ML15188A126

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)

Text

plan implementation and evaluation 6

6 - plan implementation and evaluation This chapter identi f es a strategy for moving from planning the stakeholder forum for the watershed until a separate to implementation of the action plan recommendations. How organization or committe can be created. The Planning readily this plan is used and implemented by watershed Committee can continue to hold regular meetings, organize stakeholders is one indicator of its success. Improvement watershed f eld trips, host educational workshops and in watershed resources is another indicator . Successful forums, and bring watershed stakeholders and multiple plan implementation will require signi f cant cooperation units of government together to discuss watershed issues and coordination among watershed stakeholders to secure and opportunities. The Planning Committee may consider project funding and to ef f ciently and ef fectively move the whether a formal staf f position is needed to support the action plan from paper to the watershed. efforts of the Committee and to solicit volunteers for the position.

This chapter also relates some more technical details about the expected results of putting action recommendations in The Planning Committee, or an established watershed place and the cost of plan implementation. It also presents organization, is encouraged to work to generate additional a plan for monitoring and evaluating plan implementation as stakeholder interest and involvement with watershed plan a way to determine progress towards watershed goals and implementation and stewardship activities. As projects are objectives. 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 6.1 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION benef ts to stakeholder participation in watershed activities, STRATEGY from positive media attention to improved quality of life for community residents. Increased involvement also can yield The Dead River watershed includes many stakeholders (see signif cant local, state, and federal funding opportunities to Table 6.1) that will have to coordinate ef forts to implement help share the cost of project implementation.

many of the projects recommended in the action plan. Since no single municipality, district, resident, business, landowner, The watershed action plan contains a number of or organization has the f nancial or technical resources to programmatic and site speci f c recommendations and accomplish the plan goals and objectives alone, working an identi f cation of the party responsible for leading the together will be essential to achieve meaningful results.

implementation of those recommendations. Some actions, Combining and coordinating resources, funding, ef fort, and such as the repair or stabilization of a municipal stormwater leadership will be the most ef f cient and ef fective means of discharge point, can be added to municipal or drainage creating real improvement of watershed resources.

district capital improvement and maintenance plans, budgets, and schedules. This is a fairly quick and easy One important step in plan implementation will be the approach to implementing recommendations within the establishment of a committee or organization to step forward purview of specif c jurisdictions.

as a project leader to help organize and coordinate plan implementation. Responsibilities of this organization would In other cases, however , the action recommendation also include administration, coordination of stakeholders will require the involvement of multiple stakeholders for to support individual watershed projects, and working implementation, such as residents, a municipality , and with municipalities and other stakeholders to implement a county , state, or federal agency to provide f nancial recommended policies and programs.

and technical support. Some actions require cross-jurisdictional coordination for issues, such as streambank Throughout the watershed planning process, the Watershed stabilization, that span multiple jurisdictions or properties.

Planning Committee has provided valuable input to the The establishment of a green infrastructure corridor along plan regarding watershed issues, resources, and priorities.

the stream channel, or the preservation and restoration of This Planning Committee is encouraged to function as 241 T H E D E A D R I V E R l W AT E R S H E D - B A S E D P L A N

6 plan implementation and evaluation a large wetland complex are examples of projects that may 6.2 IMPAIRMENT REDUCTION require inter-jurisdictional cooperation and may require a TARGETS AND PROJECTIONS longer time frame for implementation.

In order to meet the requirements for a watershed-based Other actions will require the cooperation of individual plan, the plan must pay particular attention to water quality or groups of landowners, whether they are residents, pollutants and impairments and measures for reducing the homeowners associations, businesses, or institutions.These impairment. The high priority water quality pollutants for the actions will often need a leader, or a single champion for the Dead River Watershed include low dissolved oxygen, Total project, that can organize resources and keep the project Suspended Solids / sedimentation, nutrients (phosphorous),

moving forward. This champion may be the watershed aquatic life toxicity (total dissolved solids, chlorides, and organization, or a single entity such as a landowner or the salinity), and bacterial contamination (fecal coliform).

municipality. Additional impairments addressed by the plan include degraded watershed aquatic habitat, loss and degradation of Actions that involve preservation of areas of land or water wetlands, natural area invasion by exotic species, impacted may also require the involvement of a local land trust, or lack of stream buffers and riparian zones, and f ood f ows such as the Lake County Land Trust, or other conservation and damages. These are the most important impairments organization. These groups can often provide technical or needing to be addressed, for the reasons provided below.

f nancial assistance for preservation efforts. Low dissolved oxygen is problematic because it creates aquatic habitat conditions that only some f sh and aquatic In some cases, actions recommend the adoption of new organisms can tolerate, causing the diversity of species to policies, plans, or standards that modify the form, intensity , be reduced, which is an indicator of an impaired system.

or type of development or redevelopment in the watershed Restoring dissolved oxygen levels to levels that are in a way that better protects watershed resources. These consistently above 5.0 mg/L (the Illinois standard) will help actions will require some ef fort on the part of municipalities recreate high quality aquatic habitat conditions.

to understand how plans and policies can be modi f ed and to discuss and adopt new, or modify existing, policies, plans Total Suspended Solids / sedimentation impair watershed and standards. The f rst step in this ef fort is to understand resources when they settle out in streambeds, wetlands, how current development practices impact watershed and natural areas making them uninhabitable by some resources and how they can be improved, followed by sensitive plant and animal species. The primary impact of high suspended solids concentrations in streams occurs discussion and debate about possible modi f cations, and when these solids settle in depositional areas of the stream f nally adopting policies and standards that have will have system and cover the more desirable gravel substrates.

the desired outcome. Excessive levels of particulate material also create dif f cult conditions for gill breathing f sh and some of their food Clearly there is much to be done and there are many parties sources, including macroinvertebrate organisms. In Illinois to coordinate. However , a dedicated and determined ef fort Beach State Park, sediment is obstructing f ow and settling will benef t all watershed stakeholders and future generations out in the park and degrading the quality of habitat. Reducing of residents and visitors. 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 T H E D E A D R I V E R l W AT E R S H E D - B A S E D P L A N 242

Table 6.1 Implementation Partners 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.

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

GC Golf Courses Grounds management and maintenance.

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

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

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

Land use and development, technical and f nancial support, and drainage system M Municipalities (all departments) management.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

243 T H E D E A D R I V E R l W AT E R S H E D - B A S E D P L A N

6 plan implementation and evaluation oxygen levels in the water , impairing the habitat quality Watershed wetlands and natural areas have been for aquatic wildlife. Reducing the f ow of phosphorous to invaded by exotic and invasive species, which crowd out watershed water resources can help to restore high quality native species and degrade habitat necessary to support aquatic habitat conditions necessary for a healthy diversity threatened and endangered species. Removal and control of species. of exotic and invasive species, including the reintroduction of natural management mechanisms such as prescribedf re, Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) include salt (sodium chloride) is important to restore the quality and function of watershed used as road deicing material. Road salt can occur at wetlands and natural areas.

toxic levels in the water column at intermittent times when the weather conditions demand its use. Chlorides Natural stream buf fers and riparian zones have been are not removed by best management practices, does removed, converted to turf grass or other uses, or otherwise not decompose or readily change form, and can cause degraded to a state that does not help f lter runof f and spikes in the water column, typically detected as increased improve water quality, stabilize streambanks, nor support a conductivity, making the water uninhabitable by certain healthy stream system habitat.

aquatic plants and animals. Reducing chloride loading to the stream will help maintain a consitent quality of water that Increased f ood f ows and f ood damages are the result of supports healthy aquatic habitat. increased rate and volume of stormwater runof f, the loss of natural drainage and water retention areas such as wetlands Lake Michigan beaches high fecal contamination / pathogens and depressional storage, and development within or that causes beach closures due to the potential threat adjacent to the f oodplain. Restoring watershed hydrology ,

to human health that pathogens present. Reducing this reducint the rate and volume of stormwater runof f, and contamination will reduce beach closures and help protect restoration of depressional and wetland storage can help human health. reduce the risk of f ooding of structures in the future.

Watershed habitat has been degraded and altered due to a For these impairments, the intent of the action plan number of causes.The lack of aquatic habitat characteristics, recommendations is to reduce the impairment to an including pools and riff es and healthy substrates, means that acceptable level. The acceptable level for some pollutants aquatic species do not have suf f cient cover and sources of is set by the Illinois Pollution Control Board and Illinois food. Other habitat alterations that degrade conditions for Environmental Protection Agency. However , Illinois aquatic organisms include streambank erosion and barriers standards only exist for one of these impairments, dissolved to the movement of f sh upstream and downstream, such as oxygen, which is set at a concentration of 5.0 mg/L for most debris buildup or inconsistent connections to Lake Michigan. conditions. For other impairments, reduction targets are set Alterations to watershed hydrology, creatingf ashy conditions, according to professional opinion.

also impairs habitat because low f ow conditions can mean Setting impairment reduction targets and estimating that there is not enough water for aquatic species to live, and the improvement expected by implementing plan that dissolved oxygen levels fall below healthy levels due to recommendations are important for assessing the the lack of f ow and aeration. Restoring natural watershed effectiveness of watershed plan recommendations for hydrology, habitat characteristics, and streambank stability determining whether watershed impairments are being are important for recreating habitat conditions that support a addressed. Targets and reduction estimates also satisfy healthy diversity of aquatic organisms.

one of the nine required watershed-based plan elements established by the US Environmental Protection Agency.

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.

T H E D E A D R I V E R l W AT E R S H E D - B A S E D P L A N 244

USEPA watershed-based plan element #2:

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

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%

Table 6.3 Watershed Impairment Reduction Targets and Projections Reduction Is the target Impairment Cause Degree / Basis of Impairment Reduction Projection Target being met?

Total suspended solids / 3,208,000 lb/yr of TSS loading (based on 7,040,928 lb/yr reduction in Water Quality 75% Yes sedimentation non-point source pollution loading model) TSS loading 8% of dissolved oxygen samples below 30-90% reduction in Water Quality Low dissolved oxygen 50% Yes 5.0 mg/L samples below 5.0 mg/L Water Quality Nutrients (phosphorous) Observed and reported algae blooms 50% 112,300 lb/yr phosphorous Unknown Aquatic life toxicity (salinity / 188 mg/L median chloride concentrations Estimate unavailable Unknown Water Quality 25%

chlorides / total dissolved solids) in water quality samples Fecal coliform (Lake Michigan 0-33% reduction in fecal Water Quality 72 beach closures per year on average 50% No beaches) coliform load 0-100% reduction in # of Habitat degradation 39% of stream reaches with fair or poor reaches with fair or poor Yes Lack of habitat characteristics 25%

and alteration habitat conditions instream habitat Velocity variability of 0.0 - 4.06 f/s and Habitat degradation Hydrologic disturbance / f ow 0-66% reduction in f ow f ow variability of 0.2 - 688 cfs (2006- 50% Yes and alteration alterations / creek obstructions variability 2007 data)

Habitat degradation Draining, f lling, and degradation 66-100% of wetlands and alteration of wetlands 1077 wetland acres needing restoration 90% Yes restored Habitat degradation 0-100% Yes Exotic and invasive species Observed and reported 25%

and alteration 0-100% reduction in # of Habitat degradation Loss / reduction / degradation of 43% of stream reaches with fair or poor reaches with fair or poor Yes 75%

and alteration natural buffer riparian habitat riparian habitat Habitat degradation 43% of stream reaches with fair or poor 0-66% reduction in # of Streamside alterations 75% reaches with fair or poor No and alteration riparian habitat riparian habitat Velocity variability of 0.0 - 4.06 f/s and Increased f ood Increased rate and volume of 0-66% reduction in f ow f ow variability of 0.2 - 688 cfs (2006- 75% No f ows runoff variability 2007 data) 0-100% wetlands Increased f ood Loss / drainage of depressional restored / depressional Yes Loss of 754 acres (70%) of wetlands 90%

f ows storage areas preserved 0-66% of structures Flood damages Past encroachments on f oodplain 292 structures in the f oodplain 100% protected from f ood No damage 245 T H E D E A D R I V E R l W AT E R S H E D - B A S E D P L A N

6 plan implementation and evaluation 6.2.1 IMPAIRMENT REDUCTION TARGETS are not expected to be adequately addressed by the recommendations. And, due to the lack of quantitative Impairment Reduction Targets are indicated in two ways data, it is unknown whether the remaining two of the and are based on professional opinion of feasibility . First, impairments will meet their reduction targets. Though the Impairment Reduction Targets (shown in Table 6.3) indicate reduction targets may be dif f cult to meet for a number of the potential reduction of the indicated impairment based the impairments, any and all reductions in impairment will on full (100%) implementation of the recommended action. improve watershed resources. In other words, every small For example, if all of the recommended actions intended to effort and accomplishment helps.

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 6.3 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION COST to be addressed. In other words, even under the best ESTIMATE AND SCHEDULE conditions, the entire sediment / Total Suspended Solids problem could not be addressed because there will always Implementation of this plan will require the development be some erosion and runof f of sediment from the urban of partnerships with local, state, and federal organizations landscape into the stream. Nonetheless, a 75% reduction for implementation, technical assistance, and funding.

in Total Suspended Solids / sediment loading would be a These efforts require the investment of a signif cant amount successful achievement for watershed improvement. of time and resources and, especially , funding. Table 6.4 summarizes the estimated amount of funding required The second way that impairment reduction targets are for initial and ongoing implementation of the practices indicated is displayed in the table included in Appendix K.Area recommended in the action plan. Initial costs indicate cost Improvement Targets indicate the area that can reasonably for installation and/ or establishment; annual costs indicate be expected to be addressed by each of the recommended cost for ongoing management and maintenance.

actions. For example, many of the wetland restoration recommendations have an Area Improvement Target of There are numerous sources of funds available to help 75%, indicating that 75% of the wetland can reasonably be support projects or provide cost-share to match other expected to be restored to a healthy condition. For wetlands, sources of funds. A list of numerous local, regional and state an improvement of 100% is considered unattainable given funding sources, and the types of projects funded under the the hydrologic and stormwater issues of the watershed. 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 6.2.2 IMPAIRMENT REDUCTION a good source of revenue, signi f cant local investment of PROJECTIONS time and f nancial resources will be required to implement this plan. If fully implemented, however , the quality of the Impairment Reduction Projections are best estimates and/ watershed lakes, stream reaches, and wetlands could be or ranges of impairment reduction that can be achieved signif cantly improved.

for recommended actions for the quantities (e.g., acres, linear feet of stream) indicated in Appendix K. Impairment Table 6.5 presents a summary of the plan implementation reduction estimates, whether indicated as quantities, schedule. The number of short, medium, and long term as ranges of percentages, or as an estimated ability to actions are shown to give watershed plan implementors meet reduction targets, are based on a variety of studies an idea of how many actions are recommended to be examining the potential ef fectiveness of dif ferent actions implemented in each of these time frames.

and best management practices. Tables of results from the various studies are also included in Appendix K. More detailed plan implementation cost and scheduling can be found in Appendix H Expanded Site Specif c Action Plan As shown in Table 6.3, impairment reduction projections and Appendix J Plan Implementation Cost Estimate. Potential are expected to meet or exceed eight of the 14 impairment fundiing sources for implementing plan recommendations reduction targets. Four of the impairment reduction targets are found in Appendix L.

T H E D E A D R I V E R l W AT E R S H E D - B A S E D P L A N 246

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).

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 18 247 T H E D E A D R I V E R l W AT E R S H E D - B A S E D P L A N

6 plan implementation and evaluation 6.4 PLAN MONITORING AND of actions taken, location of implementation, and percentage EVALUATION complete. The empty cells of the table (number of actions, and location of implementation) are to be f lled in by the 6.4.1 MONITORING PLAN IMPLEMENTATION parties responsible for monitoring as identi f ed in the table.

Number of actions is the actual data collected, for example, Continued monitoring and analysis is critical for providing the concentration of phosphorous or the # of f oodproofed feedback on the progress of implementation of thisatershed- W structures in the f oodplain. Location of implementation based Plan. The implementation and ef fectiveness of the refers to geographical location, such as where streambanks watershed plan and recommendations, and an assessment or wetlands were restored.Percent complete is a measure of of whether plan goals are being achieved, can be measured progress toward the goal itself, where 100% would indicate through a process called monitoring. Simply , monitoring is the complete achievement of a goal.

observing and tracking watershed conditions and indicators for positive or negative changes that may be attributed Since water quality is one of the primary goals of this to the implementation of the plan. These indicators can plan, stream and lake water quality impairments should be then be compared with water quality monitoring data to monitored by regularly collecting and testing water samples, determine whether there is a correlation between them. If either manually or using constant monitoring equipment.

no discernible correlation can be made, and if satisfactory A regular sampling strategy should be initiated and new progress is not being made towards watershed goals, the data should be added to existing data so that trends can watershed implementation team should consider whether be tracked. An expanded water quality monitoring protocol recommended strategies are having the desired ef fect or is essential to better locate and identify the causes and should be modif ed accordingly. sources of impairment that have been identif ed in this plan.

Recommendations that are physical or structural in nature, Some of the impairments also can be monitored visually such as streambank stabilization or riparian buf fers, can be and anecdotally by those living along the stream and those assessed in terms of reduced pollutant loads discharged involved in stream monitoring activities such as RiverWatch into the watershed, improved biological and habitat health, (National Great Rivers Research & Education Center).

and the degree of change in stormwater runof f volume and Visual and anecdotal monitoring should be done regularly f ow. The effectiveness of non-structural recommendations, (weekly in summer months and monthly in winter months is however, such as education, policies and regulations, and recommended) by trained volunteers. Specif cally, increases coordination, can be diff cult to measure due to long feedback in nutrient loading may be identi f ed by the increase or time. Changes in behavior following the implementation presence of algal blooms. Acute aquatic life toxicity may be of non-structural recommendations can be assessed by identif ed visually by watching for f sh kills or other kills of gathering feedback through meetings with implementation aquatic species such as insects or plant species. Strange partners and tools such as surveys and focus groups, as smells, slicks, or sheens on the water may also indicate the suggested in Table 6.6. discharge of a problem pollutant.

This monitoring strategy is intended to help track and measure the implementation of recommendations made 6.4.2 EVALUATING PLAN PERFORMANCE in this plan using a variety of indicators that are monitored regularly, typically on an annual basis or every three years. Watershed issues, opportunities, and conditions will change Progress on overall plan implementation should be reviewed over time. This watershed plan should be evaluated and using the milestones and indicators every 5 years and the updated every f ve years to account for these changes. At plan should be updated as needed. each evaluation and update, completed projects can be removed from the plan and new projects should be added.

The following monitoring plan includes a monitoring baseline, frequency of monitoring, short, medium, and long term In addition to this 5-year update, plan implementation milestones, responsible party, and mode of collection. There should be monitored annually by the W atershed Planning are also empty columns for implementers to track the number Committee or , if established, the watershed organization.

T H E D E A D R I V E R l W AT E R S H E D - B A S E D P L A N 248

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.

249 T H E D E A D R I V E R l W AT E R S H E D - B A S E D P L A N

6 plan implementation and evaluation Table 6.6 Monitoring Plan Issue Issue 1: Stream Restoration and Issue 1: Stream Restoration and Issue 1: Stream Restoration and Issue 1: Stream Restoration and Management Management Management Management Goal Goal A: Restore and manage Goal A: Restore and manage Goal A: Restore and manage Goal A: Restore and manage the stream system to protect and the stream system to protect and the stream system to protect and the stream system to protect and enhance stream and riparian health, enhance stream and riparian health, enhance stream and riparian health, enhance stream and riparian health, function, and conveyance as part function, and conveyance as part function, and conveyance as part function, and conveyance as part of a watershed green infrastructure of a watershed green infrastructure of a watershed green infrastructure of a watershed green infrastructure system. system. system. system.

Objective 1. Remediate detrimental stream 2. Remove or retrof t problem 3. Stabilize all moderately and 4. Reduce the erosive capacity of channel conditions such as armoring, impoundments, dams, and weirs to severely eroded streambanks using storm sewer outfalls, drain tiles, and channelization, siltation, and lack support f sh passage and migration BMPs. sump pump, roof, and footing drains of habitat characteristics with and natural basef ow. being discharged into the stream in-stream and channel-specif c channel through on-site inf ltration restoration enhancements such practices and outfall retrof t and as remeandering, regrading, stabilization projects.

bioengineering approaches to stabilization, and habitat structures (pools and riff es, boulders, root wads, etc.)

Impairments Water Quality; Habitat Degradation Water Quality; Habitat Degradation Water Quality; Habitat Degradation Water Quality Addressed and Alteration and Alteration and Alteration Indicators Number / linear feet of reaches with Number of f sh found in upstream Linear feet of streambanks with Number of problem point discharges detrimental channel conditions that reaches; seasonally consistent moderate or severe erosion that that have been repaired or have been addressed by restoration basef ow. have been stabilized. remediated.

efforts.

Frequency of Every 3 years Annual; daily (using LCHD sondes) Every 3 years Every 3 years Monitoring Baseline (2007) 0 lf / 0 reaches out of 69,200 lf / 27 Baseline needs to be established by 0 linear feet out of 44,600 lf total with 0 point discharges out of 49 total reaches needing restoration f sh sampling in upstream reaches moderate or severe erosion point discharges needing attention and identifying a current basef ow.

Short Term 10% restored (7000lf / 3 reaches) 10% increase in f sh count; 10% 10% (4500lf) of streambanks 10% (5) of point discharges Milestones greater stability in basef ow over addressed addressed (2008-2013) previous 5 year period (1-5 years)

Mid Term 25% restored (17,300lf / 6 reaches) 25% increase in f sh count; 10% 25% (11,000lf) of streambanks 25% (12) of point discharges Milestones greater stability in basef ow over addressed addressed (2013-2018) previous 5 year period (5-10 years)

Long Term 100% restored (69,200 lf / 27 100% increase in f sh count; 10% 100% (44,600lf) of streambanks 100% (49) of point discharges Milestones reaches) greater stability in basef ow over addressed addressed (2018+) previous 5 year period (10+ years)

Party Municipality / Drainage District, IDNR, LCHD Municipality / Drainage District, Municipality / Drainage District, Responsible for LCSMC/ Watershed Planning LCSMC/ Watershed Planning LCSMC/ Watershed Planning Monitoring Committee Committee Committee Priority Mode of Visual / stream survey; homeowner Physical sampling using accepted Visual / stream survey; homeowner Visual / stream survey; homeowner Collection / landowner contact and anecdotal protocols, e.g., IDNR Riverwatch / landowner contact and anecdotal / landowner contact and anecdotal reporting program; streamf ow monitoring data reporting reporting Number of Actions Location of Implementation Percent Complete T H E D E A D R I V E R l W AT E R S H E D - B A S E D P L A N 250

Table 6.6 Monitoring Plan (continued)

Issue Issue 1: Stream Restoration and Issue 1: Stream Restoration and Issue 1: Stream Restoration and Issue 1: Stream Restoration and Management Management Management Management Goal Goal A: Restore and manage Goal A: Restore and manage Goal A: Restore and manage Goal A: Restore and manage the stream system to protect and the stream system to protect and the stream system to protect and the stream system to protect and enhance stream and riparian health, enhance stream and riparian health, enhance stream and riparian health, enhance stream and riparian health, function, and conveyance as part function, and conveyance as part function, and conveyance as part function, and conveyance as part of a watershed green infrastructure of a watershed green infrastructure of a watershed green infrastructure of a watershed green infrastructure system. system. system. system.

Objective 5. Expand and restore a native 6. Protect steep slopes and stream 7. Reduce sedimentation and 8. Beginning with downstream riparian buffer to protect the stream corridors with minimum setback channelization of stream reaches reaches, develop a stream corridor from impacts of adjacent requirements for land disturbance within Illinois Beach State Park to restoration plan for each reach that land uses and to support wildlife activities including new development, enhance instream habitat quality suffers moderate to severe stream habitat. structures, and redevelopment of and support Lake Michigan aquatic bank erosion previously developed land. species.

Impairments Water Quality; Habitat Degradation Water Quality; Habitat Degradation Water Quality; Habitat Degradation Water Quality; Habitat Degradation Addressed and Alteration and Alteration and Alteration and Alteration Indicators Linear feet / acres of riparian buffer Number of municipalities adopting Improved in-stream habitat quality as Number of reaches with moderate undergoing restoration efforts; setback requirements. ref ected by IBI and MBI scores. or severe erosion with restoration average buffer width and condition.zv plans.

Frequency of Every 3 years Every 3 years Every 3 years Every 3 years Monitoring Baseline (2007) 0 lf of riparian buffer out of 69,900 lf Baseline needs to be established by Baseline needs to be established 0 reaches / 18 reaches needing total stream length surveying the three municipalities through biological survey plans Short Term 10% (7000 lf) of riparian buffer 1 municipality Baseline biological indices 10% (2) of reaches Milestones restored established (2008-2013)

(1-5 years)

Mid Term 25% (17,500lf) of riparian buffer 3 municipalities Improvement trend established 25% (5) reaches Milestones restored (2013-2018)

(5-10 years)

Long Term 100% (69,900lf) of riparian buffer 3 municipalities Improvement trend continued 100% (18) reaches Milestones restored (2018+)

(10+ years)

Party Landowners, Municipalities Municipalities, LCSMC IDNR Municipality / Drainage District, Responsible for LCSMC/ Watershed Planning Monitoring Committee Priority Mode of Visual / stream survey; homeowner Contact municipal off cials and staff Physical sampling using accepted Internal audit / recordkeeping Collection / landowner contact and anecdotal and review policies and regulations protocols, e.g., IDNR Riverwatch reporting program Number of Actions Location of Implementation Percent Complete 251 T H E D E A D R I V E R l W AT E R S H E D - B A S E D P L A N

6 plan implementation and evaluation Table 6.6 Monitoring Plan (continued)

Issue Issue 1: Stream Restoration and Issue 1: Stream Restoration and Issue 1: Stream Restoration and Management Management Management Goal Goal A: Restore and manage Goal A: Restore and manage Goal A: Restore and manage the stream system to protect and the stream system to protect and the stream system to protect and enhance stream and riparian health, enhance stream and riparian health, enhance stream and riparian health, function, and conveyance as part function, and conveyance as part function, and conveyance as part of a watershed green infrastructure of a watershed green infrastructure of a watershed green infrastructure system. system. system.

Objective 9. Develop a stream management 10. Develop a program with authority 11. Clear, repair, or replace and maintenance plan. and funding to implement the stream blocked, damaged, eroding, and management and maintenance plan. 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 Water Quality; Habitat Degradation Water Quality; Habitat Degradation Water Quality; Flood Damages Addressed and Alteration and Alteration Indicators Development of stream maintenance Number of stream reaches being Number of structures (culverts, plan that includes a schedule, addressed by a management and outfalls, and headwalls) cleared, proposed funding source, and maintenance program. repaired, and replaced; number of implementation partner. blockages / debris jams removed Frequency of Every 3 years Every 3 years Every 3 years Monitoring 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 Plan underway Program under development 10% (6) of structures; 10% (3) of Milestones debris obstructions addressed (2008-2013)

(1-5 years)

Mid Term Plan complete Program in place 25% (15) of structures; 25% (7) of Milestones debris obstructions addressed (2013-2018)

(5-10 years)

Long Term Plan complete Program in place 100% (60) of structures; 100% (28)

Milestones of debris obstructions addressed (2018+)

(10+ years)

Party Municipality / Drainage District, Municipality / Drainage District, Municipality / Drainage District, Responsible for LCSMC/ Watershed Planning LCSMC/ Watershed Planning LCSMC/ Watershed Planning Monitoring Committee Committee Committee Priority Mode of Internal audit / recordkeeping; Internal audit / recordkeeping; Visual / stream survey; homeowner Collection contact public off cials and staff contact public off cials and staff; / landowner contact and anecdotal homeowner / landowner contact and reporting; internal audit /

anecdotal reporting recordkeeping Number of Actions Location of Implementation Percent Complete T H E D E A D R I V E R l W AT E R S H E D - B A S E D P L A N 252

Table 6.6 Monitoring Plan (continued)

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

Objective 1. Maintain riparian and depressional 2. Mitigate f ood damages through 3. Mitigate sanitary sewer backup 4. Mitigate local drainage capacity f oodplain and wetlands as open f oodproof ng of at-risk structures. f ood damages through remediation f ood damage by providing additional and undeveloped to maximize f ood / correction of inf ltration and cross f ood storage and or maintaining /

storage and conveyance. connections with sanitary sewer improving local drainage system.

system.

Impairments Water Quality; Habitat Degradation Flood Damages Flood Damages Increased Flood Flows; Flood Addressed and Alteration; Increased Flood Damages Flows; Flood Damages Indicators Number of new structures in the Number of f ood damage reports; Number of f ood damage reports; Number of f ood damage reports; f oodplain &/or number of f oodplain # of structures removed or removal of FPA from inventory. removal of FPA from inventory.

or wetlands permits issued. f oodproofed.

Frequency of Annual Annual Annual Annual Monitoring Baseline (2007) Baseline # of f oodplain or wetland Baseline # of f ood damage reports 1 FPAI site (20-06) 6 FPAI sites exist (20-13, 20-07, permits needs established needs established; unknown # 20-02, 20-04, 20-05, 21-04)

(10-year), 270 (100-year), and 682 (500-year) at-risk structures Short Term 0 new structures and 10% fewer 10% fewer f ood damage reports; 1 FPAI site (20-06) removed from 2 FPA sites removed from inventory Milestones permits 10% of structures removed or inventory; 0 additional FPAI sites (2008-2013) f oodproofed.

(1-5 years)

Mid Term 0 new structures and 50% fewer 50% fewer f ood damage reports; 0 additional FPAI sites 4 FPA site removed from inventory Milestones permits 10% of structures removed or (2013-2018) f oodproofed.

(5-10 years)

Long Term 0 new structures and 0 permits 75% fewer f ood damage reports; 0 additional FPAI sites 6 FPA sites removed from inventory Milestones 10% of structures removed or (2018+) f oodproofed.

(10+ years)

Party LCSMC, Municipality LCSMC, Municipality LCSMC, Municipality, NSSD LCSMC, Municipality / Drainage Responsible for District Monitoring Priority Mode of Contact municipal off cials and Damage reporting; homeowner / Contact municipal off cials and staff; Contact municipal off cials and staff; Collection staff; internal audit / recordkeeping; landowner contact and anecdotal damage reporting; homeowner / damage reporting; homeowner /

review public land records; damage reporting landowner contact and anecdotal landowner contact and anecdotal reporting reporting; agency contact reporting; agency contact Number of Actions Location of Implementation Percent Complete 253 T H E D E A D R I V E R l W AT E R S H E D - B A S E D P L A N

6 plan implementation and evaluation Table 6.6 Monitoring Plan (continued)

Issue Issue 3: Natural Resources and Issue 3: Natural Resources and Issue 3: Natural Resources and Issue 3: Natural Resources and Habitat Habitat Habitat Habitat Goal Goal C: Protect, restore, and Goal C: Protect, restore, and Goal C: Protect, restore, and Goal C: Protect, restore, and enhance a green infrastructure enhance a green infrastructure enhance a green infrastructure enhance a green infrastructure network of terrestrial and aquatic network of terrestrial and aquatic network of terrestrial and aquatic network of terrestrial and aquatic resources including streams, riparian resources including streams, riparian resources including streams, riparian resources including streams, riparian corridors, wetlands, and upland corridors, wetlands, and upland corridors, wetlands, and upland corridors, wetlands, and upland resources. resources. resources. resources.

Objective 1. Adopt and prioritize Green 2. Implement the Green 3. Improve ecological and biological 4. Reduce shoreline / beach erosion Infrastructure Plan elements and Infrastructure Plan to guide quality of aquatic and terrestrial in Illinois Beach State Park to protect recommendations in local land prioritization, preservation, natural resources by improving rare community types and habitat for use plans, policies, and maps to restoration, and management of habitat characteristics, stabilizing resident and migratory species.

establish the community vision, important core and connecting green watershed hydrology, improving direction, and intent. infrastructure elements and buffers. water quality, and reducing coverage of exotic and invasive species.

Impairments Water Quality; Habitat Degradation Water Quality; Habitat Degradation Water Quality; Habitat Degradation Habitat Degradation and Alteration Addressed and Alteration and Alteration; Increased Flood and Alteration Flows Indicators Number of municipalities adopting Acres of Category 1 or 2 Green Biological survey data (MBI, IBI, and Linear feet of shoreline lost or Green Infrastructure Plan elements Infrastructure parcels / linear feet of FQI scores). gained.

into local land use plans, policies, stream channel and buffer protected.

and maps.

Frequency of Annual Every 3 years Annual Annual Monitoring Baseline (2007) 0 municipalities 0 acres of prioritized parcels Baseline needs to be established Baseline shoreline location to be preserved. through biological survey established by IBSP / IDNR.

Short Term 1 municipality 10% of prioritized acres preserved Baseline biological indices Less than 50% of historically eroding Milestones established shoreline currently exhibiting erosion.

(2008-2013)

(1-5 years)

Mid Term 3 municipalities 25% of prioritized acres preserved Improvement trend established Less than 25% of historically eroding Milestones shoreline currently exhibiting erosion.

(2013-2018)

(5-10 years)

Long Term 3 municipalities 100% of prioritized acres preserved Improvement trend continued Less than 10% of historically eroding Milestones shoreline currently exhibiting erosion.

(2018+)

(10+ years)

Party Municipality Municipality, LCFPD, IDNR LCFPD, IDNR IDNR Responsible for Monitoring Priority Mode of Contact municipal off cials and staff; Contact municipal off cials and staff; Physical sampling using accepted Embedded stakes to monitor Collection internal audit / recordkeeping internal audit / recordkeeping; review protocols, e.g., IDNR Riverwatch Lateral Recession Rate; landowner public land records program; wetland / natural area / resource manager contact and survey and monitoring anecdotal reporting; Number of Actions Location of Implementation Percent Complete T H E D E A D R I V E R l W AT E R S H E D - B A S E D P L A N 254

Table 6.6 Monitoring Plan (continued)

Issue Issue 3: Natural Resources and Issue 3: Natural Resources and Issue 4: Watershed Education and Issue 4: Watershed Education and Habitat Habitat Communication Communication Goal Goal C: Protect, restore, and Goal C: Protect, restore, and Goal D: Watershed residents, Goal D: Watershed residents, enhance a green infrastructure enhance a green infrastructure students, and communities have students, and communities have network of terrestrial and aquatic network of terrestrial and aquatic adequate knowledge, skills, adequate knowledge, skills, resources including streams, riparian resources including streams, riparian resources, assistance, and resources, assistance, and corridors, wetlands, and upland corridors, wetlands, and upland stewardship opportunities to stewardship opportunities to resources. resources. implement the watershed plan. implement the watershed plan.

Objective 5. Reduce the potential for 6. Remove barriers to f sh and other 1. Increase watershed stewardship 2. Increase public awareness and contamination of Illinois Beach species migration by restoring and (management, monitoring, and understanding of watershed issues State Park, the Dead River, and enhancing hydrologic connections of restoration) opportunities and by distributing watershed-related Lake Michigan from the impacts of streams to Lake Michigan. participation by residents. messages through public relations, adjacent industrial land uses. outreach, and media vehicles.

Impairments Water Quality; Habitat Degradation Habitat Degradation and Alteration Water Quality; Habitat Degradation Water Quality; Habitat Degradation Addressed and Alteration and Alteration and Alteration; Increased Flood Flows; Flood Damages Indicators Sampling data, studies, and reports Number of hydrologic connections Number of watershed stewardship Number of placements and mentions showing presence of contamination. restored and maintained; number of opportunities and participants; in local and regional media.

f sh found in upstream reaches. number of stream reaches covered by a stewardship group.

Frequency of Every 5 years Annual Annual Annual Monitoring Baseline (2007) Contaminated material exists on 0 hydrologic connections restored Baseline # of stewardship Baseline # of mentions needs to be IBSP property out of X; baseline needs to be opportunities and participants needs established.

established by f sh sampling in established; 0 stream reaches upstream reaches. covered by stewardship group Short Term On average, 25% less contaminated 1 hydrologic connection restored; 3 stewardship opportunities and 50 5 mentions per year Milestones material exsits, by weight 10% increase in f sh count participants per year; 10% (3) of (2008-2013) reaches covered (1-5 years)

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

(2013-2018) reaches covered (5-10 years)

Long Term On average, 75% less contaminated 100% of hydrologic connections 10 stewardship opportunities and 20 mentions per year Milestones material exsits, by weight restored; 100% increase in f sh count 150 participants per year; 75% (21)

(2018+) reaches covered (10+ years)

Party IDNR, USEPA / IEPA, Watershed IDNR LCSMC / Watershed Planning LCSMC / Watershed Planning Responsible for Planning Committee Committee, IDNR Committee Monitoring Priority Mode of Physical sampling using accepted Visual / stream survey; landowner Watershed event reports; review Internal audit / recordkeeping; news Collection protocols; landowner / resource / resource manager contact and volunteer and monitoring databases; clipping service manager contact and anecdotal anecdotal repoting; internal audit recordkeeping reporting; agency contact Number of Actions Location of Implementation Percent Complete 255 T H E D E A D R I V E R l W AT E R S H E D - B A S E D P L A N

6 plan implementation and evaluation Table 6.6 Monitoring Plan (continued)

Issue Issue 4: Watershed Education and Issue 4: Watershed Education and Issue 5: Water Quality Issue 5: Water Quality Communication Communication Goal Goal D: Watershed residents, Goal D: Watershed residents, Goal E: Improve water quality in Goal E: Improve water quality in students, and communities have students, and communities have streams, lakes, and wetlands by streams, lakes, and wetlands by adequate knowledge, skills, adequate knowledge, skills, reducing the impacts of land use and reducing the impacts of land use and resources, assistance, and resources, assistance, and development, land management, and development, land management, and stewardship opportunities to stewardship opportunities to modif ed hydrology. modif ed hydrology.

implement the watershed plan. implement the watershed plan.

Objective 3. Provide technical assistance 4. Increase technical knowledge 1. All watershed streams and lakes 2. Reduce non-point source pollution to watershed communities, the and understanding of alternative meet or exceed state water quality loading from existing and new development community, and development approaches by standards. development by controlling inputs at stakeholders to help them implement distributing conservation-oriented the source / on site using BMPs.

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

Impairments Water Quality; Habitat Degradation Water Quality; Habitat Degradation Water Quality Water Quality Addressed and Alteration; Increased Flood and Alteration; Increased Flood Flows; Flood Damages Flows; Flood Damages Indicators Number of brochures, information Number of local government Water quality monitoring data Water quality monitoring data (DO, packets, and other educational off cials and staff participating in (Phosphorous < 0.05 mg/L; phosphorous, TSS); acres / linear materials distributed; number of LID workshops; number of permits / Dissolved oxygen > 5.0 mg/L; feet of BMPs installed.

participants in technical workshops. acres of conservation development Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) > 30; approved as compared to Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index (MBI) conventional development. < 6.0; Trophic State Index < 70 (Sand Pond))

Frequency of Annual Annual Annual Annual Monitoring Baseline (2007) 0 educational materials currently 0 local government off cials and P (no baseline); DO=7.58 (two-year P (no baseline); DO=7.58 (two-year distributed; baseline # needed for staff participating in LID workshops; mean); baseline needs to be mean); Turbidity (as proxy for participants in technical workshops 0 permits / acres of conservation established for biological indices TSS)=14.3 NTU; 0 acres / lf of BMPs development approved installed Short Term 500 educational material packets 5 local government participants P=0.5 mg/L or less; DO=8.0 (two- P=0.5 mg/L or less; DO=8.0 (two-Milestones distributed per year; 10 participants in LID workshops per year; 1 year mean); baseline biological year mean); Turbidity (as proxy for (2008-2013) in technical workshops per year permit / 10 acres of conservation indices established TSS)=12.9 NTU (10% improvement);

development approved 5 acres / 1000 lf of BMPs installed (1-5 years)

Mid Term 1000 educational material packets 15 local government participants P=0.25 mg/L or less; DO=8.25 P=0.25 mg/L or less; DO=8.25 (two-Milestones distributed per year; 25 participants in LID workshops per year; 3 (two-year mean); improvement trend year mean); Turbidity (as proxy for (2013-2018) in technical workshops per year permits / 50 acres of conservation established for biological indices TSS)=10.7 NTU (25% improvement);

development approved 10 acres / 5000 lf of BMPs installed (5-10 years)

Long Term 2000 educational material packets 25 local government participants P=0.1 mg/L or less; DO=8.5 (two- P=0.1 mg/L or less; DO=8.5 (two-Milestones distributed per year; 50 participants in LID workshops per year; 5 year mean); improvement trend year mean); Turbidity (as proxy for (2018+) in technical workshops per year permits / 100 acres of conservation established for biological indices TSS)=1.4 NTU (90% improvement);

development approved 20 acres / 10,000 lf of BMPs installed (10+ years)

Party LCSMC / Watershed Planning LCSMC / Watershed Planning LCHD, IEPA Municipality, LCSMC Responsible for Committee Committee, Municipality Monitoring Priority Mode of Watershed workshop / event reports; Watershed workshop / event reports; Physical / chemical sampling and / Physical / chemical sampling and /

Collection internal audit / recordkeeping contact municipal off cials and staff; or lab analysis using accepted or lab analysis using accepted review policies and regulations; protocols, e.g., IDNR Riverwatch protocols, e.g., IDNR Riverwatch review public land records; internal program program; homeowner / landowner audit / recordkeeping contact and anecdotal reporting; contact municipal off cials and staff Number of Actions Location of Implementation Percent Complete T H E D E A D R I V E R l W AT E R S H E D - B A S E D P L A N 256

Table 6.6 Monitoring Plan (continued)

Issue Issue 5: Water Quality Issue 5: Water Quality Issue 5: Water Quality Issue 5: Water Quality Goal Goal E: Improve water quality in Goal E: Improve water quality in Goal E: Improve water quality in Goal E: Improve water quality in streams, lakes, and wetlands by streams, lakes, and wetlands by streams, lakes, and wetlands by streams, lakes, and wetlands by reducing the impacts of land use and reducing the impacts of land use and reducing the impacts of land use and reducing the impacts of land use and development, land management, and development, land management, and development, land management, and development, land management, and modif ed hydrology. modif ed hydrology. modif ed hydrology. modif ed hydrology.

Objective 3. Prevent erosion from construction 4. Prevent erosion and f ow 5. Prevent dumping of inappropriate 6. Reduce fecal coliform sites to reduce total suspended of agricultural and golf course substances (e.g., yard waste, contamination on Lake Michigan solids. chemicals (fertilizers and pesticides) garbage, household or automotive beaches / nearshore waters by from farmland, golf courses, parks f uids, etc.) within the stream controlling gull populations and other and yards into streams and wetlands channel, riparian corridor, and contributing sources.

by reducing / controlling inputs at the stormsewer network.

source using BMPs.

Impairments Water Quality Water Quality Water Quality; Habitat Degradation Water Quality Addressed and Alteration Indicators Water quality monitoring data Water quality monitoring data (DO, Illicit Discharge Detection and Number of beach closures.

(TSS); construction site inspection phosphorous); acres / linear feet of Elimination reports.

reports showing violations of SESC BMPs installed.

standards.

Frequency of Annual Annual Annual Annual Monitoring Baseline (2007) Turbidity (as proxy for TSS)=14.3 P (no baseline); DO=7.58 (two-year Baseline needs to be established 72 total beach closures per year (5 NTU; 0 construction site inspection mean); Turbidity (as proxy for year average 2002-2006) reports TSS)=14.3 NTU; 0 acres / lf of BMPs installed Short Term Turbidity (as proxy for TSS)=12.9 P=0.5 mg/L or less; DO=8.0 (two- 5 or fewer IDDE reports 60 total beach closures per year (5 Milestones NTU (10% improvement); 5 or fewer year mean); Turbidity (as proxy for year average)

(2008-2013) construction site inspection reports TSS)=12.9 NTU (10% improvement);

per year showing violations 5 acres / 1000 lf of BMPs installed (1-5 years)

Mid Term Turbidity (as proxy for TSS)=10.7 P=0.25 mg/L or less; DO=8.25 (two- 3 or fewer IDDE reports 45 total beach closures per year (5 Milestones NTU (25% improvement); 3 or fewer year mean); Turbidity (as proxy for year average)

(2013-2018) construction site inspection reports TSS)=10.7 NTU (25% improvement);

per year showing violations 10 acres / 5000 lf of BMPs installed (5-10 years)

Long Term Turbidity (as proxy for TSS)=1.4 NTU P=0.1 mg/L or less; DO=8.5 (two- 0 IDDE reports 25 total beach closures per year (5 Milestones (90% improvement); 0 construction year mean); Turbidity (as proxy for year average)

(2018+) site inspection reports per year TSS)=1.4 NTU (90% improvement);

showing violations 20 acres / 10,000 lf of BMPs installed (10+ years)

Party Municipality, LCSMC Landowner, Municipality  ? LCHD, IEPA Responsible for Monitoring Priority Mode of Physical / chemical sampling and / Physical / chemical sampling and / Contact municipal off cials and staff; Agency contact / recordkeeping Collection or lab analysis using accepted or lab analysis using accepted internal audit recordkeeping protocols, e.g., IDNR Riverwatch protocols, e.g., IDNR Riverwatch program; municipal and agency program; homeowner / landowner contact / reports; internal audit / contact and anecdotal reporting; recordkeeping contact municipal off cials and staff Number of Actions Location of Implementation Percent Complete 257 T H E D E A D R I V E R l W AT E R S H E D - B A S E D P L A N

6 plan implementation and evaluation Table 6.6 Monitoring Plan (continued)

Issue Issue 5: Water Quality Issue 5: Water Quality Issue 5: Water Quality Issue 5: Water Quality Goal Goal E: Improve water quality in Goal E: Improve water quality in Goal E: Improve water quality in Goal E: Improve water quality in streams, lakes, and wetlands by streams, lakes, and wetlands by streams, lakes, and wetlands by streams, lakes, and wetlands by reducing the impacts of land use and reducing the impacts of land use and reducing the impacts of land use and reducing the impacts of land use and development, land management, and development, land management, and development, land management, and development, land management, and modif ed hydrology. modif ed hydrology. modif ed hydrology. modif ed hydrology.

Objective 7. Restore natural hydrology and 8. Develop and implement a 9. Retrof t existing stormwater 10. Reduce or modify the use basef ow to address low dissolved watershed monitoring program to management structures such as / application of road salt and oxygen, water temperature, and collect and monitor water quality and detention ponds and roadside swales other chemicals for snow and ice streambank erosion impacts. biological data on a regular basis. to improve water quality. management to reduce the impact of chlorides and toxic substances on water quality Impairments Water Quality; Habitat Degradation Water Quality; Habitat Degradation Water Quality Water Quality Addressed and Alteration and Alteration Indicators Water quality monitoring data (f ow, Established monitoring program; Number / acres of retrof tted Water quality monitoring data temperature, and DO). record of monitored data. detention basins; linear feet of (specif c conductivity) improved roadside swale.

Frequency of Annual Every 3 years Every 3 years Annual Monitoring Baseline (2007) DO=7.58 (two-year mean); basef ow No data exists for biological 35 detention basins needing 0.93 mS/cm (two-year mean) baseline needs to be established; measures; hydrologic and water attention; 1,043,400 lf of swale 14.96°C (two-year mean) quality data has been collected targeted for improvement consistently (spring through fall) for 2006-07; 0 watershed plan recommendations implemented.

Short Term DO=8.0 (two-year mean); 10% 4 years of consistently collected 5 detention basins addressed; 0.8 mS/cm (10% improvement)

Milestones greater stability in basef ow over biological, hydrologic, and water 25,000 lf of swale improved (2008-2013) previous 5 year period; 14.0°C (two- quality data; 10 watershed year mean) recommendations implemented (1-5 years)

Mid Term DO=8.25 (two-year mean); 10% 8 years of consistently collected 10 detention basins addressed; 0.7 mS/cm (25% improvement)

Milestones greater stability in basef ow over biological, hydrologic, and water 50,000 lf of swale improved (2013-2018) previous 5 year period; 13.5°C (two- quality data; 25 watershed year mean) recommendations implemented (5-10 years)

Long Term DO=8.5 (two-year mean); 10% 20 years of consistently collected 20 detention basins addressed; 0.1 mS/cm (90% improvement)

Milestones greater stability in basef ow over biological, hydrologic, and water 100,000 lf of swale improved (2018+) previous 5 year period; 13°C (two- quality data; 50 watershed year mean) recommendations implemented (10+ years)

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

Collection or lab analysis using accepted or lab analysis using accepted staff; internal audit recordkeeping; or lab analysis using accepted protocols, e.g., IDNR Riverwatch protocols, e.g., IDNR Riverwatch homeowner / landowner contact protocols program; streamf ow monitoring data program Number of Actions Location of Implementation Percent Complete T H E D E A D R I V E R l W AT E R S H E D - B A S E D P L A N 258

Table 6.6 Monitoring Plan (continued)

Issue Issue 6: Watershed Coordination Issue 6: Watershed Coordination Issue 6: Watershed Coordination Issue 6: Watershed Coordination Goal Goal F: Improve coordination, Goal F: Improve coordination, Goal F: Improve coordination, Goal F: Improve coordination, research, and decision-making research, and decision-making research, and decision-making research, and decision-making between public, private, and between public, private, and between public, private, and between public, private, and non-prof t entities to help achieve non-prof t entities to help achieve non-prof t entities to help achieve non-prof t entities to help achieve watershed plan goals and objectives. watershed plan goals and objectives. watershed plan goals and objectives. watershed plan goals and objectives.

Objective 1. Pursue cross-jurisdictional cost- 2. Establish a watershed 3. Adopt, strengthen, and enforce 4. Understand and minimize sharing arrangements for projects organization or council with ordinances and guidelines intended detrimental impact of local land use with multi-jurisdictional benef ts and funding and support to guide to protect watershed resources. decisions on watershed resources.

impact. watershed plan implementation and provide assistance to watershed stakeholders.

Impairments Water Quality; Habitat Degradation Water Quality; Habitat Degradation Water Quality; Habitat Degradation Water Quality; Habitat Degradation Addressed and Alteration; Increased Flood and Alteration; Increased Flood and Alteration; Increased Flood and Alteration; Increased Flood Flows; Flood Damages Flows; Flood Damages Flows; Flood Damages Flows; Flood Damages Indicators Number of projects funded by Establishment of lead organization Number of communities adopting, Number of communities using multiple jurisdictions. with budget and executive strengthening, and enforcing LID and conservation-oriented committee; number of projects protective ordinances and guidelines. approaches to development.

undertaken under the auspices of the watershed organization.

Frequency of Every 3 years Annual Every 3 years Every 3 years Monitoring Baseline (2007) Baseline average # of multi- No organization exists; 0 projects Baseline is current set of municipal 0 municipalities using LID jurisdictional projects needs to be ordinances and guidelines approaches to development established Short Term 2 multi-jurisdictional projects per year Organization established; 3 projects 1 municipality has strengthened 1 municipality using LID approaches Milestones undertaken guidelines to development (2008-2013)

(1-5 years)

Mid Term 5 multi-jurisdictional projects per year Organization established; 10 projects 3 municipalities have strengthened 3 municipalities using LID Milestones undertaken guidelines approaches to development (2013-2018)

(5-10 years)

Long Term 10 multi-jurisdictional projects per Organization established; 25 projects 3 municipalities have strengthened 3 municipalities using LID Milestones year undertaken guidelines approaches to development (2018+)

(10+ years)

Party Municipality, LCSMC/ Watershed LCSMC/ Watershed Planning Municipality, LCSMC/ Watershed Municipality, LCSMC/ Watershed Responsible for Planning Committee Committee Planning Committee Planning Committee Monitoring Priority Mode of Contact municipal off cials and Internal audit / recordkeeping Contact municipal off cials and staff; Contact municipal off cials and staff; Collection staff; internal audit / recordkeeping; review policies and regulations; review policies and regulations; agency contact internal audit / recordkeeping internal audit / recordkeeping Number of Actions Location of Implementation Percent Complete 259 T H E D E A D R I V E R l W AT E R S H E D - B A S E D P L A N

6 plan implementation and evaluation Table 6.6 Monitoring Plan (continued)

Issue Issue 6: Watershed Coordination Issue 6: Watershed Coordination Issue 6: Watershed Coordination Goal Goal F: Improve coordination, Goal F: Improve coordination, Goal F: Improve coordination, research, and decision-making research, and decision-making research, and decision-making between public, private, and between public, private, and between public, private, and non-prof t entities to help achieve non-prof t entities to help achieve non-prof t entities to help achieve watershed plan goals and objectives. watershed plan goals and objectives. watershed plan goals and objectives.

Objective 5. Help communities and 6. Incorporate watershed 7. Understand and track watershed stakeholders secure project funding improvement elements into local conditions by monitoring watershed by disseminating information to government ongoing management, resources and trends (hydrologic, communities and stakeholders on maintenance, and infrastructure biologic, and water quality) funding sources and mechanisms for projects (i.e. streets, the manmade and implementation of plan implementing watershed projects. drainage system etc.) recommendations.

Impairments Water Quality; Habitat Degradation Water Quality; Habitat Degradation Water Quality; Habitat Degradation Addressed and Alteration; Increased Flood and Alteration; Increased Flood and Alteration; Increased Flood Flows; Flood Damages Flows; Flood Damages Flows; Flood Damages Indicators Number of communities receiving Number of communities adding Watershed monitoring data; years funding for watershed improvement watershed improvement practices of data collected; number of projects; funding amount secured; and functions to ongoing activities, recommendations implemented.

number of projects installed / plans, and budgets.

undertaken.

Frequency of Annual Every 3 years Annual Monitoring Baseline (2007) Baseline assumed to be 0 Baseline assumed to be 0 No data exists for biological municipality; 0 funding secured; and municipalities measures; hydrologic and water 0 projects quality data has been collected consistently (spring through fall) for 2006-07; 0 watershed plan recommendations implemented.

Short Term 1 municipality; $50,000 secured; 5 1 municipality 4 years of consistently collected Milestones projects installed biological, hydrologic, and water (2008-2013) quality data; 10 watershed recommendations implemented (1-5 years)

Mid Term 3 municipalities; $100,000 secured; 3 municipalities 8 years of consistently collected Milestones 10 projects installed biological, hydrologic, and water (2013-2018) quality data; 25 watershed recommendations implemented (5-10 years)

Long Term 3 municipalities; $150,000 secured; 3 municipalities 20 years of consistently collected Milestones 15 projects installed biological, hydrologic, and water (2018+) quality data; 50 watershed recommendations implemented (10+ years)

Party Municipality, LCSMC/ Watershed Municipality, LCSMC/ Watershed LCSMC/ Watershed Planning Responsible for Planning Committee Planning Committee Committee Monitoring Priority Mode of Contact municipal off cials and Contact municipal off cials and Review volunteer and monitoring Collection staff; internal audit / recordkeeping; staff; review plans, policies databases; internal audit /

agency contact and regulations; internal audit / recordkeeping recordkeeping Number of Actions Location of Implementation Percent Complete T H E D E A D R I V E R l W AT E R S H E D - B A S E D P L A N 260

Table 6.6 Monitoring Plan (continued)

Issue Issue 7: Watershed Hydrology Issue 7: Watershed Hydrology Issue 7: Watershed Hydrology Issue 7: Watershed Hydrology Goal Goal G: Restore and enhance Goal G: Restore and enhance Goal G: Restore and enhance Goal G: Restore and enhance watershed hydrology and stabilize watershed hydrology and stabilize watershed hydrology and stabilize watershed hydrology and stabilize the stream systems by reducing the stream systems by reducing the stream systems by reducing the stream systems by reducing surface runoff. surface runoff. surface runoff. surface runoff.

Objective 1. Reduce/minimize the rate and 2. Protect, restore and enhance 3. All new development incorporates 4. Restore natural hydrologic regime volume of runoff from the developed overland f ow paths. conservation design and LID to watershed wetlands, Illinois Beach and developing landscape by practices to minimize changes / State Park, Spring Bluff Nature installing urban BMPs. maintain pre-development hydrology Preserve, Lyons Woods Forest and minimize impervious cover. Preserve, and other natural areas.

Impairments Water Quality; Habitat Degradation Increased Flood Flows Water Quality; Habitat Degradation Water Quality; Habitat Degradation Addressed and Alteration; Increased Flood and Alteration; Increased Flood and Alteration Flows; Flood Damages Flows; Flood Damages Indicators Average difference between Change in rainfall event attenuation Number of stormwater management Natural area management and moni-maximum and minimum f ow rate; time. plans demonstrating maintenance toring reports and FQI scores.

peak f ow data / hydrographs of pre-development hydrology as showing reduction in peak f ows for compared to number of development the 1-year event; change in rainfall applications; percentage of event attenuation time; reduction in impervious cover in watershed.

stream f ow for a given rainfall event.

Frequency of Annual Annual Annual Every 3 years Monitoring Baseline (2007) 203 cfs Baseline needs to be established. 0 stormwater plans demonstrate Baseline FQI for each natural area maintenance of pre-development needs establishment.

hydrology; XX% watershed imperviousness.

Short Term 182.7 cfs (10% decrease) 10% increase in rainfall event 100% of stormwater plans Increase by 1 point in FQI score Milestones attenuation time. demonstrate maintenance of pre-(2008-2013) development hydrology; no increase in watershed imperviousness.

(1-5 years)

Mid Term 152.3 cfs (25% decrease) 25% increase in rainfall event 100% of stormwater plans Increase by 1.5 points in FQI score Milestones attenuation time. demonstrate maintenance of (2013-2018) pre-development hydrology; 5% reduction in watershed (5-10 years) imperviousness.

Long Term 20.3 cfs (90% decrease) 90% increase in rainfall event 100% of stormwater plans Increase by 2 points in FQI score Milestones attenuation time. demonstrate maintenance of (2018+) pre-development hydrology; 10% reduction in watershed (10+ years) imperviousness.

Party Municipality, LCSMC/ Watershed Municipality Municipality, LCSMC/ Watershed LCFPD, IDNR, Muncipalities Responsible for Planning Committee Planning Committee Monitoring Priority Mode of Streamf ow monitoring data Streamf ow monitoring data Contact municipal off cials and staff; Landowner / resource manager Collection internal audit / recordkeeping; review contact; wetland / natural areas plans, policies, and regulations survey and monitoring Number of Actions Location of Implementation Percent Complete 261 T H E D E A D R I V E R l W AT E R S H E D - B A S E D P L A N

T H E D E A D R I V E R l W AT E R S H E D - B A S E D P L A N 262