Only a fisherman, a breed inclined to daydream, could concoct an idea to change the very geology of Lake Michigan to make it a better fishing hole.
The big problem with this Great Lake, you see, is that the glacier that carved its slender shape left behind a clay bottom polished like the inside of a seashell.
No plunging valleys or soaring islands. No rolling lake floor. No rocky reefs–not at the southern end of the lake, at least.
Any relief was pressed flat by a mile-thick ice sheet, a geologic rolling pin that headed north a mere 14,000 years ago, icebergs bobbing in the lake it left in its wake.
In short, the Lake Michigan Lobe of the Laurentide Glacier created a magnificent body of water, but it left no good place for a little fish to hide.
Led by a fisherman who wants to accomplish what geology neglected, the state this summer began moving forward with a plan to give this flat-bottomed lake a respectably rocky reef, much as other Great Lakes have been geologically enhanced recently with manmade fishing reefs.
The idea is to create a 500-foot-long pile of submerged boulders that would attract smallmouth bass, a favorite game fish (“smallies,” as anglers refer to them affectionately), though one few people associate with Lake Michigan.
But progress on the project, while real, has become almost glacial.
To date, no one can say for certain whether the reef will ever be built at the selected site, 1.6 miles off shore near the Museum of Science and Industry.
Though it has ardent supporters and now even has engineering drawings and a geologic analysis of the lake-bed site, the project lacks the most critical imprimatur: a line on the budget of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources.
Still, the plan isn’t as farfetched as it might seem.
In the last two decades, manmade reefs have been popping up around the Great Lakes, sending the basin into a new pseudo-geologic epoch. Thirteen reefs now dot the Great Lakes, the closest near Milwaukee.
Bill Cullerton Sr. of Oak Brook, who at 75 is only semi-retired from the fishing tackle business, doesn’t think 13 reefs are nearly enough. He has been pushing for a reef off Chicago for years and is credited by most for floating the idea here.
In his mind, that first reef off Chicago is just the beginning of a wholesale transformation of the local lake bottom.
“Everybody keeps talking about this reef as if it were going to be the only one,” said Cullerton, who has long hosted an outdoors show on WGN radio. “My dream is a series of reefs, starting at the southern boundaries in the state of Illinois and running all the way up to Zion.
“I see it going back to when I was a kid and you used to be able to get on a boat for a nickel or a dime and go catch perch. I see party boats and little jitney boats where you pay to go out to the reefs.
“We could make this one of the greatest fishing areas in the world.”
Too much time in the sun, perhaps? DNR Director Brent Manning doesn’t think so.
“I don’t consider Bill a dreamer,” Manning said. “I consider Bill a visionary.”
Fishing in the “big lake” could use a boost in Illinois. According to state estimates, Illinois residents spent a total of 1.5 million hours fishing each year in through most of the 1980s.
In 1997, the figure was one-third that, largely because of the unexplained crash of the perch population.
Still, fishermen spend about $10 million a year on Lake Michigan fishing, according to state figures.
To boost their fishing economies, other Great Lakes states have been building reefs since 1980.
The newest reef rose off the bottom of Lake Erie near Cleveland last year.
That reef was built with the rubble from Municipal Stadium, the demolished former home of the Cleveland Browns and Indians.
Ohio Sea Grant, part of a national network of coastal research institutions, has been involved with three reefs, including the one built off Cleveland, and continues to study how they affect fish.
“They attract 20 to 60 times as many fish as the non-reef areas,” said Jeff Reutter, director of Ohio Sea Grant and Stone Laboratory at Ohio State University. “If you told me we could attract three times as many fish, I would have thought that was good.”
The Lake Erie reefs attract smallmouth bass and walleye, a relative of the perch.
The Chicago reef would be expected to attract bass, one of the scrappiest fish around.
Luring bass to a reef might not be all good, however.
“It will attract fish,” said Tom Trudeau, the state’s fishery chief for Lake Michigan. “The question we need to answer is will it attract fish from other areas or will it add to the habitat and increase the population?”
Many suggest that building the Chicago reef will give scientists another opportunity to answer that question.
By and large, environmentalists have supported the reefs because they are designed to support life in the lakes.
“The entire Chicago shoreline used to consist of marshes and other fish habitat that was basically filled in to create the lakefront, and Chicago needs to have a vision for recreating habitat for fish and wildlife,” said Cameron Davis, executive director of the Lake Michigan Federation.
Fishermen, not unexpectedly, love the idea.
On Thursday afternoon, five fishermen stood ogling the big salmon cruising like shadows through the water in Burnham Park Harbor, though they weren’t biting.
Most of the fishermen had heard of the plan, and they grumbled about the fact that one would need a boat to fish there. But the very idea of doing something for fish was irresistible.
“Build it!” said Steve Jacklin, 32, a carpenter.
When it comes to creating the reefs, “building” might be too generous a phrase.
Really, these reefs are dumped into the lake.
Front-end loaders push stone or rubble from a barge that moves slowly along an established line, creating a mound with plenty of nooks and crannies for fish to lurk.
“There’s nothing terribly complex or exotic about it–it’s really just a pile of rocks,” said Dan Injerd, the Lake Michigan resource manager for the DNR.
The state did some important work on the project this summer, including finishing up engineering drawings and completing an analysis of the site by the Illinois State Geological Survey.
According to the new plans, the reef would be made of stone or clean concrete rubble dumped into an irregular heap 500 feet long, 30 feet wide and 10 to 15 feet tall.
Sitting in 25 feet of water, the reef would still be deep enough to allow the keels of sailboats to pass over.
Also this summer, state geologists sampled the lake bed at the reef site to make sure the structure wouldn’t sink into sand or muck. While the glacier wiped away most relief in the lake, it left behind a perfect building spot for some manmade geology.
Now that scientists are convinced the project is viable, the question is whether it will ever be built.
“It’s kind of in limbo right now, to be honest,” said Debbie Bruce, who is coordinating the project for the DNR. “Until we get the dollars to go out and do the construction, we can’t go a whole lot further with it.”
The project is not far enough along to have a definitive cost projection, but estimates have been about $1.2 million, Bruce said.
The idea originally was pitched as a private-public partnership, with fundraising generating a substantial portion of the cash.
So far, the fundraising hasn’t amounted to more than a few thousand dollars, according to a DNR spokeswoman. Nevertheless, Manning remains enthusiastic that the Conservation Foundation and other organizations will muster private money.
“We have not turned the horses loose on the fundraising yet,” Manning said. “I think once we do we may have people who will come to the table and help us.”
On the other hand, Manning is not yet prepared to ask the General Assembly for money to build the reef.
“We have a real good relationship with the General Assembly,” Manning said, “and I want to make sure that if we ask them for it, it is the right thing.”
