Text

Dead River Watershed - Based Plan 2008, Part 8 of 25
	ML15188A126
Person / Time
Site:	Zion File:ZionSolutions icon.png
Issue date:	09/30/2008
From:	; Lake County Stormwater Management Commission
To:	; Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Shared Package
ML15188A105	List: ML15188A102; ML15188A103; ML15188A111; ML15188A112; ML15188A116; ML15188A117; ML15188A119; ML15188A121; ML15188A123; ML15188A124; ML15188A125; ML15188A126; ML15188A127; ML15188A134; ML15188A136; ML15188A137; ML15188A138; ML15188A139; ML15188A140; ML15188A141; ML15188A142; ML15188A143; ML15188A145; ML15188A146; ML15188A147; ML15188A148; ML15188A149; ML15188A150; ML15188A151; ML15188A152; ML15188A153; ML15188A185; ML15188A186; ML15188A187; ML15188A190; ZS-2013-0185, Submittal of Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report; ZS-2015-0084, Map - Surgical Geology of Zion Quadrangle;
References
	ZS-2015-0084
	Download: ML15188A126 (23)
	v • d • e

6 plan implementation and evaluation

241 T H E D E A D R IV E R l WAT E R S H E D - B A S E D P LA N This chapter identi f es a strategy for moving from planning to implementation of the action plan recommendations. How readily this plan is used and implemented by watershed stakeholders is one indicator of its success. Improvement in watershed resources is another indicator

. Successful plan implementation will require signi f cant cooperation and coordination among watershed stakeholders to secure project funding and to ef f ciently and ef fectively move the action plan from paper to the watershed.

This chapter also relates some more technical details about the expected results of putting action recommendations in place and the cost of plan implementation. It also presents a plan for monitoring and evaluating plan implementation as a way to determine progress towards watershed goals and objectives.

6.1 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY The Dead River watershed includes many stakeholders (see Table 6.1) that will have to coordinate ef forts to implement many of the projects recommended in the action plan. Since no single municipality, district, resident, business, landowner, or organization has the f nancial or technical resources to accomplish the plan goals and objectives alone, working together will be essential to achieve meaningful results.

Combining and coordinating resources, funding, ef fort, and leadership will be the most ef f cient and effective means of creating real improvement of watershed resources.

One important step in plan implementation will be the establishment of a committee or organization to step forward as a project leader to help organize and coordinate plan implementation. Responsibilities of this organization would also include administration, coordination of stakeholders to support individual watershed projects, and working with municipalities and other stakeholders to implement recommended policies and programs.

Throughout the watershed planning process, the Watershed Planning Committee has provided valuable input to the plan regarding watershed issues, resources, and priorities.

This Planning Committee is encouraged to function as 6 - plan implementation and evaluation the stakeholder forum for the watershed until a separate organization or committe can be created.

The Planning Committee can continue to hold regular meetings, organize watershed f eld trips, host educational workshops and forums, and bring watershed stakeholders and multiple units of government together to discuss watershed issues and opportunities. The Planning Committee may consider whether a formal staf f position is needed to support the efforts of the Committee and to solicit volunteers for the position.

The Planning Committee, or an established watershed organization, is encouraged to work to generate additional stakeholder interest and involvement with watershed plan implementation and stewardship activities. As projects are initiated, and as the positive environmental, aesthetic, and community benef ts come to light, projects and participation are expected to increase over time.

There are tangible benef ts to stakeholder participation in watershed activities, from positive media attention to improved quality of life for community residents. Increased involvement also can yield signif cant local, state, and federal funding opportunities to help share the cost of project implementation.

The watershed action plan contains a number of programmatic and site speci f c recommendations and an identi f cation of the party responsible for leading the implementation of those recommendations. Some actions, such as the repair or stabilization of a municipal stormwater discharge point, can be added to municipal or drainage district capital improvement and maintenance plans, budgets, and schedules. This is a fairly quick and easy approach to implementing recommendations within the purview of specif c jurisdictions.

In other cases, however

, the action recommendation will require the involvement of multiple stakeholders for implementation, such as residents, a municipality

, and a county, state, or federal agency to provide f nancial and technical support. Some actions require cross-jurisdictional coordination for issues, such as streambank stabilization, that span multiple jurisdictions or properties.

The establishment of a green infrastructure corridor along the stream channel, or the preservation and restoration of

242 T H E D E A D R IV E R l WAT E R S H E D - B A S E D P LA N 6 plan implementation and evaluation a large wetland complex are examples of projects that may require inter-jurisdictional cooperation and may require a longer time frame for implementation.

Other actions will require the cooperation of individual or groups of landowners, whether they are residents, homeowners associations, businesses, or institutions. These actions will often need a leader, or a single champion for the project, that can organize resources and keep the project moving forward. This champion may be the watershed organization, or a single entity such as a landowner or the municipality.

Actions that involve preservation of areas of land or water may also require the involvement of a local land trust, such as the Lake County Land Trust, or other conservation organization. These groups can often provide technical or f nancial assistance for preservation efforts.

In some cases, actions recommend the adoption of new policies, plans, or standards that modify the form, intensity,

or type of development or redevelopment in the watershed in a way that better protects watershed resources.

These actions will require some ef fort on the part of municipalities to understand how plans and policies can be modi f ed and to discuss and adopt new, or modify existing, policies, plans and standards. The f rst step in this ef fort is to understand how current development practices impact watershed resources and how they can be improved, followed by discussion and debate about possible modi f cations, and f nally adopting policies and standards that have will have the desired outcome.

Clearly there is much to be done and there are many parties to coordinate. However, a dedicated and determined ef fort will benef t all watershed stakeholders and future generations of residents and visitors.

6.2 IMPAIRMENT REDUCTION TARGETS AND PROJECTIONS In order to meet the requirements for a watershed-based plan, the plan must pay particular attention to water quality pollutants and impairments and measures for reducing the impairment. The high priority water quality pollutants for the Dead River Watershed include low dissolved oxygen, Total Suspended Solids / sedimentation, nutrients (phosphorous),

aquatic life toxicity (total dissolved solids, chlorides, and salinity), and bacterial contamination (fecal coliform).

Additional impairments addressed by the plan include degraded watershed aquatic habitat, loss and degradation of wetlands, natural area invasion by exotic species, impacted or lack of stream buffers and riparian zones, and f ood f ows and damages. These are the most important impairments needing to be addressed, for the reasons provided below.

Low dissolved oxygen is problematic because it creates aquatic habitat conditions that only some f sh and aquatic organisms can tolerate, causing the diversity of species to be reduced, which is an indicator of an impaired system.

Restoring dissolved oxygen levels to levels that are consistently above 5.0 mg/L (the Illinois standard) will help recreate high quality aquatic habitat conditions.

Total Suspended Solids / sedimentation impair watershed resources when they settle out in streambeds, wetlands, and natural areas making them uninhabitable by some sensitive plant and animal species. The primary impact of high suspended solids concentrations in streams occurs when these solids settle in depositional areas of the stream system and cover the more desirable gravel substrates.

Excessive levels of particulate material also create dif f cult conditions for gill breathing f sh and some of their food sources, including macroinvertebrate organisms. In Illinois Beach State Park, sediment is obstructing f ow and settling out in the park and degrading the quality of habitat. Reducing the f ow of sediment into the stream channel, wetlands, and natural areas will help to repair these degraded systems by preventing further sedimentation and beginning the process of natural recovery.

Nutrient loads (phosphorous) cause algae blooms that impair the habitat quality of water resources and block light from reaching desirable aquatic plants. When the algae dies, the decomposition process can deplete dissolved

243 T H E D E A D R IV E R l WAT E R S H E D - B A S E D P LA N Acronym Responsible Party General Responsibility BPDD Beach Park Drainage District Drainage system management and maintenance.

CMAP Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning Technical and planning assistance, training, and funding assistance.

CBL Corporate and Business Landowners Grounds management and maintenance.

DH Developers & Homebuilders Land development, stormwater management system design and construction.

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency National Flood Insurance Program, f oodplain mapping and enforcement, and mitigation funding.

GC Golf Courses Grounds management and maintenance.

IDNR Illinois Department of Natural Resources Natural area preservation and management, research, technical and f nancial assistance.

CMP IDNR Coastal Management Program Preserve and manage Lake Michigan coastal resources (if established).

IDOT Illinois Department of Transportation Road and highway planning, construction, and maintenance.

IEMA Illinois Emergency Management Agency Flood and disaster planning, emergency response, and hazard mitigation.

IEPA Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Water resource monitoring, pollution regulation and control, project funding.

LC Lake County Land use planning for unincorporated areas, natural resources, drainage system management.

LCFPD Lake County Forest Preserve District Manage and maintain green infrastructure, natural areas, and open space.

LCHD Lake County Health Department Monitor, manage, and provide technical support for water resources.

LCSMC Lake County Stormwater Management Commission Technical and f nancial assistance for f ooding, watershed planning, and water quality.

LMEP Lake Michigan Ecosystem Partnership Watershed advocacy and education, technical and f nancial assistance.

LMGLO Lake Michigan / Great Lakes Organizations Great Lakes and Lake Michigan water resource management, education, and outreach.

M Municipalities (all departments)

Land use and development, technical and f nancial support, and drainage system management.

NGRREC National Great Rivers Research & Education Center Stream, lake, wetland, and coastal data collection, watershed education and outreach.

NRCS /

SWCD Natural Resources Conservation Service / Soil and Water Conservation Districts Provide natural resource management technical and f nancial assistance.

PD Parks and Recreation Districts Management and maintenance of parks and open space.

PRL / RL Private Residential / Riparian Landowners Land management and maintenance including stream channels and riparian corridors.

NSSD North Shore Sanitary District Maintain sanitary sewer system infrastructure, stream monitoring.

T Townships Road maintenance and support for watershed improvement projects.

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland protection and regulation, wetland restoration funding.

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture Farmland and natural resoruce technical and f nancial assistance.

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Lake Michigan and Great Lakes management and restoration.

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Threatened and endangered species, technical and funding assistance for habitat restoration.

CAG Waukegan Harbor Citizens Advisory Group Organize and coordinate activities related to Waukegan Harbor contamination and cleanup.

WPC Watershed Planning Committee Coordinate watershed plan implementation, education and outreach.

Table 6.1 Implementation Partners

244 T H E D E A D R IV E R l WAT E R S H E D - B A S E D P LA N 6 plan implementation and evaluation oxygen levels in the water

, impairing the habitat quality for aquatic wildlife. Reducing the f ow of phosphorous to watershed water resources can help to restore high quality aquatic habitat conditions necessary for a healthy diversity of species.

Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) include salt (sodium chloride) used as road deicing material. Road salt can occur at toxic levels in the water column at intermittent times when the weather conditions demand its use. Chlorides are not removed by best management practices, does not decompose or readily change form, and can cause spikes in the water column, typically detected as increased conductivity, making the water uninhabitable by certain aquatic plants and animals. Reducing chloride loading to the stream will help maintain a consitent quality of water that supports healthy aquatic habitat.

Lake Michigan beaches high fecal contamination / pathogens that causes beach closures due to the potential threat to human health that pathogens present. Reducing this contamination will reduce beach closures and help protect human health.

Watershed habitat has been degraded and altered due to a number of causes. The lack of aquatic habitat characteristics, including pools and riff es and healthy substrates, means that aquatic species do not have suff cient cover and sources of food. Other habitat alterations that degrade conditions for aquatic organisms include streambank erosion and barriers to the movement of f sh upstream and downstream, such as debris buildup or inconsistent connections to Lake Michigan.

Alterations to watershed hydrology, creating f ashy conditions, also impairs habitat because low f ow conditions can mean that there is not enough water for aquatic species to live, and that dissolved oxygen levels fall below healthy levels due to the lack of f ow and aeration. Restoring natural watershed hydrology, habitat characteristics, and streambank stability are important for recreating habitat conditions that support a healthy diversity of aquatic organisms.

Watershed wetlands have been drained, f lled, and degraded, which impairs their ability to absorb and f lter stormwater, to improve water quality, and to support wildlife that depend on high quality wetlands. Restoring the remaining wetlands and recreating some former wetlands, is important to replace water storage and retention areas and to improve water quality by restoring their water f ltering capacity.

Watershed wetlands and natural areas have been invaded by exotic and invasive species, which crowd out native species and degrade habitat necessary to support threatened and endangered species. Removal and control of exotic and invasive species, including the reintroduction of natural management mechanisms such as prescribed f re, is important to restore the quality and function of watershed wetlands and natural areas.

Natural stream buf fers and riparian zones have been removed, converted to turf grass or other uses, or otherwise degraded to a state that does not help f lter runof f and improve water quality, stabilize streambanks, nor support a healthy stream system habitat.

Increased f ood f ows and f ood damages are the result of increased rate and volume of stormwater runoff, the loss of natural drainage and water retention areas such as wetlands and depressional storage, and development within or adjacent to the f oodplain. Restoring watershed hydrology,

reducint the rate and volume of stormwater runof f, and restoration of depressional and wetland storage can help reduce the risk of f ooding of structures in the future.

For these impairments, the intent of the action plan recommendations is to reduce the impairment to an acceptable level. The acceptable level for some pollutants is set by the Illinois Pollution Control Board and Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. However, Illinois standards only exist for one of these impairments, dissolved oxygen, which is set at a concentration of 5.0 mg/L for most conditions. For other impairments, reduction targets are set according to professional opinion.

Setting impairment reduction targets and estimating the improvement expected by implementing plan recommendations are important for assessing the effectiveness of watershed plan recommendations for determining whether watershed impairments are being addressed. Targets and reduction estimates also satisfy one of the nine required watershed-based plan elements established by the US Environmental Protection Agency.

245 T H E D E A D R IV E R l WAT E R S H E D - B A S E D P LA N Table 6.3 Watershed Impairment Reduction Targets and Projections Impairment Cause Degree / Basis of Impairment Reduction Target Reduction Projection Is the target being met?

Water Quality Total suspended solids /

sedimentation 3,208,000 lb/yr of TSS loading (based on non-point source pollution loading model) 75%

7,040,928 lb/yr reduction in TSS loading Yes Water Quality Low dissolved oxygen 8% of dissolved oxygen samples below 5.0 mg/L 50%

30-90% reduction in samples below 5.0 mg/L Yes Water Quality Nutrients (phosphorous)

Observed and reported algae blooms 50%

112,300 lb/yr phosphorous Unknown Water Quality Aquatic life toxicity (salinity /

chlorides / total dissolved solids) 188 mg/L median chloride concentrations in water quality samples 25%

Estimate unavailable Unknown Water Quality Fecal coliform (Lake Michigan beaches) 72 beach closures per year on average 50%

0-33% reduction in fecal coliform load No Habitat degradation and alteration Lack of habitat characteristics 39% of stream reaches with fair or poor habitat conditions 25%

0-100% reduction in # of reaches with fair or poor instream habitat Yes Habitat degradation and alteration Hydrologic disturbance / f ow alterations / creek obstructions Velocity variability of 0.0 - 4.06 f/s and f ow variability of 0.2 - 688 cfs (2006-2007 data) 50%

0-66% reduction in f ow variability Yes Habitat degradation and alteration Draining, f lling, and degradation of wetlands 1077 wetland acres needing restoration 90%

66-100% of wetlands restored Yes Habitat degradation and alteration Exotic and invasive species Observed and reported 25%

0-100%

Yes Habitat degradation and alteration Loss / reduction / degradation of natural buffer 43% of stream reaches with fair or poor riparian habitat 75%

0-100% reduction in # of reaches with fair or poor riparian habitat Yes Habitat degradation and alteration Streamside alterations 43% of stream reaches with fair or poor riparian habitat 75%

0-66% reduction in # of reaches with fair or poor riparian habitat No Increased f ood f ows Increased rate and volume of runoff Velocity variability of 0.0 - 4.06 f/s and f ow variability of 0.2 - 688 cfs (2006-2007 data) 75%

0-66% reduction in f ow variability No Increased f ood f ows Loss / drainage of depressional storage Loss of 754 acres (70%) of wetlands 90%

0-100% wetlands restored / depressional areas preserved Yes Flood damages Past encroachments on f oodplain 292 structures in the f oodplain 100%

0-66% of structures protected from f ood damage No Table 6.2 Three Point Scale for Estimating the Ability of a Best Management Practice to Meet a Reduction Target Rank Description of Potential Effectiveness Range of Effectiveness 3

Fully achieves target 67-100%

2 Partially achieves target 34-66%

1 Minimially achieves target 0-33%

USEPA watershed-based plan element #2:

water quality improvement expected from implementing plan recommendations (also see Appendix K).

246 T H E D E A D R IV E R l WAT E R S H E D - B A S E D P LA N 6 plan implementation and evaluation 6.2.1 IMPAIRMENT REDUCTION TARGETS Impairment Reduction Targets are indicated in two ways and are based on professional opinion of feasibility

. First, Impairment Reduction Targets (shown in Table 6.3) indicate the potential reduction of the indicated impairment based on full (100%) implementation of the recommended action.

For example, if all of the recommended actions intended to address sediment / Total Suspended Solids were to be fully implemented, then 75% of the sediment / Total Suspended Solids impairment, or problem, can reasonably be expected to be addressed. In other words, even under the best conditions, the entire sediment /

Total Suspended Solids problem could not be addressed because there will always be some erosion and runof f of sediment from the urban landscape into the stream. Nonetheless, a 75% reduction in Total Suspended Solids / sediment loading would be a successful achievement for watershed improvement.

The second way that impairment reduction targets are indicated is displayed in the table included in Appendix K. Area Improvement Targets indicate the area that can reasonably be expected to be addressed by each of the recommended actions. For example, many of the wetland restoration recommendations have an Area Improvement Target of 75%, indicating that 75% of the wetland can reasonably be expected to be restored to a healthy condition. For wetlands, an improvement of 100% is considered unattainable given the hydrologic and stormwater issues of the watershed.

6.2.2 IMPAIRMENT REDUCTION PROJECTIONS Impairment Reduction Projections are best estimates and/

or ranges of impairment reduction that can be achieved for recommended actions for the quantities (e.g., acres, linear feet of stream) indicated in Appendix K. Impairment reduction estimates, whether indicated as quantities, as ranges of percentages, or as an estimated ability to meet reduction targets, are based on a variety of studies examining the potential ef fectiveness of dif ferent actions and best management practices. Tables of results from the various studies are also included in Appendix K.

As shown in Table 6.3, impairment reduction projections are expected to meet or exceed eight of the 14 impairment reduction targets. Four of the impairment reduction targets are not expected to be adequately addressed by the recommendations. And, due to the lack of quantitative data, it is unknown whether the remaining two of the impairments will meet their reduction targets.

Though the reduction targets may be dif f cult to meet for a number of the impairments, any and all reductions in impairment will improve watershed resources. In other words, every small effort and accomplishment helps.

6.3 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION COST ESTIMATE AND SCHEDULE Implementation of this plan will require the development of partnerships with local, state, and federal organizations for implementation, technical assistance, and funding.

These efforts require the investment of a signif cant amount of time and resources and, especially, funding. Table 6.4 summarizes the estimated amount of funding required for initial and ongoing implementation of the practices recommended in the action plan. Initial costs indicate cost for installation and/ or establishment; annual costs indicate cost for ongoing management and maintenance.

There are numerous sources of funds available to help support projects or provide cost-share to match other sources of funds. A list of numerous local, regional and state funding sources, and the types of projects funded under the various programs, is provided in Appendix L of the plan.

Most of the programs require a local match of funds or in-kind services. Although these funding sources can provide a good source of revenue, signi f cant local investment of time and f nancial resources will be required to implement this plan. If fully implemented, however, the quality of the watershed lakes, stream reaches, and wetlands could be signif cantly improved.

Table 6.5 presents a summary of the plan implementation schedule. The number of short, medium, and long term actions are shown to give watershed plan implementors an idea of how many actions are recommended to be implemented in each of these time frames.

More detailed plan implementation cost and scheduling can be found in Appendix H Expanded Site Specif c Action Plan and Appendix J Plan Implementation Cost Estimate. Potential fundiing sources for implementing plan recommendations are found in Appendix L.

247 T H E D E A D R IV E R l WAT E R S H E D - B A S E D P LA N Table 6.4 Plan Implementation Cost Estimate SMU Initial Cost Ongoing Cost 1

$21,718,055

$3,455,321 2

$3,040,925

$167,575 3a

$4,142,400

$294,465 3b

$9,657,725

$708,730 3c

$9,515,812

$622,253 4

$3,659,800

$586,062 5

$4,567,025

$482,812 6

$275,575

$56,513 Total

$56,577,317

$6,373,732 Table 6.5 Plan Implementation Schedule Summary Implementation Term Number of Actions Short 150 Short to Medium 103 Medium 9

Medium to Long 45 Short to Long 0

Long 18 USEPA watershed-based plan elements #4 and #6:

technical and f nancial assistance needed to implement this plan, and plan implementation schedule (also see Appendices G, H and J).

248 T H E D E A D R IV E R l WAT E R S H E D - B A S E D P LA N 6 plan implementation and evaluation 6.4 PLAN MONITORING AND EVALUATION 6.4.1 MONITORING PLAN IMPLEMENTATION Continued monitoring and analysis is critical for providing feedback on the progress of implementation of this W atershed-based Plan. The implementation and ef fectiveness of the watershed plan and recommendations, and an assessment of whether plan goals are being achieved, can be measured through a process called monitoring. Simply, monitoring is observing and tracking watershed conditions and indicators for positive or negative changes that may be attributed to the implementation of the plan.

These indicators can then be compared with water quality monitoring data to determine whether there is a correlation between them. If no discernible correlation can be made, and if satisfactory progress is not being made towards watershed goals, the watershed implementation team should consider whether recommended strategies are having the desired ef fect or should be modif ed accordingly.

Recommendations that are physical or structural in nature, such as streambank stabilization or riparian buf fers, can be assessed in terms of reduced pollutant loads discharged into the watershed, improved biological and habitat health, and the degree of change in stormwater runof f volume and f ow. The effectiveness of non-structural recommendations, however, such as education, policies and regulations, and coordination, can be diff cult to measure due to long feedback time. Changes in behavior following the implementation of non-structural recommendations can be assessed by gathering feedback through meetings with implementation partners and tools such as surveys and focus groups, as suggested in Table 6.6.

This monitoring strategy is intended to help track and measure the implementation of recommendations made in this plan using a variety of indicators that are monitored regularly, typically on an annual basis or every three years.

Progress on overall plan implementation should be reviewed using the milestones and indicators every 5 years and the plan should be updated as needed.

The following monitoring plan includes a monitoring baseline, frequency of monitoring, short, medium, and long term milestones, responsible party, and mode of collection. There are also empty columns for implementers to track the number of actions taken, location of implementation, and percentage complete. The empty cells of the table (number of actions, and location of implementation) are to be f lled in by the parties responsible for monitoring as identi f ed in the table.

Number of actions is the actual data collected, for example, the concentration of phosphorous or the # of f oodproofed structures in the f oodplain. Location of implementation refers to geographical location, such as where streambanks or wetlands were restored. Percent complete is a measure of progress toward the goal itself, where 100% would indicate the complete achievement of a goal.

Since water quality is one of the primary goals of this plan, stream and lake water quality impairments should be monitored by regularly collecting and testing water samples, either manually or using constant monitoring equipment.

A regular sampling strategy should be initiated and new data should be added to existing data so that trends can be tracked. An expanded water quality monitoring protocol is essential to better locate and identify the causes and sources of impairment that have been identif ed in this plan.

Some of the impairments also can be monitored visually and anecdotally by those living along the stream and those involved in stream monitoring activities such as RiverWatch (National Great Rivers Research & Education Center).

Visual and anecdotal monitoring should be done regularly (weekly in summer months and monthly in winter months is recommended) by trained volunteers. Specif cally, increases in nutrient loading may be identi f ed by the increase or presence of algal blooms. Acute aquatic life toxicity may be identif ed visually by watching for f sh kills or other kills of aquatic species such as insects or plant species. Strange smells, slicks, or sheens on the water may also indicate the discharge of a problem pollutant.

6.4.2 EVALUATING PLAN PERFORMANCE Watershed issues, opportunities, and conditions will change over time. This watershed plan should be evaluated and updated every f ve years to account for these changes. At each evaluation and update, completed projects can be removed from the plan and new projects should be added.

In addition to this 5-year update, plan implementation should be monitored annually by the W atershed Planning Committee or, if established, the watershed organization.

249 T H E D E A D R IV E R l WAT E R S H E D - B A S E D P LA N At the time of the annual evaluation, the committee should assess the list of priorities and identify the top priority actions for the following year.

As projects are implemented, they should be recorded using Table 6.6, which tracks the implementation of actions against the watershed plan goals and objectives as a means of monitoring watershed plan implementation.

6.4.3 QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLANS Watershed partners can apply for water quality monitoring funding through the Illinois Environmental Protection Agencys Clean Water Act Section 319 program. Monitoring that is funded by the IEP A requires the submission of a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), which describes the proposed monitoring strategy in detail. The QAPP helps to assure the IEPA that the data collected under its guidance and using its funding will be credible and of suff cient quality to be used in its reporting to the USEP A. Regardless of whether the watershed partners decide to apply for Section 319 funds to implement its monitoring component, the QAPP process is a valuable aid in the development of a sound water quality monitoring program. Quality monitoring guidance and information needed to produce a QAPP can be found at www.epa.gov/quality.

250 T H E D E A D R IV E R l WAT E R S H E D - B A S E D P LA N 6 plan implementation and evaluation Issue Issue 1: Stream Restoration and Management Issue 1: Stream Restoration and Management Issue 1: Stream Restoration and Management Issue 1: Stream Restoration and Management Goal Goal A: Restore and manage the stream system to protect and enhance stream and riparian health, function, and conveyance as part of a watershed green infrastructure system.

Goal A: Restore and manage the stream system to protect and enhance stream and riparian health, function, and conveyance as part of a watershed green infrastructure system.

Objective

1. Remediate detrimental stream channel conditions such as armoring, channelization, siltation, and lack of habitat characteristics with in-stream and channel-specif c restoration enhancements such as remeandering, regrading, bioengineering approaches to stabilization, and habitat structures (pools and riff es, boulders, root wads, etc.)

2. Remove or retrof t problem impoundments, dams, and weirs to support f sh passage and migration and natural basef ow.

3. Stabilize all moderately and severely eroded streambanks using BMPs.

4. Reduce the erosive capacity of storm sewer outfalls, drain tiles, and sump pump, roof, and footing drains being discharged into the stream channel through on-site inf ltration practices and outfall retrof t and stabilization projects.

Impairments Addressed Water Quality; Habitat Degradation and Alteration Water Quality; Habitat Degradation and Alteration Water Quality; Habitat Degradation and Alteration Water Quality Indicators Number / linear feet of reaches with detrimental channel conditions that have been addressed by restoration efforts.

Number of f sh found in upstream reaches; seasonally consistent basef ow.

Linear feet of streambanks with moderate or severe erosion that have been stabilized.

Number of problem point discharges that have been repaired or remediated.

Frequency of Monitoring Every 3 years Annual; daily (using LCHD sondes)

Every 3 years Every 3 years Baseline (2007) 0 lf / 0 reaches out of 69,200 lf / 27 reaches needing restoration Baseline needs to be established by f sh sampling in upstream reaches and identifying a current basef ow.

0 linear feet out of 44,600 lf total with moderate or severe erosion 0 point discharges out of 49 total point discharges needing attention Short Term Milestones (2008-2013)

(1-5 years) 10% restored (7000lf / 3 reaches) 10% increase in f sh count; 10%

greater stability in basef ow over previous 5 year period 10% (4500lf) of streambanks addressed 10% (5) of point discharges addressed Mid Term Milestones (2013-2018)

(5-10 years) 25% restored (17,300lf / 6 reaches) 25% increase in f sh count; 10%

greater stability in basef ow over previous 5 year period 25% (11,000lf) of streambanks addressed 25% (12) of point discharges addressed Long Term Milestones (2018+)

(10+ years) 100% restored (69,200 lf / 27 reaches) 100% increase in f sh count; 10%

greater stability in basef ow over previous 5 year period 100% (44,600lf) of streambanks addressed 100% (49) of point discharges addressed Party Responsible for Monitoring Municipality / Drainage District, LCSMC/ Watershed Planning Committee IDNR, LCHD Municipality / Drainage District, LCSMC/ Watershed Planning Committee Municipality / Drainage District, LCSMC/ Watershed Planning Committee Priority Mode of Collection Visual / stream survey; homeowner

/ landowner contact and anecdotal reporting Physical sampling using accepted protocols, e.g., IDNR Riverwatch program; streamf ow monitoring data Visual / stream survey; homeowner

/ landowner contact and anecdotal reporting Visual / stream survey; homeowner

/ landowner contact and anecdotal reporting Number of Actions Location of Implementation Percent Complete Table 6.6 Monitoring Plan

251 T H E D E A D R IV E R l WAT E R S H E D - B A S E D P LA N Issue Issue 1: Stream Restoration and Management Issue 1: Stream Restoration and Management Issue 1: Stream Restoration and Management Issue 1: Stream Restoration and Management Goal Goal A: Restore and manage the stream system to protect and enhance stream and riparian health, function, and conveyance as part of a watershed green infrastructure system.

Goal A: Restore and manage the stream system to protect and enhance stream and riparian health, function, and conveyance as part of a watershed green infrastructure system.

Objective

5. Expand and restore a native riparian buffer to protect the stream corridor from impacts of adjacent land uses and to support wildlife habitat.

6. Protect steep slopes and stream corridors with minimum setback requirements for land disturbance activities including new development, structures, and redevelopment of previously developed land.

7. Reduce sedimentation and channelization of stream reaches within Illinois Beach State Park to enhance instream habitat quality and support Lake Michigan aquatic species.

8. Beginning with downstream reaches, develop a stream restoration plan for each reach that suffers moderate to severe stream bank erosion Impairments Addressed Water Quality; Habitat Degradation and Alteration Water Quality; Habitat Degradation and Alteration Water Quality; Habitat Degradation and Alteration Water Quality; Habitat Degradation and Alteration Indicators Linear feet / acres of riparian buffer undergoing restoration efforts; average buffer width and condition.zv Number of municipalities adopting setback requirements.

Improved in-stream habitat quality as ref ected by IBI and MBI scores.

Number of reaches with moderate or severe erosion with restoration plans.

Frequency of Monitoring Every 3 years Every 3 years Every 3 years Every 3 years Baseline (2007) 0 lf of riparian buffer out of 69,900 lf total stream length Baseline needs to be established by surveying the three municipalities Baseline needs to be established through biological survey 0 reaches / 18 reaches needing plans Short Term Milestones (2008-2013)

(1-5 years) 10% (7000 lf) of riparian buffer restored 1 municipality Baseline biological indices established 10% (2) of reaches Mid Term Milestones (2013-2018)

(5-10 years) 25% (17,500lf) of riparian buffer restored 3 municipalities Improvement trend established 25% (5) reaches Long Term Milestones (2018+)

(10+ years) 100% (69,900lf) of riparian buffer restored 3 municipalities Improvement trend continued 100% (18) reaches Party Responsible for Monitoring Landowners, Municipalities Municipalities, LCSMC IDNR Municipality / Drainage District, LCSMC/ Watershed Planning Committee Priority Mode of Collection Visual / stream survey; homeowner

/ landowner contact and anecdotal reporting Contact municipal off cials and staff and review policies and regulations Physical sampling using accepted protocols, e.g., IDNR Riverwatch program Internal audit / recordkeeping Number of Actions Location of Implementation Percent Complete Table 6.6 Monitoring Plan (continued)

252 T H E D E A D R IV E R l WAT E R S H E D - B A S E D P LA N 6 plan implementation and evaluation Issue Issue 1: Stream Restoration and Management Issue 1: Stream Restoration and Management Issue 1: Stream Restoration and Management Goal Goal A: Restore and manage the stream system to protect and enhance stream and riparian health, function, and conveyance as part of a watershed green infrastructure system.

Goal A: Restore and manage the stream system to protect and enhance stream and riparian health, function, and conveyance as part of a watershed green infrastructure system.

Objective

9. Develop a stream management and maintenance plan.

10. Develop a program with authority and funding to implement the stream management and maintenance plan.

11. Clear, repair, or replace blocked, damaged, eroding, and failing culverts, outfall pipes, discharge channels, and other stormwater infrastructure to maintain conveyance and reduce erosion and other impacts of an impaired or blocked stormwater system.

Impairments Addressed Water Quality; Habitat Degradation and Alteration Water Quality; Habitat Degradation and Alteration Water Quality; Flood Damages Indicators Development of stream maintenance plan that includes a schedule, proposed funding source, and implementation partner.

Number of stream reaches being addressed by a management and maintenance program.

Number of structures (culverts, outfalls, and headwalls) cleared, repaired, and replaced; number of blockages / debris jams removed Frequency of Monitoring Every 3 years Every 3 years Every 3 years Baseline (2007)

No plan exists No program exists 0 structures addressed out of 60 total; 0 debris obstructions cleared out of 28 total Short Term Milestones (2008-2013)

(1-5 years)

Plan underway Program under development 10% (6) of structures; 10% (3) of debris obstructions addressed Mid Term Milestones (2013-2018)

(5-10 years)

Plan complete Program in place 25% (15) of structures; 25% (7) of debris obstructions addressed Long Term Milestones (2018+)

(10+ years)

Plan complete Program in place 100% (60) of structures; 100% (28) of debris obstructions addressed Party Responsible for Monitoring Municipality / Drainage District, LCSMC/ Watershed Planning Committee Municipality / Drainage District, LCSMC/ Watershed Planning Committee Municipality / Drainage District, LCSMC/ Watershed Planning Committee Priority Mode of Collection Internal audit / recordkeeping; contact public off cials and staff Internal audit / recordkeeping; contact public off cials and staff; homeowner / landowner contact and anecdotal reporting Visual / stream survey; homeowner

/ landowner contact and anecdotal reporting; internal audit /

recordkeeping Number of Actions Location of Implementation Percent Complete Table 6.6 Monitoring Plan (continued)

253 T H E D E A D R IV E R l WAT E R S H E D - B A S E D P LA N Issue Issue 2: Flood Risk & Flood Damage Issue 2: Flood Risk & Flood Damage Issue 2: Flood Risk & Flood Damage Issue 2: Flood Risk & Flood Damage Goal Goal B: Reduce f ood damage and prevent increased f ooding to protect public health & safety, and public and private property and infrastructure investments.

Goal B: Reduce f ood damage and prevent increased f ooding to protect public health & safety, and public and private property and infrastructure investments.

Objective

1. Maintain riparian and depressional f oodplain and wetlands as open and undeveloped to maximize f ood storage and conveyance.

2. Mitigate f ood damages through f oodproof ng of at-risk structures.

3. Mitigate sanitary sewer backup f ood damages through remediation

/ correction of inf ltration and cross connections with sanitary sewer system.

4. Mitigate local drainage capacity f ood damage by providing additional f ood storage and or maintaining /

improving local drainage system.

Impairments Addressed Water Quality; Habitat Degradation and Alteration; Increased Flood Flows; Flood Damages Flood Damages Flood Damages Increased Flood Flows; Flood Damages Indicators Number of new structures in the f oodplain &/or number of f oodplain or wetlands permits issued.

Number of f ood damage reports;

of structures removed or f oodproofed.

Number of f ood damage reports; removal of FPA from inventory.

Frequency of Monitoring Annual Annual Annual Annual Baseline (2007)

Baseline # of f oodplain or wetland permits needs established Baseline # of f ood damage reports needs established; unknown #

(10-year), 270 (100-year), and 682 (500-year) at-risk structures 1 FPAI site (20-06) 6 FPAI sites exist (20-13, 20-07, 20-02, 20-04, 20-05, 21-04)

Short Term Milestones (2008-2013)

(1-5 years) 0 new structures and 10% fewer permits 10% fewer f ood damage reports; 10% of structures removed or f oodproofed.

1 FPAI site (20-06) removed from inventory; 0 additional FPAI sites 2 FPA sites removed from inventory Mid Term Milestones (2013-2018)

(5-10 years) 0 new structures and 50% fewer permits 50% fewer f ood damage reports; 10% of structures removed or f oodproofed.

0 additional FPAI sites 4 FPA site removed from inventory Long Term Milestones (2018+)

(10+ years) 0 new structures and 0 permits 75% fewer f ood damage reports; 10% of structures removed or f oodproofed.

0 additional FPAI sites 6 FPA sites removed from inventory Party Responsible for Monitoring LCSMC, Municipality LCSMC, Municipality LCSMC, Municipality, NSSD LCSMC, Municipality / Drainage District Priority Mode of Collection Contact municipal off cials and staff; internal audit / recordkeeping; review public land records; damage reporting Damage reporting; homeowner /

landowner contact and anecdotal reporting Contact municipal off cials and staff; damage reporting; homeowner /

landowner contact and anecdotal reporting; agency contact Contact municipal off cials and staff; damage reporting; homeowner /

landowner contact and anecdotal reporting; agency contact Number of Actions Location of Implementation Percent Complete Table 6.6 Monitoring Plan (continued)

254 T H E D E A D R IV E R l WAT E R S H E D - B A S E D P LA N 6 plan implementation and evaluation Issue Issue 3: Natural Resources and Habitat Issue 3: Natural Resources and Habitat Issue 3: Natural Resources and Habitat Issue 3: Natural Resources and Habitat Goal Goal C: Protect, restore, and enhance a green infrastructure network of terrestrial and aquatic resources including streams, riparian corridors, wetlands, and upland resources.

Goal C: Protect, restore, and enhance a green infrastructure network of terrestrial and aquatic resources including streams, riparian corridors, wetlands, and upland resources.

Objective

1. Adopt and prioritize Green Infrastructure Plan elements and recommendations in local land use plans, policies, and maps to establish the community vision, direction, and intent.

2. Implement the Green Infrastructure Plan to guide prioritization, preservation, restoration, and management of important core and connecting green infrastructure elements and buffers.

3. Improve ecological and biological quality of aquatic and terrestrial natural resources by improving habitat characteristics, stabilizing watershed hydrology, improving water quality, and reducing coverage of exotic and invasive species.

4. Reduce shoreline / beach erosion in Illinois Beach State Park to protect rare community types and habitat for resident and migratory species.

Impairments Addressed Water Quality; Habitat Degradation and Alteration Water Quality; Habitat Degradation and Alteration; Increased Flood Flows Water Quality; Habitat Degradation and Alteration Habitat Degradation and Alteration Indicators Number of municipalities adopting Green Infrastructure Plan elements into local land use plans, policies, and maps.

Acres of Category 1 or 2 Green Infrastructure parcels / linear feet of stream channel and buffer protected.

Biological survey data (MBI, IBI, and FQI scores).

Linear feet of shoreline lost or gained.

Frequency of Monitoring Annual Every 3 years Annual Annual Baseline (2007) 0 municipalities 0 acres of prioritized parcels preserved.

Baseline needs to be established through biological survey Baseline shoreline location to be established by IBSP / IDNR.

Short Term Milestones (2008-2013)

(1-5 years) 1 municipality 10% of prioritized acres preserved Baseline biological indices established Less than 50% of historically eroding shoreline currently exhibiting erosion.

Mid Term Milestones (2013-2018)

(5-10 years) 3 municipalities 25% of prioritized acres preserved Improvement trend established Less than 25% of historically eroding shoreline currently exhibiting erosion.

Long Term Milestones (2018+)

(10+ years) 3 municipalities 100% of prioritized acres preserved Improvement trend continued Less than 10% of historically eroding shoreline currently exhibiting erosion.

Party Responsible for Monitoring Municipality Municipality, LCFPD, IDNR LCFPD, IDNR IDNR Priority Mode of Collection Contact municipal off cials and staff; internal audit / recordkeeping Contact municipal off cials and staff; internal audit / recordkeeping; review public land records Physical sampling using accepted protocols, e.g., IDNR Riverwatch program; wetland / natural area survey and monitoring Embedded stakes to monitor Lateral Recession Rate; landowner

/ resource manager contact and anecdotal reporting; Number of Actions Location of Implementation Percent Complete Table 6.6 Monitoring Plan (continued)

255 T H E D E A D R IV E R l WAT E R S H E D - B A S E D P LA N Issue Issue 3: Natural Resources and Habitat Issue 3: Natural Resources and Habitat Issue 4: Watershed Education and Communication Issue 4: Watershed Education and Communication Goal Goal C: Protect, restore, and enhance a green infrastructure network of terrestrial and aquatic resources including streams, riparian corridors, wetlands, and upland resources.

Goal C: Protect, restore, and enhance a green infrastructure network of terrestrial and aquatic resources including streams, riparian corridors, wetlands, and upland resources.

Goal D: Watershed residents, students, and communities have adequate knowledge, skills, resources, assistance, and stewardship opportunities to implement the watershed plan.

Objective

5. Reduce the potential for contamination of Illinois Beach State Park, the Dead River, and Lake Michigan from the impacts of adjacent industrial land uses.

6. Remove barriers to f sh and other species migration by restoring and enhancing hydrologic connections of streams to Lake Michigan.

1. Increase watershed stewardship (management, monitoring, and restoration) opportunities and participation by residents.

2. Increase public awareness and understanding of watershed issues by distributing watershed-related messages through public relations, outreach, and media vehicles.

Impairments Addressed Water Quality; Habitat Degradation and Alteration Habitat Degradation and Alteration Water Quality; Habitat Degradation and Alteration Water Quality; Habitat Degradation and Alteration; Increased Flood Flows; Flood Damages Indicators Sampling data, studies, and reports showing presence of contamination.

Number of hydrologic connections restored and maintained; number of f sh found in upstream reaches.

Number of watershed stewardship opportunities and participants; number of stream reaches covered by a stewardship group.

Number of placements and mentions in local and regional media.

Frequency of Monitoring Every 5 years Annual Annual Annual Baseline (2007)

Contaminated material exists on IBSP property 0 hydrologic connections restored out of X; baseline needs to be established by f sh sampling in upstream reaches.

Baseline # of stewardship opportunities and participants needs established; 0 stream reaches covered by stewardship group Baseline # of mentions needs to be established.

Short Term Milestones (2008-2013)

(1-5 years)

On average, 25% less contaminated material exsits, by weight 1 hydrologic connection restored; 10% increase in f sh count 3 stewardship opportunities and 50 participants per year; 10% (3) of reaches covered 5 mentions per year Mid Term Milestones (2013-2018)

(5-10 years)

On average, 50% less contaminated material exsits, by weight 2 hydrologic connections restored; 25% increase in f sh count 6 stewardship opportunities and 100 participants per year; 25% (7) reaches covered 10 mentions per year Long Term Milestones (2018+)

(10+ years)

On average, 75% less contaminated material exsits, by weight 100% of hydrologic connections restored; 100% increase in f sh count 10 stewardship opportunities and 150 participants per year; 75% (21) reaches covered 20 mentions per year Party Responsible for Monitoring IDNR, USEPA / IEPA, Watershed Planning Committee IDNR LCSMC / Watershed Planning Committee, IDNR LCSMC / Watershed Planning Committee Priority Mode of Collection Physical sampling using accepted protocols; landowner / resource manager contact and anecdotal reporting; agency contact Visual / stream survey; landowner

/ resource manager contact and anecdotal repoting; Watershed event reports; review volunteer and monitoring databases; internal audit recordkeeping Internal audit / recordkeeping; news clipping service Number of Actions Location of Implementation Percent Complete Table 6.6 Monitoring Plan (continued)

256 T H E D E A D R IV E R l WAT E R S H E D - B A S E D P LA N 6 plan implementation and evaluation Issue Issue 4: Watershed Education and Communication Issue 4: Watershed Education and Communication Issue 5: Water Quality Issue 5: Water Quality Goal Goal D: Watershed residents, students, and communities have adequate knowledge, skills, resources, assistance, and stewardship opportunities to implement the watershed plan.

Goal D: Watershed residents, students, and communities have adequate knowledge, skills, resources, assistance, and stewardship opportunities to implement the watershed plan.

Goal E: Improve water quality in streams, lakes, and wetlands by reducing the impacts of land use and development, land management, and modif ed hydrology.

Objective

3. Provide technical assistance to watershed communities, the development community, and stakeholders to help them implement watershed plan recommendations.

4. Increase technical knowledge and understanding of alternative development approaches by distributing conservation-oriented

/ Low Impact Development (LID) land use planning and development guidelines and practices information to public entities.

1. All watershed streams and lakes meet or exceed state water quality standards.

2. Reduce non-point source pollution loading from existing and new development by controlling inputs at the source / on site using BMPs.

Impairments Addressed Water Quality; Habitat Degradation and Alteration; Increased Flood Flows; Flood Damages Water Quality; Habitat Degradation and Alteration; Increased Flood Flows; Flood Damages Water Quality Water Quality Indicators Number of brochures, information packets, and other educational materials distributed; number of participants in technical workshops.

Number of local government off cials and staff participating in LID workshops; number of permits /

acres of conservation development approved as compared to conventional development.

Water quality monitoring data (Phosphorous < 0.05 mg/L; Dissolved oxygen > 5.0 mg/L; Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) > 30; Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index (MBI)

< 6.0; Trophic State Index < 70 (Sand Pond))

Water quality monitoring data (DO, phosphorous, TSS); acres / linear feet of BMPs installed.

Frequency of Monitoring Annual Annual Annual Annual Baseline (2007) 0 educational materials currently distributed; baseline # needed for participants in technical workshops 0 local government off cials and staff participating in LID workshops; 0 permits / acres of conservation development approved P (no baseline); DO=7.58 (two-year mean); baseline needs to be established for biological indices P (no baseline); DO=7.58 (two-year mean); Turbidity (as proxy for TSS)=14.3 NTU; 0 acres / lf of BMPs installed Short Term Milestones (2008-2013)

(1-5 years) 500 educational material packets distributed per year; 10 participants in technical workshops per year 5 local government participants in LID workshops per year; 1 permit / 10 acres of conservation development approved P=0.5 mg/L or less; DO=8.0 (two-year mean); baseline biological indices established P=0.5 mg/L or less; DO=8.0 (two-year mean); Turbidity (as proxy for TSS)=12.9 NTU (10% improvement);

5 acres / 1000 lf of BMPs installed Mid Term Milestones (2013-2018)

(5-10 years) 1000 educational material packets distributed per year; 25 participants in technical workshops per year 15 local government participants in LID workshops per year; 3 permits / 50 acres of conservation development approved P=0.25 mg/L or less; DO=8.25 (two-year mean); improvement trend established for biological indices P=0.25 mg/L or less; DO=8.25 (two-year mean); Turbidity (as proxy for TSS)=10.7 NTU (25% improvement);

10 acres / 5000 lf of BMPs installed Long Term Milestones (2018+)

(10+ years) 2000 educational material packets distributed per year; 50 participants in technical workshops per year 25 local government participants in LID workshops per year; 5 permits / 100 acres of conservation development approved P=0.1 mg/L or less; DO=8.5 (two-year mean); improvement trend established for biological indices P=0.1 mg/L or less; DO=8.5 (two-year mean); Turbidity (as proxy for TSS)=1.4 NTU (90% improvement);

20 acres / 10,000 lf of BMPs installed Party Responsible for Monitoring LCSMC / Watershed Planning Committee LCSMC / Watershed Planning Committee, Municipality LCHD, IEPA Municipality, LCSMC Priority Mode of Collection Watershed workshop / event reports; internal audit / recordkeeping Watershed workshop / event reports; contact municipal off cials and staff; review policies and regulations; review public land records; internal audit / recordkeeping Physical / chemical sampling and /

or lab analysis using accepted protocols, e.g., IDNR Riverwatch program Physical / chemical sampling and /

or lab analysis using accepted protocols, e.g., IDNR Riverwatch program; homeowner / landowner contact and anecdotal reporting; contact municipal off cials and staff Number of Actions Location of Implementation Percent Complete Table 6.6 Monitoring Plan (continued)

257 T H E D E A D R IV E R l WAT E R S H E D - B A S E D P LA N Issue Issue 5: Water Quality Issue 5: Water Quality Issue 5: Water Quality Issue 5: Water Quality Goal Goal E: Improve water quality in streams, lakes, and wetlands by reducing the impacts of land use and development, land management, and modif ed hydrology.

Goal E: Improve water quality in streams, lakes, and wetlands by reducing the impacts of land use and development, land management, and modif ed hydrology.

Objective

3. Prevent erosion from construction sites to reduce total suspended solids.

4. Prevent erosion and f ow of agricultural and golf course chemicals (fertilizers and pesticides) from farmland, golf courses, parks and yards into streams and wetlands by reducing / controlling inputs at the source using BMPs.

5. Prevent dumping of inappropriate substances (e.g., yard waste, garbage, household or automotive f uids, etc.) within the stream channel, riparian corridor, and stormsewer network.

6. Reduce fecal coliform contamination on Lake Michigan beaches / nearshore waters by controlling gull populations and other contributing sources.

Impairments Addressed Water Quality Water Quality Water Quality; Habitat Degradation and Alteration Water Quality Indicators Water quality monitoring data (TSS); construction site inspection reports showing violations of SESC standards.

Water quality monitoring data (DO, phosphorous); acres / linear feet of BMPs installed.

Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination reports.

Number of beach closures.

Frequency of Monitoring Annual Annual Annual Annual Baseline (2007)

Turbidity (as proxy for TSS)=14.3 NTU; 0 construction site inspection reports P (no baseline); DO=7.58 (two-year mean); Turbidity (as proxy for TSS)=14.3 NTU; 0 acres / lf of BMPs installed Baseline needs to be established 72 total beach closures per year (5 year average 2002-2006)

Short Term Milestones (2008-2013)

(1-5 years)

Turbidity (as proxy for TSS)=12.9 NTU (10% improvement); 5 or fewer construction site inspection reports per year showing violations P=0.5 mg/L or less; DO=8.0 (two-year mean); Turbidity (as proxy for TSS)=12.9 NTU (10% improvement);

5 acres / 1000 lf of BMPs installed 5 or fewer IDDE reports 60 total beach closures per year (5 year average)

Mid Term Milestones (2013-2018)

(5-10 years)

Turbidity (as proxy for TSS)=10.7 NTU (25% improvement); 3 or fewer construction site inspection reports per year showing violations P=0.25 mg/L or less; DO=8.25 (two-year mean); Turbidity (as proxy for TSS)=10.7 NTU (25% improvement);

10 acres / 5000 lf of BMPs installed 3 or fewer IDDE reports 45 total beach closures per year (5 year average)

Long Term Milestones (2018+)

(10+ years)

Turbidity (as proxy for TSS)=1.4 NTU (90% improvement); 0 construction site inspection reports per year showing violations P=0.1 mg/L or less; DO=8.5 (two-year mean); Turbidity (as proxy for TSS)=1.4 NTU (90% improvement);

20 acres / 10,000 lf of BMPs installed 0 IDDE reports 25 total beach closures per year (5 year average)

Party Responsible for Monitoring Municipality, LCSMC Landowner, Municipality

?

LCHD, IEPA Priority Mode of Collection Physical / chemical sampling and /

or lab analysis using accepted protocols, e.g., IDNR Riverwatch program; municipal and agency contact / reports; internal audit /

recordkeeping Physical / chemical sampling and /

or lab analysis using accepted protocols, e.g., IDNR Riverwatch program; homeowner / landowner contact and anecdotal reporting; contact municipal off cials and staff Contact municipal off cials and staff; internal audit recordkeeping Agency contact / recordkeeping Number of Actions Location of Implementation Percent Complete Table 6.6 Monitoring Plan (continued)

258 T H E D E A D R IV E R l WAT E R S H E D - B A S E D P LA N 6 plan implementation and evaluation Issue Issue 5: Water Quality Issue 5: Water Quality Issue 5: Water Quality Issue 5: Water Quality Goal Goal E: Improve water quality in streams, lakes, and wetlands by reducing the impacts of land use and development, land management, and modif ed hydrology.

Goal E: Improve water quality in streams, lakes, and wetlands by reducing the impacts of land use and development, land management, and modif ed hydrology.

Objective

7. Restore natural hydrology and basef ow to address low dissolved oxygen, water temperature, and streambank erosion impacts.

8. Develop and implement a watershed monitoring program to collect and monitor water quality and biological data on a regular basis.

9. Retrof t existing stormwater management structures such as detention ponds and roadside swales to improve water quality.

10. Reduce or modify the use

/ application of road salt and other chemicals for snow and ice management to reduce the impact of chlorides and toxic substances on water quality Impairments Addressed Water Quality; Habitat Degradation and Alteration Water Quality; Habitat Degradation and Alteration Water Quality Water Quality Indicators Water quality monitoring data (f ow, temperature, and DO).

Established monitoring program; record of monitored data.

Number / acres of retrof tted detention basins; linear feet of improved roadside swale.

Water quality monitoring data (specif c conductivity)

Frequency of Monitoring Annual Every 3 years Every 3 years Annual Baseline (2007)

DO=7.58 (two-year mean); basef ow baseline needs to be established; 14.96°C (two-year mean)

No data exists for biological measures; hydrologic and water quality data has been collected consistently (spring through fall) for 2006-07; 0 watershed plan recommendations implemented.

35 detention basins needing attention; 1,043,400 lf of swale targeted for improvement 0.93 mS/cm (two-year mean)

Short Term Milestones (2008-2013)

(1-5 years)

DO=8.0 (two-year mean); 10%

greater stability in basef ow over previous 5 year period; 14.0°C (two-year mean) 4 years of consistently collected biological, hydrologic, and water quality data; 10 watershed recommendations implemented 5 detention basins addressed; 25,000 lf of swale improved 0.8 mS/cm (10% improvement)

Mid Term Milestones (2013-2018)

(5-10 years)

DO=8.25 (two-year mean); 10%

greater stability in basef ow over previous 5 year period; 13.5°C (two-year mean) 8 years of consistently collected biological, hydrologic, and water quality data; 25 watershed recommendations implemented 10 detention basins addressed; 50,000 lf of swale improved 0.7 mS/cm (25% improvement)

Long Term Milestones (2018+)

(10+ years)

DO=8.5 (two-year mean); 10%

greater stability in basef ow over previous 5 year period; 13°C (two-year mean) 20 years of consistently collected biological, hydrologic, and water quality data; 50 watershed recommendations implemented 20 detention basins addressed; 100,000 lf of swale improved 0.1 mS/cm (90% improvement)

Party Responsible for Monitoring LCHD, IEPA LCSMC / Watershed Planning Committee Municipality / Drainage District, LCSMC LCHD, IEPA Priority Mode of Collection Physical / chemical sampling and /

or lab analysis using accepted protocols, e.g., IDNR Riverwatch program; streamf ow monitoring data Physical / chemical sampling and /

or lab analysis using accepted protocols, e.g., IDNR Riverwatch program Contact municipal off cials and staff; internal audit recordkeeping; homeowner / landowner contact Physical / chemical sampling and /

or lab analysis using accepted protocols Number of Actions Location of Implementation Percent Complete Table 6.6 Monitoring Plan (continued)

259 T H E D E A D R IV E R l WAT E R S H E D - B A S E D P LA N Issue Issue 6: Watershed Coordination Issue 6: Watershed Coordination Issue 6: Watershed Coordination Issue 6: Watershed Coordination Goal Goal F: Improve coordination, research, and decision-making between public, private, and non-prof t entities to help achieve watershed plan goals and objectives.

Goal F: Improve coordination, research, and decision-making between public, private, and non-prof t entities to help achieve watershed plan goals and objectives.

Objective

1. Pursue cross-jurisdictional cost-sharing arrangements for projects with multi-jurisdictional benef ts and impact.

2. Establish a watershed organization or council with funding and support to guide watershed plan implementation and provide assistance to watershed stakeholders.

3. Adopt, strengthen, and enforce ordinances and guidelines intended to protect watershed resources.

4. Understand and minimize detrimental impact of local land use decisions on watershed resources.

Impairments Addressed Water Quality; Habitat Degradation and Alteration; Increased Flood Flows; Flood Damages Water Quality; Habitat Degradation and Alteration; Increased Flood Flows; Flood Damages Water Quality; Habitat Degradation and Alteration; Increased Flood Flows; Flood Damages Water Quality; Habitat Degradation and Alteration; Increased Flood Flows; Flood Damages Indicators Number of projects funded by multiple jurisdictions.

Establishment of lead organization with budget and executive committee; number of projects undertaken under the auspices of the watershed organization.

Number of communities adopting, strengthening, and enforcing protective ordinances and guidelines.

Number of communities using LID and conservation-oriented approaches to development.

Frequency of Monitoring Every 3 years Annual Every 3 years Every 3 years Baseline (2007)

Baseline average # of multi-jurisdictional projects needs to be established No organization exists; 0 projects Baseline is current set of municipal ordinances and guidelines 0 municipalities using LID approaches to development Short Term Milestones (2008-2013)

(1-5 years) 2 multi-jurisdictional projects per year Organization established; 3 projects undertaken 1 municipality has strengthened guidelines 1 municipality using LID approaches to development Mid Term Milestones (2013-2018)

(5-10 years) 5 multi-jurisdictional projects per year Organization established; 10 projects undertaken 3 municipalities have strengthened guidelines 3 municipalities using LID approaches to development Long Term Milestones (2018+)

(10+ years) 10 multi-jurisdictional projects per year Organization established; 25 projects undertaken 3 municipalities have strengthened guidelines 3 municipalities using LID approaches to development Party Responsible for Monitoring Municipality, LCSMC/ Watershed Planning Committee LCSMC/ Watershed Planning Committee Municipality, LCSMC/ Watershed Planning Committee Municipality, LCSMC/ Watershed Planning Committee Priority Mode of Collection Contact municipal off cials and staff; internal audit / recordkeeping; agency contact Internal audit / recordkeeping Contact municipal off cials and staff; review policies and regulations; internal audit / recordkeeping Contact municipal off cials and staff; review policies and regulations; internal audit / recordkeeping Number of Actions Location of Implementation Percent Complete Table 6.6 Monitoring Plan (continued)

260 T H E D E A D R IV E R l WAT E R S H E D - B A S E D P LA N 6 plan implementation and evaluation Issue Issue 6: Watershed Coordination Issue 6: Watershed Coordination Issue 6: Watershed Coordination Goal Goal F: Improve coordination, research, and decision-making between public, private, and non-prof t entities to help achieve watershed plan goals and objectives.

Goal F: Improve coordination, research, and decision-making between public, private, and non-prof t entities to help achieve watershed plan goals and objectives.

Objective

5. Help communities and stakeholders secure project funding by disseminating information to communities and stakeholders on funding sources and mechanisms for implementing watershed projects.

6. Incorporate watershed improvement elements into local government ongoing management, maintenance, and infrastructure projects (i.e. streets, the manmade drainage system etc.)

7. Understand and track watershed conditions by monitoring watershed resources and trends (hydrologic, biologic, and water quality) and implementation of plan recommendations.

Impairments Addressed Water Quality; Habitat Degradation and Alteration; Increased Flood Flows; Flood Damages Water Quality; Habitat Degradation and Alteration; Increased Flood Flows; Flood Damages Water Quality; Habitat Degradation and Alteration; Increased Flood Flows; Flood Damages Indicators Number of communities receiving funding for watershed improvement projects; funding amount secured; number of projects installed /

undertaken.

Number of communities adding watershed improvement practices and functions to ongoing activities, plans, and budgets.

Watershed monitoring data; years of data collected; number of recommendations implemented.

Frequency of Monitoring Annual Every 3 years Annual Baseline (2007)

Baseline assumed to be 0 municipality; 0 funding secured; and 0 projects Baseline assumed to be 0 municipalities No data exists for biological measures; hydrologic and water quality data has been collected consistently (spring through fall) for 2006-07; 0 watershed plan recommendations implemented.

Short Term Milestones (2008-2013)

(1-5 years) 1 municipality; $50,000 secured; 5 projects installed 1 municipality 4 years of consistently collected biological, hydrologic, and water quality data; 10 watershed recommendations implemented Mid Term Milestones (2013-2018)

(5-10 years) 3 municipalities; $100,000 secured; 10 projects installed 3 municipalities 8 years of consistently collected biological, hydrologic, and water quality data; 25 watershed recommendations implemented Long Term Milestones (2018+)

(10+ years) 3 municipalities; $150,000 secured; 15 projects installed 3 municipalities 20 years of consistently collected biological, hydrologic, and water quality data; 50 watershed recommendations implemented Party Responsible for Monitoring Municipality, LCSMC/ Watershed Planning Committee Municipality, LCSMC/ Watershed Planning Committee LCSMC/ Watershed Planning Committee Priority Mode of Collection Contact municipal off cials and staff; internal audit / recordkeeping; agency contact Contact municipal off cials and staff; review plans, policies and regulations; internal audit /

recordkeeping Review volunteer and monitoring databases; internal audit /

recordkeeping Number of Actions Location of Implementation Percent Complete Table 6.6 Monitoring Plan (continued)

261 T H E D E A D R IV E R l WAT E R S H E D - B A S E D P LA N Issue Issue 7: Watershed Hydrology Issue 7: Watershed Hydrology Issue 7: Watershed Hydrology Issue 7: Watershed Hydrology Goal Goal G: Restore and enhance watershed hydrology and stabilize the stream systems by reducing surface runoff.

Goal G: Restore and enhance watershed hydrology and stabilize the stream systems by reducing surface runoff.

Objective

1. Reduce/minimize the rate and volume of runoff from the developed and developing landscape by installing urban BMPs.

2. Protect, restore and enhance overland f ow paths.

3. All new development incorporates conservation design and LID practices to minimize changes /

maintain pre-development hydrology and minimize impervious cover.

4. Restore natural hydrologic regime to watershed wetlands, Illinois Beach State Park, Spring Bluff Nature Preserve, Lyons Woods Forest Preserve, and other natural areas.

Impairments Addressed Water Quality; Habitat Degradation and Alteration; Increased Flood Flows; Flood Damages Increased Flood Flows Water Quality; Habitat Degradation and Alteration; Increased Flood Flows; Flood Damages Water Quality; Habitat Degradation and Alteration Indicators Average difference between maximum and minimum f ow rate; peak f ow data / hydrographs showing reduction in peak f ows for the 1-year event; change in rainfall event attenuation time; reduction in stream f ow for a given rainfall event.

Change in rainfall event attenuation time.

Number of stormwater management plans demonstrating maintenance of pre-development hydrology as compared to number of development applications; percentage of impervious cover in watershed.

Natural area management and moni-toring reports and FQI scores.

Frequency of Monitoring Annual Annual Annual Every 3 years Baseline (2007) 203 cfs Baseline needs to be established.

0 stormwater plans demonstrate maintenance of pre-development hydrology; XX% watershed imperviousness.

Baseline FQI for each natural area needs establishment.

Short Term Milestones (2008-2013)

(1-5 years) 182.7 cfs (10% decrease) 10% increase in rainfall event attenuation time.

100% of stormwater plans demonstrate maintenance of pre-development hydrology; no increase in watershed imperviousness.

Increase by 1 point in FQI score Mid Term Milestones (2013-2018)

(5-10 years) 152.3 cfs (25% decrease) 25% increase in rainfall event attenuation time.

100% of stormwater plans demonstrate maintenance of pre-development hydrology; 5% reduction in watershed imperviousness.

Increase by 1.5 points in FQI score Long Term Milestones (2018+)

(10+ years) 20.3 cfs (90% decrease) 90% increase in rainfall event attenuation time.

100% of stormwater plans demonstrate maintenance of pre-development hydrology; 10% reduction in watershed imperviousness.

Increase by 2 points in FQI score Party Responsible for Monitoring Municipality, LCSMC/ Watershed Planning Committee Municipality Municipality, LCSMC/ Watershed Planning Committee LCFPD, IDNR, Muncipalities Priority Mode of Collection Streamf ow monitoring data Streamf ow monitoring data Contact municipal off cials and staff; internal audit / recordkeeping; review plans, policies, and regulations Landowner / resource manager contact; wetland / natural areas survey and monitoring Number of Actions Location of Implementation Percent Complete Table 6.6 Monitoring Plan (continued)

262 T H E D E A D R IV E R l WAT E R S H E D - B A S E D P LA N

ML15188A126

Text

Navigation menu

Search