ML15188A152
| ML15188A152 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zion File:ZionSolutions icon.png |
| Issue date: | 09/30/2008 |
| From: | Warner M Lake County Stormwater Management Commission |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards |
| Shared Package | |
| ML15188A105 | List:
|
| References | |
| ZS-2015-0084 | |
| Download: ML15188A152 (24) | |
Text
dead river watershed - based plan 2008
The Dead River W atershed - Based Plan was developed through a cooperative ef fort between the Lake County Stormwater Management Commission and representatives of the watershed stakeholders.
A number of dif ferent entities, ranging from homeowners to municipal governments and county agencies, consistently attended monthly meetings during the planning process.
Twelve public meetings were held to solicit input from the stakeholder committee.
The Dead River Watershed Management Plan was developed to provide a "blueprint" for reducing f ood damages, improving water quality, and protecting natural resources in the watershed. The Plan is intended to assist private citizens and the local, State, and Federal units of government concerned with managing the water resources of this watershed in a cost-effective and environmentally sound manner.
The Plan contains a summary of data collected for the watershed, quantif es water resource-related problems, presents goals and objectives agreed upon by the stakeholder group, and presents a list of recommended actions for effectively managing watershed resources in concert with activities such as comprehensive planning, development standards, and transportation planning. The Plan provides a basis for inter-jurisdictional communication and coordination on water resources issues.
This Plan is an advisory document for stakeholders of the watershed, but we encourage stakeholders to endorse the Plan, utilize the document as a reference, and pursue implementation. This document does not contain subwatershed regulatory requirements, but instead provides proactive guidance on opportunities to balance the uses and demands on the watersheds resources to improve the quality of life for future generations.
foreword Lake County Stormwater Management Commission Michael D. Warner, P.E., CFM Executive Director September 2008
4 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
5 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 Our vision for the Dead River Watershed is of...
a network of healthy streams and ecosystems where habitat for native plants and animals, and surface and ground water quality, are protected and enhanced; unique, vibrant communities with sustainable and healthy economies; a dedicated system of open space is protected, enhanced and preserved.
~ THE DEAD RIVER WATERSHED PLANNING COMMITTEE
6 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 THE DEAD RIVER WATERSHED The Dead River watershed is the area of land where water that falls as rain or snow f ows across the landscape, enters our streams and wetlands, and ultimately drains into Lake Michigan. The 16 square mile (10,200-acre) watershed is bounded by Green Bay Road on the west, Lake Michigan on the east, W aukegan Harbor on the south, and Shiloh 25th Street on the north.
The watershed is part of the Root-Pike watershed system that includes Kellogg Creek to the north and the Root and Pike Rivers in southeastern Wisconsin.
The Dead River watershed is one of the few remaining Illinois tributaries that drains to Lake Michigan, and contributes to the overall quality and health of Lake Michigan and the Great Lakes system.
The watershed includes over twelve miles of stream and more than 1700 acres of wetlands. From north to south, the major stream channels inlcude an unnamed tributary, Bull Creek, and Glen Flora Tributary. Bull Creek is made up of the 27th Street Tributary, North Branch of Bull Creek, South Branch of Bull Creek, and the Wilson Avenue Tributary, which together become the Dead River in Illinois Beach State Park.
The Glen Flora Tributary, formerly known as the Little Dead River, currently f ows through the Johns Manville lagoons and discharges through a pipe to Lake Michigan.
The watershed includes part of Illinois Beach State Park, a National Natural Landmark visited by 2.8 million people annually, which contains 2000 acres of Illinois Nature Preserve, a high concentration of threatened and endangered species, and unique ecosystems found nowhere else on earth. The park also contains the last remaining undeveloped Lake Michigan shoreline and sand dune complex in Illinois.
The Dead River watershed includes areas of the City of Zion, Village of Beach Park, and City of W aukegan, as well as lands owned and managed by Lake County, the Lake County Forest Preserve District, the State of Illinois, and a number of other public and private entities.
executive summary The Dead River watershed within the context of Illinois, Wisconsin, and the Great Lakes basin.
7 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 THE WATERSHED OVER TIME In the early 1800s, the watershed landscape consisted of scattered oak trees, prairies, and wetlands in the central and western thirds, large areas of open oak woodlands along the ridges and ravines, and a coastal 'beach ridge' along the Lake Michigan shoreline. Before settlement, the Dead River and tributary streams f owed cool and clear, and were surrounded with dense ground vegetation and scattered trees. When water reached the Lake Michigan beach plain, it spread out across the landscape creating a vast wetland and dune system and slowly seeped into the lake.
In the 1800's, the fertile soils and openness of the oak tree and prairie landscape attracted farmers, who converted these lands, including the draining of wetlands, for agriculture. In the early 1900's, urbanization of settlements began and continued with suburbanization following W orld War II. Today, the coastal beach ridge has been preserved as Illinois Beach State Park, and many of the ravine woodlands are intact. The rest of the watershed has been converted into downtown areas, older neighborhoods, and newer suburban development interspersed with commercial and industrial land uses.
A watershed is the geographic area of land that drains water to a particular stream, lake or wetland, and is de f ned by the topography of the landscape.
The watershed includes not just the surface of the land, but also the area below the surface where water that in f ltrates into the soil f ows toward the receiving stream or waterbody as underground f ow.
These landscapes have been restored to resemble presettlement condition similar to that found in the Dead River watershed.
© Conservation Design Forum
© Conservation Design Forum
8 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 THE IMPACT OF WATERSHED DEVELOPMENT Under natural conditions, most of the water that falls on earth is used by plants, evaporates into the air
, or seeps into the soil and becomes groundwater. Water that does not evaporate or in f ltrate into the ground is called runof f. As a watershed develops, natural areas are converted into lawns, rooftops, roads, and parking lots. Instead of being used by plants or seeping into the ground, water that falls on these surfaces quickly f ows to our streams directly or through the stormwater drainage and sewer system. As a result, streams and wetlands receive large pulses of water in shorter periods of time, resulting in erosion and destabilization of the stream channel and streambanks. When this happens, streambanks erode away, causing the loss of property and the pollution of our water with sediment. Where the landscape or the stormwater system is insuf f cient to contain this f ush of water, f ooding can occur.
Streambanks are further destabilized by the type and density of vegetation along the streambanks. Due to the introduction of plants that are not native to Illinois, and to the lack of natural landscape processes such as f re, deep-rooted ground vegetation that used to stabilize stream edges have been replaced with non-native plants and dense woods that shade out good vegetation and do not adequately stabilize the stream banks.
In addition to increasing the volume and rate of runof f,
pollutants such as oil and grease, road salt, eroding soil and sediment, metals, bacteria from pet wastes, and excess nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) from fertilizers are washed from streets, buildings, parking lots, construction sites, lawns and golf courses into the streams and lake.
This kind of pollution is called nonpoint source pollution.
Additional pollutants include increased water temperature, altered pH, and low dissolved oxygen levels, making the river unhealthy for aquatic life.
executive summary Greater imperviousness results in a greater percentage of rainfall leaving as runoff and less inf ltrating into the ground.
High runoff can cause erosion and incision of stream channels.
Impervious surfaces contribute pollutants to rain water runoff.
© Conservation Design Forum
9 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 The health of the Dead River system and Lake Michigan are a direct re f ection of land use activities throughout the watershed such as how we develop the watershed, and how we live in and manage our urban landscape, have a dramatic ef fect on the condition of watershed resources.
Tthese impacts affect not only the residents and visitors of Zion, Beach Park, and Waukegan, but all of the communities that depend on Lake Michigan to provide water, recreation, food, economic well-being, or other values. Fortunately there are proven practices for addressing these impacts, and landowners, business owners, public of f cials, and all who live, work, and play within the watershed can take positive action towards improving the watershed. One of the f rst steps in the process it to understand watershed problems and make a plan for moving forward -- a watershed plan.
WATERSHED PLANNING Healthy watersheds offer many benef ts including a healthy river with better water quality, enhanced opportunities for recreation and environmental education, opportunities for environmentally sustainable economic development, better wildlife habitat, reduced f ood damage, and a healthier Lake Michigan.
One of the f rst steps to rediscovering and enhancing these watershed benef ts is through a process called watershed planning. The purpose of the watershed planning process to better understand the condition of Dead River watershed resources, and to identify actions to prevent existing watershed problems from worsening as a result of future land use and management changes, preserve and improve water resources, reduce f ood damage, protect property and infrastructure, and improve the quality of life for watershed residents. W atershed planning has the added bene f t of bringing numerous communities together to plan for the greater good and to protect and improve the land and water resources they share and impact.
The following general steps were used in developing this watershed plan.
- 1. Conduct monthly W atershed Planning Committee meetings with watershed stakeholders and technical team members.
- 2. Solicit public input on watershed issues and opportunities and formulate watershed goals and objectives.
- 3. Review and analyze existing studies, watershed conditions, and watershed data to identify watershed problems.
- 4. Identify best management practices and policies to improve watershed resources.
- 5. Develop detailed watershed improvement action and implementation plan and recommendations.
Watershed planning is a participatory process with watershed stakeholders.
© Conservation Design Forum
10 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 WATERSHED ISSUES AND GOALS During the f rst two Watershed Planning Committee meetings, watershed stakeholders developed a list of watershed issues and opportunities and prioritized them via a voting process.
Specif c areas of concern include the stream system and erosion problems, the ravines, the area north of W aukegan Harbor, and Lake Michigan and its shoreline.
These and other issues were categorized into the following topic areas, with the number of votes received shown in parenthesis:
- 1.
Stream Restoration and Management (53)
- 2. Floodplains (16)
- 3.
Natural Resources (34)
- 4.
Watershed Education & Coordination (32)
- 5.
Stormwater Infrastructure (0)
- 6.
Water Quality (0)
Due to the similarity and proximity of the Kellogg Creek and Dead River watersheds, these results were combined with those of the Kellogg Creek watershed as the foundation for developing the following watershed management goals, which are further detailed in Chapter 2:
Goal A:
Restore the health and function of streams as part of a watershed green infrastructure (see description at right).
Goal B:
Reduce and prevent f ood damage to protect health, safety, property and infrastructure.
Goal C:
Preserve and restore a green infrastructure network of land and water resources.
Goal D:
Provide people with watershed improvement education, resources, and opportunities.
Goal E:
Improve water quality by reducing the impacts of land use and development.
Goal F:
Improve public, private, and non-pro f t coordination and decision-making.
Goal G:
Stabilize the stream systems by reducing surface runoff.
Green infrastructure: On the local scale, municipal or neighborhood, green infrastructure consists of site-specif c best management practices (such as naturalized detention facilities, vegetated swales, porous pavements, rain gardens and green roofs) that are designed to maintain natural hydrologic functions by absorbing and inf ltrating precipitation where it falls.
On the regional scale, green infrastructure consists of the interconnected network of open spaces and natural areas (such as forested areas, f oodplains and wetlands, greenways, parks and forest preserves) that mitigate stormwater runoff, naturally recharge aquifers, improve water quality while providing recreational opportunities and wildlife habitat.
Conservation design: A county-wide method for developing land that conserves the green infrastructure elements of a site while providing for development at full density on the remainder of the site. Conservation design typically includes the use of stormwater management measures that f lter and inf ltrate runoff on site.
executive summary
11 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 WATERSHED INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT Chapter 3 of this plan is an assessment of watershed conditions based on data, studies, and inventories, and the preparation of a series of watershed maps.
The assessment included stream corridor conditions, stormwater infrastructure, f ooding, water quality, land use, wetlands, and other relevant data and information.
This information serves as baseline data for comparison with future watershed assessments. Five important conclusions based on this watershed assessment are summarized here.
- 1. The Dead River system exhibits rapid increases and decreases in water f ow, level and velocity
, which reduces water quality, reduces the quality of stream habitat, and destabilizes the stream channel, causing erosion of streambanks and ravines and damage to stormwater infrastructure.
- 2. Streambank and ravine erosion are a major concern along many reaches and require immediate attention.
Stormwater discharge points are of particular concern as many of them were found to be failing or negatively impacting the stream system.
- 3. Water quality is impacted primarily by sediment, low dissolved oxygen levels, high phosphorous concentrations, and other typical urban watershed non-point source pollutants. The Waukegan Regional airport, other impervious surface areas, and the industrial legacy of Waukegan Harbor and areas to the north of the harbor are signif cant contributors to water runoff and pollution.
- 4. Preserving and restoring priority green infrastructure areas, including Illinois Beach State Park, Lyons Woods Forest Preserve, wetlands, and stream corridors, is critical for improving water quality and other watershed resources. Restoration measures include controlling invasive species, which threaten high quality natural, beach erosion in Illinois Beach State Park, and the habitat of the stream channel and the natural corridor through which the stream channel runs.
- 5. The municipalities, residents, businesses, landowners, and other organizations and agencies within the watershed lack the coordination and communication necessary to improve watershed resources.
WATERSHED BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE TOOLBOX Chapter 4 of the watershed plan includes a description of best management practices and policies that can improve watershed resources. Included in this toolbox are actions that can be taken by residents, landowners, business owners, agencies, and municipalities to prevent conditions from worsening and to improve existing impaired conditions. Best management practices described in the toolbox include:
- Stabilize eroding streambanks using deep-rooted vegetation and other environmentally-friendly measures.
- Use conservation design principles for new development and retro f tting existing development with improved stormwater management practices.
- Install vegetated swales, raingardens, and f lter strips, to help slow, f lter, inf ltrate, cool, and cleanse stormwater before being discharged to our streams and wetlands.
- Reduce the area of impervious surfaces and using permeable paving practices that allow water to in f ltrate into the ground rather than run across the surface.
- Maintain deep-rooted, native vegetation buf fers around streams, wetlands, and detention basins.
- Preserve green infrastructure including open space, stream corridors, wetlands, and natural areas.
12 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 WATERSHED ACTION PLAN The effectiveness of the Dead River watershed plan will be largely dependent on the quality of the action plan in Chapter
- 5. The action plan provides the who, what, where and when for making watershed improvements and includes programmatic, policy, and site-speci f c recommendations.
The site-specif c action items are tied to a particular location in the watershed or along the stream corridor, and include details such as area, length, cost, responsibility, schedule, and priority. The eleven most important recommendations are summarized as follows:
- 1.
Stabilize streambanks and ravine slopes to reduce erosion, protect property and infrastructure, improve water quality, and improve habitat.
- 2.
Restore and manage stream corridors by restoring native riparian buf fers, reducing the density of trees, removing excessive debris, and stabilizing the stream bed with practices that also enhance habitat.
- 3. Manage, retrof t, and stabilize the stormwater management system including detention basins and culverts, with focused attention on stormwater discharge points (pipes and ditches), to reduce runof f rate and volume and to improve water quality in the streams and Lake Michigan.
- 4.
Preserve and restore priority green infrastructure areas to provide natural surface water storage areas, provide space for installing best management practices, and preserve an ecologically functioning network of open space, wetlands, streams, and natural areas as part of an interconnected system.
- 5.
Manage and restore watershed natural areas including wetlands, former wetlands / hydric soil areas, and especially Lyons Woods Forest Preserve and Illinois Beach State Park.
- 6.
Develop positive and creative new uses for the Zion Nuclear Power Plant and W aukegan Harbor areas, ensuring that these uses are compatible with protecting and improving watershed resources and Lake Michigan.
- 7. Remediate existing f ood problems and prevent future f ooding by reducing stormwater runoff and preserving areas for surface water storage and absorption such as f oodplains, depressional storage areas, and wetlands, which also provide water quality improvement benef ts.
- 8.
Use better stormwater management, conservation design, and low impact development practices for new and existing development that slows, f lters, inf ltrates, cools, and cleanses stormwater runof f, especially in Critical Subbasins. This includes source controls and lot level best management practices such as vegetated swales, naturalized detention basins, rain gardens, stream buffers, f lter strips, and reduced use of lawn chemicals and fertilizers.
Monitoring is an important part of improving watershed resources.
An eroding stream channel before (left) and after restoration (right).
executive summary
13 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
- 9.
Modify and use planning and development standards, policies, and capital improvement plans and budgets to protect and enhance water quality.
- 10. Provide public education and outreach to enhance understanding and apprciation of watershed resources and problems, to provide solutions, and to provide opportunities for people to get involved in watershed improvement activities.
- 11. Monitor and evaluate watershed plan implementation and physical watershed conditions to guage progress towards watershed goals.
MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN A monitoring and evaluation plan was developed to provide a means of measuring progress towards watershed goals and plan implementation. This plan should be used by watershed plan stakeholders and other implementers to monitor watershed resources and to track whether meaningful progress is being made towards plan goals. The monitoring plan includes details such as the frequency of monitoring, short, medium, and long term milestones, responsible party, and mode of collection.
THE FUTURE OF THE WATERSHED DEPENDS ON ALL OF US This plan has limited usefulness without the dedication and commitment of watershed stakeholders to the improvement, restoration, management, and stewardship of watershed resources. As the primary land use, development, and infrastructure authorities in the watershed, municipal and county off cials and staf f have a signi f cant amount of the responsibility for plan implementation. County, state, and federal agencies also have a signi f cant role in watershed plan implementation, by approving and supporting projects with funding, and by providing technical information, tools, and resources to assist local authorities and watershed organizations in their ef forts. W atershed residents and landowners must also accept responsibility for managing their own land and water resources, for identifying watershed problems and opportunities, and for working with others to implement this plan.
All of these people and organizations will need to work together to successfully protect and restore the Dead River watershed, to ensure long-term watershed stewardship, and to share the responsibilities, costs, and benef ts of watershed improvements. Plan implementation will also depend on a watershed organization to oversee, guide, coordinate and monitor watershed activities on behalf of the stakeholders.
This organization typically forms as an outgrowth of the Watershed Planning Committee with support coming from a variety of state and local agencies as well as local land use authorities and decision makers.
This is the primary mechanism for the general public to be involved in watershed activities, to support the implementation of the watershed plan, and to voice their concerns and celebrate their successes in restoring watershed resources.
THIS PLAN IS A BLUEPRINT The Dead River W atershed-Based Plan provides speci f c guidance for addressing impacts and for preserving and enhancing the valuable resources of the watershed. It provides a source of information and recommendations for municipalities, forest preserves, developers, residents, county and state agencies, and others to ef fectively plan and conduct land use and other activities in a way that is appropriate for protecting watershed resources. It provides guidance for comprehensive planning, development standards, green infrastructure preservation, natural resource restoration, land management, and water quality improvement, with an overall focus on water resources.
It also provides indirect guidance for capital improvement planning and budgeting.
14 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 acknowledgements Mike Adam, Lake County Health Dept.
Jim Anderson, Lake County Forest Preserve Larry Anglada, Zion Benton Township High School Bob Asma, Resident Jim Battista, Midwest Group/Pineview Cemetery John Beardsley, IL State Water Survey Emma Bialecki, Lake County Forest Preserve District Pat Bleck, Beach Park Drainage District Janice Bock, Resident Richard & Jean Bogdala, Residents LeRoy Boldt, Village of Beach Park Robert Cade, North Shore Sanitary District Frances Canonizado Alliance for the Great Lakes Thomas Chefalo, Lake County Planning, Building, and Development Bruce Cliff, Resident Sara Creque, Illinois Natural History Survey John M. Crombie, Resident Leonard Dane, Lake County Health Department Lyle DeGraff, Resident William & Susan Fishback, Resident Rachel Foerster, Resident Jack Forney, Zion Industrial Park Tim Girmscheid, Liberty Prairie Conservancy Jeff Greenspan, Trust For Public Land Gene Gross, Beach Park & Benton Township S. I. Harris, Resident Erica Heyl, Resident Nick Huber, Lake County Forest Preserves Joe Hughes, Resident Paula Illich, Resident Doug & Barb Jaeger, Residents Paul Kakuris, Illinois Dunesland Preservation Society Jeffrey Koziel, Land Conservancy of Lake County Sandy Kubillus, Integrated Lakes Management Joe Leccise, Resident Bob Long, Resident Judy Mackey, Resident Larry Matson, City of Waukegan Robert Martin, Village of Pleasant Prairie Deb Maurer, Lake County Forest Preserves Bruce Mihelich, City of Zion Curtis Mitzelfelt, Resident Ron Molinaro, Village of Winthrop Harbor John Moore, City of Waukegan Debra Nelson, IDNR Ronda Nissen, Resident Adrienne Orr, Lake County Health Dept.
Howard Parks, Resident Chip Parrott, RHMG/ Village of Beach Park Mary Peloza, Resident Joe Robinson, North Shore Sanitary District Ric Robinson, Resident Denise Rolando, Resident Marilyn Ross, Resident Steve Rowan, Resident Tom Rush, Village of Beach Park Susie Schreiber, Waukegan CAG Joseph Sekulich, Resident Dan Shappert, Bull Creek Stakeholders Association Natasha Shaw, State Rep. Eddie Washington Glenn Smith, Resident Jim Stanczak, Waukegan Airport Terry Staples, Resident Joe Synovic, Resident Shantal Taylor, Resident Diana Vanderheyden, Resident Richard Vanderhoef, Resident Ronald Weldon, Resident Bill White, IL State Water Survey Donald White, Lake County Public Water District Lloyd Wickersheim, Resident Steve Wikner, Waukegan Park District Calvin & Lavonne Wilcox, Residents Judith Wilkes, Resident Don Wilson, Resident Bill Zika, Resident The Lake County Stormwater Management Commission secured the funding and provided project oversight and management.
The dedication and support of the Dead River Watershed Planning Committee and other watershed stakeholders in the planning process made development of this plan possible. The municipalities of the watershed graciously hosted our planning committee meetings. Special acknowledgment goes to Beach Park who hosted the majority of our meetings due to their central location in the watershed. Conservation Design Forum and Montgomery Watson Harza assisted with data collection and plan preparation. Funding for the Dead River Watershed Management Plan was made available through the United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service and Lake County Stormwater Management Commission.
The following people generously gave their time to speak to the Planning Committee about watershed issues:
Tim Girmscheid, Liberty Prairie Conservancy; Don Wilson, Illinois Beach State Park; Deb Maurer
, Lake County Forest Preserves; Joe Hughes, Bull Creek Stakeholde rs Association; Tony Wolff, Patty Werner, Mike Prusila, Scott Paszkiewicz, and Crissy Mehle, SMC; Jason Navota and Tom Price, CDF; and Erin Maloney, MWH.
Contributors to the watershed plan included representatives from both Kellogg Creek and the Dead River watersheds:
15 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 Chris Gaynes Crissy Mehle Scott Paszkiewicz Mike Prusila Rasto Vrazda Mike Warner Patty Werner Tony Wolff Jason Navota Eric Otto Tom Price Becca Cerf Matt Fordham Ryan Wilson Brent Jacobsen Lake County Stormwater Management Commission Conservation Design Forum Montgomery Watson Harza PLANNING TEAM Justin Bartels Erin Maloney
© Conservation Design Forum DEAD RIVER WATERSHED -
BASED PLAN
16 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 of contents EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1.
THE DEAD RIVER WATERSHED 1.1 The Watershed Setting 1.1.1 The Watershed Over Time 1.1.2 Impacts of Watershed Development 1.1.3 Where We Go From Here 1.1.4 ABOUT THIS WATERSHED PLAN 1.2 Project Purpose 1.2.1 SMC Watershed Planning Authority 1.2.2 Project Funding 1.2.3 Watershed Plan Elements 1.2.4 Prior Watershed Studies and Plans 1.2.5 Process and Plan Organization 1.2.6 Plan Review and Adoption 1.2.7 USING THIS PLAN 1.3 Who Should Use This Plan 1.3.1 How To Use This Plan 1.3.2 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 2.
WATERSHED ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES 2.1 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 2.2 WATERSHED INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS 3.
INTRODUCTION 3.1 WATERSHED SETTING 3.2 WATER RESOURCES 3.3 CLIMATE AND PRECIPITATION 3.4 GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY 3.5 Ravines 3.5.1 SOILS 3.6 Hydric Soils 3.6.1 Hydrologic Soil Groups 3.6.2 Soil Erodibility 3.6.3 WATERSHED JURISDICTIONS 3.7 WATERSHED DEMOGRAPHICS 3.8 LAND USE AND LAND COVER 3.9 Presettlement Vegetation 3.9.1 Cultural Resources 3.9.2 Existing Land Use 3.9.3 Future Land Use 3.9.4 Waukegan Lakefront Revitalization 3.9.5 Zion Nuclear Power Station 3.9.6 1
17 25 1
17 18 10 13 25 26 26 26 28 36 36 40 30 32 32 34 40 40 42 44 46 46 1
2 3
7 10 10 11 11 11 12 13 13 13
17 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 3.10 TRANSPORT ATION 3.11 NA TURAL RESOURCES 3.11.1 Illinois Beach State Park and Preserve 3.11.2 Lyons Woods Nature Preserve 3.11.3 Ravines 3.11.4 W etlands 3.11.5 Greenways and Recreation 3.12 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE INVENTORY 3.12.1 Inventory Methodology and Results 3.12.2 Green Infrastructure Prioritization 3.13 NATURAL DRAINAGE SYSTEM 3.13.1 General Watershed Drainage 3.13.2 Delineating Subwatershed Management Units 3.13.3 Dead River / Bull Creek Stream Inventory 3.13.4 General Description / Flow Pathways 3.13.5 Channel Conditions 3.13.6 Hydraulic Structures 3.13.7 Point Discharges 3.13.8 Other Instream Problem Areas 3.13.9 Riparian Corridor / Floodplain 3.13.10 Instream and Riparian Habitat Assessment 3.14 WATER QUALITY (LAKES AND STREAMS) 3.14.1 State of Illinois Agency Reporting 3.14.2 Local Water Quality Monitoring 3.14.3 Point Sources of Pollution 3.14.4 Non-Point Sources of Pollution 3.14.5 Summary of Water Quality Assessment 3.15 FLOODING 3.15.1 Flood Risk Assessment 3.15.2 Flood Damage 3.15.3 Designed Drainage System 3.15.4 Detention Basin Inventory 3.15.5 Regionally Significant Storage Locations 3.16 W ATERSHED VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS 3.16.1 Stream Vulnerability Analysis 3.16.2 Subwatershed Vulnerability Analysis 3.17 CRITICAL AREAS 3.17.1 Critical Subbasins 3.17.2 Critical Reaches 3.17.3 Critical Regions 3.18 SUMMAR Y AND CONCLUSIONS
- 4. WATERSHED BEST MANAGMENT PRACTICES TOOLBOX 4.1 POLICIES AND STANDARDS 4.2 P L A N N IN G P R OC E S S B MP S 4.3 ON - S IT E S TOR MWAT E R B MP S 4.4 L A N D S C A P IN G B MP S 4.5 F L OOD R E D U C T ION B MP S
- 5. PRIORITIZED ACTION PLAN 5.1 IMPLEMENTATION PARTNERS Section 3.18 contains watershed-based plan element #1: causes and sources of water pollution.
141 48 64 96 58 141 142 142 144 144 116 130 134 138 118 118 124 124 128 130 132 134 134 136 48 48 54 54 54 58 60 60 64 68 68 70 76 86 86 90 90 90 96 97 102 108 112 165 165
18 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 PROGRAMMATIC ACTION PLAN 5.2 Streams and Riparian Corridors 5.2.1 Water Quality and Stormwater Management 5.2.2 Planning and Development Standards 5.2.3 Green Infrastructure 5.2.4 Natural Areas 5.2.5 Land Management 5.2.6 Flood Management 5.2.7 Stakeholder Coordination 5.2.8 SITE SPECIFIC ACTION PLAN 5.3 INFORMATION AND EDUCATION PLAN 5.4 Target Audiences 5.4.1 Partner Organizations 5.4.2 Evaluating the Outreach Plan 5.4.3 Information and Education Strategy for the Dead River 5.4.4 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION 6.
PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 6.1 IMPAIRMENT REDUCTION TARGETS AND PROJECTIONS 6.2 Impairment Reduction Targets 6.2.1 Impairment Reduction Projections 6.2.2 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION COST ESTIMATE AND SCHEDULE 6.3 PLAN MONITORING AND EVALUATION 6.4 Monitoring Plan Implementation 6.4.1 Evaluating Plan Performance 6.4.2 Quality Assurance Project Plans 6.4.3 WATERSHED RESOURCES 7.
WHO TO CALL 7.1 FUNDING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
7.2 REFERENCES
APPENDICES THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES A LAKE COUNTY STORMWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION STREAM INVENTORY PHOTOGRAPHS B STREAM INVENTORY METHODOLOGY C STREAM INVENTORY PROBLEM AREAS D DETENTION BASIN INVENTORY E WATERSHED BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE TOOLBOX F EXPANDED PROGRAMMATIC ACTION PLAN G EXPANDED SITE SPECIFIC ACTION PLAN H INFORMATION AND EDUCATION RESOURCES I PLAN IMPLEMENTATION COST ESTIMATE J Section 6.2 contains watershed-based plan element #2: water quality improve-ment expected from implementing plan recommendations.
Section 6.3 contains watershed-based plan elements #4 and #6: technical and f nancial assistance needed to imple-ment this plan, and plan implementation schedule.
Section 6.4 contains watershed-based plan elements #7, #8 and #9: milestones for measuring plan implementation prog-ress, indicators to determine whether loading reductions are being achieved, and monitoring component.
Sections 5.2 and 5.3 contain watershed-based plan element #3: best manage-ment practices and critical areas where those practices are needed.
Section 5.4 contains watershed-based plan element #5: public information and education plan.
171 172 174 176 178 180 182 184 186 229 230 231 231 188 229 246 241 242 246 246 248 248 248 249 263 265 241 263 281
19 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 K WATERSHED POLLUTANT LOADING AND PLAN IMPLEMENTATION POLLUTANT LOADING REDUCTION ESTIMATES L PLAN IMPLEMENTATION FUNDING SOURCES M NON-POINT SOURCE POLLUTANT LOADING MAPS N WATERSHED PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING SUMMARIES O STREAM INVENTORY DATA SHEETS
20 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 list of tables Table 1.1 Priority Actions by Stakeholder Type Table 3.1 1971-2000 Temperature Normals for Waukegan, IL Climate Station Table 3.2 1971-2000 Precipitation Normals for Waukegan, IL Climate Station Table 3.3 Hydrologic Soil Groups Table 3.4 Watershed Demographics Table 3.5 Watershed Demographics by Municipality Table 3.6 Existing Land Use and Cover Table 3.7 Land Use Categories Table 3.8 Future Land Use and Cover (Illinois 2020)
Table 3.9 Illinois Beach State Park Invasive and Exotic Species Table 3.10 Green Infrastructure Parcel Ownership Categories Table 3.11 Green Infrastructure Parcel Prioritization Criteria and Impairment Categories Addressed Table 3.12 Green Infrastructure Inventory Results Table 3.13 Green Infrastructure Prioritization Results Table 3.14 Subwatershed Management Units Table 3.15 Useful Def nitions Table 3.16 Substrate Composition Table 3.17 Water Monitoring Data, North Shore Sanitary District Table 3.18 Water Quality Monitoring Data, Lake County Health Department Table 3.19 Lake Michigan Beach Closures Table 3.20 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits Table 3.21 Common Transportation-related pollutants Table 3.22 Pollutant Loading Contribution by Subbasin Table 3.23 Structures in 100-year Floodplain Table 3.24 Illinois Department of Transportation Flood Locations Table 3.25 Regionally Signif cant Storage Areas Table 3.26 Current and Future Subwatershed Support Level Table 3.27 Instream Habitat Criteria Table 3.28 Stream Reach Quality and Subbasin Support Level Table 3.29: Stream Vulnerability Table 3.30: Subbasin Vulnerability Table 3.31: Critical Subbasins and Regions Table 3.32: Critical Reaches Table 3.33 Watershed Impairments, Causes, and Sources Table 4.1 Stormwater Management Tool Applicability Table 4.2 Stormwater Management Tool Effectiveness Table 5.1 Implementation Partners Table 5.2 Stream and Riparian Corridor Programmatic Actions Table 5.3 Water Quality and Stormwater Management Programmatic Actions Table 5.4 Planning and Development Standards Programmatic Actions Table 5.5 Green Infrastructure Programmatic Actions Table 5.6 Natural Area Programmatic Actions 14 28 28 34 38 38 42 42 44 50 58 61 61 62 68 76 92 99 99 101 103 109 112 118 124 128 130 130 130 131 131 136 136 139 146 147 167 173 175 177 178 181
21 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 5.7 Land Management Programmatic Actions Table 5.8 Flood Management Programmatic Actions Table 5.9 Stakeholder Coordination Programmatic Actions Table 5.10 Site Specif c Action Plan for the City of Zion Table 5.11 Site Specif c Action Plan for the Village of Beach Park Table 5.12 Site Specif c Action Plan for the City of Waukegan Table 5.13 Site Specif c Action Plan for the Illinois Department of Natural Resources Table 5.14 Site Specif c Action Plan for Lake County Table 5.15 Site Specif c Action Plan for Multiple Jurisdictions Table 5.16 Information and Education Plan Table 6.1 Implementation Partners Table 6.2 Three Point Scale for Estimating the Ability of a Best Management Practice to Meet a Reduction Target Table 6.3 Watershed Impairment Reduction Targets and Projections Table 6.4 Plan Implementation Cost Estimate Table 6.5 Plan Implementation Schedule Summary Table 6.6 Monitoring Plan 183 185 187 190 194 206 211 212 213 232 243 245 245 247 247 250
22 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 list of figures Figure 3.1 Water Resources Figure 3.2 Illinois Beach State Park Dune and Swale System Figure 3.3 Lake County Landforms Figure 3.4 Surface Elevation Figure 3.5 Hydrologic Soil Groups Figure 3.6 Soil Erodibility Figure 3.7 Jurisdictional Boundaries Figure 3.8 Population Distribution Figure 3.9 Presettlement Vegetation Figure 3.10 Existing Land Use Figure 3.11 Future Land Use Figure 3.12 Waukegan Lakefront Master Plan Figure 3.13 Natural Areas, Trails, and Threatened and Endangered Species Figure 3.14 Illinois Beach State Park Major Restoration Areas Figure 3.15 Illinois Beach State Park Shoreline Erosion Figure 3.16 Littoral (Sand)Transport Figure 3.17 Watershed Wetlands and Hydric Soils Figure 3.18 Potential Wetland Restoration Sites Map Figure 3.19 Conceptual Green Infrastructure Hubs and Connecting Links Figure 3.20 Local Green Infrastructure at the Site Scale Figure 3.21 Green Infrastructure Hubs and Link Figure 3.22 Green Infrastructure Parcel Prioritization Figure 3.23 Water Resources Map Figure 3.24 Little Dead River Figure 3.25 Subwatershed Management Units Figure 3.26 Plan (Overhead) View of Natural Stream Morphology Figure 3.27 Channelization Figure 3.28 Pool/Riff e Development Figure 3.29 Topography Figure 3.30 Streambank Erosion Figure 3.31 Sedimentation Map Figure 3.32 Hydraulic Structures Figure 3.33 Point Discharges Figure 3.34 Other Instream Problem Areas Figure 3.35 Instream Habitat Figure 3.36 Riparian Habitat Figure 3.37 Lake Michigan Swimming Bans Figure 3.38 Beach Water E.Coli Source Study Results Figure 3.39 NPDES Permits Figure 3.40 Waukegan Harbor Area of Concern (AOC) and Expanded Study Area (ESA)
Figure 3.41 Waukegan Harbor Area of Concern and Surrounding Area Figure 3.42 Non-point source pollutant loading for TSS, TP, COD, and BOD Figure 3.43 Floodplain Features Figure 3.44 Lake County Gardens Figure 3.45 Existing and Proposed Floodplain Comparison Figure 3.46 Flood Structures 27 29 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 53 55 57 59 59 59 63 65 66 67 76 77 79 80 81 85 87 89 91 93 95 101 101 105 106 107 113 117 117 119 121
23 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 Figure 3.47 Flood Problem Area Inventory Figure 3.48 Drainage Network Figure 3.49 Detention Basin Inventory Figure 3.50 Regional and Depressional Storage Figure 3.51 Stream Vulnerability and Subwatershed Imperviousness Figure 3.52 Stream and Subwatershed Vulnerability Figure 3.53 Critical Areas Figure 5.1 Prioritized Green Infrastructure Areas Figure 5.2 Subwatershed Management Unit 1 Figure 5.3 Subwatershed Management Unit 2 Figure 5.4 Subwatershed Management Unit 3A Figure 5.5 Subwatershed Management Unit 3B Figure 5.6 Subwatershed Management Unit 3C Figure 5.7 Subwatershed Management Unit 4 Figure 5.8 Subwatershed Management Unit 5 Figure 5.9 Subwatershed Management Unit 6 123 125 127 129 133 135 137 179 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227
24 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
25 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 Prepared for:
Dead River Watershed Planning Commission Prepared by:
Conservation Design Forum Montgomery Watson Harza DEAD RIVER WATERSHED -
BASED PLAN
© Lake County Stormwater Management Commission