USACE parties are completed as necessary to facilitate 

timely completion of the project. A delay associated with any of these components would likely extend 

the time needed for project implementation and increase costs.

a The mitigation measures must be implemented prior to the completion of the ANS Control measures, such as the 

GLMRIS Lock, to minimize impacts to CAWS uses and users. Consequently, the ANS risk reduction resulting 

from this alternative is realized when all measures have been constructed.

Figure 3.4 Timeline for Mid-System Control Technologies without a Buffer Zone – 

Flow Bypass Alternative

3.10.5 Complexity of Regulatory Compliance

The Mid-System Control Technologies without a Buffer Zone is anticipated to have a medium level of 

complexity associated with regulatory compliance. Implementation of the project features will require a 

high degree of coordination with federal, state, and local regulators. In-water construction will require a 

Clean Water Act 404(b)(1) analysis and CWA 401 water quality certifications from the State of Illinois. 

Additional electric barriers will require coordination with the U.S. Coast Guard on potential safety 

regulations for navigation through the barriers. Coordination with Illinois and Indiana under the Coastal 

Zone Management Act will also likely be required.

2017 2022 2027 2032 2037 2042

Timeline for Mid-System Control Technologies without a 

Buffer Zone - Flow Bypass Alternativea 

Time to Implement

Nonstructural Measures

GLMRIS Lock

Electric Barriers

ANS Treatment Plant

Conveyance Tunnel

11.4 Billion Gallon Reservoir

0.2 Billion Gallon Reservoir

15.8 Billion Gallon Reservoir
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

118 

3.11 Alternative Plan 4: Control Technology Alternative with a Buffer Zone

3.11.1 Alternative Plan Description

Table 3.7 summarizes the measures included in the Control Technology Alternative with a Buffer Zone, 

the type of measures and the locations of the measures, which are depicted in Figures 3.5-3.7. 

Table 3.7 Technology Alternative with Buffer Zone – 

CAWS Buffer Zone

Technology Alternative with Buffer Zone – CAWS Buffer Zone 

Alternative

Location Measure Type of Measure

Basin-wide Nonstructural ANS Control

To Be Determined

within Chicago Area

CAWS Ecosystem 

Mitigation To Be Determined

Wilmette (IL)

Screened Sluice Gates ANS Control

ANS Treatment Plant WQ Mitigation

Chicago (IL)

GLMRIS Lock

ANS Control

Electric Barrier

ANS Treatment Plant

Screened Sluice Gates

TJ. O’Brien (IL)

GLMRIS Lock

ANS Control

Electric Barrier

ANS Treatment Plant

Screened Sluice Gates

Stateline (IL/IN)

Physical Barrier ANS Control

0.3 Billion Gallon 

Reservoir FRM Mitigation

Hammond (IN) Physical Barrier ANS Control

Thornton (IL)

4.4 Billion Gallon 

Reservoir FRM Mitigation

Conveyance Tunnel

Brandon Road (IL)

GLMRIS Lock

ANS Control

Electric Barrier

This alternative creates an ANS-free Buffer Zone by installing ANS control measures along all five 

aquatic connections between the CAWS and Lake Michigan and by installing ANS control measures at 

the single downstream point of the CAWS at Brandon Road (IL) (Figures 3.5 and 3.6). This is achieved 

by modifying or replacing the existing structures at Wilmette (IL), Chicago (IL), T.J. O’Brien (IL), and 

Brandon Road (IL) and by constructing physical barriers along the uncontrolled pathways of the Grand 

Calumet River and Little Calumet River at Stateline (IL/IN) and Hammond (IN). Additionally, the 

nonstructural measures outlined in Section 3.9 – Alternative Plan 2: Nonstructural Control Technologies

would be implemented as part of this alternative. 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

119 

Figure 3.5 Locations of ANS Prevention and Mitigation Measures within the CAWS
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

120 

Figure 3.6 Locations of ANS Prevention Measures with Additional Details
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

121 

Figure 3.7 Locations of Mitigation Measures with Additional Details
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

122 

At Wilmette (IL), new screened sluice gates would be installed that are designed to prevent ANS from 

Lake Michigan from entering the CAWS while still allowing water to flow from the CAWS into Lake 

Michigan when necessary for FRM.

At Chicago (IL), the existing single-chamber lock would be replaced with a new double-chamber 

GLMRIS Lock with a shallow chamber and a deep chamber that is at the existing depth. The GLMRIS 

Lock would have a water flushing system that would fill the lock with ANS-free water from the CAWS 

Buffer Zone. A new approach channel from Lake Michigan would include an electric barrier to prevent 

fish from entering the lock chamber during lockages. An ANS Treatment Plant would provide the water 

for lockages to ensure ANS not affected by the electric barriers would not be allowed to transfer into the 

CAWS from Lake Michigan. Screened sluice gates would be installed that are designed to prevent ANS 

from Lake Michigan from entering the CAWS while still allowing water to flow from the CAWS into 

Lake Michigan when necessary for FRM.

At T.J. O’Brien (IL), the same ANS control measures at Chicago (IL) would be implemented with the 

exception of the lock replacement. At T.J. O’Brien (IL), the existing single-chamber lock would be 

replaced with a new single chamber GLMRIS Lock at the existing depth. The GLMRIS Lock would have 

a water flushing system that would fill the lock with ANS-free water from the CAWS Buffer Zone.

At Brandon Road (IL), a new approach channel from the Mississippi River direction would include an 

electric barrier to prevent fish from entering the lock chamber during lockages. The existing lock would 

be rehabilitated to install a new water flushing system that would fill the lock with ANS-free water from 

the CAWS Buffer Zone and release the water downstream to the Mississippi River Basin and prevent 

ANS not affected by the electric barrier from entering the lock chamber.

The GLMRIS Locks would remain closed at all times unless a vessel needed to cross to the other side. 

Additionally, if there were a power failure with the electric barriers or another maintenance concern, the 

locks would remain closed to prevent passage of ANS. 

CAWS Ecosystem Impacts

The Control Technology Alternative with a Buffer Zone would remove aquatic habitat at or 

near Lake Michigan. The two physical separation barriers along the Grand Calumet and Little 

Calumet Rivers would impede the dispersal of native species within their respective rivers. 

The result could be the extirpation of vulnerable native species and disruption of the food

web. This is anticipated to be a High impact.

CAWS Ecosystem Mitigation Measures

CAWS ecosystem mitigation measures may be required for impacts to significant natural 

resources as a result of plan implementation. Since site-specific designs have not been 

completed, impacts have not been assessed and mitigation measures have not been 

developed; however, the GLMRIS Team identified placeholder costs for ecosystem 

mitigation measures that are at a commensurate level of detail for each alternative. Further 

analysis and design for any selected alternative would include an assessment of plan impacts

and identification of mitigation requirements as required under NEPA. These evaluations 

would be fully coordinated with the appropriate resource agencies.

Water Quality CAWS Impacts 

The GLMRIS Lock and ANS Treatment Plant are novel technology applications that enable 

the Technology with a Buffer Zone Alternative to prevent ANS transfer between basins while 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

123 

maintaining lock operations for navigation. This alternative impacts water quality in the 

CAWS because it precludes the use of untreated Lake Michigan water to ameliorate water 

quality in the CAWS. Absence of Lake Michigan diversion water in the CAWS system 

would result in low flows, stagnant zones, and low dissolved oxygen concentrations. 

In addition to their role as an ANS control measure, the proposed ANS Treatment Plants at 

Wilmette (IL), Chicago (IL), and T.J. O’Brien (IL) would also function to mitigate water 

quality impacts. The ANS Treatment Plants would withdraw water from the Lake Michigan 

side of the physical barriers, treat the water to remove or inactivate ANS, and then discharge 

the ANS-treated water on the Mississippi River side of the physical barriers. The treatment 

technologies proposed for the ANSTPs include screening and UV radiation. The ANSTPs 

would allow the discretionary diversion of Lake Michigan water allocated to MWRD to 

continue and the CAWS hydrology to remain similar to current conditions. With this 

mitigation, water quantity and quality are expected to be essentially equivalent for the future 

with-project and without-project conditions. For additional information on mitigation. refer 

to Appendix F. 

Water Quality CAWS Mitigation Measures 

• ANS Treatment Plant at Wilmette (IL) – 200 MGD capacity, 0.7-acre footprint.

• ANS Treatment Plant at Chicago (IL) – 1,750 MGD total capacity, 5.7-acre 

footprint. 

– 450 MGD capacity for water quality mitigation.

– 1,300 MGD capacity to supply the GLMRIS Lock. 

• ANS Treatment Plant at T.J. O’Brien (IL) – 1,250 MGD total capacity, 4.1-acre 

footprint. 

– 450 MGD capacity for water quality mitigation.

– 800 MGD capacity to supply the GLMRIS Lock. 

Water Quality Lake Michigan Impacts 

Under this alternative, water quantity and quality are expected to be essentially equivalent for 

the future with-project and without-project conditions; therefore, there are no impacts to the 

water quality of Lake Michigan as a result of this alternative.

Flood Risk Management (FRM) Impacts 

Under existing conditions, the Grand Calumet River and Little Calumet River flow toward 

the Mississippi River and Great Lakes basins. The physical barriers at Stateline (IL/IN) and 

Hammond (IN) prevent this bi-directional flow and would cause FRM impacts such as 

induced sewer and overbank flooding during large storm events. USACE is currently 

constructing a levee system on the Little Calumet River. The stage increases caused by these 

physical barriers would affect the level of protection on the levees. The Little Calumet River 

levee system is being constructed to a 0.5% ACE level (200-yr) with at least a 95% 

confidence for certification. With these barriers in place, the impacts to the level of 

protection (LOP) is substantial for several levee sections as summarized below (LOP where 

95% confidence is achieved): 

• Reach 4 Hammond East North 100-yr

• Reach 5b Griffith South 50-yr

• Reach 6a Gary North 100-yr

• Reach 7 Gary South 100-yr
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

124 

Without any mitigation measures, this alternative yields a net change in equivalent expected 

annual damages EEAD of $570,000 annually due to the physical barriers at Stateline (IL\IN) 

and Hammond (IN). To mitigate for impacts to FRM, two new reservoirs and the necessary 

stormwater collection system (via tunnels) would be constructed. These new reservoirs and 

tunnels would be very similar in nature to the existing TARP in the Chicago area. These 

reservoirs would store stormwater up to the 0.2% ACE event, route the water through 

existing wastewater treatment plants, and then discharge the water into the CAWS such that it 

joins the Mississippi River Basin.

Flood Risk Management (FRM) Mitigation Measures 

• New 0.3 billion gallon reservoir at Stateline (IL) would address FRM impacts on 

the Grand Calumet River in the system.

• A new 4.4 billion gallon reservoir at Thornton (IL) would address FRM impacts 

on the Little Calumet River in the system.

• Conveyance tunnel from Hammond (IN) to Thornton (IL) estimated to be 7 miles 

long and 14 feet in diameter. 

Human Safety Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Without any mitigation measures (Figure 3.7), construction of physical barriers would induce 

flooding of the CAWS during the 0.2% ACE event. This induced flooding would increase life 

safety risks associated with large storm events. The FRM mitigation would act as mitigation 

for these human safety impacts.

Construction of the electric barriers at Chicago (IL), T.J. O’Brien (IL), and Brandon Road 

(IL) would also have impacts to human safety. Their installation would have to be 

coordinated with the U.S. Coast Guard, and restrictions on small watercraft traversing the 

barriers would be imposed. 

Commercial Navigation Impacts 

The Control Technology Alternative with a Buffer Zone would result in a loss of commercial 

cargo navigation transportation cost savings of $0.5 million annually. This alternative 

includes adding locks in the CAWS or modifying existing locks; commercial cargo 

movements could be impacted by increased lockage times. Increased lockage times translate 

into greater overall shipping times, which translate into decreases in transportation cost 

savings. A more detailed discussion of this analysis can be found in Appendix D – Economic 

Analyses.

Impacts to commercial navigation would not be mitigated, because no mitigation measures 

were identified that would effectively address the impacts. A full discussion on this topic is 

included in Section 2.5, Mitigation Assumptions, and in Attachment 6 (Commercial Cargo 

Reports) to Appendix D – Economic Analyses and Appendix A. 

Noncommercial Navigation (includes recreational navigation) Impacts 

The Control Technology Alternative with a Buffer Zone Impacts to noncommercial 

navigation would likely include:
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

125 

• Police/fire/other government vessels will need to incur additional expense in 

order to maintain the same level of service. Emergency response vessels will be 

impacted, which is a safety issue.

• There will be additional cost to non-cargo lock users as they attempt to maintain 

previous usage, find alternate means of reaching their destination, and/or find 

alternate destinations for boat repairs, fishing, or other recreational activity.

• The physical barriers may increase the frequency of high water events on the 

CAWS.

• The value of the recreational experience for tour boat passengers, recreational 

anglers, and recreational boaters may decrease. Vessels under 20 feet will not be 

able to pass through the electronic barriers (current U.S. Coast Guard restriction). 

The Control Technology Alternative with a Buffer Zone would have a medium impact to 

noncommercial navigation. A more detailed discussion of this analysis can be found in 

Appendix D – Economic Analyses.

3.11.2 ANS Risk Reduction

This alternative includes nonstructural measures that are assumed to be implemented quickly (T0). An 

exception would be nonstructural measures which are dependent on the passage of new laws or 

regulations, because of the uncertainty of the time required to pass and implement new laws or 

regulations. The remaining structural measures are assumed to be implemented at T10 and in part, are 

generally discussed below. This alternative includes measures, such as the GLMRIS Lock, which are at a 

conceptual level of design but use existing process engineering concepts applied to control ANS. While 

the technologies involved in these alternatives are known, the combination of technologies and 

application of the technologies are non-traditional. For instance, UV is frequently used for water 

treatment plants, and the flushing mechanism concept in the GLMRIS Lock is used in many different 

types of water treatment. However, these technologies have not previously been applied to control the 

transfer of ANS. In addition, while USACE currently operates an electric barrier, there are ongoing 

studies associated with improving its efficacy. As a result, the uncertainty associated with the 

technologies’ impact on ANS passage is higher than the uncertainty of ANS passage associated with the 

hydrologic separation alternatives. The hydrologic separation alternative includes physical barriers, which 

has uncertainty based on the size of the design storm event. A detailed discussion of this risk assessment 

analysis including a more detailed explanation regarding the measures and uncertainty for each of the 13 

High and Medium risk species for this alternative are found in Appendix C –Risk Assessments. This 

alternative would be implemented at T10 and would reduce the risk ratings of the following species: 

ANS Potentially Invading the Great Lakes Basin 

Scud (Apocorophium lacustre) 

The scud (Apocorophium lacustre) has been reported from the Mississippi River, Ohio River, and Illinois 

River (Grigorovich et al. 2008; USGS 2011). This ANS has been found in the Illinois River less than 

32.2 km (20 mi) from Brandon Road Lock and Dam; however, the last survey for this species was 

conducted in 2008, so it may currently be even closer to this dam (USGS 2011; Grigorovich et al. 2008). 

This alternative would not reduce the scud’s the risk of establishment in the GL basin compared to the 

risk identified in the No New Federal Action – Sustained Activities conditions. Please see Appendix C –

Risk Assessments. The scud is already present at the CAWS and can be transported via vessel 

movement. This alternative does not impact vessel movement in the CAWS.
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

126 

Bighead Carp (Hypophthalmichthys nobilis) 

The bighead carp have been found in the Des Plaines River in Rock Run Rookery (ACRCC 2013). The 

rookery is approximately 4 miles downstream from the Brandon Road Lock and Dam. This alternative 

includes nonstructural measures and electric barriers and GLMRIS Locks to create control points within 

the system for this species. 

Nonstructural measures such as piscicides, overfishing, etc., are expected to limit the population of 

bighead carp below the barrier. Ballast and bilge water management are expected to control the transfer 

of eggs, larvae, and fry through the GLMRIS Lock. 

The electric barrier is expected to control swimming fish from entering the GLMRIS Lock. The pumpdriven filling and emptying system of the GLMRIS Lock would flush the lock with water from the 

CAWS Buffer Zone and is expected to control the passage of bighead carp eggs, larvae, and fry that may 

passively drift into the lock. This control point would reduce the likelihood that the species would pass 

through the CAWS. 

The comprehensive implementation of this alternative as identified in this risk assessment would reduce 

the risk of bighead carp from Medium to Low at T25 and T50. 

Risk of Adverse Impacts from Movement through the CAWS 

and Establishment in the MR Basin at T0–T50

Alternative T0 T10 T25 T50

No New Federal Action

– Sustained Activities Low Low Medium Medium 

GLMRIS Alternativea Low Low Low Low

a The shaded cells and bold italics indicate there is a reduction in the risk rating.

Silver Carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix) 

The silver carp have been found in the Des Plaines River in Rock Run Rookery (ACRCC 2013). The 

rookery is approximately 4 miles downstream from the Brandon Road Lock and Dam. This alternative 

includes nonstructural measures and creates control points for this species with construction of GLMRIS 

Locks and electric barriers. 

Nonstructural measures such as piscicides, overfishing, etc., are expected to limit the population of silver 

carp below the barrier. Ballast and bilge water management are expected to control the transfer of eggs, 

larvae, and fry through the GLMRIS Lock. 

The electric barrier is expected to control swimming fish from entering the GLMRIS Lock. The pumpdriven filling and emptying system of the GLMRIS Lock would flush the lock with water from the 

CAWS Buffer Zone and is expected to control the transfer of silver carp eggs, larvae, and fry that may 

passively drift into the lock. This control point would reduce the likelihood that the species would pass 

through the CAWS. 

The comprehensive implementation of this alternative as identified in this risk assessment would reduce 

the risk of silver carp from Medium to Low at T25 and T50. 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

127 

Risk of Adverse Impacts from Movement through the CAWS 

and Establishment in the MR Basin at T0–T50

Alternative T0 T10 T25 T50

No New Federal Action

– Sustained Activities Low Low Medium Medium 

GLMRIS Alternativea Low Low Low Low

a The shaded cells and bold italics indicate there is a reduction in the risk rating.

ANS Potentially Invading the Mississippi River Basin

This alternative would not reduce the risk of adverse impacts from transfer of the following ANS through 

the CAWS and establishment in the MR basin: diatom (Stephanodiscus binderanus), red algae (Bangia 

atropurpurea), fishhook waterflea (Cercopagis pengoi), and VHSv (Novirhabdovirus sp.). These four 

species are either hull foulers or may transfer via temporary vessel attachment through the GLMRIS 

Lock. This alternative does not include a measure that successfully addresses hull fouling or vessel 

attachment.

Grass Kelp (Enteromorpha flexuosa) 

A 2003 study indicated that the closest population to the CAWS of E. flexuosa is in Muskegon Lake in 

Michigan, as well as in two nearby inland lakes and lagoons (Sturtevant 2011). In addition to other 

measures, this alternative includes nonstructural measures and GLMRIS Locks and ANSTPs to create 

control points within the system for this species. 

The ANSTPs’ UV treatment is expected to inactivate grass kelp from Lake Michigan water. The water 

treated by the ANSTP would be used to flush the GLMRIS Lock and would be diverted to the CAWS for 

water quality purposes and maintenance of current hydrologic conditions. The GLMRIS Lock is not 

expected to control grass kelp’s passage through the CAWS by vessels. Grass kelp may temporarily 

attach to vessels, but the GLMRIS Lock would not dislodge algae from vessel hulls.

Nonstructural measures, such as aquatic herbicides, would target reducing the abundance of grass kelp 

where it is found. Nonstructural measures as described in the risk assessment are expected to control this 

species’ dispersion beyond its current locations. Thus, these measures would reduce the likelihood this 

species would arrive at the CAWS and establish in the MR basin. 

The comprehensive implementation of this GLMRIS Alternative as identified in the risk assessment 

would reduce the risk of E. flexuosa from Medium to Low for time steps T10, T25, and T50. 

Risk of Adverse Impacts from Movement through the CAWS 

and Establishment in the MR Basin at T0–T50

Alternative T0 T10 T25 T50

No New Federal Action –

Sustained Activities Low Medium Medium Medium 

GLMRIS Alternativea Low Low Low Low

a The shaded cells and bold italics indicate there is a reduction in the risk rating.
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

128 

Reed sweet grass (Glyceria maxima) 

Reed sweet grass is established in Oak Creek (a tributary of Lake Michigan) in Milwaukee County, 

Wisconsin (Howard 2012). In 2006, a small, localized population was discovered growing at Illinois 

Beach State Park, north of Waukegan, Illinois. The population was treated with herbicides and 

eradicated, and monitoring for this species in the vicinity has been implemented (Howard 2012). In 

addition to other measures, this alternative includes GLMRIS Locks and ANSTPs at control points within 

the system for this species. 

The ANSTP’s UV treatment is expected to inactivate reed sweet grass from Lake Michigan water. The 

water treated by the ANSTP would be used to flush the GLMRIS Lock and would be diverted to the 

CAWS for water quality purposes and maintenance of current hydrologic conditions. The GLMRIS Lock 

is not expected to control reed sweet grasses’ entry into or passage through the CAWS by vessels. Reed 

sweet grass may temporarily attach to vessels, but the GLMRIS Lock would not dislodge it from vessel 

hulls. 

Though the control points containing GLMRIS Locks are not expected to be effective for reed sweet 

grass, nonstructural measures such as monitoring followed by aquatic herbicide treatment, if it is 

encountered, are expected to control its arrival to the CAWS. Nonstructural measures as described in the 

risk assessment are expected to control this species’ dispersion beyond its current locations. Thus, these 

measures would reduce the likelihood this species would arrive at the CAWS and establish in the MR 

basin. 

The comprehensive implementation of this GLMRIS Alternative as identified in the risk assessment 

would reduce the T50 risk rating from Medium to Low. 

Risk of Adverse Impacts from Movement through the CAWS 

and Establishment in the MR Basin at T0–T50

Alternative T0 T10 T25 T50

No New Federal Action

– Sustained Activities Low Low Low Medium 

GLMRIS Alternativea Low Low Low Low

a The shaded cell and bold italics indicate there is a reduction in the risk rating.

Bloody Red Shrimp (Hemimysis anomala) 

The species is established within Lake Michigan having been documented offshore of Jackson Harbor in 

2007 and Waukegan Harbor in 2006 (Kipp et al. 2011). This species is not known to be a hull fouler or 

known to temporarily attach to vessels. In addition to other measures, this alternative includes GLMRIS 

Locks and ANSTPs to create control points for this species. 

The pump-driven filling and emptying system of the GLMRIS Lock would control its passage during 

lockages. The ANSTPs’ UV treatment is expected to inactivate the bloody red shrimp from Lake 

Michigan water. The water treated by the ANSTP would be used to flush the GLMRIS Lock and would 

be diverted to the CAWS for water quality purposes and maintenance of current hydrologic conditions. 

These measures will reduce the likelihood this species would pass through the CAWS. 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

129 

The comprehensive implementation of this GLMRIS Alternative as identified in the risk assessment 

would reduce the risk rating from High to Low at T10, T25, and T50, assuming no prior establishment of the 

bloody red shrimp in the MR basin prior to T10. However, because the bloody red shrimp’s probability of 

establishment is High at T0, there is a High probability that it may have transferred to and established in 

the MR basin prior to the implementation of this alternative.

Risk of Adverse Impacts from Movement through the CAWS 

and Establishment in the MR Basin at T0 – T50

Alternative T0 T10 T25 T50

No New Federal Action

– Sustained Activities High High High High

GLMRIS Alternativea High Low Low Low

a The shaded cells and bold italics indicate there is a reduction in the risk rating.

Threespine Stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) 

The threespine stickleback is considered established in southern Lake Michigan, and it has been found in 

the North Shore Channel, which connects to the Wilmette Pumping Station. This alternative includes 

nonstructural measures and electric barriers, GLMRIS Locks, and ANSTPs to create control points within 

the system for this species. 

In addition to other measures, this alternative includes nonstructural measures and GLMRIS Locks and 

ANSTPs to create control points within the system for this species. The electric barrier is expected to 

control the entry of swimming fish into the lock, while the pump-driven filling and emptying system of 

the GLMRIS Lock would control the passage of eggs, larvae, and fry. The water treated by the ANSTP 

would be used to flush the GLMRIS Lock and would be diverted to the MR basin side of the control point 

for water quality purposes and maintenance of hydrologic conditions in the CAWS. The ANSTP is 

expected to screen or inactivate all life stages of fish from the water. These measures would reduce the 

likelihood the threespine stickleback would pass through the CAWS.

The comprehensive implementation of this GLMRIS Alternative as identified in the risk assessment 

would reduce the risk rating from Medium to Low at T10, T25, and T50, assuming no prior establishment of 

the threespine stickleback in the MR basin prior to T10. However, because the threespine stickleback’s 

probability of establishment is High at T0, there is a High probability that it may have transferred to and 

established in the MR basin prior to the implementation of this alternative.

Risk of Adverse Impacts from Movement through the CAWS 

and Establishment in the MR Basin at T0–T50

Alternative T0 T10 T25 T50

No New Federal Action

– Sustained Activities Medium Medium Medium Medium 

GLMRIS Alternativea Medium Low Low Low

a The shaded cells and bold italics indicate there is a reduction in the risk rating.
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

130 

Ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernuus) 

The ruffe is not widespread, and there are no high-density populations in Lake Michigan outside of Green 

Bay (Bowen and Goehle 2011). In addition to other measures, this alternative includes nonstructural 

measures, and GLMRIS Locks and ANSTPs to create control points within the system for this species. 

The electric barrier is expected to control the entry of swimming fish into the CAWS, while the pumpdriven filling and emptying system of the GLMRIS Lock is expected to control the passage of eggs, 

larvae, and fry during lockages. The water treated by the ANSTP would flush the GLMRIS Lock and 

would be discharged to the MR basin side of the control point for water quality purposes and maintenance 

of hydrologic conditions in the CAWS. The ANSTP is expected to screen or inactivate all life stages of 

fish from the water. These measures will reduce the likelihood this species would pass through the 

CAWS.

The comprehensive implementation of this GLMRIS Alternative as identified in the risk assessment 

would reduce the risk rating from Medium to Low at T50. 

Risk of Adverse Impacts from Movement through the CAWS 

and Establishment in the MR Basin at T0–T50

Alternative T0 T10 T25 T50

No New Federal Action

– Sustained Activities Low Low Low Medium 

GLMRIS Alternativea Low Low Low Low

a The shaded cell and bold italics indicate there is a reduction in the risk rating.

Tubenose Goby (Proterorhinus semilunaris) 

The tubenose goby has spread throughout Lake St. Clair in Michigan and its tributaries (Jude et al. 1992), 

as well as the Detroit River system, and is commonly collected in the Duluth-Superior harbor of Lake 

Superior (Kocovsky et al. 2011). A population of tubenose gobies has become established and selfsustaining in the western basin of Lake Erie (Kocovsky et al. 2011). The tubenose goby is an active 

swimmer but due to its benthic nature is able to disperse more quickly through ballast water transfer. 

This alternative includes nonstructural measures, electric barriers, GLMRIS Locks, and ANSTPs to create 

control points within the system for this species. 

The tubenose goby is an active swimmer but is able to disperse more quickly through ballast water 

transfer. The management of ballast/bilge water in ships that travel in waters where tubenose gobies 

occur is expected to delay the time it would take for this species to arrive at the CAWS pathway and 

reduces the likelihood it will arrive at the CAWS at T10. Because the tubenose goby is an active 

swimmer, even with ballast/bilge water management, it is expected this species can swim from its current 

location to the CAWS by T25. 

The electric barrier is expected to control the entry of swimming fish into the CAWS, while the pumpdriven filling and emptying system of the GLMRIS Lock is expected to control the passage of eggs, 

larvae, and fry during lockages. The water treated by the ANSTP would flush the GLMRIS Lock and 

would be discharged to the MR basin side of the control point for water quality purposes and maintenance 

of hydrologic conditions in the CAWS. The ANSTP is expected to screen or inactivate all life stages of 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

131 

fish from the water. These measures will reduce the likelihood this species would pass through the 

CAWS.

The comprehensive implementation of this GLMRIS Alternative as identified in the risk assessment 

would reduce the risk rating from Medium to Low at T10, T25, and T50. 

Risk of Adverse Impacts from Movement through the CAWS 

and Establishment in the MR Basin at T0–T50

Alternative T0 T10 T25 T50

No New Federal Action

– Sustained Activities Low Medium Medium Medium 

GLMRIS Alternativea Low Low Low Low

a The shaded cells and bold italics indicate there is a reduction in the risk rating.

3.11.3 Estimated Alternative Cost

The costs presented in the GLMRIS Report (Table 3.8) are commensurate with the five percent level of 

detail in design for each alternative. The cost and schedule estimates are appropriately used in this report 

as a means to compare the alternatives presented. These cost and schedule estimates are not intended to 

support authorizing language, and will change with more detailed designs of an alternative. Further 

detailed discussion of this analysis can be found in Appendix K. 

USACE recognizes that while all the measures shown in this alternative description are required to 

achieve the stated risk reduction, not all measures may be a financial responsibility of USACE. The 

following chart (Table 3.9) identifies who may be financial responsible for measures in this alternative.

Table 3.8 Costs for Technology Alternative with Buffer Zone – 

CAWS Buffer Zone Alternative

Technology Alternative with Buffer Zone – CAWS Buffer Zone 

Alternativea

ANS Control Measures Costs $3,175,000,000 

CAWS Ecosystem Mitigation Measures Costs $25,000,000 

Water Quality Mitigation Measures Cost $1,559,000,000

FRM Mitigation Measures Cost $1,980,000,000 

Design/Construction Management $1,037,000,000 

LERRDs $30,000,000

OMRR&R Cost (annual) $150,500,000 

Nonstructural Costs (annual) $68,000,000 

Cost of the Alternative 

(Does not include annual costs) $7,806,000,000 

a Costs are shown as 2014 program-year dollars.
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

132 

Table 3.9 Financial Responsibilities for Technology Alternative with Buffer Zone – CAWS 

Buffer Zone Alternative

Technology Alternative with Buffer Zone – CAWS Buffer Zone Alternative

ANS Control Measures 

(Part of Cost of the 

Alternative)

Mitigation Measures – Part of 

USACE Base Project 

(Part of Cost of the Alternative)

Mitigation – Paid by 

Others or Added to 

USACE Project by 

Congress (Part of Cost of 

the Alternative)

Mitigation – 

Paid by Others 

(Part of Cost of 

the Alternative)

Screened Sluice Gates 

@ Wilmette (IL)

CAWS Ecosystem Restoration Nonstructural

GLMRIS Lock 

@ Chicago (IL)

ANS Treatment Plant 

@ Wilmette (IL)

Electric Barrier 

@ Chicago (IL)

New 0.3 Billion Gallon Reservoir 

@ Stateline (IL/IN)

ANS Treatment Plant 

@ Chicago (IL)

New 4.4 Billion Gallon Reservoir 

@ Thornon (IL)

Screened Sluice Gates 

@ Chicago (IL)

Conveyance Tunnel

GLMRIS Lock 

@ T.J. O’Brien (IL)

Electric Barrier 

@ T.J. O’Brien (IL)

ANS Treatment Plant 

@ T.J. O’Brien (IL)

Screened Sluice Gates 

@ T.J. O’Brien (IL)

Physical Barrier 

@ Stateline (IL/IN)

Physical Barrier 

@ Hammond (IN)

GLMRIS Lock 

@ Brandon Road (IL)

Electric Barrier 

@ Brandon Road (IL)

3.11.4 Estimated Alternative Implementation Duration

The schedule in Figure 3.8 assumes that the construction of all features is completed by the end of the 

implementation period. Opportunities for staged implementation to provide for earlier risk reduction may 

exist, but would need to be further investigated in future study. This schedule also assumes that the 

project has a non-federal sponsor; receives capability funding; completes required lands acquisitions; 

obtains required permits; and is compliant with USACE policy requirements. Lastly, the schedule 

assumes conditional activities required by non-USACE parties are completed as necessary to facilitate 

timely completion of the project. A delay associated with any of these components would likely extend 

the time needed for project implementation and increase costs.
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

133 

–

a The mitigation measures must be implemented prior to the completion of the ANS control measures, such as the GLMRIS 

Lock, to minimize impacts to CAWS users and uses. Consequently, the ANS risk reduction resulting from this alternative is 

realized when all measures have been constructed.

Figure 3.8 Timeline for Technology Alternative with Buffer Zone – 

CAWS Buffer Zone Alternative

3.11.5 Complexity of Regulatory Compliance

The Control Technology Alternative with a Buffer Zone will have a medium level of complexity 

associated with regulatory compliance. Implementation of the project features will require a high degree 

of coordination with federal, state, and local regulators. In-water construction will require a Clean Water 

Act 404(b)(1) analysis and CWA 401 water quality certifications from the States of Illinois and Indiana.. 

Additional electric barriers will also require coordination with the U.S. Coast Guard on potential safety 

regulations for navigation through the barriers. Coordination with Illinois and Indiana under the Coastal 

Zone Management Act will also likely be required.

3.12 Alternative Plan 5: Lakefront Hydrologic Separation

3.12.1 Alternative Plan Description

Table 3.10 summarizes the measures included in the Lakefront Hydrologic Separation Alternative, the 

type of measures and the locations of the measures. Additional location details are found in 

Figures 3.9-3.11. 

2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027

Timeline for Technology Alternative with Buffer Zone - 

CAWS Buffer Zone Alternativea 

Time to Implement

Nonstructural Measures

Screened Sluice Gates

ANS Treatment Plant

GLMRIS Lock

Electric Barrier

Physical Barrier

0.3 Billion Gallon Reservoir

4.4 Billion Gallon Reservoir

Conveyance Tunnel
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

134 

Table 3.10 Lakefront Hydrologic Separation

Lakefront Hydrologic Separation

Location Measure Type of Measure

Basin Wide Nonstructural ANS Control

To Be Determined

within the Chicago 

Area

CAWS Ecosystem 

Mitigation To Be Determined

Recreational Vessel 

Dry Dock Storage

Noncommercial 

Navigation Mitigation

Wilmette (IL) Physical Barrier ANS Control

ANS Treatment Plant WQ Mitigation

Chicago (IL) Physical Barrier ANS Control

ANS Treatment Plant WQ Mitigation

McCook (IL)

Conveyance Tunnel

6.5 Billion Gallon FRM Mitigation

Reservoir

Calumet City (IL) Physical Barrier ANS Control

ANS Treatment Plant WQ Mitigation

Hammond (IN) Physical Barrier ANS Control

Thornton (IL)

13.5 Billion Gallon 

Reservoir FRM Mitigation

Conveyance Tunnel × 2 

This alternative includes four physical barriers located at Wilmette (IL), Chicago (IL), Calumet City (IL), 

and Hammond (IN). Additionally, the nonstructural measures discussed in Section 3.2 of this report 

would also be implemented as part of this alternative.

CAWS Ecosystem Impacts

The Lakefront Hydrologic Separation Alternative would remove aquatic habitat at or near 

Lake Michigan. The separation of the CAWS at Lake Michigan would also impede native 

species from moving between the Lake and the Chicago River. This is anticipated as a High 

impact.

CAWS Ecosystem Mitigation Measures

CAWS ecosystem mitigation measures may be required for impacts to significant natural 

resources as a result of plan implementation. Since site-specific designs have not been 

completed, impacts have not been assessed and mitigation measures have not been 

developed; however, the GLMRIS Team identified placeholder costs for ecosystem 

mitigation measures that are at a commensurate level of detail for each alternative. Further 

analysis and design for any selected alternative would include an assessment of plan impacts

and identification of mitigation requirements as required under NEPA. These evaluations 

would be fully coordinated with the appropriate resource agencies.
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

135 

Figure 3.9 Locations of ANS Prevention and Mitigation Measures within the CAWS
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

136 

Figure 3.10 Location Details of ANS Prevention Measures
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

137 

Figure 3.11 Further Location Details of Mitigation Measures
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

138 

Water Quality CAWS Impacts 

Water quality modeling, described in Appendix F, indicates that stagnant conditions and low 

dissolved oxygen concentrations would develop near the dead-end reaches of the system, if 

the proposed barriers are installed at the lakefront. The number of hours exceeding water 

quality benchmarks in the CAWS is expected to increase above the expected future withoutproject conditions. 

This represents a High impact to water quality in the CAWS.

To mitigate water quality impacts to the CAWS, ANS Treatment Plants would be constructed 

at Wilmette (IL), Chicago (IL), and Calumet City (IL). The ANS Treatment Plants would 

withdraw water from the Lake Michigan side of the physical barriers, treat the water to 

remove or inactivate ANS, and then discharge the ANS-treated water on the Mississippi 

River side of the physical barriers. The treatment technologies proposed for the ANSTPs 

include screening and UV radiation. These ANS Treatment Plants would allow the 

discretionary diversion of Lake Michigan water allocated to MWRD to continue, and CAWS 

hydrology would remain similar to current conditions. With this mitigation, water quantity 

and quality are expected to be essentially equivalent for the future with-project and withoutproject conditions. For additional information on mitigation, refer to Appendix F. 

Water Quality CAWS Mitigation Measures 

• ANS Treatment Plant at Wilmette (IL) – 200 MGD capacity, 0.7-acre footprint.

• ANS Treatment Plant at Chicago (IL) – 450 MGD capacity, 1.5-acre footprint.

• ANS Treatment Plant at Calumet City (IL) – 450 MGD capacity, 1.5-acre 

footprint. 

Water Quality Lake Michigan Impacts

There are no negative impacts to Lake Michigan under this alternative, but only positive 

impacts. The Lakefront Separation Alternative results in improvements to water quality in 

Lake Michigan. Flood Risk Management (FRM) mitigation measures will capture all 

backflows from the CAWS to Lake Michigan during large storms up to and including the 

0.2% ACE event. This mitigation will prevent combined sewage-stormwater backflows to

Lake Michigan. Frequency and duration of historical backflow events are described in 

Appendix E. 

Flood Risk Management (FRM) Impacts 

Under existing conditions, much of the flow of water in the CAWS would backflow into 

Lake Michigan during a 0.2% ACE event. This backflow volume would need to be captured 

to prevent an increase in stage levels on the CAWS and avoid any induced flooding, 

basement or overbank, in the Chicago area. This backflow volume was determined from 

USACE’s H&H model and is the basis of the reservoir sizes in this alternative. The physical 

barriers at Calumet City (IL) and Hammond (IN) prevent bi-directional flow and would cause 

FRM impacts. USACE is currently constructing a levee system on the Little Calumet River. 

The stage increases caused by these physical barriers would affect the level of protection on 

the levees. The Little Calumet River levee system is being constructed to a 0.5% ACE level 

(200-yr) with at least a 95% confidence for certification. With these barriers in place, the 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

139 

impacts to the level of protection (LOP) is substantial for several levee sections, as 

summarized below (LOP where 95% confidence is achieved):

• Reach 4 Hammond East North 100-yr

• Reach 5b Griffith South 50-yr

• Reach 6a Gary North 100-yr

• Reach 7 Gary South 100-yr

Without mitigation measures, this alternative yields a net change in EEAD of $65,963,000 

annually due to physical barriers at Wilmette (IL), Calumet City (IL), Chicago (IL), and 

Hammond (IN). This net change in EEAD represents the additional damages to buildings 

and their contents that are expected to occur on a yearly basis as a result of this alternative. A 

more detailed discussion of this analysis can be found in Appendix D – Economic Analyses.

To mitigate for impacts to FRM, two new reservoirs and the necessary stormwater collection 

system (via tunnels) would be constructed. These new reservoirs and tunnels would be very 

similar in nature to the existing TARP in the Chicago area. These reservoirs would store 

storm water up to the 0.2% ACE event, route the water through existing wastewater treatment 

plants, and then discharge the water into the CAWS such that it joins the Mississippi River 

basin. A more detailed discussion of this analysis can be found in Appendix E – Hydrologic 

& Hydraulic Analyses and Appendix J – Civil Design.

Flood Risk Management (FRM) Mitigation Measures

• New 6.5 billion gallon reservoir at McCook (IL) would address FRM impacts on 

the CSSC, Chicago River, and North Shore Channel of the system. 

• Conveyance tunnel from Wilmette (IL) to Chicago (IL) estimated at 13 miles 

long and 22 feet in diameter.

• Conveyance tunnel from Chicago (IL) to McCook (IL) estimated at 13 miles long 

and 42 feet in diameter.

• A new 13.5 billion gallon reservoir at Thornton (IL) would address FRM impacts 

on the Cal-Sag Channel and Calumet, Grand Calumet, and Little Calumet Rivers 

in the system.

• Conveyance tunnel from Calumet City (IL) to Thornton (IL) estimated at 6 miles 

long and 30 feet in diameter. 

• Conveyance tunnel from Hammond (IN) to Thornton (IL) estimated at 7 miles 

long and 14 feet in diameter.

Human Safety Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Without any mitigation measures, construction of physical barriers would induce flooding of 

the CAWS during the 0.2% ACE event. This induced flooding would increase life safety 

risks associated with large storm events.

The FRM mitigation would act as mitigation for human safety for the Lakefront Hydrologic 

Separation Alternative. 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

140 

Commercial Navigation Impacts 

The Lakefront Hydrologic Separation Alternative would result in a loss of commercial cargo 

navigation transportation cost savings of $211.77 million annually. In this alternative, both 

shallow-draft and deep-draft commodity movements could no longer occur on the CAWS and 

would need to switch to truck or rail, find alternative sources for input, sell their output in 

different markets, or shut down. Since the tonnage moving past the Lakefront Hydrologic 

Separation barriers is less than the tonnage moving past the Mid-System Hydrologic 

Separation barriers, this alternative has less of an impact to commercial cargo transportation 

cost savings. A more detailed discussion of this analysis can be found in Appendix D – 

Economic Analyses.

Impacts to commercial navigation would not be mitigated, because no mitigation measures 

were identified that would effectively address the impacts. This conclusion was based on a 

survey of the shippers, docks, and carriers that utilize the CAWS. For many of the shippers, 

their margins are too slim for them to stay competitive with the additional cost of 

transloading. Most respondents replied that they would shift modes to either truck or rail for 

the entire length of the transit, find new sources for production inputs, or shut down 

permanently. Additionally, a multi-modal facility owned by CenterPoint Properties currently 

operates in Joliet, Illinois. A full discussion on this topic is included in Section 2.5, 

Mitigation Assumptions, and in Attachment 6 (Commercial Cargo Reports) to Appendix D – 

Economic Analyses and Appendix A. 

Noncommercial Navigation (includes recreational navigation) Impacts 

The Lakefront Hydrologic Separation Impacts to noncommercial navigation would likely 

include: 

• Police/fire/other government vessels will need to incur additional expense in 

order to maintain the same level of service. Emergency response vessels will be 

impacted, which is a safety issue.

• There will be additional cost to non-cargo lock users as they attempt to maintain 

previous usage, find alternate means of reaching their destination, and/or find 

alternate destinations for boat repairs, fishing, or other recreational activity.

• The physical barriers may increase the frequency of high water events on the 

CAWS.

• The value of the recreational experience for tour boat passengers, recreational 

fishermen, and recreational boaters may decrease.

The Lakefront Hydrologic Separation Alternative would have a High impact to 

noncommercial navigation. A more detailed discussion of this analysis can be found in 

Appendix D – Economic Analyses.

Noncommercial Navigation (includes recreational navigation) Mitigation Measures 

• Creation of dry dock storage with direct access to Lake Michigan for up to 5,000 

recreational vessels.
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

141 

Hydropower Impacts 

Results of the hydrology and hydraulics analysis in Appendix E indicate that the impacts of 

this alternative on the hydrologic conditions at Lockport Powerhouse would be negligibly 

small, resulting in no quantifiable impact to hydropower generation. 

Unmitigated impacts

While the proposed mitigation measures are expected to minimize any effects on the 

downstream Mississippi River Basin outside of the CAWS, the impacts of reduced flow in 

the Illinois Waterway downstream of the project areas were not extensively studied in 

GLMRIS. See Appendix A – Effect of Mid-System Separation on Low Flows in 

Downstream Waterway for additional details.

3.12.2 ANS Risk Reduction

This alternative includes nonstructural measures that are assumed to be implemented quickly (T0). An 

exception would be nonstructural measures which are dependent on the passage of new laws or 

regulations, because of the uncertainty of the time required to pass and implement new laws or 

regulations. The remaining structural measures are assumed to be implemented at T25. When compared 

to alternatives that do not rely solely on hydrologic separation, the hydrologic separation alternatives were

assessed as having lower uncertainty when comparing the impact the alternative had on ANS passage 

through the CAWS. A detailed discussion of this risk assessment analysis including uncertainty for each 

of the 13 High and Medium risk species for this alternative can be found in Appendix C –Risk 

Assessments.

This alternative would be implemented at T25 and would reduce the risk ratings of the following species:

ANS Potentially Invading the Great Lakes Basin 

Scud (Apocorophium lacustre) 

A. lacustre was first reported from freshwater in North America in 1987-1988 from the lower Mississippi 

River between 510 and 515 river miles (820 and 829 km) (Grigorovich et al. 2008). By 2003, A lacustre

had invaded the Illinois River and expanded its range into the upper reaches of the Ohio and Illinois 

Rivers. This alternative includes nonstructural measures and construction of a physical barrier in the 

CAWS at more than one location to separate the Great Lakes and Mississippi River basins. The physical 

barriers in this alternative would eliminate the aquatic pathway except under the most extreme storm 

events (i.e., exceeding the 0.2% ACE event).

The comprehensive implementation of this GLMRIS Alternative as identified in the risk assessment 

would reduce the risk rating from Medium to Low at T25 and T50. However, because the scud’s

probability of establishment is High at T0 and T10, there is a High probability that it may have transferred 

to and established in the GL basin prior to the implementation of this alternative.
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

142 

Risk of Adverse Impacts from Movement through the CAWS 

and Establishment in the MR Basin at T0–T50

Alternative T0 T10 T25 T50

No New Federal Action

– Sustained Activities Medium Medium Medium Medium 

GLMRIS Alternativea Medium Medium Low Low

a The shaded cells and bold italics indicate there is a reduction in the risk rating.

Bighead Carp (Hypophthalmichthys nobilis) 

The bighead carp have been found in the Des Plaines River in Rock Run Rookery (ACRCC 2013). The 

rookery is approximately 4 miles downstream from the Brandon Road Lock and Dam. This alternative 

includes nonstructural measures and construction of a physical barrier in the CAWS at more than one 

location to separate the Great Lakes and Mississippi River basins. The physical barriers in this alternative 

would eliminate the aquatic pathway except under the most extreme storm events (i.e., exceeding the 

0.2% ACE event).

The comprehensive implementation of this GLMRIS Alternative as identified in the risk assessment 

would reduce the risk rating from Medium to Low at T25 and T50. 

Risk of Adverse Impacts from Movement through the CAWS 

and Establishment in the MR Basin at T0–T50

Alternative T0 T10 T25 T50

No New Federal Action

– Sustained Activities Low Low Medium Medium 

GLMIS Alternativea Low Low Low Low

a The shaded cells and bold italics indicate there is a reduction in the risk rating.

Silver Carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix) 

The silver carp have been found in the Des Plaines River in Rock Run Rookery (ACRCC 2013). The 

rookery is approximately 4 miles downstream from the Brandon Road Lock and Dam. This alternative 

includes nonstructural measures and construction of a physical barrier in the CAWS at more than one 

location to separate the Great Lakes and Mississippi River basins. The physical barriers in this alternative 

would eliminate the aquatic pathway except under the most extreme storm events (i.e., exceeding the 

0.2% ACE event).

The comprehensive implementation of this GLMRIS Alternative as identified in the risk assessment 

would reduce the risk rating from Medium to Low at T25 and T50. 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

143 

Risk of Adverse Impacts from Movement through the CAWS 

and Establishment in the MR Basin at T0–T50

Alternative T0 T10 T25 T50

No New Federal Action

– Sustained Activities Low Low Medium Medium 

GLMRIS Alternativea Low Low Low Low

a The shaded cells and bold italics indicate there is a reduction in the risk rating.

ANS Potentially Invading the Mississippi River Basin

Grass Kelp (Enteromorpha flexuosa) 

A 2003 study indicated that the closest population of E. flexuosa is in Muskegon Lake in Michigan, and it 

was found in 2 of 11 nearby inland lakes and lagoons (Sturtevant 2011). Because there are nonstructural 

measures, such as aquatic herbicides, that would target reducing the abundance of grass kelp in these 

lakes, the comprehensive implementation of this alternative as described in the risk assessment would 

reduce the opportunities for the species to disperse beyond their current locations. This alternative would 

reduce the risk of grass kelp’s adverse impacts by controlling its arrival at and movement through the 

CAWS, and thus its establishment in the MR basin. In addition, the physical barriers in this alternative 

would eliminate the aquatic pathway except under the most extreme storm events (i.e., exceeding the 

0.2% ACE event). The ANSTP would also reduce the probability of passage of this species to Low.

The comprehensive implementation of nonstructural measures, physical barriers, and the ANSTP reduces 

the probability of establishment rating from Medium to Low for time steps T10, T25, and T50. 

Risk of Adverse Impacts from Movement through the CAWS 

and Establishment in the MR Basin at T0–T50

Alternative T0 T10 T25 T50

No New Federal Action

– Sustained Activities Low Medium Medium Medium 

GLMRIS Alternativea Low Low Low Low

a The shaded cells and bold italics indicate there is a reduction in the risk rating.

Red Algae (Bangia atropurpurea) 

Red alga was first recorded from Lake Erie in 1964 (Edwards and Harrold 1970). In the Great Lakes, it 

spread from Lake Erie to southern Lake Michigan within a decade (Lin and Blum 1977). Based on recent 

data from Lake Michigan, red algae (Division Rhodophyta) is rarely found in the Lake Michigan 

watershed (Whitman 2012). This alternative includes nonstructural measures and construction of a 

physical barrier in the CAWS and ANSTP at more than one location to separate the Great Lakes and 

Mississippi River basins. The physical barriers in this alternative would eliminate the aquatic pathway 

except under the most extreme storm events (i.e., exceeding the 0.2% ACE event).
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

144 

The comprehensive implementation of this GLMRIS Alternative as identified in the risk assessment 

would reduce the risk rating from Medium to Low at T25 and T50. However, because the red algae’s

probability of establishment is Medium at T0 and T10, there is a Medium probability that it may have 

transferred to and established in the MR Basin prior to the implementation of this alternative. 

Risk of Adverse Impacts from Movement through the CAWS 

and Establishment in the MR Basin at T0–T50

Alternative T0 T10 T25 T50

No New Federal Action

– Sustained Activities Medium Medium Medium Medium 

GLMRIS Alternativea Medium Medium Low Low

a The shaded cells and bold italics indicate there is a reduction in the risk rating.

Diatom (Stephanodiscus binderanus) 

S. binderanus was first recorded in Lake Michigan in 1938 and appeared in Lake Ontario in the late 1940s 

to early 1950s (Kipp 2011). While S. binderanus is common in the Great Lakes, it has fluctuated in 

abundance; its population has declined as nutrient inputs into the Great Lakes declined (Kipp 2011). This 

alternative includes nonstructural measures and construction of a physical barrier in the CAWS at more 

than one location to separate the Great Lakes and Mississippi River basins. The physical barriers in this 

alternative would eliminate the aquatic pathway except under the most extreme storm events (i.e., 

exceeding the 0.2% ACE event).

The comprehensive implementation of this GLMRIS Alternative as identified in the risk assessment 

would reduce the risk rating from Medium to Low at T25 and T50. However, because the diatom’s

probability of establishment is Medium at T0 and T10, there is a Medium probability that it may have 

transferred to and established in the MR basin prior to the implementation of this alternative.

Risk of Adverse Impacts from Movement through the CAWS 

and Establishment in the MR Basin at T0–T50

Alternative T0 T10 T25 T50

No New Federal Action

– Sustained Activities Medium Medium Medium Medium 

GLMRIS Alternativea Medium Medium Low Low

a The shaded cells and bold italics indicate there is a reduction in the risk rating.

Reed sweet grass (Glyceria maxima) 

Reed sweet grass is established in Oak Creek (a tributary of Lake Michigan) in Milwaukee County, 

Wisconsin (Howard 2012). In 2006, a small, localized population was discovered growing at Illinois 

Beach State Park, north of Waukegan, Illinois. The population was treated with herbicides and 

eradicated, and monitoring for this species in the vicinity has been implemented (Howard 2012). 

Nonstructural measures for this species would include monitoring followed by aquatic herbicide treatment 

if it is encountered. The nonstructural measures in this alternative would reduce the risk of reed sweet 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

145 

grass’s adverse impacts by controlling its arrival to and movement through the CAWS and thus its 

establishment in the MR basin.

In addition, the physical barriers in this alternative would eliminate the aquatic pathway or untreated 

water except under the most extreme storm events (i.e., exceeding the 0.2% ACE event). The ANSTPs 

would inactivate reed sweet grass from water diverted from Lake Michigan to the CAWS for water 

quality purposes.

The implementation of hydrologic separation to include nonstructural measures reduces the probability of 

establishment from Medium to Low for time step T50. 

Risk of Adverse Impacts from Movement through the CAWS 

and Establishment in the MR Basin at T0–T50

Alternative T0 T10 T25 T50

No New Federal Action

– Sustained Activities Low Low Low Medium 

GLMRIS Alternativea Low Low Low Low

a The shaded cell and bold italics indicate there is a reduction in the risk rating.

Fishhook Waterflea (Cercopagis pengoi) 

The fishhook waterflea was established in Lake Michigan, north of Chicago, Illinois, in 1999 

(Benson et al. 2012). The physical barriers in this alternative would eliminate the aquatic pathway except 

under the most extreme storm events (i.e., exceeding the 0.2% ACE event). The ANSTPs would 

inactivate fishhook waterflea from water diverted from Lake Michigan to the CAWS for water quality 

purposes. 

The comprehensive implementation of this GLMRIS Alternative as identified in the risk assessment 

would reduce the risk rating from High to Low at T25 and T50. 

Risk of Adverse Impacts from Movement through the CAWS 

and Establishment in the MR Basin at T0–T50

Alternative T0 T10 T25 T50

No New Federal Action

– Sustained Activities Low Low Medium High

GLMRIS Alternativea Low Low Low Low

a The shaded cells and bold italics indicate there is a reduction in the risk rating.

Bloody Red Shrimp (Hemimysis anomala) 

The species is established within Lake Michigan having been documented offshore of Jackson Harbor in 

2007 and Waukegan Harbor in 2006 (Kipp et al. 2011). The physical barriers in this alternative would 

eliminate the aquatic pathway except under the most extreme storm events (i.e., exceeding the 0.2% ACE 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

146 

event). The ANSTPs would inactivate bloody red shrimp from water diverted from Lake Michigan to the 

CAWS for water quality purposes. 

The comprehensive implementation of this GLMRIS Alternative as identified in the risk assessment 

would reduce the risk rating from High to Low at T25 and T50, assuming no prior establishment of the 

bloody red shrimp in the MR basin prior to T25. However, because the bloody red shrimp’s probability of 

establishment is High at T0 and T10, there is a High probability that it may have transferred to and 

established in the MR basin prior to the implementation of this alternative.

Risk of Adverse Impacts from Movement through the CAWS 

and Establishment in the MR Basin at T0–T50

Alternative T0 T10 T25 T50

No New Federal Action

– Sustained Activities High High High High

GLMRIS Alternativea High High Low Low

a The shaded cells and bold italics indicate there is a reduction in the risk rating.

Threespine Stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) 

The threespine stickleback is considered established in southern Lake Michigan, and it has been found in 

the North Shore Channel, which connects to the Wilmette Pumping Station. The physical barriers in this 

alternative would eliminate the aquatic pathway except under the most extreme storm events (i.e., 

exceeding the 0.2% ACE event). The ANSTPs would inactivate threespine stickleback from water 

diverted from Lake Michigan to the CAWS for water quality purposes.

The comprehensive implementation of this GLMRIS Alternative as identified in the risk assessment 

would reduce the risk rating from Medium to Low at T25, and T50, assuming no prior establishment of the 

threespine stickleback in the MR basin prior to T25. However, because the threespine stickleback’s

probability of establishment is High at T0 and T10, there is a High probability that it may have transferred 

to and established in the MR basin prior to the implementation of this alternative.

Risk of Adverse Impacts from Movement through the CAWS 

and Establishment in the MR Basin at T0–T50

Alternative T0 T10 T25 T50

No New Federal Action

– Sustained Activities Medium Medium Medium Medium 

GLMRIS Alternativea Medium Medium Low Low

a The shaded cells and bold italics indicate there is a reduction in the risk rating.

Ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernuus) 

The ruffe is not widespread, and there are no high-density populations in Lake Michigan outside of Green 

Bay (Bowen and Goehle 2011). The physical barriers in this alternative would eliminate the aquatic
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

147 

pathway except under the most extreme storm events (i.e., exceeding the 0.2% ACE event). The ANSTP 

would also reduce the probability of passage of this species to Low.

The comprehensive implementation of this GLMRIS Alternative as identified in the risk assessment 

would reduce the risk rating from Medium to Low at T50. 

Risk of Adverse Impacts from Movement through the CAWS 

and Establishment in the MR Basin at T0–T50

Alternative T0 T10 T25 T50

No New Federal Action

– Sustained Activities Low Low Low Medium 

GLMRIS Alternativea Low Low Low Low

a The shaded cell and bold italics indicate there is a reduction in the risk rating.

Tubenose Goby (Proterorhinus semilunaris) 

The tubenose goby has spread throughout Lake St. Clair in Michigan and its tributaries (Jude et al. 1992), 

as well as the Detroit River system, and is commonly collected in the Duluth-Superior harbor of Lake 

Superior (Kocovsky et al. 2011). A population of tubenose gobies has become established and selfsustaining in the western basin of Lake Erie (Kocovsky et al. 2011). 

The nonstructural measures in this alternative include management of ballast/bilge water of ships that 

travel in waters where tubenose gobies occur and could delay the time it would take for this species to 

arrive at the CAWS pathway for T10. Because the tubenose goby is an active swimmer, even with 

ballast/bilge water management, it is anticipated that this species can swim from its current location to the 

CAWS by T25. The physical barriers in this alternative would eliminate the aquatic pathway except under 

the most extreme storm events (i.e., exceeding the 0.2% ACE event). The ANSTP would also reduce the 

probability of passage of this species to Low.

The comprehensive implementation of this GLMRIS Alternative as identified in the risk assessment 

would reduce the risk rating from Medium to Low at T10, T25, and T50. 

Risk of Adverse Impacts from Movement through the CAWS 

and Establishment in the MR Basin at T0–T50

Alternative T0 T10 T25 T50

No New Federal Action

– Sustained Activities Low Medium Medium Medium 

GLMRIS Alternativea Low Low Low Low

a The shaded cells and bold italics indicate there is a reduction in the risk rating. 

VHSv (Novirhabdovirus sp.) 

VHSv was first reported in the Great Lakes in 2003 from Lake St. Clair (Elsayed et al. 2006), and by 

2010 it had spread to all five Great Lakes (MNDR 2010). Benthic macroinvertebrates sampled in Lake 

Michigan have tested positive for the virus (Faisal et al. 2012). The physical barriers in this alternative 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

148 

would eliminate the aquatic pathway except under the most extreme storm events (i.e., exceeding the 

0.2% ACE event). The ANSTPs would inactivate VHSv from water diverted from Lake Michigan to the 

CAWS for water quality purposes. 

The comprehensive implementation of this GLMRIS Alternative as identified in the risk assessment 

would reduce the risk rating from Medium to Low at T25 and T50. However, because the VHSv’s 

probability of establishment is Medium at T0 and T10, there is a Medium probability that it may have 

transferred to and established in the MR basin prior to the implementation of this alternative.

Risk of Adverse Impacts from Movement through the CAWS 

and Establishment in the MR Basin at T0–T50

Alternative T0 T10 T25 T50

No New Federal Action

– Sustained Activities Medium Medium Medium Medium 

GLMRIS Alternativea Medium Medium Low Low

a The shaded cells and bold italics indicate there is a reduction in the risk rating.

3.12.3 Estimated Alternative Cost

The costs presented in the GLMRIS Report (Table 3.11) are commensurate with the five percent level of 

detail in design for each alternative. The cost and schedule estimates are appropriately used in this report 

as a means to compare the alternatives presented. These cost and schedule estimates are not intended to 

support authorizing language, and will change with more detailed designs of an alternative. Further 

detailed discussion of this analysis can be found in Appendix K – Cost Engineering. 

USACE recognizes that while all the measures shown in this alternative description are required to 

achieve the stated risk reduction, not all measures may be a financial responsibility of USACE. The 

following chart (Table 3.12) identifies who may be financial responsible for measures in this alternative.

Table 3.11 Lakefront Hydrologic Separation Costs

Lakefront Hydrologic Separationa

ANS Control Measures Costs $446,000,000

CAWS Ecosystem Mitigation Measures Costs $47,000,000

Water Quality Mitigation Measures Cost $534,000,000

FRM Mitigation Measures Cost $14,451,000,000

Navigation Mitigation Measures Cost $129,000,000

Design/Construction Management $2,704,000,000

LERRDs $78,000,000

OMRR&R Cost (annual) $87,000,000

Nonstructural Costs (annual) $68,000,000

Cost of the Alternative 

(Does not include annual costs) $18,389,000,000 

a Costs are shown as 2014 program-year dollars.
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

149 

Table 3.12 Financial Responsibilities for the Lakefront Hydrologic Separation Alternative

Lakefront Hydrologic Separation

ANS Control 

Measures 

(Part of Cost of the 

Alternative)

Mitigation Measures – Part of 

USACE Base Project 

(Part of Cost of the Alternative)

Mitigation – Paid by 

Others or Added to 

USACE Project by 

Congress (Part of Cost of 

the Alternative)

Mitigation – Paid 

by Others 

(Part of Cost of 

the Alternative)

Physical Barrier 

@ Wilmette (IL)

CAWS Ecosystem Restoration Recreational Vessel Dry 

Dock Storage

Nonstructural

Physical Barrier 

@ Chicago (IL)

ANS Treatment Plant 

@ Wilmette (IL)

Physical Barrier 

@ Calumet City (IL)

ANS Treatment Plant 

@ Chicago (IL)

Physical Barrier 

@ Hammond (IN)

Conveyance Tunnel

New 6.5 Billion Gallon Reservoir 

@ McCook (IL)

ANS Treatment Plant 

@ Calumet City (IL)

New 13.5 Billion Gallon Reservoir 

@ Thornton (IL)

Conveyance Tunnel × 2

3.12.4 Estimated Alternative Implementation Duration

The schedule in Figure 3.12 assumes that the construction of all features is completed by the end of the 

implementation period. Opportunities for staged implementation to provide for earlier risk reduction may 

exist, but would need to be further investigated in future study. This schedule also assumes that the 

project has a non-federal sponsor; receives capability funding; completes required lands acquisitions; 

obtains required permits; and is compliant with USACE policy requirements. Lastly, the schedule 

assumes conditional activities required by non-USACE parties are completed as necessary to facilitate 

timely completion of the project. A delay associated with any of these components would likely extend 

the time needed for project implementation and increase costs.
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

150 

a The mitigation measures must be implemented prior to the completion of the ANS control measures, such as 

physical barriers, to minimize impacts to CAWS uses and users. Consequently, the ANS risk reduction resulting 

from this alternative is realized when all measures have been constructed.

Figure 3.12 Timeline for Lakefront Hydrologic Separation Alternative

3.12.5 Complexity of Regulatory Compliance

Lakefront Hydrologic Separation would have a high level of complexity associated with regulatory 

compliance. In addition to construction of physical barriers, which will require a Clean Water Act 

404(b)(1) analysis and CWA 401 water quality certifications from the States of Illinois and Indiana, the 

mitigation actions to address potential flood risks and navigation impacts will likely require extensive 

coordination with state regulators. Potential changes to diversion, though relatively minor, may require 

coordination with Canada and all Great Lakes states. Coordination with Illinois and Indiana under the 

Coastal Zone Management Act will also likely be required. 

3.13 Alternative Plan 6: Mid-System Hydrologic Separation

3.13.1 Alternative Plan Description

Table 3.13 summarizes the measures included in the Mid-System Hydrologic Separation Alternative, the 

types of measures and the locations of the measures. More details about the locations can be found in 

Figures 3.13-3.16. 

2017 2022 2027 2032 2037 2042

Timeline for Lakefront Hydrologic Separationa 

Time to Implement

Nonstructural Measures

Recreational Vessel Dry Dock 

Storage

Physical Barrier

ANS Treatment Plant

Conveyance Tunnel

6.5 Billion Gallon Reservoir

13.5 Billion Gallon Reservoir
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

151 

Table 3.13 Mid-System Hydrologic Separation

Mid-System Hydrologic Separation

Location Measure Type of Measure

Basin Wide

Nonstructural ANS Control

Sediment Remediation WQ Mitigation

To Be 

Determined

within the 

Chicago Area

CAWS Ecosystem 

Mitigation To Be Determined

Stickney (IL)

Physical Barrier ANS Control

ANS Treatment Plant

WQ Mitigation WRP Outfall Tunnel

McCook (IL)

Conveyance Tunnel

8.1 Billion Gallon WQ Mitigation

Reservoir

Oak Lawn (IL) 0.2 Billion Gallon 

Reservoir FRM Mitigation

Alsip (IL)

Physical Barrier ANS Control

ANS Treatment Plant

WQ Mitigation WRP Outfall Tunnel

Thornton (IL)

5.2 Billion Gallon 

Reservoir WQ Mitigation

Conveyance Tunnel
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

152 

Figure 3.13 Locations of ANS Prevention and Mitigation Measures within the CAWS
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

153 

Figure 3.14 Location Details Regarding ANS Prevention Measures
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

154 

Figure 3.15 More Location Details Concerning Mitigation Measures
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

155 

Figure 3.16 Further Location Details Concerning Sediment Remediation Measures
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

156 

This alternative has two physical barriers located at Stickney (IL) and Alsip (IL). Additionally, 

the nonstructural measures discussed in Section 3.2 of this report would also be implemented as 

part of this alternative.

CAWS Ecosystem Impacts

The Stickney (IL) and Alsip (IL) physical barriers are located close to the historical

separation point between the Mississippi River and Great Lakes basins. The Mid-System 

Hydrologic Separation Alternative would result in the loss of low-quality aquatic habitat 

around the footprint of the physical barriers. This location will impact the ability of native 

aquatic species to disperse between basins and therefore between populations, but it is 

ultimately reversing an environmental impact from previous human activities. This is 

anticipated to be a Low impact.

CAWS Ecosystem Mitigation Measures

CAWS ecosystem mitigation measures may be required for impacts to significant natural 

resources as a result of plan implementation. Since site-specific designs have not been 

completed, impacts have not been assessed and mitigation measures have not been 

developed; however, the GLMRIS Team identified placeholder costs for ecosystem 

mitigation measures that are at a commensurate level of detail for each alternative. Further 

analysis and design for any selected alternative would include an assessment of plan impacts

and identification of mitigation requirements as required under NEPA. These evaluations 

would be fully coordinated with the appropriate resource agencies.

Water Quality CAWS Impacts 

Water quality modeling, described in Appendix F, indicates that stagnant conditions and low 

dissolved oxygen concentrations would develop in the CAWS, if the proposed barriers are 

constructed at Stickney (IL) and Alsip (IL). The number of hours exceeding water quality 

standards and benchmarks for the CAWS is expected to increase above the expected future 

without-project conditions. Numeric water quality standards are not defined for several 

parameters studied in GLMRIS water quality modeling. As a result of interagency 

coordination, EPA and IEPA collaborated to provide candidate benchmarks against which to 

measure expected future water quality conditions. Candidate benchmarks are included in 

Appendix F. 

This represents a High impact to water quality in the CAWS.

To mitigate water quality impacts to the CAWS, ANS Treatment Plants would be constructed 

at Stickney (IL) and Alsip (IL). The ANS Treatment Plants would withdraw water from the 

Lake Michigan side of the physical barriers, treat the water to remove or inactivate ANS, and 

then discharge the ANS-treated water on the Mississippi River side of the physical barriers. 

The treatment technologies proposed for the ANSTPs at Stickney and Alsip include 

screening, filtration, and UV radiation. For additional information on mitigation, refer to 

Appendix F. 

Water Quality CAWS Mitigation Measures 

• ANS Treatment Plant at Stickney (IL) – 650 MGD capacity, 5.2-acre footprint.

• ANS Treatment Plant at Alsip (IL) – 450 MGD capacity, 3.6-acre footprint. 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

157 

Water Quality Lake Michigan Impacts 

The most significant impacts of the Mid-System Hydrologic Separation Alternative are the 

short-term and cumulative contaminant loads to Lake Michigan. As a result of the MidSystem Separation Alternative, treated effluent for the O’Brien and Calumet WRPs, hundreds 

of combined sewer overflows, dozens of storm sewer flows, and effluent from five CSO 

pumping stations will all be directed toward Lake Michigan on a continuous basis. Urban 

storm runoff and contaminated sediment, while not assessed by the water quality models, will 

also contribute to the water quality impacts of this project alternative to Lake Michigan. 

Water quality modeling results of the effect of continued discharge of these inputs to Lake 

Michigan can be found in Appendix F.

Lake Michigan is the drinking water source for Chicago and many surrounding municipalities 

and has stricter water quality regulations in comparison to the CAWS. Anti-degradation rules 

prohibit actions that would result in the deterioration of water quality in Lake Michigan and 

specifically prohibit new or increased loading of bioaccumulative chemicals of concern 

(BCCs) (35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.105). Conventional physical and biological wastewater 

treatment processes will not remove dissolved constituents such as chloride and BCCs 

present in municipal wastewater. Advanced treatment processes such as microfiltration and 

reverse osmosis will remove dissolved constituents like chloride and BCCs, but these 

technologies are typically reserved for drinking water applications in water-scarce 

environments due to the high energy costs associated with their operation. In addition, 

reverse osmosis has never been implemented at the scale required for the Chicago area, and 

there is uncertainty as to whether reverse osmosis facilities of the required size would be 

available within the required timeframe for project implementation.

Preliminary cost estimates show that a more cost-effective way to meet regulatory standards 

in the CAWS and Lake Michigan for the Mid-System Hydrologic Separation Alternative is to 

relocate the WRP outfalls to the river side of the hydrologic separation barriers. Additional 

mitigation for water quality impacts to Lake Michigan will include a tunnel and reservoir 

system to capture all CSO events and prevent their discharge to the CAWS. The reservoir 

water would then be pumped out to existing wastewater treatment facilities to make it 

suitable for discharge to the waterways. Although end-of-pipe treatments to address CSOs 

were considered, prior studies determined that end-of-pipe treatment could not be 

implemented at 65 of the 170 existing outfalls, and bacteria standards would still be violated 

regularly due to the 65 untreated outfalls. The final element of mitigation for water quality 

impacts to Lake Michigan includes sediment remediation on the lake side of the barriers. A 

more detailed discussion of the mitigation measures for water quality impacts can be found in 

Appendix F. 

Urban stormwater runoff transports road salt, oil and grease, fertilizers, herbicides, and 

bacteria into the waterways. No agency is empowered with the authority to effectively 

regulate non-point pollutant discharges to the waterways. While stormwater Best 

Management Practices may be voluntarily adopted by municipal governments, it is 

anticipated that the Mid-System Hydrologic Separation Alternative will result in some 

unmitigated impacts to water quality in Lake Michigan resulting from stormwater runoff.
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

158 

Water Quality Lake Michigan Mitigation Measures 

• On the Chicago River system, a tunnel 13 feet in diameter and 12.5 miles long is 

proposed to deliver the O’Brien WRP effluent to the river side of the proposed 

physical barrier in Stickney (IL).

• A pump station would be required at the downstream end in order to return the 

plant effluent to the elevation of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. 

• On the Calumet River system, a tunnel 13 feet in diameter and 5.3 miles long 

would be needed to deliver the Calumet WRP effluent to the river side of the 

proposed physical barrier in Alsip (IL). 

• A pump station would be required at the downstream end in order to return the 

plant effluent to the elevation of the Cal-Sag Channel. 

• A new 8.1 billion gallon reservoir at McCook (IL) would address water quality 

impacts on the CSSC, Chicago River, and North Shore Channel of the system. 

• A conveyance tunnel along the North Shore Channel to McCook (IL) estimated 

at 13 miles long and 32 feet diameter. 

• A new 5.2 billion gallon reservoir at Thornton (IL) would address water quality 

impacts on the Cal-Sag Channel and Calumet, Grand Calumet, and Little 

Calumet Rivers in the system.

• The water in the reservoirs would be routed through existing wastewater 

treatment plants and then discharged into the CAWS such that it joins the 

Mississippi River basin.

• A conveyance tunnel from Hammond (IN) to Thornton (IL) estimated at 7 miles 

long and 14 feet in diameter. 

• Sediment remediation of the Chicago and Calumet River systems east of the 

physical barriers.

• Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be coordinated within the 

CAWS.

Flood Risk Management (FRM) Impacts 

The Mid-System Hydrologic Separation Alternative was developed to have minimal impacts 

on FRM impacts. Any additional stormwater that would need to be captured to mitigate for 

FRM impacts would be captured in the tunnels and reservoirs designed to capture the 

stormwater during CSO events, with the exception of the flow on Thorn Creek, an aquatic 

connection with the potential to bypass the Alsip (IL) physical barrier. 

Without mitigation measures, this alternative yields a net change in EEAD of $1,149,000 

annually due to physical barriers at Stickney (IL) and Alsip (IL). This net change in EEAD 

represents the additional damages to buildings and their contents that is expected to occur on 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

159 

a yearly basis as a result of this alternative. A more detailed discussion of this analysis can be 

found in Appendix D – Economic Analyses.

The water quality mitigation of tunnels and reservoirs would also act as FRM mitigation. A 

more detailed discussion of this analysis can be found in Appendix E – Hydrologic & 

Hydraulic Analyses and Appendix J – Civil Design.

Flood Risk Management Impacts and Mitigation Measures

• A new 0.2 billion gallon reservoir at Oak Lawn (IL) would address FRM impacts 

on Thorn Creek, a potential bypass of the physical barrier in Alsip (IL) on the 

Cal-Sag Channel in the system.

Human Safety Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Without any mitigation measures, construction of physical barriers would induce flooding of 

the CAWS during the 0.2% ACE event. This induced flooding would increase life safety 

risks associated with large storm events.

The water quality mitigation would act as mitigation for human safety for the Mid-System 

Hydrologic Separation Alternative. 

Commercial Navigation Impacts 

The Mid-System Hydrologic Separation Alternative would result in a loss of commercial 

cargo navigation transportation cost savings of $251.76 million annually. In the mid-system 

separation alternatives, shallow-draft commercial cargo movements are impacted by barriers 

on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal (CSSC) and the Cal-Sag Channel. However, deepdraft commercial cargo movements mostly travel between the Great Lakes and the Calumet 

River or Lake Calumet, so they are lake side of the barriers and would not be affected. Since 

the tonnage moving past the Mid-System Hydrologic Separation barriers is greater than the 

tonnage moving past Lakefront Hydrologic Separation barriers, this alternative has a greater 

impact on commercial cargo transportation cost savings. A more detailed discussion of this 

analysis can be found in Appendix D – Economic Analyses.

Impacts to commercial navigation would not be mitigated, because no mitigation measures 

were identified that would effectively address the impacts. This conclusion was based on a 

survey of the shippers, docks, and carriers that utilize the CAWS. For many of the shippers, 

their margins are too slim for them to stay competitive with the additional cost of 

transloading. Most respondents replied that they would shift modes to either truck or rail for 

the entire length of the transit, find new sources for production inputs, or shut down 

permanently. Additionally, a multi-modal facility owned by CenterPoint Properties currently 

operates in Joliet, Illinois. A full discussion on this topic is included in Section 2.5, 

Mitigation Assumptions, and in Attachment 6 (Commercial Cargo Reports) to Appendix D – 

Economic Analyses and Appendix A. 

Noncommercial Navigation (includes recreational navigation) Impacts 

The Mid-System Hydrologic Separation impacts to noncommercial navigation would likely 

include: 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

160 

• Impacts to vessels attempting to do the “loop” around North America.

• Some government agencies may have to duplicate some services, if their 

jurisdictions extend beyond the barriers.

• Passenger vessels and government vessels may be affected by additional highwater events.

The Mid-System Hydrologic Separation Alternative would have a medium impact to 

noncommercial navigation. A more detailed discussion of this analysis can be found in 

Appendix D – Economic Analyses.

Hydropower Impacts 

Results of the hydrology and hydraulics analysis in Appendix E indicate that the impacts of 

this alternative on the hydrologic conditions at Lockport Powerhouse would be negligibly 

small, resulting in no quantifiable impact to hydropower generation. 

Unmitigated Impacts

Installation of physical barriers on the CAWS at Alsip (IL) and Stickney (IL) will bring 

significant impacts to water quality in both the CAWS and Lake Michigan. Many of these 

impacts can be mitigated by the mitigation measures described previously. Other impacts 

that are expected as a result of the Mid-System Separation Alternative will be more difficult 

to correct. Currently, non-point source discharges of pollutants to the waterways remain 

largely unregulated, and thus the Mid-System Hydrologic Separation Alternative may result 

in some unmitigated impacts to water quality in Lake Michigan resulting from stormwater 

runoff. 

Additionally, while the proposed mitigation measures are expected to minimize any effects 

on the downstream Mississippi River Basin outside of the CAWS, the impacts of reduced 

flow in the Illinois Waterway downstream of the project areas were not extensively studied in 

GLMRIS. See Appendix A – Effect of Mid-System Separation on Low Flows in 

Downstream Waterway – for additional details.

3.13.2 ANS Risk Reduction

This alternative includes nonstructural measures that are assumed to be implemented quickly (T0). An 

exception would be nonstructural measures that are dependent on the passage of new laws or regulations, 

because of the uncertainty of the time required to pass and implement new laws or regulations. The 

remaining structural measures are assumed to be implemented at T25. When compared to alternatives that 

do not rely solely on hydrologic separation, the hydrologic separation alternatives were assessed as 

having lower uncertainty when comparing the impact the alternative had on ANS passage through the 

CAWS. A detailed discussion of this risk assessment analysis including uncertainty for each of the 

13 High and Medium risk species for this alternative can be found in Appendix C –Risk Assessments.

The results of the with-project risk assessments of this alternative are the same as the Lakefront 

Hydrologic Separation Alternative. Please see Section 3.12.2 for the discussion of ANS risk reduction 

provided by this alternative. 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

161 

3.13.3 Estimated Alternative Cost

The costs presented in the GLMRIS Report (Table 3.14) are commensurate with the five percent level of 

detail in design for each alternative. The cost and schedule estimates are appropriately used in this report 

as a means to compare the alternatives presented. These cost and schedule estimates are not intended to 

support authorizing language, and will change with more detailed designs of an alternative. Further 

detailed discussion of this analysis can be found in Appendix K – Cost Engineering. 

Table 3.14 Mid-System Hydrologic Separation Costs

Mid-System Hydrologic Separationa

ANS Control Measures Costs $223,000,000 

CAWS Ecosystem Mitigation Measures Costs $42,000,000

Water Quality Mitigation Measures Cost $12,886,000,000 

FRM Mitigation Measures Cost $24,000,000

Design/Construction Management $2,257,000,000

LERRDs $80,000,000 

OMRR&R Cost (annual) $67,000,000

Nonstructural Costs (annual) $68,000,000

Cost of the Alternative 

(Does not include annual costs) $15,512,000,000 

a Costs are shown as 2014 program-year dollars.

USACE recognizes that, while all the measures shown in this alternative description are required to 

achieve the stated risk reduction, not all measures may be a financial responsibility of USACE. The 

following chart (Table 3.15) identifies who may be financial responsible for measures in this alternative.

Table 3.15 Mid-System Hydrologic Separation Financial Responsibility

Mid-System Hydrologic Separation

ANS Control Measures 

(Part of Cost of the 

Alternative)

Mitigation Measures – Part 

of USACE Base Project 

(Part of Cost of the 

Alternative)

Mitigation – Paid by 

Others or Added to 

USACE Project by 

Congress (Part of Cost 

of the Alternative)

Mitigation – 

Paid by Others 

(Part of Cost 

of the 

Alternative)

Physical Barrier @ Stickney (IL) CAWS Ecosystem Restoration Sediment Remediation Nonstructural

Physical Barrier @ Alsip (IL) ANS Treatment Plant 

@ Stickney (IL)

WRP Outfall Tunnel

New 8.1 Billion Gallon 

Reservoir @ McCook (IL)

WRP Outfall Tunnel

New 0.2 Billion Gallon 

Reservoir @ Oak Lawn (IL)

Conveyance Tunnel

ANS Treatment Plant 

@ Alsip (IL)

Conveyance Tunnel

New 5.2 Billion Gallon 

Reservoir @ Thornton (IL)
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

162 

3.13.4 Estimated Alternative Implementation Duration

The schedule in Figure 3.17 assumes that the construction of all features is completed by the end of the 

implementation period. Opportunities for staged implementation to provide for earlier risk reduction may 

exist, but would need to be further investigated in future study. This schedule also assumes that the 

project has a non-federal sponsor; receives capability funding; completes required lands acquisitions; 

obtains required permits; and is compliant with USACE policy requirements. Lastly, the schedule 

assumes conditional activities required by non-USACE parties are completed as necessary to facilitate 

timely completion of the project. A delay associated with any of these components would likely extend 

the time needed for project implementation and increase costs.

3.13.5 Complexity of Regulatory Compliance

The Mid-System Hydrologic Separation would have a high level of complexity associated with regulatory 

compliance. In addition to construction of physical barriers, which will require a Clean Water Act 

404(b)(1) analysis and CWA 401 water quality certifications from the States of Illinois and Indiana, the 

mitigation actions to address potential water quality, flood risk, and navigation impacts will likely require 

extensive coordination with federal and state regulators. Potential changes to diversion, though relatively 

minor, may require coordination with Canada and all Great Lakes states. Coordination with Illinois and 

Indiana under the Coastal Zone Management Act will also likely be required.

a

 The mitigation measures must be implemented prior to the completion of the ANS control measures, such as physical barriers, 

to minimize impacts to CAWS uses and users. Consequently, the ANS risk reduction resulting from this alternative is realized 

when all measures have been constructed.

Figure 3.17 Mid-System Hydrologic Separation Timeline

2017 2022 2027 2032 2037 2042

Timeline for Mid-System Hydrologic Separationa 

Time to Implement

Nonstructural Measures

Sediment Remediation

Physical Barrier

ANS Treatment Plant

WRP Outfall Tunnel

Conveyance Tunnel

8.1 Billion Gallon Reservoir

0.2 Billion Gallon Reservoir

5.2 Billion Gallon Reservoir
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

163 

3.14 Alternative Plan 7: Mid-System Separation Cal-Sag Open Control 

Technologies with a Buffer Zone

3.14.1 Alternative Plan Description

Table 3.16 summarizes the measures included in the Mid-System Separation Cal-Sag Open Control 

Technologies with a Buffer Zone, the types of measures and the locations of the measures. Details about 

the measures may be found in Figures 3.18-3.21. 

Table 3.16 Mid-System Separation Cal-Sag Open Control 

Technologies with a Buffer Zone – Hybrid Cal-Sag Open Alternative

Mid-System Separation Cal-Sag Open Control Technologies with a 

Buffer Zone – Hybrid Cal-Sag Open Alternative

Location Measure Type of Measure

Basin-wide

Nonstructural ANS Control

Sediment Remediation WQ Mitigation

To Be Determined

within the Chicago 

Area

CAWS Ecosystem Mitigation To Be 

Determined

Stickney (IL)

Physical Barrier ANS Control

ANS Treatment Plant

WQ Mitigation WRP Outfall Tunnel

McCook (IL) Conveyance Tunnel WQ Mitigation 8.1 Billion Gallon Reservoir

T.J. O’Brien (IL)

GLMRIS Lock

ANS Control

Electric Barrier

ANS Treatment Plant

Screened Sluice Gates

Stateline (IL/IN) Physical Barrier ANS Control

0.3 Billion Gallon Reservoir FRM Mitigation

Hammond (IN) Physical Barrier ANS Control

Thornton (IL)

4.4 Billion Gallon Reservoir 

FRM Mitigation Conveyance Tunnel 

Brandon Road (IL) 

GLMRIS Lock

ANS Control

Electric Barrier 

This alternative includes three physical barriers located at Stickney (IL), Stateline (IL/IN), and Hammond 

(IN) that will hydrologically separate four of the five aquatic pathways between the CAWS and Lake 

Michigan. Along the remaining aquatic pathway a Buffer Zone would be established by the construction 

of ANS control measures at T.J. O’Brien (IL) and Brandon Road (IL). Additionally, the nonstructural 

measures described in Section 3.2 would be implemented as part of this alternative.
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

164 

Figure 3.18 Locations of ANS Prevention and Mitigation Measures within the CAWS
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

165 

Figure 3.19 Location Details of ANS Prevention Measures
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

166 

Figure 3.20 Location Details of Mitigation Measures
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

167 

Figure 3.21 Location Details of Sediment Remediation Measures
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

168 

At T.J. O’Brien (IL), the existing single-chamber lock would be replaced with a new single-chamber 

GLMRIS Lock with a shallow chamber and a deep chamber that is at the existing depth. The GLMRIS 

Lock would have a water flushing system that would fill the lock with ANS-free water from the CAWS 

Buffer Zone. A new approach channel from Lake Michigan would include an electric barrier to prevent 

fish from entering the lock chamber during lockages. An ANS treatment plant would provide the water 

for lockages to ensure ANS not affected by the electric barriers would not be allowed to transfer into the 

CAWS from Lake Michigan. Screened sluice gates would be installed that are designed to prevent ANS 

from Lake Michigan from entering the CAWS while still allowing water to flow from the CAWS into 

Lake Michigan when necessary.

At Brandon Road (IL), a new approach channel from the Mississippi River direction would include an 

electric barrier to prevent fish from entering the lock chamber during lockages. The existing lock would 

be rehabilitated to install a new water flushing system that would fill the lock with ANS-free water from 

the CAWS Buffer Zone and release the water downstream to the Mississippi River Basin and prevent 

ANS not affected by the electric barrier from entering the lock chamber.

The GLMRIS Locks would remain closed at all times unless a vessel needed to cross to the other side. 

Additionally, if there were a power failure with the electric barriers or another maintenance concern, the 

locks would remain closed to prevent passage of ANS. 

CAWS Ecosystem Impacts

The two physical separation barriers along the Grand Calumet and Little Calumet Rivers 

would impede the dispersal of native species within their respective rivers. The result could 

be the extirpation of vulnerable native species and disruption of the food web. The Stickney

(IL) physical barrier is located close to the historical separation point between the Mississippi 

River and Great Lakes Basins. This location will impact the ability of native aquatic species 

to disperse between basins and therefore between populations, but it is ultimately reversing 

an environmental impact from previous human activities. This is anticipated to be a High 

impact.

CAWS Ecosystem Mitigation Measures

CAWS ecosystem mitigation measures may be required for impacts to significant natural 

resources as a result of plan implementation. Since site-specific designs have not been 

completed, impacts have not been assessed and mitigation measures have not been 

developed; however, the GLMRIS Team identified placeholder costs for ecosystem 

mitigation measures that are at a commensurate level of detail for each alternative. Further 

analysis and design for any selected alternative would include an assessment of plan impacts

and identification of mitigation requirements as required under NEPA. These evaluations 

would be fully coordinated with the appropriate resource agencies.

Water Quality CAWS Impacts 

The Stickney (IL) physical barrier presents significant threats to water quality on the river

side of the physical barrier. Water quality modeling, described in Appendix F, indicates that 

hours out of compliance with water quality benchmarks would increase on the SBCR and the 

CSSC due to the physical blockage of flows by the barrier. 

This represents a Medium impact to water quality in the CAWS.
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

169 

To mitigate water quality impacts to the CAWS, an ANS Treatment Plant would be 

constructed at Stickney (IL). The ANS Treatment Plant would withdraw water from the Lake 

Michigan side of the physical barrier, treat the water to remove or inactivate ANS, and then 

discharge the ANS-treated water on the Mississippi River side of the physical barrier. The 

treatment technologies proposed for the ANSTP at Stickney include screening, filtration, and 

UV radiation. 

In addition to its role as an ANS control measure, the proposed ANS Treatment Plant at 

T.J. O’Brien (IL) would also function to mitigate water quality impacts. The ANSTP would 

allow the discretionary diversion of Lake Michigan water allocated to MWRD to continue 

and the hydrology along the Cal-Sag Channel to remain similar to current conditions. For 

additional information on mitigation, refer to Appendix F. 

Water Quality CAWS Mitigation Measures 

• ANS Treatment Plant at Stickney (IL) – 650 MGD capacity, 5.2-acre footprint.

• ANS Treatment Plant at T.J. O’Brien (IL) – 1,250 MGD total capacity, 4.1-acre 

footprint. 

• 450 MGD capacity for water quality mitigation.

• 800 MGD capacity to supply the GLMRIS Lock. 

Water Quality Lake Michigan Impacts 

The most significant impacts of the Stickney (IL) physical barrier are the short-term and 

cumulative contaminant loads to Lake Michigan. As a result of the Stickney (IL) physical 

barrier, treated effluent from the O’Brien WRPs, hundreds of combined sewer overflows, 

dozens of storm sewer flows, and effluent from CSO pumping stations will all be directed 

toward Lake Michigan on a continuous basis. Urban storm runoff and contaminated 

sediment, while not assessed by the water quality models, will also contribute to the water 

quality impacts of this project alternative to Lake Michigan. Further detailed discussion of 

these analyses can be found in Appendix F – Water Quality Analyses.

To mitigate for water quality impacts to Lake Michigan, WRP effluent would be diverted to 

the river side of the physical barriers, a tunnel and reservoir system designed to capture all 

CSO events before they entered the Chicago River and North Shore Channel would be 

constructed, and contaminated sediment on the lake side of the Stickney (IL) physical barrier 

would be dredged and capped. For additional information on the mitigation measures refer to 

Appendix F – Water Quality Analyses.

Water Quality Lake Michigan Mitigation Measures 

• On the Chicago River system, a tunnel 13 feet in diameter and 12.5 miles long is 

proposed to deliver the O’Brien WRP effluent to the river side of the proposed 

physical barrier in Stickney (IL).

• A pump station would be required at the downstream end in order to return the 

plant effluent to the elevation of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. 

• New 8.1 billion gallon reservoir at McCook (IL) would address water quality 

impacts on the CSSC, Chicago River, and North Shore Channel of the system. 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

170 

• The water in the reservoirs would be routed through existing wastewater 

treatment plants and then discharged into the CAWS such that it joins the 

Mississippi River basin.

• A conveyance tunnel along the North Shore Channel to McCook (IL) estimated 

at 13 miles long and 32 feet in diameter. 

• Sediment remediation of the Chicago and Calumet River systems east of the 

physical barriers.

• Stormwater BMPs would be coordinated within the CAWS.

Flood Risk Management (FRM) Impacts 

Under existing conditions, the Grand Calumet River and Little Calumet River flow toward 

the Mississippi River and Great Lakes basins. The physical barriers at Stateline (IL/IN) and 

Hammond (IN) prevent this bi-directional flow and would cause FRM impacts such as 

induced sewer and overbank flooding during large storm events. USACE is currently 

constructing a levee system on the Little Calumet River. The stage increases caused by these 

physical barriers would affect the level of protection on the levees. The Little Calumet River 

levee system is being constructed to a 0.5% ACE level (200-yr) with at least a 95% 

confidence for certification. With these barriers in place, the impacts to the level of 

protection (LOP) is substantial for several levee sections as summarized below (LOP where 

95% confidence is achieved): 

• Reach 4 Hammond East North 100-yr

• Reach 5b Griffith South 50-yr

• Reach 6a Gary North 100-yr

• Reach 7 Gary South 100-yr

Without mitigation measures, this alternative yields a net change in EEAD of $28,081,000 

annually due to physical barriers at Stickney (IL), Stateline (IL/IN), and Hammond (IN). 

This net change in EEAD represents the additional damages to buildings and their 

contents that is expected to occur on a yearly basis as a result of this alternative. A 

more detailed discussion of this analysis can be found in Appendix D – Economic Analyses.

To mitigate for impacts to FRM two new reservoirs, and the necessary stormwater collection 

system (via tunnels) would be constructed. These new reservoirs and tunnels would be very 

similar in nature to the existing TARP in the Chicago area. These reservoirs would store 

stormwater up to the 0.2% ACE event, route the water through existing wastewater treatment 

plants, and then discharge the water into the CAWS such that it joins the Mississippi River 

basin. A more detailed discussion of this analysis can be found in Appendix E – Hydrologic 

& Hydraulic Analyses and Appendix J – Civil Design.

Flood Risk Management (FRM) Mitigation Measures 

• New 0.3 billion gallon reservoir at Stateline (IL) would address FRM impacts on 

the Grand Calumet River in the system.

• A new 4.4 billion gallon reservoir at Thornton (IL) would address FRM impacts 

on the Little Calumet River in the system.
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

171 

• A conveyance tunnel from Hammond (IN) to Thornton (IL) estimated at 7 miles 

long and 14 feet in diameter. 

Human Safety Impacts and Mitigation Measures 

Without any mitigation measures, construction of physical barriers would induce flooding of 

the CAWS during the 0.2% ACE event. This induced flooding would increase life safety 

risks associated with large storm events. The FRM mitigation would act as mitigation for 

these human safety impacts.

Construction of the electric barriers at Chicago (IL), T.J. O’Brien (IL), and Brandon Road 

(IL) would also have impacts to human safety. Their installation would have to be 

coordinated with the U.S. Coast Guard, and restrictions on small watercraft traversing the 

barriers would be imposed. 

Commercial Navigation Impacts 

The Mid-System Separation Cal-Sag Open Control Technologies with a Buffer Zone would 

result in a loss of commercial cargo navigation transportation cost savings of $7.30 million 

annually. In this alternative, some of the shallow draft movements could no longer move on 

the CAWS and would need to switch to truck or rail, find alternative sources for input, sell 

their output in different markets, or shut down. Some shallow draft movements that could still 

occur would need to take new routes in order to avoid the physical barriers. Since not all 

movements are forced off the waterway, the loss in transportation cost savings is less than the 

alternatives recommending complete hydrological separation. A more detailed discussion of 

this analysis can be found in Appendix D – Economic Analyses.

Impacts to commercial navigation would not be mitigated, because no mitigation measures 

were identified that would effectively address the impacts. A full discussion on this topic is 

included in Section 2.5, Mitigation Assumptions, and in Attachment 6 (Commercial Cargo 

Reports) to Appendix D – Economic Analyses, and Appendix A. 

Noncommercial Navigation (includes recreational navigation) Impacts 

The Mid-System Separation Cal-Sag Open Control Technologies with a Buffer Zone impacts 

to noncommercial navigation would likely include: 

• Additional safety restrictions to vessels that must travel through electric barriers.

• Some government agencies may have to duplicate services, if their jurisdictions 

extend beyond the barriers. 

• Passenger vessels and government vessels may be affected by additional high 

water events.

• Vessels under 20 feet will not be able to pass through the electronic barriers 

(current U.S. Coast Guard restriction).

The Mid-System Separation Cal-Sag Open Control Technologies with a Buffer Zone would 

have a high impact to noncommercial navigation. A more detailed discussion of this analysis 

can be found in Appendix D – Economic Analyses.
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

172 

Unmitigated Impacts

Installation of a physical barrier on the CAWS at Stickney (IL) will bring significant impacts 

to water quality in both the CAWS and Lake Michigan. Many of these impacts can be 

mitigated by the mitigation measures described previously. Other impacts that are expected 

as a result of the Mid-System Separation Alternative will be more difficult to correct. 

Currently, non-point source discharges of pollutants to the waterways remain largely 

unregulated, and thus the Mid-System Hydrologic Separation Alternative may result in some 

unmitigated impacts to water quality in Lake Michigan resulting from stormwater runoff.

Additionally, while the proposed mitigation measures are expected to minimize any effects 

on the downstream Mississippi River Basin outside of the CAWS, the impacts of reduced 

flow in the Illinois Waterway downstream of the project areas were not extensively studied in 

GLMRIS. See Appendix A – Effect of Mid-System Separation on Low Flows in 

Downstream Waterway for additional details.

3.14.2 ANS Risk Reduction

This alternative includes nonstructural measures that are assumed to be implemented quickly (T0). An 

exception would be nonstructural measures which are dependent on the passage of new laws or 

regulations, because of the uncertainty of the time required to pass and implement new laws or 

regulations. The remaining structural measures are assumed to be implemented at T25. This alternative 

includes measures, such as the GLMRIS Lock, which are at a conceptual level of design but use existing 

process engineering concepts applied to control ANS. While the technologies involved in these 

alternatives are known, the combination of technologies and application of the technologies are nontraditional. For instance, UV is frequently used for water treatment plants, and the flushing mechanism 

concept in the GLMRIS Lock is used in many different types of water treatment. However, these 

technologies have not previously been applied to control the transfer of ANS. In addition, while USACE 

currently operates an electric barrier, there are ongoing studies associated with improving its efficacy. As 

a result, the uncertainty associated with the technologies’ impact on ANS passage is higher than the 

uncertainty of ANS passage associated with the hydrologic separation alternatives. The hydrologic 

separation alternative includes physical barriers, which has uncertainty based on the size of the design 

storm event. A detailed discussion of this risk assessment analysis including uncertainty for each of the 

13 High and Medium risk species for this alternative can be found in Appendix C –Risk Assessments.

The results of the with-project risk assessments of this alternative are the same as the Mid-System Control 

Technology without a Buffer Zone Alternative. Please see Section 3.10.2 for the discussion of ANS risk 

reduction provided by this alternative. 

3.14.3 Estimated Alternative Cost

The costs presented in the GLMRIS Report (Table 3.17) are commensurate with the five percent level of 

detail in design for each alternative. The cost and schedule estimates are appropriately used in this report 

as a means to compare the alternatives presented. These cost and schedule estimates are not intended to 

support authorizing language and will change with more detailed designs of an alternative. Further 

detailed discussion of this analysis can be found in Appendix K – Cost Engineering. 

USACE recognizes that while all the measures shown in this alternative description are required to 

achieve the stated risk reduction, not all measures may be a financial responsibility of USACE. The 

following chart (Table 3.18) identifies who may be financial responsible for measures in this alternative.
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

173 

Table 3.17 Costs of Mid-System Separation Cal-Sag Open Control 

Technologies with a Buffer Zone – Hybrid Cal-Sag Open 

Alternative

Mid-System Separation Cal-Sag Open Control Technologies with 

a Buffer Zone – Hybrid Cal-Sag Open Alternativea

ANS Control Measures Costs $2,716,000,000 

CAWS Ecosystem Mitigation Measures Costs $44,000,000 

Water Quality Mitigation Measures Cost $8,280,000,000

FRM Mitigation Measures Cost $1,863,000,000 

Design/Construction Management $2,152,000,000

LERRDs $42,000,000

OMRR&R Cost (annual) $110,200,000 

Nonstructural Costs (annual) $68,000,000

Cost of the Alternative 

(Does not include annual costs) $15,097,000,000 

a

 Costs are shown as 2014 program-year dollars.

Table 3.18 Financial Responsibilities for Mid-System Separation Cal-Sag Open Control 

Technologies with a Buffer Zone – Hybrid Cal-Sag Open Alternative

Mid-System Separation Cal-Sag Open Control Technologies 

with a Buffer Zone – Hybrid Cal-Sag Open Alternative

ANS Control Measures 

(Part of Cost of the 

Alternative)

Mitigation Measures – 

Part of USACE Base 

Project (Part of Cost of 

the Alternative)

Mitigation – Paid by 

Others or Added to 

USACE Project by 

Congress (Part of Cost of 

the Alternative)

Mitigation – Paid by 

Others (Part of Cost 

of the Alternative)

Physical Barrier 

@ Stickney (IL)

CAWS Ecosystem 

Restoration

Sediment Remediation Nonstructural

GLMRIS Lock 

@ T.J. O’Brien (IL)

ANS Treatment Plant 

@ Stickney (IL)

WRP Outfall Tunnel

Electric Barrier 

@ T.J. O’Brien (IL)

New 8.1 Billion Gallon 

Reservoir @ McCook (IL)

Conveyance Tunnel

ANS Treatment Plant 

@ T.J. O’Brien (IL)

New 0.3 Billion Gallon 

Reservoir @ Oak Lawn (IL)

Screened Sluice Gates 

@ T.J. O’Brien (IL)

New 4.4 Billion Gallon 

Reservoir @ Thornton (IL)

Physical Barrier 

@ Stateline (IL/IN)

Conveyance Tunnel

Physical Barrier 

@ Hammond (IN)

GLMRIS Lock 

@ Brandon Road (IL)

Electric Barrier 

@ Brandon Road (IL)
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

174 

3.14.4 Estimated Alternative Implementation Duration

The schedule in Figure 3.22 assumes that the construction of all features is completed by the end of the 

implementation period. Opportunities for staged implementation to provide for earlier risk reduction may 

exist, but would need to be further investigated in future study. This schedule also assumes that the 

project has a non-federal sponsor; receives capability funding; completes required lands acquisitions; 

obtains required permits; and is compliant with USACE policy requirements. Lastly, the schedule 

assumes conditional activities required by non-USACE parties are completed as necessary to facilitate 

timely completion of the project. A delay associated with any of these components would likely extend 

the time needed for project implementation and increase costs.

a The mitigation measures must be implemented prior to the completion of the ANS control measures, such as the 

GLMRIS Lock, to minimize impacts to CAWS uses and users. Consequently, the ANS risk reduction resulting 

from this alternative is realized when all measures have been constructed.

Figure 3.22 Mid-System Separation Cal-Sag Open Control Technologies with a

Buffer Zone – Hybrid Cal-Sag Open Alternative Timeline

2017 2022 2027 2032 2037 2042

Timeline for Mid-System Separation Cal-Sag Open 

Control Technologies with a Buffer Zone - Hybrid CalSag Open Alternativea 

Time to Implement

Nonstructural Measures

Sediment Remediation

Physical Barrier

ANS Treatment Plant

WRP Outfall Tunnel

Conveyance Tunnel

8.1 Billion Gallon Reservoir

GLMRIS Lock

Electric Barrier

Screened Sluice Gates

0.3 Billion Gallon Reservoir

4.4 Billion Gallon Reservoir
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

175 

3.14.5 Complexity of Regulatory Compliance

The Mid-System Separation Cal-Sag Open Control Technologies with a Buffer Zone will have a high 

level of complexity associated with regulatory compliance. In addition to construction of physical 

barriers, which will require a Clean Water Act 404(b)(1) analysis and CWA 401 water quality 

certifications from the States of Illinois and Indiana, the mitigation actions to address potential water 

quality, flood risk, and navigation impacts will likely require extensive coordination with federal and state 

water quality regulators. Potential changes to diversion, though relatively minor, may require 

coordination with Canada and all Great Lakes states. Additional electric barriers will also require 

coordination with the U.S. Coast Guard on potential safety regulations for navigation through the barriers. 

Coordination with Illinois and Indiana under the Coastal Zone Management Act will also likely be 

required. 

3.15 Alternative Plan 8: Mid-System Separation CSSC Open Control 

Technologies with a Buffer Zone

3.15.1 Alternative Plan Description

Table 3.19 summarizes the measures included in the Mid-System Separation CSSC Open Control 

Technologies with a Buffer Zone, the type of measures and the locations of the measures. More 

information about the measures can be found in Figures 3.23-3.26. 

This alternative includes a physical barrier located at Alsip (IL) hydrologically separating three of the five 

aquatic pathways between the CAWS and Lake Michigan. Along the two remaining aquatic pathways a 

Buffer Zone is would be established by installing ANS control measures at Wilmette (IL), Chicago (IL), 

and Brandon Road (IL). Additionally, the nonstructural measures described in Section 3.2 would be 

implemented as part of this alternative.

At Wilmette (IL), new screened sluice gates would be installed that are designed to prevent ANS from 

Lake Michigan from entering the CAWS while still allowing water to flow from the CAWS into Lake 

Michigan when necessary.

At Chicago (IL), the existing single-chamber lock would be replaced with a new double-chamber 

GLMRIS Lock with a shallow chamber and a deep chamber that is at the existing depth. The GLMRIS 

Lock would have a water flushing system that would fill the lock with ANS-free water from the CAWS 

Buffer Zone. A new approach channel from Lake Michigan would include an electric barrier to prevent 

fish from entering the lock chamber during lockages. An ANS Treatment Plant would provide the water 

for lockages to ensure ANS not affected by the electric barriers would not be allowed to transfer into the 

CAWS from Lake Michigan. Screened sluice gates would be installed that are designed to prevent ANS 

from Lake Michigan from entering the CAWS while still allowing water to flow from the CAWS into 

Lake Michigan when necessary.

At Brandon Road (IL), a new approach channel from the Mississippi River direction would include an 

electric barrier to prevent fish from entering the lock chamber during lockages. The existing lock would 

be rehabilitated to install a new water flushing system that would fill the lock with ANS-free water from 

the CAWS Buffer Zone and release the water downstream to the Mississippi River basin and prevent 

ANS not affected by the electric barrier from entering the lock chamber.
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

176 

Table 3.19 Mid-System Separation CSSC Open Control Technologies 

with a Buffer Zone – Hybrid CSSC Open Alternative

Mid System Separation CSSC Open Control Technologies with a 

Buffer Zone – Hybrid CSSC Open Alternative

Location Measure Type of Measure

Basin-wide

Nonstructural ANS Control

Sediment Remediation WQ Mitigation

To Be Determined

within the Chicago 

Area

CAWS Ecosystem Mitigation To Be Determined

Wilmette (IL)

Screened Sluice Gates ANS Control

ANS Treatment Plant WQ Mitigation

Chicago (IL)

GLMRIS Lock

ANS Control

Electric Barrier

ANS Treatment Plant

Screened Sluice Gates

Oak Lawn (IL) 0.2 Billion Gallon Reservoir FRM Mitigation

Alsip (IL)

Physical Barrier ANS Control

ANS Treatment Plant

WQ Mitigation WRP Outfall Tunnel

Thornton (IL)

5.2 Billion Gallon Reservoir 

WQ Mitigation Conveyance Tunnel 

Brandon Road (IL) 

GLMRIS Lock

ANS Control

Electric Barrier
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

177 

Figure 3.23 Locations of ANS Prevention and Mitigation Measures within the CAWS
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

178 

Figure 3.24 Location Details of ANS Prevention Measures
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

179 

Figure 3.25 Location Details of Mitigation Measures
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

180 

Figure 3.26 Location Details of Sediment Remediation Measures
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

181 

The GLMRIS Locks would remain closed at all times unless a vessel needed to cross to the other side. 

Additionally, if there were a power failure with the electric barriers or another maintenance concern, the 

locks would remain closed to prevent passage of ANS. 

CAWS Ecosystem Impacts

The physical barrier at Alsip (IL) will fragment the Cal-Sag Channel such that native aquatic 

species will no longer be able to freely move within the channel; however, the barrier is 

located close to the original divide between basins. This is a reversal of a previous negative 

environmental impact, and the effects will be a temporary period of adjustment for native 

aquatic species. The alternative would also remove aquatic habitat at or near Lake Michigan. 

This is anticipated to be a Medium impact.

CAWS Ecosystem Mitigation Measures

CAWS ecosystem mitigation measures may be required for impacts to significant natural 

resources as a result of plan implementation. Since site-specific designs have not been 

completed, impacts have not been assessed and mitigation measures have not been 

developed; however, the GLMRIS Team identified placeholder costs for ecosystem 

mitigation measures that are at a commensurate level of detail for each alternative. Further 

analysis and design for any selected alternative would include an assessment of plan impacts

and identification of mitigation requirements as required under NEPA. These evaluations 

would be fully coordinated with the appropriate resource agencies.

Water Quality CAWS Impacts 

The Alsip (IL) physical barrier presents significant threats to water quality on the river side of 

the physical barrier. Water quality modeling, described in Appendix F, indicates that hours 

out of compliance with water quality benchmarks would increase on the Cal-Sag Channel due 

to the physical blockage of flows by the barrier. 

This represents a High impact to water quality in the CAWS.

To mitigate water quality impacts to the CAWS, an ANS Treatment Plant would be 

constructed at Alsip (IL). The ANS Treatment Plant would withdraw water from the Lake 

Michigan side of the physical barrier, treat the water to remove or inactivate ANS, and then 

discharge the ANS-treated water on the Mississippi River side of the physical barrier. The 

treatment technologies proposed for the ANSTP at Stickney include screening, filtration, and 

UV radiation. 

In addition to its role as an ANS control measure, the proposed ANS Treatment Plants at 

Wilmette (IL) and Chicago (IL) would also function to mitigate water quality impacts. The 

ANSTP would allow the discretionary diversion of Lake Michigan water allocated to MWRD 

to continue and the hydrology along the North Shore Channel, Chicago River, and CSSC to 

remain similar to current conditions. For additional information on mitigation refer to 

Appendix F. 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

182 

Water Quality CAWS Mitigation Measures 

• ANS Treatment Plant at Wilmette (IL) – 200 MGD capacity, 0.7-acre footprint.

• ANS Treatment Plant at Chicago (IL) – 1,750 MGD total capacity, 5.7-acre 

footprint. 

• 450 MGD capacity for water quality mitigation.

• 1,300 MGD capacity to supply the GLMRIS Lock. 

• ANS Treatment Plant at Alsip (IL) – 450 MGD capacity, 3.6-acre footprint. 

Water Quality Lake Michigan Impacts 

The most significant impacts of the Alsip (IL) physical barrier are the short-term and 

cumulative contaminant loads to Lake Michigan. As a result of the Alsip (IL) physical 

barrier, treated effluent from the Calumet WRPs, hundreds of combined sewer overflows, 

dozens of storm sewer flows, and effluent from CSO pumping stations will all be directed 

toward Lake Michigan on a continuous basis. Urban storm runoff and contaminated 

sediment, while not assessed by the water quality models, will also contribute to the water 

quality impacts of this project alternative to Lake Michigan. Further detailed discussion of 

this analysis can be found in Appendix F – Water Quality Analyses.

To mitigate for water quality impacts to Lake Michigan, WRP effluent would be diverted to 

the river side of the physical barriers; a tunnel and reservoir system designed to capture all 

CSO events before they entered the Calumet River System would be constructed, and 

contaminated sediment on the lake side of the Alsip (IL) physical barrier would be dredged 

and capped. For additional information on the mitigation measures refer to Appendix F – 

Water Quality Analyses.

Water Quality Lake Michigan Mitigation Measures 

• On the Calumet River System, a tunnel 13 feet in diameter and 5.3 miles long 

would be needed to deliver the Calumet WRP effluent to the river side of the 

proposed physical barrier in Alsip (IL). 

• A pump station would be required at the downstream end in order to return the 

plant effluent to the elevation of the Cal-Sag Channel. 

• A new 5.2 billion gallon reservoir at Thornton (IL) would address water quality 

impacts on the Cal-Sag Channel and Calumet, Grand Calumet, and Little 

Calumet Rivers in the system.

• The water in the reservoirs would be routed through existing wastewater 

treatment plants and then discharged into the CAWS such that it joins the 

Mississippi River basin.

• A conveyance tunnel from Hammond (IN) to Thornton (IL) estimated at 7 miles 

long and 14 feet in diameter. 

• Sediment remediation of the Chicago and Calumet River Systems east of the 

physical barriers.

• Stormwater BMPs would be coordinated within the CAWS.
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

183 

Flood Risk Management (FRM) Impacts 

The Alsip (IL) physical barrier was developed to have minimal impacts on FRM impacts. 

Any additional stormwater that would need to be captured to mitigate for FRM impacts 

would be captured in the tunnels and reservoirs designed to capture the stormwater during 

CSO events with the exception of the flow on Thorn Creek, an aquatic connection with the 

potential to bypass the Alsip (IL) physical barrier.

Without mitigation measures, this alternative yields a lesser value of EEAD of $26,361,000 

than in the without-project condition. This alternative yields a reduction in overall EEAD 

when compared to the without-project condition. For this alternative, a barrier would be 

located at Alsip (IL) on the Cal-Sag Channel and both the T.J. O'Brien Lock and Controlling 

Works on the Calumet River, and the Chicago River Controlling Works along the Chicago 

River would be opened to allow for the continual release of flood waters to Lake Michigan 

during infrequent storm events. Allowing discharge to Lake Michigan results in stage 

reductions during flood events when compared to the without-project condition, where 

backflows to Lake Michigan are limited. Further, the barrier at Alsip would reduce the 

amount of flow that currently passes westward on the Cal-Sag Channel during flood events. 

The barrier would limit flood flows to portions of the river that lie westward of the Alsip 

barrier, providing reductions in flood stages west of the barrier. In combination, the effects 

of allowing floodwaters to enter Lake Michigan during flood events coupled with stage 

reductions west of the barrier along the Cal-Sag Channel result in an overall decrease in 

EEAD within the CAWS region as compared to the without-project condition. A more 

detailed discussion of this analysis can be found in Appendix D – Economic Analyses. It is 

important to note that some areas within the CAWS may actually see an increase in damages 

to buildings and their contents. For the entire CAWS area, the damages to buildings and their 

contents that occur would be less than damages that occur without implementing this 

alternative.

The water quality mitigation of tunnels and reservoirs would also act as FRM mitigation. A 

more detailed discussion of this analysis can be found in Appendix E – Hydrologic & 

Hydraulic Analyses and Appendix J – Civil Design.

Flood Risk Management (FRM) Mitigation Measures

• A new 0.2 billion gallon reservoir at Oak Lawn (IL) would address FRM impacts 

on Thorn Creek, a potential bypass of the physical barrier in Alsip (IL) on the 

Cal-Sag Channel in the system.

Human Safety Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Without any mitigation measures, construction of physical barriers would induce flooding of 

the CAWS during the 0.2% ACE event. This induced flooding would increase life safety 

risks associated with large storm events. The FRM mitigation would act as mitigation for 

these human safety impacts.

Construction of the electric barriers at Chicago (IL), T.J. O’Brien (IL), and Brandon Road 

(IL) would also have impacts to human safety. Their installation would have to be 

coordinated with the U.S. Coast Guard, and restrictions on small watercraft traversing the 

barriers would be imposed. 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

184 

Commercial Navigation Impacts 

The Mid-System Separation CSSC Open Control Technologies with a Buffer Zone would 

result in a loss of commercial cargo navigation transportation cost savings of $8.83 million 

annually. In this alternative, some of the shallow draft movements could no longer move on 

the CAWS and would need to switch to truck or rail, find alternative sources for input, sell 

their output in different markets, or shut down. Some shallow draft movements that could still 

occur would need to take new routes in order to avoid the physical barriers. Since not all 

movements are forced off the waterway, the loss in transportation cost savings is less than the 

alternatives recommending complete hydrological separation. A more detailed discussion of 

this analysis can be found in Appendix D – Economic Analyses.

Impacts to commercial navigation would not be mitigated, because no mitigation measures 

were identified that would effectively address the impacts. A full discussion on this topic is 

included in Section 2.5, Mitigation Assumptions, and in Attachment 6 (Commercial Cargo 

Reports) to Appendix D – Economic Analyses and Appendix A. 

Noncommercial Navigation (includes recreational navigation) Impacts 

The Mid-System Separation CSSC Open Control Technologies with a Buffer Zone impacts to 

noncommercial navigation would likely include: 

• Additional safety restrictions to vessels that must travel through electric barriers.

• Some government agencies may have to duplicate services, if their jurisdictions 

extend beyond the barriers. 

• Passenger vessels and government vessels may be affected by additional high 

water events. 

• Vessels under 20 feet will not be able to pass through the electronic barriers

(current U.S. Coast Guard restriction). 

The Mid-System Separation CSSC Open Control Technologies with a Buffer Zone would 

have a medium impact to noncommercial navigation. A more detailed discussion of this 

analysis can be found in Appendix D – Economic Analyses.

Unmitigated Impacts

Installation of a physical barrier on the CAWS at Alsip (IL) will bring significant impacts to 

water quality in both the CAWS and Lake Michigan. Many of these impacts can be mitigated 

by the mitigation measures described previously. Other impacts that are expected as a result 

of the Mid-System Separation Alternative will be more difficult to correct. Currently, nonpoint source discharges of pollutants to the waterways remain largely unregulated, and thus 

the Mid-System Hydrologic Separation Alternative may result in some unmitigated impacts 

to water quality in Lake Michigan resulting from stormwater runoff.

Additionally, while the proposed mitigation measures are expected to minimize any effects 

on the downstream Mississippi River Basin outside of the CAWS, the impacts of reduced 

flow in the Illinois Waterway downstream of the project areas were not extensively studied in 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

185 

GLMRIS. See Appendix A – Effect of Mid-System Separation on Low Flows in 

Downstream Waterway – for additional details.

3.15.2 ANS Risk Reduction

This alternative includes nonstructural measures that are assumed to be implemented quickly (T0). An 

exception would be nonstructural measures which are dependent on the passage of new laws or 

regulations, because of the uncertainty of the time required to pass and implement new laws or 

regulations. The remaining structural measures are assumed to be implemented at T25. This alternative 

includes measures, such as the GLMRIS Lock, which are at a conceptual level of design but use existing 

process engineering concepts applied to control ANS. While the technologies involved in these 

alternatives are known, the combination of technologies and application of the technologies are nontraditional. For instance, UV is frequently used for water treatment plants, and the flushing mechanism 

concept in the GLMRIS Lock is used in many different types of water treatment. However, these 

technologies have not previously been applied to control the transfer of ANS. In addition, while USACE 

currently operates an electric barrier, there are ongoing studies associated with improving its efficacy. As 

a result, the uncertainty associated with the technologies’ impact on ANS passage is higher than the 

uncertainty of ANS passage associated with the hydrologic separation alternatives. The hydrologic 

separation alternative includes physical barriers, which has uncertainty based on the size of the design 

storm event. A detailed discussion of this risk assessment analysis including uncertainty for each of the 

13 High and Medium risk species for this alternative can be found in Appendix C –Risk Assessments.

The results of the with-project risk assessments of this alternative are the same as the Mid-System Control 

Technology without a Buffer Zone Alternative. Please see Section 3.10.2 for the discussion of ANS risk 

reduction provided by this alternative. 

3.15.3 Estimated Alternative Cost

The costs presented in the GLMRIS Report (Table 3.20) are commensurate with the five percent level of 

detail in design for each alternative. The cost and schedule estimates are appropriately used in this report 

as a means to compare the alternatives presented. These cost and schedule estimates are not intended to 

support authorizing language, and will change with more detailed designs of an alternative. Further 

detailed discussion of this analysis can be found in Appendix K – Cost Engineering.

Table 3.20 Costs for Mid-System Separation CSSC Open Control 

Technologies with a Buffer Zone – Hybrid CSSC Open Alternative

Mid System Separation CSSC Open Control Technologies 

with a Buffer Zone – Hybrid CSSC Open Alternativea

ANS Control Measures Costs $2,643,000,000

CAWS Ecosystem Mitigation Measures Costs $26,000,000

Water Quality Mitigation Measures Cost $4,337,000,000

FRM Mitigation Measures Cost $145,000,000

Design/Construction Management $1,146,000,000

LERRDs $36,000,000

OMRR&R Cost (annual) $96,500,000

Nonstructural Costs (annual) $68,000,000

Cost of the Alternative 

(Does not include annual costs) $8,333,000,000 

a Costs are shown as 2014 program-year dollars.
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

186 

USACE recognizes that while all the measures shown in this alternative description are required to 

achieve the stated risk reduction, not all measures may be a financial responsibility of USACE. The 

following chart (Table 3.21) identifies who may be financial responsible for measures in this alternative.

Table 3.21 Financial Responsibilities for Mid-System Separation CSSC Open Control 

Technologies with a Buffer Zone – Hybrid CSSC Open Alternative

Mid System Separation CSSC Open Control Technologies with a Buffer Zone – 

Hybrid CSSC Open Alternative

ANS Control Measures 

(Part of Cost of the 

Alternative)

Mitigation Measures – Part 

of USACE Base Project 

(Part of Cost of the 

Alternative)

Mitigation – Paid by 

Others or Added to 

USACE Project by 

Congress (Part of Cost of 

the Alternative)

Mitigation – Paid by 

Others (Part of Cost 

of the Alternative)

Screened Sluice Gates 

@ Wilmette (IL)

CAWS Ecosystem 

Restoration

Sediment Remediation Nonstructural

GLMRIS Lock 

@ Chicago (IL)

ANS Treatment Plant 

@ Wilmette (IL)

WRP Outfall Tunnel

Electric Barrier 

@ Chicago (IL)

0.2 Billion Gallon Reservoir 

@ Oak Lawn (IL)

Conveyance Tunnel

ANS Treatment Plant 

@ Chicago (IL)

ANS Treatment Plant 

@ Alsip (IL)

Screened Sluice Gates 

@ Chicago (IL)

5.2 Billion Gallon Reservoir 

@ Thornton (IL)

Physical Barrier 

@ Alsip (IL)

GLMRIS Lock 

@ Brandon Road (IL)

Electric Barrier 

@ Brandon Road (IL)

3.15.4 Estimated Alternative Implementation Duration

The schedule in Figure 3.27 assumes that the construction of all features is completed by the end of the 

implementation period. Opportunities for staged implementation to provide for earlier risk reduction may 

exist, but would need to be further investigated in future study. This schedule also assumes that the 

project has a non-federal sponsor; receives capability funding; completes required lands acquisitions; 

obtains required permits; and is compliant with USACE policy requirements. Lastly, the schedule 

assumes conditional activities required by non-USACE parties are completed as necessary to facilitate 

timely completion of the project. A delay associated with any of these components would likely extend 

the time needed for project implementation and increase costs.
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

187 

a The mitigation measures must be implemented prior to the completion of the ANS control measures, such as the 

GLMRIS Lock, to minimize impacts to CAWS users and uses. Consequently, the ANS risk reduction resulting 

from this alternative is realized when all measures have been constructed.

Figure 3.27 Mid-System Separation CSSC Open Control Technologies with a Buffer Zone – 

Hybrid CSSC Open Alternative Timeline

3.15.5 Complexity of Regulatory Compliance

The Mid-System Separation CSSC Open Control Technologies with a Buffer Zone is anticipated to have 

a High level of complexity associated with regulatory compliance. In addition to construction of physical 

barriers, which will require a Clean Water Act 404(b)(1) analysis and CWA 401 water quality 

certifications from the State of Illinois, the mitigation actions to address potential water quality, flood 

risk, and navigation impacts will likely require extensive coordination with federal and state water quality 

regulators. Potential changes to diversion, though relatively minor, may require coordination with Canada 

and all Great Lakes states. Additional electric barriers will also require coordination with the U.S. Coast 

Guard on potential safety regulations for navigation through the barriers. Coordination with Illinois and 

Indiana under the Coastal Zone Management Act will also likely be required.

2017 2022 2027 2032 2037 2042

Timeline for Mid-System Separation CSSC Open Control 

Technologies with a Buffer Zone - Hybrid CSSC Open 

Alternativea 

Time to Implement

Nonstructural Measures

Sediment Remediation

Screened Sluice Gates

ANS Treatment Plant

GLMRIS Lock

Electric Barrier

0.2 Billion Gallon Reservoir

5.2 Billion Gallon Reservoir

WRP Outfall Tunnel

Conveyance Tunnel

Physical Barrier
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

188 

Chapter 4 Summary of Findings

In January 2013, the GLMRIS Team outlined the criteria that could be utilized by decision-makers to 

evaluate the plans that would be included in the final GLMRIS Report. The GLMRIS Report is presenting 

an array of potential alternatives and does not recommend a specific alternative. 

4.1 Evaluation Criteria

The final evaluation criteria and associated metrics are discussed in Tables 4.1 and 4.2. 

Table 4.1 Final Evaluation Criteria

Evaluation Criteria Metric

Effectiveness at Preventing Interbasin Transfer

(At time of implementation)

Qualitative Rating of one to four stars based on 

semi-quantitative value obtained using a ranking 

algorithm 

Implementation 

(years)

# of years to full risk reduction benefits from 

project

Negative Environmental Impacts 

(CAWS)

High/Medium/Low rating based on qualitative 

description of alternative impacts

Negative Water Quality Impacts 

(CAWS)

High/Medium/Low rating based on DUFLOW

(WQ Model) data and hours out of compliance of 

water quality standards

Negative Water Quality Impacts 

(Lake Michigan)

High/Medium/Low rating based on FVCOM 

(WQ Model) data and percent increases in 

loading levels of Lake Michigan

Water Quality Mitigation Measures Cost $– Cost associated with mitigating the Water 

Quality Impacts to the CAWS and Lake 

Michigan

FRM 

(net change in EEAD – an annual impact)

$– Net Equivalent Expected Annual Damages of 

FRM impacts caused by an alternative

FRM Mitigation Measures Cost $– Cost associated with mitigating the FRM 

impacts to the CAWS

Commercial Cargo Cost Impacts 

(annual cost) 

$– Impacts to commercial cargo navigation for 

50 years (2017 – 2067) discounted and amortized 

over the 50 year period 

Non-Cargo Navigation Impacts High/Medium/Low rating based on qualitative 

description of alternative impacts

Complexity of Regulatory Compliance High/Medium/Low rating based on qualitative 

description of alternative impacts

Cost of the Alternative 

(ANS Control and Mitigation Measures)

$– Parametric cost estimate of all features (ANS 

prevention and mitigation) of the alternative 

Nonstructural and OMRR&R Costs $– Yearly cost of nonstructural measures and 

OMRR&R for project features
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014

189

Table 4.2 GLMRIS Evaluation Criteria Summary

GLMRIS Alternatives Evaluation Criteria†

Effectiveness at 

Preventing 

Interbasin Transfer

(at time of 

implementation)

Implementation

(years)

Effects of GLMRIS Alternatives

Cost of the 

ANS Control 

and Mitigation 

Measures4

Nonstructural 

& OMRR&R 

Costs

(annual)4

Negative 

CAWS 

Environmental 

Impacts

Negative 

Water 

Quality 

Impacts

(CAWS)

Negative Water 

Quality Impacts

(Lake 

Michigan)

Water Quality 

Mitigation 

Measures Cost4

FRM 

(net change in 

EEAD – an 

annual 

impact)

FRM 

Mitigation 

Measures 

Cost4

Commercial 

Cargo Cost 

Impacts 

(annual cost)

NonCargo 

Navigation 

Impacts

Complexity of 

Regulatory 

Compliance

GLMRIS Alternatives

No New Federal Action

– Sustained Activities 

The No New Federal Action – Sustained Activities Alternative assumes that any currently funded ANS prevention actions are maintained to include the operation of the existing 

electric barrier in Romeoville, IL. All alternatives below are actions in addition to the No New Federal Action – Sustained Activities Alternative. For complete details on this 

alternative, please review Section 3.8.

Nonstructural Control 

Technologies 0 L L L N/A $0 N/A Likely minimal3 L L $–5 $68 M 

Mid-System Control 

Technologies without a 

Buffer Zone – Flow 

Bypass2

25 M L L N/A $1.1 M $9,100 M $0.75 M L M $15,500 M $210 M 

Technology 

Alternative with a 

Buffer Zone2 10 H L L $1,600 M $0.6 M $2,000 M $0.50 M M M $7,800 M $220 M 

Lakefront Hydrologic 

Separation2 25 H M Improves1 $500 M $66.0 M $14,500 M $210 M H H $18,300 M $160 M 

Mid-System 

Hydrologic 

Separation2 25 L H H $12,900 M $1.1 M $24 M $250 M M H $15,500 M $140 M 

Hybrid – Mid-System 

Separation Cal-Sag 

Open2 25 H M M $8,300 M $28.1 M $1,900 M $7.30 M M H $15,100 M $180 M 

Hybrid – Mid-System 

Separation CSSC 

Open2 25 M H M $4,300 M ($26.4 M) $145 M $8.80 M M H $8,300 M $160 M 

† Evaluation Criteria Descriptions are located on the reverse side of this table.

1 Under the Lakefront Hydrologic Separation Alternative, stormwater and CSOs would no longer be able to backflow to Lake Michigan, likely reducing beach closures and contaminant loading to Lake Michigan.

2 This alternative includes the nonstructural measures identified in the Nonstructural Alternative.

3 A quantified evaluation of the impacts of the Nonstructural Alternative was unable to be completed. Based on professional judgment, the impacts are believed to be likely minimal.

4 The costs presented in the GLMRIS Report are commensurate with the five percent level of detail in design for each alternative. The cost and schedule estimates are appropriately used in this report as a means to compare the alternatives presented. The funding 

stream for an alternative is assumed to be sufficient to support annual progress to meet corresponding implementation timelines. These cost and schedule estimates are not intended to support authorizing language, and will change with more detailed designs of an 

alternative.

5 Estimated initial costs for the Nonstructural Alternative are assumed negligible and sufficiently captured by the estimate for the annual OMRR&R Costs.
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014

190

Effectiveness at Preventing Interbasin Transfer. This criterion qualitatively assesses the alternative’s effectiveness at preventing ANS transfer based on the number of High and Medium risk ANS of Concern whose risk of establishment can be 

reduced from High or Medium to Low. This criterion is also influenced by the comparative levels of uncertainty associated with the ANS Control measures proposed in each alternative. Plans are given a “star” [*] rating; with four “stars” being 

the most effective.

Implementation. This criterion is the total number of years it will take for the alternative to fully realize projected risk reduction benefits.

Negative CAWS Environmental Impacts. This criterion qualitatively evaluates the negative effects of an alternative on the existing environment limited to the footprint area of the alternative’s construction and the alternative’s impact on the 

connectivity of the habitats in the CAWS.

CAWS Ecosystem Mitigation Measures Costs. This criterion presents the estimated costs to mitigate some of the negative environmental impacts of an alternative.

Water Quality Impacts (CAWS). This qualitative rating is based upon the output of the CAWS DUFLOW model. DUFLOW simulates the water quality (WQ) in the CAWS under baseline, future without project, and future with project 

conditions. DUFLOW simulation results are used to generate a CAWS Water Quality Index for each project alternative based on the percent increase in Days Out of Regulatory Compliance for three indicator constituents (Fecal Coliform, 

Dissolved Oxygen, and Chloride). A detailed discussion of these analyses can be found in Appendix F – Water Quality Analyses.

Water Quality Impacts (Lake Michigan). This qualitative rating is based upon the output of the CAWS DUFLOW and Lake Michigan FVCOM models. DUFLOW calculates the loads of pollutants discharged to Lake Michigan for the baseline, 

future without project, and future with project conditions. DUFLOW simulation results are used to generate a Lake Michigan Water Quality Index for each project alternative, based on the mass of pollutant loads to Lake Michigan for six 

indicator constituents (Biochemical Oxygen Demand, Total Nitrogen, Total Phosphorus, Total Suspended Solids, Chloride, and Fecal Coliform). A detailed discussion of these water quality analyses can be found in Appendix F – Water Quality 

Analyses.

Water Quality Mitigation Measures Costs. This criterion presents the estimated costs to mitigate the Water Quality Impacts to both the CAWS and Lake Michigan of an alternative. Further detailed discussion of the mitigation measures can be 

found in Appendix F – Water Quality, and the associated cost analyses are described in more detail in Appendix K. 

Flood Risk Management (FRM). This criterion displays the FRM impacts as the equivalent expected annual damages (EEAD) associated with implementing each GLMRIS Alternative plan. In the without-project conditions, damages are 

expected to occur to various structures. However, the implementation of a GLMRIS plan will either increase the total damages in the Chicago area (represented as positive values in this column) or decrease total damages in the Chicago area 

(negative value). Specifically, the values presented represent the difference (i.e., net change) between the without-project condition (EEAD of $231.241 million) and the with-project conditions. Positive values represent induced damages in the 

Chicago area. Negative values represent a reduction in overall damages in the Chicago area. Values show the unmitigated impacts. A more detailed discussion of this analysis can be found in Appendix E – Hydrologic & Hydraulic Analyses and 

Appendix D – Economic Analyses.

FRM Mitigation Measures Costs. This criterion presents the estimated costs to mitigate the FRM impacts of an alternative. Further detailed discussion of the mitigation measures can be found in Appendices E, and J, and the associated cost 

analyses are described in more detail in Appendix K. 

Commercial Cargo Cost Impacts. Normally, it is cheaper to move bulk commodities via waterways (waterborne transportation) than it is on land (i.e., via truck and rail). The difference between the costs of moving commodities on land and the 

cost of moving them on a waterway is called “transportation cost savings.” This criterion displays the losses in transportation cost savings if a GLMRIS Alternative is implemented. Several of the GLMRIS Alternative plans include measures that 

would decrease the efficiency of moving goods on the waterway, so the cost of shipping these goods via waterways increases. Therefore, there are fewer savings associated with moving the goods via water versus land. The greater the losses in 

transportation cost savings, the greater the cargo navigation impacts. A more detailed discussion of these analyses can be found in Appendix D – Economic Analyses.

Non-Cargo Navigation Impacts. This criterion, based on professional judgment, qualitatively states the impact of an alternative on non-cargo navigation in the CAWS, to include recreational navigation. The alternatives will be given a ranking 

of “High,” “Medium,” or “Low.” A more detailed discussion of these analyses can be found in Appendix D – Economic Analyses.

Complexity of Regulatory Compliance. This criterion qualitatively states the level of regulation that the alternative will be subject to and incorporates the complexity of the associated compliance with those regulations. The alternatives will be 

given a ranking of “High,” “Medium,” “Low,” or “None.” “High” means a high level of difficulty achieving regulatory compliance would be associated with the alternative. All alternatives will be fully compliant with applicable regulations.

Cost of the Alternative (ANS Controls and Mitigation). This criterion is a parametric cost estimate of each alternative. The cost estimate will include the cost of construction of the alternative measures, including any mitigation that would be 

required as part of the alternative. Cost estimates underwent an abbreviated risk analysis to determine an appropriate contingency percentage to be included in the cost. These estimates include costs for all work necessary to implement an 

alternative, although some of these costs may be borne by entities other than USACE. Cost estimates do not include final quantities. The costs presented in the GLMRIS Report are commensurate with the five percent level of detail in design for 

each alternative. The cost and schedule estimates are appropriately used in this report as a means to compare the alternatives presented. The funding stream for an alternative is assumed to be sufficient to support annual progress to meet 

corresponding implementation timelines. These cost and schedule estimates are not intended to support authorizing language, and will change with more detailed designs of an alternative. Further detailed discussion of this analysis can be 

found in Appendix K – Cost Engineering. 

Nonstructural & OMRR&R Costs. This criterion is an estimate of the nonstructural measures and the annual operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and rehabilitation (OMRR&R) costs of an alternative. Further detailed discussion of this 

analysis can be found in Appendix K – Cost Engineering. 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

191

4.2 Timing of Risk Realization and Risk Reduction for 13 High 

and Medium Risk ANS

There are 13 species that have a Medium or High risk rating at some point in the 50-year planning 

horizon. Plans have been formulated with the goal of reducing these risks to a Low rating. There are 

several somewhat subtle facts to be aware of when considering the timing of the planned risk reductions. 

First, there are no time periods of zero risk for the identified 13 ANS. This means a species rated 

Medium or High risk at T0 could become established in the new basin before GLMRIS Alternatives 

would be implemented. If a species becomes established, its risk rating becomes irrelevant. Second, 

because some of the risk rankings have high levels of uncertainty associated with them, it is possible that 

the risk is actually greater or lower than the rating reflects. Thus, the uncertainty ratings assigned to 

various probability elements, as set forth in Appendix C – Risk Assessments, are important to consider. 

When determining whether an alternative could reduce an ANS’s risk rating to low throughout the 

50-year period of analysis, the following evaluation was performed:

1. What time step does the ANS have a High or Medium risk of adverse impacts in the newly 

invaded basin? (See Appendix C – Risk Assessment, Without Project Risk Assessments).

2. Could the alternative reduce the risk of adverse impacts from a High or Medium risk to a Low 

rating?

3. Can the alternative be implemented before or at the same time step when the ANS’s risk rating 

becomes High or Medium? 

For example: The fishhook waterflea has a Low risk of establishment at T0 and T10 and Medium risk of 

establishment at T25. The only alternatives that will reduce this species risk rating to Low are the MidSystem and Lakefront Hydrologic Separation Alternatives because the fishhook waterflea is a hull fouler 

and vessel transport continues in the other alternatives. These alternatives will be implemented by T25, 

the same time step that fishhook becomes a Medium risk; consequently, these alternatives could reduce 

the risk of adverse impacts due to the fishhook waterflea becoming established to a provide for a Low risk 

throughout 50 years for this ANS. 

Table 4.3 tabulates the results of this evaluation. The risk assessments were performed based on the 

currently published ANS distributions. The information regarding current ANS distributions consisted of 

the most recently published species surveys (some of which are quite dated) as well as information 

gathered directly from personal communication with researchers of these species. For some ANS, there is 

considerable uncertainty regarding their current distribution relative to the CAWS, as well as the potential 

that some ANS may already have entered the CAWS. This uncertainty arises from not knowing to what 

extent an ANS may have expanded its range since the most recent survey, and also from the fact that the 

surveys likely have not been conducted in all appropriate areas within and in the vicinity of the CAWS. 

For example, the species that are rated at T0 as having a Medium or High risk of adverse impacts through 

transfer and establishment in the newly invaded basin may already have transferred and established into 

the opposing basin. Targeted surveys to determine whether these species have already entered and/or 

passed through the CAWS and are now established in the newly invaded basins would inform future 

alternative analysis. Once the targeted surveys are completed, the GLMRIS Team would revisit the risk 

assessment for those species. If it has been determined that a species is already established in both basins, 

the species would be removed from consideration for GLMRIS Alternatives.
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

192

Table 4.3 Alternatives That Maintain the ANS Risk Rating at Low throughout the 50 Year 

Period of Analysisa

Alternatives That Maintain the ANS Risk Rating at Low throughout the 50 Year Period of Analysis

Species

Without Project Conditions

Nonstructural 

Alternative

Structural Alternatives

Risk Rating Time Step

Technology 

Alternative 

with a Buffer 

Zoneb

Two Hybrid 

Alternatives and 

Technology w/o 

Buffer 

Alternativeb

Lakefront and 

Mid-System 

Hydrologic 

Separation 

Alternativesb

T0 T10 T25 T25

MR Basin 

Silver carp M T25 X X X 

Bighead carp M T25 X X X 

Scud M T0

 

GL Basin 

Grass kelp M T10 X Xc Xc Xc

Red algae M T0

Diatom M T0

Fishhook waterflea M T25 X 

Bloody red shrimp H T0

Three spine stickleback M T0

Ruffe M T50 X X X 

Tubenose goby M T10 X Xd Xd

Reed sweet grass M T50 X Xc Xc Xc

Viral Hemorrhagic

Septicemia 

M T0

M = Medium Risk Rating; H = High Risk Rating. 

T0 = Potential for establishment based on the current distribution of the ANS;

T10 = Potential for establishment 10 years from the present time;

T25 = Potential for establishment 25 years from the present time; and

T50 = Potential for establishment 50 years from now.

a See With Project Risk Assessments in Appendix C for more information. Additionally, see alternative analysis contained in 

Chapter 3 for a discussion of impacts due to project alternatives.

b Nonstructural measures are an integral component to each of the structural alternatives.

c The nonstructural measures are expected to control the species’ arrival to the CAWS and provide for a Low risk rating over the 

50 year period. The structural alternatives include nonstructural measures; consequently, even though the structural alternatives 

are implemented by T10 or T25, they provide for Low risk over the entire 50-year period.

d The nonstructural measures are expected to maintain a Low risk level for this species at least through T10 but not beyond T25. 

Structural alternatives include nonstructural measures; consequently, structural alternatives implemented by T25 provide for 

Low risk over the entire 50-year period.
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

193

The results of this time-sensitive analysis indicate that, generally, nonstructural alternatives are effective 

for species that are of limited distribution and abundance and whose populations are distant from the 

CAWS pathway. For example, nonstructural measures such as public education, monitoring, and use of 

aquatic herbicides are expected to delay or control the arrival of some ANS, such as the grass kelp and 

reed sweet grass, to the CAWS. Additionally, the implementation of ballast water management in areas 

where the tubenose goby is known to be established is expected to slow its arrival to the CAWS. 

Implementation of nonstructural measures could also slow the potential passage of some ANS through the 

CAWS.

In general, the structural components of the following alternatives — Control Technology without a 

Buffer Zone (Flow Bypass), Control Technology with a Buffer Zone, Mid-System Separation Cal-Sag 

Open Control Technologies with a Buffer Zone (Hybrid Cal-Sag Open) and the Mid-System Separation 

CSSC Open Control Technologies with a Buffer Zone (Hybrid CSSC Open) — would not be effective 

against the interbasin transfer of those ANS that foul hulls or temporarily attach to vessels. However, as 

noted in the Table 4.3, because each Alternative includes nonstructural measures, the nonstructural 

components of those Alternatives would reduce the risk of grass kelp and reed sweet grass, even though 

they are hull foulers. In developing these Alternatives, measures to address hull fouling and temporary 

vessel attachment would need to be further explored. 

The hydrologic separation alternatives generally would control the transfer of all GLMRIS High and 

Medium risk species through the CAWS aquatic pathway, as long as these alternatives are constructed 

prior to the species transferring through the CAWS and establishing in the newly invaded basin. These 

alternatives could control the transfer of future ANS through the CAWS aquatic pathway except under the 

most extreme storm events (i.e., exceeding the 0.2% ACE events). 

Please note that for risks that rise, for example from a low to a medium, in future time periods, 

uncertainty exists as to when that increase may occur. For example, a low risk at T10 that is assessed to be 

a medium risk by T25 may become a medium risk at any time after T10. The dynamic nature of ANS with 

regard to their movement and abundance, as well as the limited knowledge of the underlying factors that 

lead some ANS to undergo range expansion, limit our ability to predict the time at which the probability 

of passage and subsequent risk may actually change. Future time period risk ratings are, to an extent, 

predictive ratings. These ratings are subject to both uncertainty and intervention and so future risk levels 

may differ from what is estimated. Prevention is the first line of defense for minimizing the introduction, 

spread, and establishment of ANS (National Invasive Species Council 2008). Therefore, the time period 

at which risks are indicated to become at least medium must be viewed with caution when considering 

when an alternative should be implemented. 

In addition to the 13 species that are the focal point of this report, it is important to note that future ANS 

species may present medium to high risks. The GLMRIS alternatives may also be effective against future 

ANS that have similar ecological traits and would utilize similar transport mechanisms to enter and pass 

through the CAWS. 

4.3 Summary of Findings

The transfer of ANS between basins could result in significant environmental, economic, political, and 

social consequences. In recent years, successful invasions of aquatic nuisance species (ANS) have 

severely impacted the economic and environmental resources of the Great Lakes and Mississippi River 

basins.
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

194

The GLMRIS Report presents “a range of options and technologies available” to prevent the transfer of 

ANS between the basins, and does not include a recommended plan. Consistent with the study 

constraints outlined in Section 1.7 of the Report, the alternatives presented do not address ANS transfer 

via non-aquatic pathways. Nor do the alternatives address ANS transfer from beyond the study area 

boundaries, i.e., transfer via Canada, the St. Lawrence Seaway, or the Gulf of Mexico. 

Each of the alternatives presented in Chapter 3 and summarized in Table 4.2 are feasible and designed to 

meet the objectives stated in Section 1.6 of the Report. Each alternative presents a different strategy to 

prevent ANS transfer between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River basins through the CAWS aquatic 

pathways. This report includes general information on effectiveness, impacts, and costs for each type of 

alternative that should be considered by a decision-maker.

Study evaluation processes were consistent across all alternatives. Staged implementation and associated 

incremental risk reduction were not specifically considered by the GLMRIS Team for the GLMRIS 

Report, but could be beneficial in future analyses. For some alternatives, there are common plan elements 

that could provide flexibility during implementation to modify the original alternative to another 

alternative under certain circumstances. For example, the Technology with an ANS Buffer Zone could be 

staged for the implementation of ANS Control measures at Brandon Road (IL) as the first system control 

point. Implementation of these ANS Control measures at Brandon Road (IL) could evolve from the 

Technology with ANS Buffer Zone Alternative into the Mid-System Separation CSSC Open Alternative 

or the Mid-System Cal-Sag Open Alternative.

Technology with an ANS Buffer Zone measures at Brandon Road (IL) would allow for the timely 

evaluation of the implementability and efficacy of the measures in this plan, allowing minimal deviation 

from achievement of its ANS risk reduction in either the total implementation of this alternative or the 

evolution into either of the two identified hybrid alternatives.

Some alternatives may present incidental benefits to the study area apart from preventing ANS transfer. 

For example, under the Lakefront Hydrologic Separation Alternative, stormwater and CSOs would no 

longer be able to backflow to Lake Michigan, likely reducing beach closures and contaminant loading to 

Lake Michigan. However, in order to realize these incidental benefits, it is likely that substantial 

investments in infrastructure would be required before structural elements of various alternatives could be 

implemented. 

Some risks and uncertainties are inherent in many of the complex concepts discussed in the GLMRIS 

Report. The costs and implementation schedules presented in the GLMRIS Report are commensurate 

with the five percent level of detail in design for each alternative. At the level of detail presented in the 

GLMRIS Report, some assumptions were made for all the alternatives to reach this comparable level of 

detail. Each cost and implementation schedule estimate assumes that: the necessary funding to fully 

efficiently complete the alternative will be provided annually; and the necessary Real Estate and 

necessary permits to implement the alternative can be acquired and obtained in a timely manner. These 

risks cannot be quantified at this time and could have impacts upon the costs and implementation 

schedules for each alternative in the GLMRIS Report.

There also is a risk that one or more presently identified ANS may transfer between the basins prior to 

alternative implementation, but these alternatives may be effective at preventing the transfer of future 

ANS.

After alternative implementation, there are still residual risks of adverse impacts due to ANS transfer and 

establishment for each GLMRIS Alternative. First, a “Low” risk rating does not indicate that “No” risk 

remains, but instead indicates that a low level of risk remains after alternative implementation. For 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

195

instance, after implementation of the Lakefront Hydrologic Separation Alternative the tubenose goby 

received a “Low” risk rating because the physical barriers are constrained by the storm size they were 

designed to withhold. Second, residual risk of transfer remains along the Great Lakes and Mississippi 

River basin divide outside of the CAWS. Lastly, regardless of the implementation of any alternative, 

residual risk of interbasin transfer through non-aquatic pathways remains. The GLMRIS Alternatives 

address, to some level, non-aquatic pathways because each alternative includes nonstructural measures, 

such as public education and monitoring, that may deter but not completely address ANS transfer through 

non-aquatic pathways.

In addition to a risk rating, each alternative has an uncertainty rating and discussion of the uncertainty 

associated with the rating. The alternatives presented in this report include measures or technologies, 

such as the GLMRIS Lock, which are at a conceptual level of design but use existing process engineering 

concepts applied to control ANS. While the technologies incorporated into the alternatives are known, 

the combination of technologies and application of the technologies in some instances are non-traditional. 

For instance, UV is frequently used for water treatment plants, and the flushing mechanism concept in the 

GLMRIS Lock is used in many different types of water treatment. However, these technologies have not 

previously been applied to control the transfer of ANS. In addition, while USACE currently operates an 

electric barrier, there are ongoing studies associated with improving its efficacy.

Absent further direction and pending the availability of funding, the engagement of stakeholders will be a 

critical next step to try to identify and build consensus toward a collaborative path forward for GLMRIS. 

The completion of additional detailed investigations into one or more of the conceptual alternatives 

presented in this document would refine current assumptions and allow the team to fill gaps in critical 

datasets. Future study efforts to recommend a specific alternative would need to include state, agency, 

and public review/comment, as well as completion of statutory requirements including Model 

Certification and Independent External Peer Review. Portions of alternatives that do not fall within 

USACE mission areas may be referred to other entities for their consideration.
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

196

Chapter 5 References

ACRCC (Asian Carp Regional Coordinating Committee). 2013. Sampling Results: Chicago Area 

Waterway System. http://www.asiancarp.us/sampling/results.htm. Accessed Oct. 24, 2013. 

Alp, E., and C.S. Melching. 2009. Evaluation of the Duration of Storm Effects on In-Stream Water 

Quality, Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 135(2), 107–116, 

doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(2009)135:2(107). 

Asian Carp Regional Coordinating Council. 2013. FY 2013 Asian Carp Control Strategy Framework.

July.

Benson, A., E. Maynard, and D. Raikow. 2012. Cercopagis pengoi. USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic 

Species Database, Gainesville, FL. http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/factsheet.aspx?SpeciesID=163.

Black, R., B. McKenney, A. O’Connor, E. Gray, and R. Unsworth. 1999. Economic Profile of the Upper 

Mississippi River Region. Prepared for Division of Economics, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and 

U.S. Department of the Interior. Industrial Economics, Inc. Cambridge, MA. 

Bowen, A.K., and M.A. Goehle. 2011. Surveillance for Ruffe in the Great Lakes. 

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/alpena/documents/2011-GL-Ruffe-Report.pdf 

Bergstrom, C.A. 2002. Fast-start swimming performance and reduction in lateral plate number in 

threespine stickleback. Canadian Journal of Zoology, vol. 80, pp. 207–213. 

 

Butcher, Greg. 2007. Audubon Common Birds in Decline: A State of the Birds Report. 3 pp. 

CDM (CDM Federal Programs Corps). 2005. Collection and Analysis of Sediment Samples from the 

South Fork South Branch, Chicago River, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

Collier, D., and S. Cieniawski. 2003. October 2000 and August 2002 Survey of Sediment Contamination 

in the Chicago River – Chicago, Illinois, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Great Lakes National 

Program Office. www.epa.gov/glnpo/sediment/ChgoRvr/index.html. 

Commission for Environmental Cooperation. 1997. Ecological Regions of North America: Toward a 

Common Perspective. 71 pp. 

Corsi, S.R., D.J. Graczyk, S.W. Geis, N.L. Booth, and K.D. Richards. 2010. A Fresh Look at Road Salt: 

Aquatic Toxicity and Water-Quality Impacts on Local, Regional, and National Scales, Environmental 

Science & Technology, 44(19), 7376–7382, doi:10.1021/es101333u. 

DeLong, M.D. 2005. “Upper Mississippi River Basin.” Pages 327-361 in A.C. Benke and C.E. Cushing, 

eds. Rivers of North America. Elsevier, Inc., Burlington, MA. 

Edsall, T.A. 1998. “Great Lakes,” in Status and Trends of the Nation’s Biological Resource, Part 2 — 

Regional Trends in Biological Resources. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, 

Washington, DC.

Edwards, W.M., and L.L. Harrold. 1970. Bangia atropurpurea (Roth) A. In Western Lake Erie. The 

Ohio Journal of Science, vol. 70, no. (1), pp. 56.
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

197

Elsayed, E., M. Faisal, M. Thomas, G. Whelan, W. Batts, and J. Winton. 2006. Isolation of viral 

haemorrhagic septicaemia virus from muskellunge, Esox masquinongy (Mitchell), in Lake St. Clair, 

Michigan, USA reveals a new sublineage of the North American genotype. Journal of Fish Diseases, 

vol. 29(10), pp. 611–619. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2005a. Ecoregions Maps and GIS Resources, Western 

Ecology Division, Corvalis, Ore. www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/ecoregions.htm. Accessed 21 

February 2012. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2005b. State of the Great Lakes 2005, State of the Great 

Lakes Birds. www.epa.gov/glnpo/solec. Accessed 28 February 2012. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2011. Great Lakes, Invasive Species. 

www.epa.gov/glnpo/invasive. Accessed 6 March 2012. 

Faisal, M., M. Shavalier, R.K. Kim, E.V. Millard, M.R. Gunn, A. D. Winters, C.A. Schulz, A. Eissa, 

M.V. Thomas, M. Wolgamood, G.E. Whelan, and J. Winton. 2012. Spread of the Emerging Viral 

Hemorrhagic Septicemia Virus Strain, Genotype IVb, in Michigan, USA. Viruses, vol. 4(5), 

pp. 734–760, doi:10.3390/v4050734. 

Fuller, P., G. Jacobs, J. Larson, and A. Fusaro. 2012. Gymnocephalus cernua. USGS Nonindigenous 

Aquatic Species Database, Gainesville, FL. http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=7.

Grigorovich, I.A., T.R. Angradi, E.B. Emery, and M.S. Wooten. 2008. Invasion of the upper Mississippi 

River system by saltwater amphipods. Fundamental and Applied Limnology/Archiv für Hydrobiologie, 

vol. 173(1), pp. 67-77. 

Hill, L. 2000. The Chicago River. A Natural and Unnatural History. Lake Claremont Press. Chicago, 

Illinois. August. 

Hoffmeister, D.F. 1989. Mammals of Illinois. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL.

Howard, V.M. 2012. Glyceria maxima. USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database, Gainesville, 

FL. http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/factsheet.aspx?SpeciesID=1120 

Hubbs, C.L., and K.F. Lagler. 2010. Fishes of the Great Lakes Region, Revised Edition. The University 

of Michigan Press. Ann Arbor. 

HQUSACE (Headquarters U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). Memorandum, CECW-ZA, 2 June 2009, 

Subject: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Invasive Species Policy. 

IDEM (Indiana Department of Environmental Management). 2012. Northwest Indiana Criteria 

Pollutants Air Quality Trends Analysis Report (1980-2010), Indiana Department of Environmental 

Management, Office of Air Quality. www.in.gov/idem/6784.htm. 

IEPA (Illinois Environmental Protection Agency). 2011. Illinois Annual Air Quality Report 2010, 

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Air. http://www.epa.state.il.us/air/air-qualityreport/2010/air-quality-report-2010.pdf. 

IEPA (Illinois Environmental Protection Agency). 2012. Illinois Integrated Water Quality Report and 

Section 303(d) List; Water Resource Assessment Information and List of Impaired Waters, Illinois 

Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Water. www.epa.state.il.us/water/tmdl/303-

appendix/2012/iwq-report-surface-water.pdf.
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

198

Jude, D.J., R.H. Reider, and G.W. Smith. 1992. Establishment of Gobiidae in the Great Lakes Basin. 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, vol. 59, pp. 416–421. 

Kelly, W.R., S.V. Panno, and K.C. Hackley. 2009. Impacts of Road Salt on Water Resources in the 

Chicago Region, vol. 5. http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/ucowrconfs 2009/5. 

Kipp, R.M. 2011. Stephanodiscus binderanus. USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database, 

Gainesville, FL. http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=1687.

Kocovsky, P.M., J.A. Tallman, D.J. Jude. D.M. Murphy, J.E. Brown, and C.A. Stepien. 2011. Expansion 

of tubenose gobies Proterorhinus semilunaris into western Lake Erie and potential effects on native 

species. Biological Invasions, vol. 13, pp. 2775-2784. 

Larson, G., and R. Schaetzl. 2001. “Review Origin and Evolution of the Great Lakes.” Journal of Great 

Lakes Resources 27(4):518–546. 

Lin, C.K. and J.L. Blum. 1977. Recent invasion of red alga (Bangia atropurpurea) in Lake Michigan. 

Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, vol. 34(12), pp. 2413-2416. 

Meyer, E., and J. Wernau. 2012. “Power plants releasing hotter water.” Chicago Tribune, 20th August. 

articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-08-20/news/ct-met-nuclear-water-20120820_1_power-plants-midwestgeneration-plant-operators. Accessed 12 December 2012. 

Mierzwa, K. 2000. Amphibian and reptile habitat in the Chicago region: savannas and woodlands. 

kmier.net/ecology/publications/2000savdf.html. Accessed 5 April 2012. 

Mierzwa, K., V.A. Nuzzo, R. Hendricks III, and J. Schlosser. 2000. “Impact of urban fragmentation on 

Chicago region amphibian assemblages.” Society for Conservation Biology Annual Meeting, Missoul, 

MT. 9-12 June. kmier.net/ecology/publications/2000scb.html. Accessed 5 April 2012. 

MNDR (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources). 2010. Special Notice: VHSv found in Lake 

Superior . http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/fish_diseases/VHSv.html. Accessed June 7, 2012. 

Moore, B.J., J.D. Rogner, and D. Ulberg, principal authors. 1998. Nature and the river: a natural 

resources report of the Chicago and Calumet waterways. (Chicago Rivers Demonstration Project Report, 

110 pp.) U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Rivers, Trails, and Conservation 

Assistance Program. Milwaukee, WI. 

MRRWG (Monitoring and Rapid Response Workgroup). 2012. Asian Carp Monitoring and Rapid 

Response Plan Interim Summary Reports. 121pp. 

MWRD (Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago). 2006. Ambient Water Quality 

Monitoring in the Chicago, Calumet, and Des Plaines River Systems: A Summary of Biological, Habitat, 

and Sediment Quality During 2006, Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago.

MWRD (Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago). 2007. A Study of the Benthic 

Macroinvertebrate Community in Selected Chicago Metropolitan Area Waterways during 2005. Prepared 

by: EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., EA Project 61755.01. 110pp. 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

199

MWRD (Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago). 2008a. Ambient Water Quality 

Monitoring in the Chicago Area Waterway System: A Summary of Biological, Habitat, and Sediment 

Quality between 2001 and 2004. Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago.

MWRD (Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago). 2008b. Ambient 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.

MWRD (Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago). 2008c. Description of the 

Chicago Waterway System for the Use Attainability Analysis. Metropolitan Water Reclamation District 

of Greater Chicago.

MWRD (Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago). 2011. Ambient Water Quality 

Monitoring in the Chicago, Calumet, and Des Plaines River Systems: A Summary of Biological, Habitat, 

and Sediment Quality during 2007, Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago.

MWRD (Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago). 2012a. “MWRD Selects 

Disinfection Technologies for the Calumet and North Side Water Reclamation Plants,” Press Release, 1st 

March. <www.mwrd.org/pv_obj_cache/pv_obj_id_C10D339F32FF7A420135F8F9911083EC98B50400/ 

filename/12_0301_DisinfectionTechnology.pdf. Accessed 14 December 2012. 

MWRD (Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago). 2012b. Outfalls Along 

Waterways, Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago. 

https://www.mwrd.org/pv_obj_cache/pv_obj_id_E30761980284E6D0F3E5A96284549871D87C0000/fil

ename/Outfalls_Along_Waterways.pdf. 

NISC (National Invasive Species Council). 2008. 2008-2012 National Invasive Species Management 

Plan. 35 pp. http://www.invasivespecies.gov/home_documents/2008-

2012%20National%20Invasive%20Species%20Management%20Plan.pdf

NISC (National Invasive Species Council). 2013. Invasive Species Interagency Crosscut Budget. 5 pp. 

http://www.invasivespecies.gov/global/org_collab_budget/org_collab_budget_documents/NISC_2012_Cr

osscut_Budget_Summary.pdf

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2012. “Climatological Report: ChicagoO’Hare-IL.” National Weather Service. www.nws.noaa.gov/climate/getclimate.php?wfo=lot. Accessed 

6 March 2012. 

NEIU (Northeastern Illinois University). 2006. The conservative prairie and savanna insects of the 

Chicago wilderness region. R. Panzer, K. Gnaedinger, and G. Derkovitz, eds. 

www.neiu.edu/~cwinsect/index.html. Accessed 11 April 2012. 

Pope, C.H. 1944. Amphibians and reptiles of the Chicago area. Chicago Natural History Museum 

Press, USA. 275pp. 

Sanborn, C.C. 1928 . “Mammals of the Chicago Area.” Leaflet 8. Field Museum of Natural History, 

Chicago, IL. 

Schilling, T., and C. Williamson. 2012. The Lake Michigan flyway: Chicagoland’s role in the miracle of 

bird migration. Green Paper by the Bird Conservation Network. 

http://www.bcnbirds.org/greenpapers_files/GPflyway.html. Accessed 5 April 2012. 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

200

Semlitsch, R.D., and J.R. Bodie. 2003. “Biological criteria for buffer zones around wetlands and riparian 

habitats for amphibians and reptiles.” Conservation Biology 17(5):1219–1228. 

Solzman, D. M. 1998. The Chicago River. An Illustrated History and Guide to the River and Its 

Waterways. Wild Onion Books, Loyola Press. Chicago, Illinois.

Sturtevant, R. 2011. Enteromorphaflexuosa subsp. Flexuosa and flexuosa subsp. Paradoxa. USGS 

Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database, Gainesville, FL. http://nas.er.usgs.gov/ 

queries/greatlakes/SpeciesInfo.asp?NoCache=6%2F6%2F2012+9%3A02%3A12+AM&SpeciesID=2726

&State=&HUCNumber=>

Theiling, C.H. 1996. “An ecological overview of the Upper Mississippi River System: implications for 

postflood recovery and ecosystem management.” Pages 3-28 in D.L. Galat and A.G. Frazier, eds. 

Overview of river-floodplain ecology in the Upper Mississippi River Basin, Volume 3 of J.A. Kelmelis 

ed. Science for floodplain management into the 21st century. U.S. Government Printing Office, 

Washington, DC.

Theiling, C.H., C. Korschgen, H. DeHaan, T. Fox, J. Rohweder, and L. Robinson. 2000. Habitat needs 

assessment for the Upper Mississippi River System. Technical report. U.S. Geological Survey, Upper 

Midwest Environmental Sciences Center, LaCrosse, Wisconsin. Contract report prepared for U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District, St. Louis, Missouri. 248 pp. + Appendices A to AA. 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2005. Known and Potential Environmental Effects of Oil and 

Gas Drilling Activity in the Great Lakes. Interim Final Report. Chicago District.

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2006. Risk Analysis for Flood Damage Reduction Studies. 

ER1105-2-101. 3 January.

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), Chicago District. 2013. Comprehensive Efficacy Study, 

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Dispersal Barriers Risk Reduction Study and Integrated Environmental 

Assessment. December.

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2012. Soil regions of Illinois. Natural Resources Conservation 

Service. www.il.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/soils/soil-regions/index.html. Accessed 10 April 2012. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2012. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service endangered species: 

Illinois county distribution – federally endangered, threatened, and candidate species. 

www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/lists/illinois-cty.html. Accessed 17 April 2012.

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2003. A tapestry of time and terrain: the union of two maps – geology 

and topography, the Superior Upland. tapestry.usgs.gov/features/01superior.html. Accessed 25 January 

2012. 

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2011. NAS–Nonindigenous Aquatic Species. Apocorophium lacustre. 

http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/SpecimenViewer.aspx?SpecimenID=237724. Accessed April 20, 2012. 

U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. 2010. “Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Indiana; 

Redesignation of Lake and Porter Counties to Attainment for Ozone,” Federal Register, 75(90). 

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-05-11/html/2010-11009.htm. 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

201

Veraldi, Francis M., Baerwaldt, Kelly, Herman, Brook, Herleth-King, Shawna, Shanks, Matthew, Kring, 

Len, Hannes, Andrew. 2011. Non-Native Species of Concern and Dispersal Risk for the Great Lakes and 

Mississippi River Interbasin Study. 

Weitzell, R.E., M.L. Khoury, P. Gagnon, B. Schreurs, D. Grossman, and J. Higgins. 2003. Conservation 

Priorities for Freshwater Biodiversity in the Upper Mississippi River Basin. Nature Serve and The 

Nature Conservancy. 90 pp. 

Whitman, R. 2012. Personal communication from Whitman (USGS Research Ecologist/Station Chief) to 

M. Grippo (Argonne National Laboratory), August 23, 2012. 

Wille, L. 1972. Forever Open, Clear and Free. The Struggle for Chicago’s Lakefront. The University of 

Chicago Press. Chicago, IL. 

William, H.B. 1971. “Summary of the geology of the Chicago area.” Circular 460. Illinois State 

Geological Survey, Urbana, IL: 77pp. 

WRC (Water Resources Council). 1983. Economic and Environmental Principles for Water and Related 

Land Resources Implementation Studies. March 10. 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

202

Chapter 6 List of Acronyms

ACE annual chance exceedance 

ANS aquatic nuisance species

ANSTP aquatic nuisance species treatment plant

ACRCC Asian Carp Regional Coordination Council

AOC Areas of Concern

AWQM Ambient Water Quality Monitoring

BLF base level flood

BAT Best Technology Available

BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand

Bubbly Creek South Fork of the South Branch of the Chicago River

(Burns) SBH (Burns) Small Boat Harbor

CAA Clean Air Act

Cal-Sag Calumet-Saganashkee Channel

CAWS Chicago Area Waterway System

CDF confined dredged material disposal facility

CECs Contaminants of Emerging Concern

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

CI or Cities 

Initiative

Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative

CRCW Chicago River Controlling Works

CSO Combined Sewer Overflow

CSSC Chicago Sanitary & Ship Canal

CUP Chicagoland Underflow Project

CWA Clean Water Act

CWIS Cooling water intake structures

DO dissolved oxygen 

DMP Decision Management Plan

EEAD equivalent expected annual damages 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ESC Executive Steering Committee

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FRM flood risk management

FWOP future without action plan (no action)

FWP future with action plan (alternative)

GL/MR The Great Lakes/Mississippi River

GLB Great Lakes Basin 

GLC Great Lakes Commission

GLFC Great Lakes Fishery Commission

GLMRIS Great Lakes Mississippi River Interbasin Study 

GRTS USEPA Grants Reporting and Tracking System

HEC-HMS Hydrologic Modeling System 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

203

H&H Hydrologic and Hydraulic

HSPF Hydrologic Simulation Program FORTRAN

HTRW Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste

I&M Illinois and Michigan Canal

IL Illinois

ILDNR Illinois Department of Natural Resources

ILEPA Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

IN Indiana

INDEM Indiana Department of Environmental Management

INDNR Indiana Department of Natural Resources 

IPCB Illinois Pollution Control Board

L/D Lock and Dam

LDPR Lower Des Plaines River

LMMP Lake Michigan Monitoring Program 

LRR Limited Reevalutation Report

LUSTs leaking underground storage tanks 

MAP-2 1 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act

MRB Mississippi River Basin 

MRP monitoring and response plan

MWRD see MWRDGC

MWRDGC Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago

MRRWG Monitoring and Rapid Response Work Group

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standard

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NGO non-governmental organization

NLCD National Land Cover Data

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NPE no prior establishment

NPS nonpoint source

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

O&M Operation and maintenance

OMRR&R operation, maintenance, repair, replacement and rehabilitation

PAHs polyaromatic hydrocarbons

PAHs polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons

PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls

PDT Project Delivery Team

PED project preconstruction engineering and design

PM Project Manager

RAPS Racine Avenue Pump Station

RCRA USEPA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RECs Recognized Environmental Conditions

RM river miles

SCALP Special Contributing Area Loading Program
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

204

SEM/AVS Simultaneously Extracted Metals/Acid Volatile Sulfide 

SVOCs semi-volatile organic compounds

SWMM Storm Water Management Model

TARP Tunnel and Reservoir Plan 

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load

TOC Total Organic Carbon 

TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act 

UMR Upper Mississippi River

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

USCG United States Coast Guard

WQ Water Quality

WQS Water Quality Standards

WRDA Water Resource Development Act
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

205

Index

A 

ACRCC, 28, 31, 32, 35, 36, 39, 40, 42, 47, 99, 110, 

111, 126, 142, 196, 202

adaptive management, 9, 91, 98

Alsip, 6, 7, 8, 67, 75, 77, 78, 103, 107, 108, 109, 116, 

151, 156, 158, 159, 160, 161, 175, 176, 181, 182, 

183, 184, 186

alternative, 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19, 

20, 23, 24, 37, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 

65, 71, 72, 73, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 84, 85, 

86, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 95, 98, 99, 100, 101, 

102, 103, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 

115, 116, 117, 118, 122,123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 

128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 138, 139, 140, 

141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 

156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 168, 169, 

170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 181, 182, 183, 

184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 

194, 195, 202

alternative plan, iii, iv, v, 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 5, 9, 12, 13, 

18, 19, 24, 37, 53, 61, 78, 81, 84, 88, 91, 93, 95, 

103, 118, 133, 150, 163, 175, 190

ANS, 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 20, 

21, 24, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 33, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 

41, 42, 43, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 

59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68, 70, 71, 72, 73, 

75, 76, 77, 78, 80, 86, 87, 88, 89, 91, 92, 93, 94, 

95, 96, 98, 99, 103, 104, 105, 107, 108, 109, 110, 

111, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 122, 123, 125, 127, 

131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 138, 141, 143, 148, 

149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 156, 160, 161, 162, 163, 

164, 165, 168, 169, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 

178, 181, 182, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 

192, 193, 194, 195, 202

ANS of Concern, 1, 4, 12, 11, 24, 30, 53, 54, 60, 62, 

67, 88, 95, 190

ANS Risk Assessment, 10, 33

ANS risk reduction, 9, 91, 92, 117, 133, 150, 160, 

162, 172, 174, 185, 187, 194

ANS Treatment Plant, 6, 7, 8, 65, 67, 68, 87, 103, 

107, 108, 116, 118, 122, 123, 132, 134, 138, 149, 

151, 156, 161, 163, 169, 173, 175, 176, 181, 182, 

186

ANSTP, 67, 72, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 127, 

128, 129, 130, 143, 147, 169, 181, 202

aquatic nuisance species, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 

13, 16, 33, 35, 36, 42, 54, 55, 60, 61, 67, 89, 94, 

95, 193, 202

aquatic pathway, 1, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 18, 20, 21, 23, 

24, 30, 31, 54, 57, 61, 62, 71, 76, 77, 88, 89, 99, 

141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 163, 175, 

193, 194, 195

Argonne National Laboratory, 78, 201

Asian carp, 1, 5, 28, 31, 32, 33, 35, 40, 41, , 42, 93, 

94, 196, 198, 202

Asian Carp Regional Coordinating Committee, 28, 31, 

196

B 

bighead carp, 39, 41, 55, 59, 60, 95, 98, 99, 110, 126, 

142, 192

black carp, 35, 41, 55, 59, 60

bloody red shrimp, 55, 60, 61, 95, 97, 98, 99, 113, 

128, 129, 145, 146, 192

blueback herring, 55, 60, 61

Brandon Road, 7, 8, 9, 21, 49, 77, 78, 92, 96, 99, 110, 

111, 118, 122, 124, 125, 126, 132, 142, 163, 168, 

171, 173, 175, 176, 183, 186, 194

Brandon Road Lock and Dam, 21, 96, 99, 110, 111, 

125, 126, 142

Buffer Zone, v, vi, vii, viii, 6, 7, 8, 9, 65, 70, 71, 72, 75, 

76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 85, 92, 118, 122, 131, 132, 

133, 163, 172, 173, 175, 176, 185, 186, 193, 194, 

200

Burns Small Boat Harbor, 21, 23

C 

Cal-Sag Channel, 6, 7, 23, 45, 50, 78, 108, 139, 158, 

159, 169, 181, 182, 183

Calumet City, 7, 75, 76, 77, 78, 134, 138, 139, 149

Calumet Harbor, 21, 23, 45

carp, 5, 31, 33, 35, 40, 41, 93, 99, 196

CAWS, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 19, 21, 23, 24, 30, 

31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 

51, 53, 54, 56, 57, 61, 62, 63, 65, 70, 71, 72, 73, 

75, 76, 77, 78, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 

92, 93, 96, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 107, 108, 

109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 

119, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 

131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 

143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 

156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 168, 

169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 181, 

182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 

192, 193, 194, 195, 202

CAWS Buffer Zone, 6, 75, 118, 122, 126, 131, 132, 

133, 168, 175
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

206

Chicago, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 16, 21, 22, 23, 26, 28, 

31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 

48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 65, 67, 70, 73, 75, 76, 77, 78, 

81, 87, 103, 108, 118, 122, 123, 124, 132, 134, 

138, 139, 145, 149, 151, 157, 158, 159, 163, 169, 

170, 171, 175, 176, 181, 182, 183, 186, 190, 196, 

197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202

Chicago Area Waterway System, 1, 2, 7, 9, 12, 21, 22, 

26, 33, 35, 37, 53, 73, 196, 199, 202

Chicago River, 7, 21, 23, 32, 34, 43, 45, 50, 70, 108, 

134, 139, 158, 169, 181, 183, 196, 197, 198, 200, 

202

Chicago River Controlling Works, 21, 32, 34, 70, 183, 

202

Chicago Sanitary & Ship Canal, 202

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, 6, 7, 11, 23, 31, 34, 

36, 42, 158, 159, 169, 200

Clean Water Act, 14, 35, 37, 45, 73, 87, 117, 133, 

150, 162, 175, 187, 202

Coastal Zone Management, 14, 37, 117, 133, 150, 

162, 175, 187

Combined Sewer Overflow, 202

commercial navigation, 3, 4, 7, 8, 6, 13, 21, 23, 77, 

78, 86, 109, 124, 140, 159, 171, 184

Comprehensive Efficacy Study, 200

consequences of establishment, 36

constraints, 2, 3, 4, 17, 24, 56, 84, 88, 194

contingency, 12, 190

control technologies, 6, 3, 75, 86, 103

conveyance tunnel, 6, 7, 8, 87, 91, 108, 124, 139, 

158, 170, 171, 182

cost, 5, 7, 8, 10, 15, 19, 24, 50, 51, 78, 79, 80, 81, 86, 

88, 90, 91, 92, 93, 101, 102, 109, 115, 116, 124, 

125, 131, 132, 140, 148149,, 157, 159, 161, 171, 

172, 173, 184, 185, 186, 188, 189, 190, 194

CRCW, 21, 23, 202

cryptic algae, 55, 60, 61

CSO, 44, 157, 158, 169, 182, 183, 202

CSSC, 6, 9, 11, 6, 23, 31, 36, 44, 45, 50, 77, 78, 80, 81, 

85, 92, 94, 103, 108, 139, 158, 159, 168, 169, 176, 

181, 185, 186, 187, 189, 193, 194, 202

CUP, 86, 202

D 

Deep Tunnel, 34

Des Plaines River, 19, 32, 34, 47, 49, 99, 110, 111, 

126, 142, 198, 199, 203

Detailed Study Area, 3, 4, 18, 20

diatom, 55, 60, 61, 95, 96, 99, 111, 127, 144, 192

dotted duckweed, 55, 59, 60

E 

Efficacy Study, 31, 32, 36

electric barrier, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 31, 32, 33, 36, 65, 

69, 70, 75, 76, 77, 78, 91, 93, 94, 103, 107, 109, 

110, 111, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 122, 124, 

125, 126, 129, 130, 132, 133, 163, 168, 171, 172, 

173, 175, 176, 181, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 189, 

195

European fingernail clam, 60, 61

European stream valvata, 55, 60, 61

evaluation criteria, 10, 5, 188

Executive Order 13112, 14, 15, 16

Executive Order 13340, 14, 16

Executive Steering Committee, iii, 28, 63, 202

F 

FA2, 26

fishhook waterflea, 55, 61, 95, 97, 98, 111, 127, 145, 

191, 192

flood, 6, 7, 3, 4, 12, 19, 21, 24, 32, 34, 43, 46, 51, 70, 

71, 73, 76, 84, 91, 92, 108, 123, 124, 138, 139, 

150, 158, 159, 162, 170, 175, 183, 187, 190, 200, 

202

Flood Risk Management, 6, 12, 24, 43, 73, 84, 108, 

123, 124, 138, 139, 158, 159, 170, 183, 190

Focus Area 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 30, 44, 53

Focus Area 2, 3, 4, 9, 21, 24, 25, 26, 30, 53

fouling, 86

freshwater bryozoan, 60, 61

FRM, 11, 12, 73, 75, 76, 77, 78, 80, 81, 84, 85, 87, 91, 

103, 108, 116, 118, 122, 123, 124, 131, 134, 138, 

139, 148, 151, 158, 159, 161, 163, 170, 171, 173, 

176, 183, 185, 188, 189, 190, 202

G 

General Study Area, 20

GLC/CI, 33

GLFC, 33, 35, 202

GLMRIS 90-day report, 9

GLMRIS Alternatives, 9, 10, 11, 5, 62, 70, 72, 73, 84, 

87, 89, 91, 95, 189, 191, 193, 195

GLMRIS authority, 1, 6, 8, 11, 12, 13, 88

GLMRIS Report, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 1, 2, 4, 5, 

7, 8, 9, 13, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 33, 41, 46, 

53, 75, 79, 90, 93, 115, 131, 148, 161, 172, 185, 

188, 189, 190, 194

goals, 4, 15, 16, 53

grass kelp, 55, 60, 61, 95, 96, 100, 111, 112, 127, 

143, 192, 193
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

207

Great Lakes Basin, 37, 38, 50, 55, 59, 60, 95, 99, 110, 

125, 141, 168, 198, 202

greater European peaclam, 60, 61

H 

Hammond, 7, 8, 75, 76, 77, 78, 118, 123, 124, 132, 

134, 138, 139, 149, 158, 163, 170, 171, 173, 182

Harpacticoid copepod, 55, 61

HTRW, 50, 203

hull fouling, 60, 61, 86, 111, 127, 193

human safety, 75, 76, 77, 78, 108, 109, 124, 139, 

159, 171, 183

hydrologic separation, 1, 5, 7, 8, 1, 33, 56, 71, 72, 75, 

76, 77, 79, 80, 81, 86, 87, 88, 92, 99, 109, 125,140, 

141, 145, 157, 159, 160, 172, 185, 193

I 

IDEM, 197

IEPA, 21, 35, 39, 44, 156, 197

Illinois Department of Natural Resources, 32, 35, 41, 

203

Illinois Waterway, 6, 32, 38, 141, 160, 172, 184

impacts, 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 

10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 19, 20, 24, 31, 36, 39, 43, 

46, 50, 51, 52, 55, 56, 57, 60, 63, 65, 67, 70, 72, 

73, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 

89, 90, 91, 93, 95, 96, 97, 98, 100, 101, 107, 108, 

109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 117, 122, 123, 

124, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 133, 134, 138, 

139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 

150, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 162, 168, 169, 170, 

171, 172, 174, 175, 181, 182, 183, 184, 187, 188, 

189, 190, 191, 192, 194, 196, 198

implementation, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 17, 18, 19, 21, 

23, 24, 27, 28, 31, 38, 43, 46, 47, 53, 65, 71, 72, 

75, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 98, 100, 101, 102, 107, 

108, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 117, 122, 126, 

127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 141, 142, 

143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 156, 157, 162, 

168, 174, 181, 186, 188, 189, 190, 193, 194, 200, 

201

Indiana Department of Environmental Management, 

197, 203

Indiana Department of Natural Resources, 26, 35, 

203

Indiana Harbor, 21, 23, 45, 50

inland silverside, 55, 59, 60

Interim I, 31, 32, 36

Interim IIA, 32

Interim III, 31, 32, 36

Interim IIIA, 31, 32, 36

Interim Products, 2, 3, 28, 30, 31

invasive species, 1, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 35, 38, 40, 93

L 

Lakefront Hydrologic Separation, 7, 9, 11, 76, 77, 81, 

85, 89, 133, 134, 139, 140, 148, 149, 150, 159, 

160, 189, 191, 194, 195

Lockport Lock and Controlling Works, 73

M 

management, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 

21, 23, 24, 26, 28, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 41, 42, 43, 

47, 51, 56, 70, 71, 76, 78, 84, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96, 

97, 98, 101, 110, 111, 115, 116, 126, 130, 131, 

147, 148, 157, 158, 161, 173, 185, 193, 196, 197, 

199, 200, 202, 204

MAP-21, 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 18, 26, 27, 53, 79, 80

marsh dewflower, 55, 59, 60

McCook, 33, 34, 43, 46, 51, 103, 108, 116, 134, 139, 

149, 151, 158, 161, 163, 169, 170, 173

McCook Reservoir, 33

measures1, 4, 6, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 19, 32, 36, 41, 44, 

53, 56, 61, 62, 65, 73, 75, 77, 85, 87, 88, 89, 90, 

91, 92, 93, 95, 96, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 

105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 

116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 

127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 

137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 148, 149, 150, 152, 153, 

154, 155, 156, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 

165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 

175, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 185, 186, 

187, 188, 189, 190, 192, 193, 194, 195

Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater 

Chicago, 3, 23, 35, 198, 199, 203

Mid-System Control Technologies without a Buffer 

Zone, 6, 11, 92, 103, 107, 109, 116, 117, 189

Mid-System Hydrologic Separation, 7, 11, 77, 81, 85, 

92, 140, 150, 151, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 

162, 172, 184, 189, 192

Mid-System Separation Cal-Sag Open Control 

Technologies with a Buffer Zone, 8, 77, 163, 171, 

173, 174, 175, 193

Mid-System Separation CSSC Open Control 

Technologies with a Buffer Zone, 8, 78, 175, 176, 

184, 185, 186, 187, 193

Mississippi River Basin, 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 33, 35, 38, 48, 

55, 60, 61, 89, 95, 99, 111, 122, 124, 127, 141, 

143, 160, 168, 172, 184, 196, 200, 201, 203

mitigation, 4, 5, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19, 24, 36, 44, 72, 73, 

81, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 91, 92, 93, 103, 104, 

106, 107, 108, 109, 116, 117, 118, 119, 121, 122, 
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

208

123, 124, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 137, 138, 139, 

140, 141, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 154, 156, 157, 

158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 166, 168, 169, 

170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 179, 181, 

182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190

mitigation measures, 5, 19, 72, 73, 81, 85, 87, 88, 90, 

91, 93, 107, 108, 109, 117, 122, 124, 133, 134, 

138, 139, 140, 141, 150, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 

162, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 174, 181, 182, 183, 

184, 187, 190

Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, 1, 

5, 6, 27, 203

MWRD, 3, 21, 23, 34, 35, 43, 44, 67, 123, 138, 169, 

181, 198, 199, 203

MWRDGC, 203

N 

National Environmental Policy Act, 3, 5, 14, 27, 203

native species, 10, 11, 15, 40, 54, 98, 122, 134, 168, 

198

NEPA, iii, 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, 18, 19, 24, 27, 30, 53, 107, 

122, 134, 156, 168, 181, 203

NEPA scoping, 27, 30

NEPA Scoping, 30

No New Federal Action, 4, 5, 11, 85, 88, 93, 99, 100, 

101, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 125, 126, 127, 

128, 129, 130, 131, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 

148, 189

No New Federal Action – Sustained Activities, 5, 11, 

88, 93, 99, 100, 101, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 

125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 142, 143, 144, 

145, 146, 147, 148, 189

non-cargo navigation, 12, 51, 52, 190

non-federal sponsor, 7, 19, 92, 117, 132, 149, 162, 

174, 186

Non-Federal Sponsor, 92

Nonstructural Control Technologies, 11, 95, 118, 189

nonstructural measures, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 75, 89, 

91, 95, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 109, 110, 111, 

112, 113, 114, 115, 118, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 

130, 134, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 147, 156, 160, 

163, 172, 175, 185, 188, 189, 190, 192, 193, 195

northern snakehead, 55, 59, 60

O 

Oak Lawn, 103, 108, 116, 151, 159, 161, 173, 176, 

183, 186

objectives, 4, 5, 4, 13, 14, 16, 27, 31, 94, 194

opportunities, 2, 3, 4, 9, 12, 13, 24, 39, 43, 46, 47, 

48, 73, 75, 117, 132, 143, 149, 162, 174, 186

Other Aquatic Pathways, iii, v, 24, 25, 53

P 

parasitic copepod, 55, 60, 61

pathways, 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 5, 11, 12, 13, 16, 21, 24, 35, 

54, 62, 76, 77, 88, 89, 118, 175, 195

physical barrier, 7, 8, 9, 63, 65, 70, 71, 76, 77, 78, 86, 

87, 88, 89, 91, 108, 110, 118, 123, 124, 125, 134, 

138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 

150, 156, 158, 159, 160, 162, 163, 168, 169, 170, 

171, 172, 175, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 187, 195

physical separation, 7, 122, 168

PMP, 2, 21, 28

probability of arrival, 63

probability of establishment, 3, 12, 57, 89, 99, 113, 

114, 129, 141, 143, 144, 145, 146, 148

probability of passage, 99, 143, 147, 193

problems, 1, 2, 4, 13, 16, 17, 24, 35, 36, 38, 41, 43

Problems, 9, 10

R 

real estate, 9, 19, 90, 92, 194

recreation, 4, 7, 6, 11, 13, 14, 19, 35, 37, 39, 44, 50, 

58, 62, 73, 86

red algae, 55, 60, 61, 95, 96, 99, 111, 127, 143, 144, 

192

regulatory compliance, 12, 102, 117, 133, 150, 162, 

175, 187, 190

reservoir, 46, 86, 87, 91, 103, 108, 116, 118, 124, 

132, 134, 138, 139, 149, 151, 157, 158, 159, 161, 

163, 169, 170, 173, 176, 182, 183, 186

residual risk, 9, 61, 89, 194

resources, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 

21, 24, 26, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 37, 40, 41, 42, 43, 

44, 46, 60, 78, 101, 107, 122, 134, 156, 168, 181, 

193, 196, 197, 198, 200, 201, 203

risk, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 24, 26, 31, 

32, 33, 36, 42, 48, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 

61, 62, 63, 65, 67, 69, 70, 71, 73, 75, 76, 79, 81, 

84, 85, 86, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 98, 99, 

100, 101, 103, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 

116, 117, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 

141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 160, 

161, 162, 172, 174, 175, 185, 186, 187, 188, 190, 

191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 200, 201, 202

risk assessment, 10, 2, 10, 13, 32, 36, 56, 59, 60, 61, 

63, 88, 89, 93, 99, 100, 101, 110, 111, 112, 113, 

114, 115, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 141, 

142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 160, 172, 185, 

191

ruffe, 1, 38, 41, 42, 55, 60, 61, 70, 95, 98, 99, 114, 

130, 146, 192, 196
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

209

S 

Saganashkee, 202

screened sluice gates, 7, 8, 65, 70, 122, 168, 175

scud, 55, 59, 60, 95, 97, 98, 99, 110, 125, 141, 192

sea lamprey, 55, 60, 61

sediment remediation, 7, 8, 45, 87, 92, 157, 158, 

170, 182

silver carp, 31, 41, 55, 59, 60, 95, 98, 99, 111, 126, 

142, 192

skipjack herring, 55, 59, 60

sluice gate, 32, 36, 70

social/political consequences, 36

Stateline, 7, 8, 77, 78, 118, 123, 124, 132, 163, 170, 

173

Stickney, 6, 7, 8, 67, 75, 77, 103, 107, 108, 109, 116, 

151, 156, 158, 160, 161, 163, 168, 169, 170, 172, 

173, 181

structural measures, 6, 75, 91, 109, 125, 141, 160, 

172, 185

study authority, 3, 7, 12, 18, 32, 88

Study objectives, 13

swamp sedge, 55, 60, 61

T 

T.J. O’Brien Lock and Dam, 32, 34, 70

T.J. O'Brien, 183

TARP, 108, 124, 139, 170, 204

Technology Alternative with a Buffer Zone, iv, 6, 11, 

118, 122, 124, 125, 133, 189, 192

testate amoeba, 60

Testate amoeba, 55, 61

Thornton, 33, 34, 43, 46, 103, 108, 116, 118, 124, 

134, 139, 149, 151, 158, 161, 163, 170, 171, 173, 

176, 182, 186

Thornton Reservoir, 33, 34, 43

threespine stickleback, 55, 60, 61, 70, 95, 98, 99, 

113, 114, 129, 146

tubenose goby, 9, 55, 60, 61, 70, 89, 95, 98, 101, 

115, 130, 147, 192, 193, 195

tunnel, 87, 103, 116, 118, 132, 134, 149, 151, 157, 

158, 161, 163, 169, 173, 176, 182, 186, 204

Tunnel and Reservoir Plan, 204

U 

ultraviolet light, 56

uncertainty, 9, 10, 12, 10, 53, 62, 89, 90, 96, 98, 102, 

109, 125, 141, 157, 160, 172, 185, 190, 191, 193, 

195

USACE, 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 

19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 

35, 36, 41, 42, 45, 46, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 62, 63, 

70, 75, 78, 79, 81, 88, 92, 93, 94, 95, 109, 116, 

117, 123, 125, 131, 132, 138, 148, 149, 161, 162, 

170, 172, 173, 174, 185, 186, 190, 195, 200, 204

users, 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 13, 19, 23, 24, 51, 

72, 73, 78, 79, 80, 81, 84, 85, 88, 98, 117, 125, 

133, 140, 150, 162, 174, 187

uses, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 13, 19, 21, 23, 33, 35, 41, 44, 50, 

51, 71, 72, 73, 78, 79, 80, 81, 84, 85, 88, 93, 117, 

133, 150, 162, 174, 187

UV, 10, 67, 109, 111, 112, 113, 123, 125, 127, 128, 

138, 156, 169, 172, 181, 185, 195

V 

Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia Virus, 55, 60, 197

W 

water chestnut, 55, 60, 61

water quality, 1, 4, 13, 19, 21, 24, 33, 35, 38, 39, 40, 

44, 45, 47, 48, 49, 51, 56, 63, 67, 71, 73, 76, 77, 

78, 81, 85, 86, 87, 91, 92, 93, 96, 98, 107, 112, 

113, 114, 115, 117, 123, 127, 128, 129, 130, 133, 

138, 145, 146, 148, 150, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 

162,168, 169, 172, 175, 181, 182, 183, 184, 187, 

188, 190

waterflea, 55, 60, 61, 145, 191

waterway uses, 4, 13, 79, 81, 98

Wilmette, 7, 8, 21, 23, 67, 70, 75, 76, 77, 78, 113, 

118, 122, 123, 129, 132, 134, 138, 139, 146, 149, 

175, 176, 181, 182, 186

Wilmette Pumping Station, 21, 70, 113, 129, 146

WRDA 2007, 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 27, 31, 33, 70
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Interbasin Study GLMRIS Report 01/06/2014 

210