ML15188A152

Dead River Watershed - Based Plan 2008, Part 1 of 25

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: 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: ML15188A152 (24)

Text

dead river watershed - based plan 2008

foreword 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 W atershed 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, quanti f es water resource-related problems, presents goals and objectives agreed upon by the stakeholder group, and presents a list of recommended actions for fectively ef 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.

Lake County Stormwater Management Commission Michael D. Warner, P.E., CFM Executive Director September 2008

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 4 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 5 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

executive summary 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 WilsonAvenue 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.

The Dead River watershed within the context of Illinois, Wisconsin, and the Great Lakes basin.

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

THE WATERSHED OVER TIME In the 1800's, the fertile soils and openness of the oak tree and prairie landscape attracted farmers, who converted In the early 1800s, the watershed landscape consisted of these lands, including the draining of wetlands, for scattered oak trees, prairies, and wetlands in the central and agriculture. In the early 1900's, urbanization of settlements western thirds, large areas of open oak woodlands along began and continued with suburbanization following W orld the ridges and ravines, and a coastal 'beach ridge' along War II. Today, the coastal beach ridge has been preserved the Lake Michigan shoreline. Before settlement, the Dead as Illinois Beach State Park, and many of the ravine River and tributary streams f owed cool and clear, and were woodlands are intact. The rest of the watershed has been surrounded with dense ground vegetation and scattered converted into downtown areas, older neighborhoods, and trees. When water reached the Lake Michigan beach plain, newer suburban development interspersed with commercial it spread out across the landscape creating a vast wetland and industrial land uses.

and dune system and slowly seeped into the lake.

A watershed is the geographic area of land that drains water to a particular stream, lake or wetland, and is fde 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.

© Conservation Design Forum

© Conservation Design Forum These landscapes have been restored to resemble presettlement condition similar to that found in the Dead River watershed.

7 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

executive summary THE IMPACT OF WATERSHED In addition to increasing the volume and rate of runof f, DEVELOPMENT pollutants such as oil and grease, road salt, eroding soil and sediment, metals, bacteria from pet wastes, and excess Under natural conditions, most of the water that falls on nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) from fertilizers are earth is used by plants, evaporates into the air , or seeps washed from streets, buildings, parking lots, construction into the soil and becomes groundwater. Water that does not sites, lawns and golf courses into the streams and lake.

evaporate or in f ltrate into the ground is called runof f. As a This kind of pollution is called nonpoint source pollution.

watershed develops, natural areas are converted into lawns, Additional pollutants include increased water temperature, rooftops, roads, and parking lots. Instead of being used by altered pH, and low dissolved oxygen levels, making the plants or seeping into the ground, water that falls on these river unhealthy for aquatic life.

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.

Greater imperviousness results in a greater percentage of rainfall leaving as runoff and less inf ltrating into the ground.

© Conservation Design Forum High runoff can cause erosion and incision of stream channels.

Impervious surfaces contribute pollutants to rain water runoff.

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 8

The health of the Dead River system and Lake Michigan The following general steps were used in developing this are a direct re f ection of land use activities throughout the watershed plan.

watershed such as how we develop the watershed, and how we live in and manage our urban landscape, have a 1. Conduct monthly W atershed Planning Committee dramatic ef fect on the condition of watershed resources. meetings with watershed stakeholders and technical Tthese impacts affect not only the residents and visitors of team members.

Zion, Beach Park, and Waukegan, but all of the communities 2. Solicit public input on watershed issues and opportunities that depend on Lake Michigan to provide water , recreation, and formulate watershed goals and objectives.

food, economic well-being, or other values. Fortunately , 3. Review and analyze existing studies, watershed there are proven practices for addressing these impacts, and conditions, and watershed data to identify watershed landowners, business owners, public of f cials, and all who problems.

live, work, and play within the watershed can take positive 4. Identify best management practices and policies to action towards improving the watershed. One of the f rst improve watershed resources.

steps in the process it to understand watershed problems 5. Develop detailed watershed improvement action and and make a plan for moving forward -- a watershed plan. implementation plan and recommendations.

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 bene f 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

© Conservation Design Forum resources they share and impact.

Watershed planning is a participatory process with watershed stakeholders.

9 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

executive summary WATERSHED ISSUES AND GOALS Green infrastructure: On the local scale, municipal or neighborhood, green infrastructure consists of During the f rst two Watershed Planning Committee meetings, site-specif c best management practices (such as watershed stakeholders developed a list of watershed issues naturalized detention facilities, vegetated swales, and opportunities and prioritized them via a voting process. porous pavements, rain gardens and green roofs) that Specif c areas of concern include the stream system and are designed to maintain natural hydrologic functions by erosion problems, the ravines, the area north of W aukegan absorbing and inf ltrating precipitation where it falls.

Harbor, and Lake Michigan and its shoreline. These and other issues were categorized into the following topic areas, On the regional scale, green infrastructure consists of with the number of votes received shown in parenthesis: the interconnected network of open spaces and natural areas (such as forested areas,f oodplains and wetlands, greenways, parks and forest preserves) that mitigate

1. Stream Restoration and Management (53) stormwater runoff, naturally recharge aquifers, improve

2. Floodplains (16) water quality while providing recreational opportunities

3. Natural Resources (34) and wildlife habitat.

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 Conservation design: A county-wide method for health, safety, property and infrastructure.

developing land that conserves the green infrastructure Goal C: Preserve and restore a green infrastructure elements of a site while providing for development at full network of land and water resources. density on the remainder of the site. Conservation design Goal D: Provide people with watershed improvement typically includes the use of stormwater management education, resources, and opportunities. measures that f lter and inf ltrate runoff on site.

Goal E: Improve water quality by reducing the impacts of land use and development.

Goal F: Improve public, private, and non-pro ft coordination and decision-making.

Goal G: Stabilize the stream systems by reducing surface runoff.

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 10

WATERSHED INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT WATERSHED BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE TOOLBOX Chapter 3 of this plan is an assessment of watershed conditions based on data, studies, and inventories, and Chapter 4 of the watershed plan includes a description of the preparation of a series of watershed maps. The best management practices and policies that can improve assessment included stream corridor conditions, stormwater watershed resources. Included in this toolbox are actions that infrastructure, f ooding, water quality , land use, wetlands, can be taken by residents, landowners, business owners, and other relevant data and information. This information agencies, and municipalities to prevent conditions from serves as baseline data for comparison with future watershed worsening and to improve existing impaired conditions. Best assessments. Five important conclusions based on this management practices described in the toolbox include:

watershed assessment are summarized here.

• Stabilize eroding streambanks using deep-rooted

1. The Dead River system exhibits rapid increases and vegetation and other environmentally-friendly measures.

decreases in water f ow, level and velocity , which reduces water quality , reduces the quality of stream

• Use conservation design principles for new development habitat, and destabilizes the stream channel, causing and retro f tting existing development with improved erosion of streambanks and ravines and damage to stormwater management practices.

stormwater infrastructure.

• Install vegetated swales, raingardens, and f lter strips, to help slow, f lter, inf ltrate, cool, and cleanse stormwater

2. Streambank and ravine erosion are a major concern before being discharged to our streams and wetlands.

along many reaches and require immediate attention.

• Reduce the area of impervious surfaces and using Stormwater discharge points are of particular concern permeable paving practices that allow water to in f ltrate as many of them were found to be failing or negatively into the ground rather than run across the surface.

impacting the stream system.

• Maintain deep-rooted, native vegetation buf fers around streams, wetlands, and detention basins.

3. Water quality is impacted primarily by sediment,

• Preserve green infrastructure including open space, low dissolved oxygen levels, high phosphorous concentrations, and other typical urban watershed stream corridors, wetlands, and natural areas.

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 signi f 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.

11 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

executive summary WATERSHED ACTION PLAN preserve an ecologically functioning network of open space, wetlands, streams, and natural areas as part of The effectiveness of the Dead River watershed plan will be an interconnected system.

largely dependent on the quality of the action plan in Chapter

5. The action plan provides the who, what, where and

5. Manage and restore watershed natural areas including when for making watershed improvements and includes wetlands, former wetlands / hydric soil areas, and programmatic, policy , and site-speci f c recommendations. especially L yons W oods Forest Preserve and Illinois The site-specif c action items are tied to a particular location Beach State Park.

in the watershed or along the stream corridor , and include details such as area, length, cost, responsibility , schedule,

6. Develop positive and creative new uses for the and priority. The eleven most important recommendations Zion Nuclear Power Plant and W aukegan Harbor are summarized as follows:

areas, ensuring that these uses are compatible with protecting and improving watershed resources and

1. Stabilize streambanks and ravine slopes to reduce Lake Michigan.

erosion, protect property and infrastructure, improve water quality, and improve habitat.

7. Remediate existing f ood problems and prevent future f ooding by reducing stormwater runof f and preserving

2. Restore and manage stream corridors by restoring areas for surface water storage and absorption such as native riparian buf fers, reducing the density of trees, f oodplains, depressional storage areas, and wetlands, removing excessive debris, and stabilizing the stream which also provide water quality improvement bed with practices that also enhance habitat. benef ts.

3. Manage, retrof t, and stabilize the stormwater 8. Use better stormwater management, conservation management system including detention basins and design, and low impact development practices for new culverts, with focused attention on stormwater discharge and existing development that slows, f lters, inf ltrates, points (pipes and ditches), to reduce runof f rate and cools, and cleanses stormwater runof f, especially in volume and to improve water quality in the streams and Critical Subbasins. This includes source controls and Lake Michigan. lot level best management practices such as vegetated swales, naturalized detention basins, rain gardens,

4. Preserve and restore priority green infrastructure areas stream buf fers, f lter strips, and reduced use of lawn to provide natural surface water storage areas, provide chemicals and fertilizers.

space for installing best management practices, and An eroding stream channel before (left) and after restoration (right).

Monitoring is an important part of improving watershed resources.

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 12

9. Modify and use planning and development standards, their own land and water resources, for identifying watershed policies, and capital improvement plans and budgets to problems and opportunities, and for working with others to protect and enhance water quality. implement this plan.

10. Provide public education and outreach to enhance All of these people and organizations will need to work understanding and apprciation of watershed resources together to successfully protect and restore the Dead River and problems, to provide solutions, and to provide watershed, to ensure long-term watershed stewardship, and opportunities for people to get involved in watershed to share the responsibilities, costs, and benefts of watershed improvement activities.

improvements. Plan implementation will also depend on a watershed organization to oversee, guide, coordinate and

11. Monitor and evaluate watershed plan implementation and physical watershed conditions to guage progress monitor watershed activities on behalf of the stakeholders.

towards watershed goals. 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 MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN primary mechanism for the general public to be involved in watershed activities, to support the implementation of the A monitoring and evaluation plan was developed to provide a watershed plan, and to voice their concerns and celebrate means of measuring progress towards watershed goals and their successes in restoring watershed resources.

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 THIS PLAN IS A BLUEPRINT plan includes details such as the frequency of monitoring, short, medium, and long term milestones, responsible party, The Dead River W atershed-Based Plan provides speci f c and mode of collection. 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, THE FUTURE OF THE WATERSHED DEPENDS county and state agencies, and others to ef fectively plan ON ALL OF US and conduct land use and other activities in a way that is appropriate for protecting watershed resources. It provides This plan has limited usefulness without the dedication and guidance for comprehensive planning, development commitment of watershed stakeholders to the improvement, standards, green infrastructure preservation, natural restoration, management, and stewardship of watershed resource restoration, land management, and water quality resources. As the primary land use, development, and improvement, with an overall focus on water resources.

infrastructure authorities in the watershed, municipal and It also provides indirect guidance for capital improvement county of f cials and staf f have a signi f cant amount of the planning and budgeting.

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 13 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

acknowledgements 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 developmen t of this plan possible. The municipalities of the watershed graciously hosted our planning committee meetings. Special acknowledgment go es to Beach Park who hosted the majority of our meetings due to their central location in the watershed. Conservation Design Forum and Mont gomery 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, Libe rty 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:

Mike Adam, Lake S. I. Harris, Resident Tom Rush, Village of Beach Park County Health Dept. Erica Heyl, Resident Susie Schreiber, Waukegan CAG Jim Anderson, Lake County Forest Preserve Nick Huber, Lake County Forest Preserves Joseph Sekulich, Resident Larry Anglada, Zion Benton Township High Joe Hughes, Resident Dan Shappert, Bull Creek Stakeholders School Paula Illich, Resident Association Bob Asma, Resident Doug & Barb Jaeger, Residents Natasha Shaw, State Rep. Eddie Washington Jim Battista, Midwest Group/Pineview Paul Kakuris, Illinois Dunesland Preservation Glenn Smith, Resident Cemetery Society Jim Stanczak, Waukegan Airport John Beardsley, IL State Water Survey Jeffrey Koziel, Land Conservancy of Lake Terry Staples, Resident Emma Bialecki, Lake County Forest County Joe Synovic, Resident Preserve District Sandy Kubillus, Integrated Lakes Management Shantal Taylor, Resident Pat Bleck, Beach Park Drainage District Joe Leccise, Resident Diana Vanderheyden, Resident Janice Bock, Resident Bob Long, Resident Richard Vanderhoef, Resident Richard & Jean Bogdala, Residents Judy Mackey, Resident Ronald Weldon, Resident LeRoy Boldt, Village of Beach Park Larry Matson, City of Waukegan Bill White, IL State Water Survey Robert Cade, North Shore Sanitary District Robert Martin, Village of Pleasant Prairie Donald White, Lake County Public Water Frances Canonizado Alliance for the Great Deb Maurer, Lake County Forest Preserves District Lakes Bruce Mihelich, City of Zion Lloyd Wickersheim, Resident Thomas Chefalo, Lake County Planning, Curtis Mitzelfelt, Resident Steve Wikner, Waukegan Park District Building, and Development Ron Molinaro, Village of Winthrop Harbor Calvin & Lavonne Wilcox, Residents Bruce Cliff, Resident John Moore, City of Waukegan Judith Wilkes, Resident Sara Creque, Illinois Natural History Survey Debra Nelson, IDNR Don Wilson, Resident John M. Crombie, Resident Ronda Nissen, Resident Bill Zika, Resident Leonard Dane, Lake County Health Adrienne Orr, Lake County Health Dept.

Department Howard Parks, Resident Lyle DeGraff, Resident Chip Parrott, RHMG/ Village of Beach Park William & Susan Fishback, Resident Mary Peloza, Resident Rachel Foerster, Resident Joe Robinson, North Shore Sanitary District Jack Forney, Zion Industrial Park Ric Robinson, Resident Tim Girmscheid, Liberty Prairie Conservancy Denise Rolando, Resident Jeff Greenspan, Trust For Public Land Marilyn Ross, Resident Gene Gross, Beach Park & Benton Township Steve Rowan, Resident 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 14

© Conservation Design Forum DEAD RIVER PLANNING TEAM WATERSHED -

Lake County Stormwater Conservation Design Montgomery Watson Management Commission Forum Harza BASED PLAN Chris Gaynes Jason Navota Justin Bartels Crissy Mehle Eric Otto Erin Maloney Scott Paszkiewicz Tom Price Mike Prusila Becca Cerf Rasto Vrazda Matt Fordham Mike Warner Ryan Wilson Patty Werner Brent Jacobsen Tony Wolff 15 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

table of contents E X E C U T I V E S U M M A RY TA B L E O F C O N T E N T S INTRODUCTION 1. 1 TH E D EA D R IVER WATER SH ED 1 .1 1 T he Wat ers hed S et t i ng 1. 1. 1 1 T he Wat ers hed O v er Tim e 1. 1. 2 2 I m pac t s of Wat ers hed D ev el opm ent 1. 1. 3 3 W here We G o F rom H ere 1. 1. 4 7 A B OU T TH IS WATER SH ED PLA N 1 .2 10 P rojec t P urpos e 1. 2. 1 10 S M C Wat ers hed P lanning A ut horit y 1. 2. 2 10 P roj ec t F undi ng 1. 2. 3 11 Wat ers hed P lan E l em ent s 1. 2. 4 11 P rior Wat ers hed S t udi es and P lans 1. 2. 5 11 P roc es s and P l an O rgani z at i on 1. 2. 6 12 P lan R ev iew and A dopt ion 1. 2. 7 13 U SIN G TH IS PLA N 1 .3 13 W ho S hould U s e T hi s P lan 1. 3. 1 13 H ow To U s e T his P lan 1. 3. 2 13 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 2. 17 WATER SH ED ISSU ES A N D OPPOR TU N ITIES 2 .1 17 GOA LS A N D OB J EC TIVES 2 .2 18 WAT E R S H E D I N V E N TO RY A N D A N A LY S I S 3. 25 IN TR OD U C TION 3 .1 25 WATER SH ED SETTIN G 3 .2 26 WATER R ESOU R C ES 3 .3 26 C LIM ATE A N D PR EC IPITATION 3 .4 26 GEOLOGY A N D TOPOGR A PH Y 3 .5 28 R av ines 3. 5. 1 30 SOILS 3 .6 H y dri c S oils 3. 6. 1 32 H y drologic S oil G roups 3. 6. 2 32 S oil E rodibilit y 3. 6. 3 34 WATER SH ED J U R ISD IC TION S 3 .7 36 WATER SH ED D EM OGR A PH IC S 3 .8 36 LA N D U SE A N D LA N D C OVER 3 .9 40 P res et t l em ent Veget at i on 3. 9. 1 40 C ul t ural R es ourc es 3. 9. 2 40 E x i s t i ng Land U s e 3. 9. 3 42 F ut ure Land U s e 3. 9. 4 44 Wauk egan Lak ef ront R ev i t aliz at i on 3. 9. 5 46 Z ion N uc lear P ow er S t at i on 3. 9. 6 46 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 16

48 3 .1 0 T R A N S P O R T AT I O N 48 3 .11 N A TURAL RESOURCES 48 3 .11.1 Il l i n o i s Be a c h Sta te Pa r k a n d P res erv e 54 3 .11.2 Ly o n s Wo o d s N a tu r e Pr e s e r v e 54 3 .11.3 Ravines 54 3 .11.4 W e tl a n d s 58 3 .11.5 Gr e e n w a y s a n d R e c r e a ti o n 58 3 .1 2 G R E E N I N F R A S T R U C T U R E IN VEN TORY 60 3 .1 2 .1 In v e n to r y M e th o d o l o g y a n d R e s ul t s 60 3 .1 2 .2 Gr e e n In fr a s tr u c tu r e Pr i o r i ti z a ti on 64 3 .1 3 N AT U R A L D R A I N A G E S Y S T EM 64 3 .1 3 .1 Ge n e r a l Wa te r s h e d D r a i n a g e 68 3 .1 3 .2 D e l i n e a ti n g Su b w a te r s h e d M a n agem ent U nit s 68 3 .1 3 .3 D e a d R i v e r / Bu l l C r e e k Str e a m I nv ent ory 70 3 .1 3 .4 Ge n e r a l D e s c r i p ti o n / Fl o w Pa th w ay s 76 3 .1 3 .5 C h a n n e l C o n d i ti o n s 86 3 .1 3 .6 H y d r a u l i c Str u c tu r e s 86 3 .1 3 .7 Po i n t Discharges 90 3 .1 3 .8 Oth e r In s tr e a m Pr o b l e m Ar e a s 90 3 .1 3 .9 R i p a r i a n C o r r i d o r / Fl o o d p l a i n 90 3 .1 3 .1 0 In s tr e a m a n d R i p a r i a n H a b i ta t A s s es s m ent 96 3 .1 4 WAT E R Q U A L I T Y ( L A K E S AN D STR EA M S) 96 3 .1 4 .1 Sta te o f Il l i n o i s Ag e n c y R e p o r ting 97 3 .1 4 .2 L o c a l Wa te r Qu a l i ty M o n i to r i n g 102 3 .1 4 .3 Po i n t So u r c e s o f Po l l u ti o n 108 3 .1 4 .4 N o n - Po i n t So u r c e s o f Po l l u ti o n 112 3 .1 4 .5 Su m m a r y o f Wa te r Qu a l i ty As s e s s m ent 116 3 .1 5 F L O O D I N G 118 3 .1 5 .1 Fl o o d R i s k As s e s s m e n t 118 3 .1 5 .2 Fl o o d Damage 124 3 .1 5 .3 D e s i g n e d D r a i n a g e Sy s te m 124 3 .1 5 .4 D e te n ti o n Ba s i n In v e n to r y 128 3 .1 5 .5 R e g i o n a l l y Si g n i fi c a n t Sto r a g e Loc at i ons 130 3 .1 6 W AT E R S H E D V U L N E R A B I L ITY A N A LYSIS 130 3 .1 6 .1 Str e a m Vu l n e r a b i l i ty An a l y s i s 132 3 .1 6 .2 Su b w a te r s h e d Vu l n e r a b i l i ty An al y s is 134 3 .1 7 C R I T I C A L AREAS 134 3 .1 7 .1 C r i ti c a l Su b b a s i n s 134 3 .1 7 .2 C r i ti c a l Reaches Section 3.18 contains watershed-based 136 3 .1 7 .3 C r i ti c a l Regions plan element #1: causes and sources 138 3 .1 8 S U M M A R Y A N D C O N C L U S I ON S of water pollution.

141 4. WAT E R S H E D B E S T M A N A G M E N T P R A C T I C E S TO O L B O X 141 4 .1 P O L I C I E S A N D S TA N D A R D S 142 4.2 PLANNING PROCESS BMPS 142 4.3 O N - S I T E S T O R M W AT E R B M P S 144 4.4 LANDSCAPING BMPS 144 4.5 FLOOD REDUCTION BMPS 165 5. PRIORITIZED ACTION PLAN 165 5 .1 I M P L E M E N TAT I O N PA R T N E R S 17 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

PR OGR A M M ATIC A C TION PLA N 5 .2 171 Sections 5.2 and 5.3 contain watershed-S t ream s and R i pari an C orri dors 5. 2. 1 172 based plan element #3: best manage-Wat er Q ual it y and S t orm w at er M anagem ent 5. 2. 2 174 ment practices and critical areas where P lanning and D ev elopm ent S t andards 5. 2. 3 176 those practices are needed.

G reen I nf ras t ruc t ure 5. 2. 4 178 N at ural A reas 5. 2. 5 180 Land M anagem ent 5. 2. 6 182 F lood M anagem ent 5. 2. 7 184 S t ak eholder C oordi nat ion 5. 2. 8 186 SITE SPEC IFIC A C TION PLA N 5 .3 188 Section 5.4 contains watershed-based IN FOR M ATION A N D ED U C ATION PLA N 5 .4 229 plan element #5: public information and Target A udienc es 5. 4. 1 229 education plan. P art ner O rgani z at i ons 5. 4. 2 230 E v al uat ing t he O ut reac h P l an 5. 4. 3 231 I nf orm at i on and E duc at ion S t rat egy f or t he D ead R iv er 5. 4. 4 231 P L A N I M P L E M E N TAT I O N A N D E VA L U AT I O N 6. 241 PLA N IM PLEM EN TATION STR ATEGY 6 .1 241 I M PA I R M EN T R ED U C TION TA R GETS A N D PR OJ EC TION S 6 .2 242 Section 6.2 contains watershed-based I m pai rm ent R educ t i on Target s 6. 2. 1 246 plan element #2: water quality improve- I m pairm ent R educ t i on P rojec t i ons 6. 2. 2 246 ment expected from implementing plan P L A N I MPLEM EN TATION C OST ESTIM ATE A N D SC H ED U LE 6 .3 246 recommendations.

PLA N M ON ITOR IN G A N D EVA LU ATION 6 .4 248 Section 6.3 contains watershed-based M onit ori ng P l an I m plem ent at ion 6. 4. 1 248 plan elements #4 and #6: technical and E v aluat ing P l an P erf orm anc e 6. 4. 2 248 f nancial assistance needed to imple- Q ual it y A s s uranc e P rojec t P lans 6. 4. 3 249 ment this plan, and plan implementation schedule. WAT E R S H E D R E S O U R C E S 7. 263 Section 6.4 contains watershed-based WH O TO C A LL 7 .1 263 plan elements #7, #8 and #9: milestones FU N D IN G A N D TEC H N IC A L A SSISTA N C E 7 .2 265 for measuring plan implementation prog-ress, indicators to determine whether loading reductions are being achieved, REFERENCES 281 and monitoring component.

APPENDICES TH R EATEN ED A N D EN D A N GER ED SPEC IES A L AKE COUNT Y S TO R M WAT E R M A N A G E M E NT C OM M ISSION STR EA M IN VEN TORY PH OTOGR A PH S B STR EA M IN VEN TORY M ETH OD OLOGY C STR EA M IN VEN TORY PR OB LEM A R EA S D D ETEN TION B A SIN IN VEN TORY E WATER SH ED B EST M A N A GEM EN T PR A C TIC E TOOLB OX F EXPA N D ED PR OGR A M M ATIC A C TION PLA N G EXPA N D ED SITE SPEC IFIC A C TION PLA N H IN FOR M ATION A N D ED U C ATION R ESOU R C ES I PLA N IM PLEM EN TATION C OST ESTIM ATE J 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 18

K WAT E R S H E D P O L L U TA N T L O AD IN G A N D PLA N IM PLEM EN TATION P O L L U TA N T L O A D I N G R E D U C T ION ESTIM ATES L P L A N I M P L E M E N TAT I O N F U N DIN G SOU R C ES M N O N - P O I N T S O U R C E P O L L U TAN T LOA D IN G M A PS N WAT E R S H E D P L A N N I N G C O M M ITTEE M EETIN G SU M M A R IES O S T R E A M I N V E N TO RY D ATA S H E ETS 19 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

list of tables Table 1.1 Priority Actions by Stakeholder Type 14 Table 3.1 1971-2000 Temperature Normals for Waukegan, IL Climate Station 28 Table 3.2 1971-2000 Precipitation Normals for Waukegan, IL Climate Station 28 Table 3.3 Hydrologic Soil Groups 34 Table 3.4 Watershed Demographics 38 Table 3.5 Watershed Demographics by Municipality 38 Table 3.6 Existing Land Use and Cover 42 Table 3.7 Land Use Categories 42 Table 3.8 Future Land Use and Cover (Illinois 2020) 44 Table 3.9 Illinois Beach State Park Invasive and Exotic Species 50 Table 3.10 Green Infrastructure Parcel Ownership Categories 58 Table 3.11 Green Infrastructure Parcel Prioritization Criteria and Impairment Categories Addressed 61 Table 3.12 Green Infrastructure Inventory Results 61 Table 3.13 Green Infrastructure Prioritization Results 62 Table 3.14 Subwatershed Management Units 68 Table 3.15 Useful Def nitions 76 Table 3.16 Substrate Composition 92 Table 3.17 Water Monitoring Data, North Shore Sanitary District 99 Table 3.18 Water Quality Monitoring Data, Lake County Health Department 99 Table 3.19 Lake Michigan Beach Closures 101 Table 3.20 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits 103 Table 3.21 Common Transportation-related pollutants 109 Table 3.22 Pollutant Loading Contribution by Subbasin 112 Table 3.23 Structures in 100-year Floodplain 118 Table 3.24 Illinois Department of Transportation Flood Locations 124 Table 3.25 Regionally Signif cant Storage Areas 128 Table 3.26 Current and Future Subwatershed Support Level 130 Table 3.27 Instream Habitat Criteria 130 Table 3.28 Stream Reach Quality and Subbasin Support Level 130 Table 3.29: Stream Vulnerability 131 Table 3.30: Subbasin Vulnerability 131 Table 3.31: Critical Subbasins and Regions 136 Table 3.32: Critical Reaches 136 Table 3.33 Watershed Impairments, Causes, and Sources 139 Table 4.1 Stormwater Management Tool Applicability 146 Table 4.2 Stormwater Management Tool Effectiveness 147 Table 5.1 Implementation Partners 167 Table 5.2 Stream and Riparian Corridor Programmatic Actions 173 Table 5.3 Water Quality and Stormwater Management Programmatic Actions 175 Table 5.4 Planning and Development Standards Programmatic Actions 177 Table 5.5 Green Infrastructure Programmatic Actions 178 Table 5.6 Natural Area Programmatic Actions 181 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 20

183 Table 5.7 Land Management Programmatic Actions 185 Table 5.8 Flood Management Programmatic Actions 187 Table 5.9 Stakeholder Coordination Programmatic Actions 190 Table 5.10 Site Specif c Action Plan for the City of Zion 194 Table 5.11 Site Specif c Action Plan for the Village of Beach Park 206 Table 5.12 Site Specif c Action Plan for the City of Waukegan 211 Table 5.13 Site Specif c Action Plan for the Illinois Department of Natural Resources 212 Table 5.14 Site Specif c Action Plan for Lake County 213 Table 5.15 Site Specif c Action Plan for Multiple Jurisdictions 232 Table 5.16 Information and Education Plan 243 Table 6.1 Implementation Partners 245 Table 6.2 Three Point Scale for Estimating the Ability of a Best Management Practice to Meet a Reduction Target 245 Table 6.3 Watershed Impairment Reduction Targets and Projections 247 Table 6.4 Plan Implementation Cost Estimate 247 Table 6.5 Plan Implementation Schedule Summary 250 Table 6.6 Monitoring Plan 21 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

list of figures Figure 3.1 Water Resources 27 Figure 3.2 Illinois Beach State Park Dune and Swale System 29 Figure 3.3 Lake County Landforms 29 Figure 3.4 Surface Elevation 31 Figure 3.5 Hydrologic Soil Groups 33 Figure 3.6 Soil Erodibility 35 Figure 3.7 Jurisdictional Boundaries 37 Figure 3.8 Population Distribution 39 Figure 3.9 Presettlement Vegetation 41 Figure 3.10 Existing Land Use 43 Figure 3.11 Future Land Use 45 Figure 3.12 Waukegan Lakefront Master Plan 47 Figure 3.13 Natural Areas, Trails, and Threatened and Endangered Species 49 Figure 3.14 Illinois Beach State Park Major Restoration Areas 51 Figure 3.15 Illinois Beach State Park Shoreline Erosion 53 Figure 3.16 Littoral (Sand)Transport 53 Figure 3.17 Watershed Wetlands and Hydric Soils 55 Figure 3.18 Potential Wetland Restoration Sites Map 57 Figure 3.19 Conceptual Green Infrastructure Hubs and Connecting Links 59 Figure 3.20 Local Green Infrastructure at the Site Scale 59 Figure 3.21 Green Infrastructure Hubs and Link 59 Figure 3.22 Green Infrastructure Parcel Prioritization Figure 3.23 Water Resources Map 63 Figure 3.24 Little Dead River 65 Figure 3.25 Subwatershed Management Units 66 Figure 3.26 Plan (Overhead) View of Natural Stream Morphology 67 Figure 3.27 Channelization 76 Figure 3.28 Pool/Riff e Development 77 Figure 3.29 Topography 79 Figure 3.30 Streambank Erosion 80 Figure 3.31 Sedimentation Map 81 Figure 3.32 Hydraulic Structures 85 Figure 3.33 Point Discharges 87 Figure 3.34 Other Instream Problem Areas 89 Figure 3.35 Instream Habitat 91 Figure 3.36 Riparian Habitat 93 Figure 3.37 Lake Michigan Swimming Bans 95 Figure 3.38 Beach Water E.Coli Source Study Results 101 Figure 3.39 NPDES Permits 101 Figure 3.40 Waukegan Harbor Area of Concern (AOC) and Expanded Study Area (ESA) 105 Figure 3.41 Waukegan Harbor Area of Concern and Surrounding Area 106 Figure 3.42 Non-point source pollutant loading for TSS, TP, COD, and BOD 107 Figure 3.43 Floodplain Features 113 Figure 3.44 Lake County Gardens 117 Figure 3.45 Existing and Proposed Floodplain Comparison 117 Figure 3.46 Flood Structures 119 121 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 22

123 Figure 3.47 Flood Problem Area Inventory 125 Figure 3.48 Drainage Network 127 Figure 3.49 Detention Basin Inventory 129 Figure 3.50 Regional and Depressional Storage 133 Figure 3.51 Stream Vulnerability and Subwatershed Imperviousness 135 Figure 3.52 Stream and Subwatershed Vulnerability 137 Figure 3.53 Critical Areas 179 Figure 5.1 Prioritized Green Infrastructure Areas 220 Figure 5.2 Subwatershed Management Unit 1 221 Figure 5.3 Subwatershed Management Unit 2 222 Figure 5.4 Subwatershed Management Unit 3A 223 Figure 5.5 Subwatershed Management Unit 3B 224 Figure 5.6 Subwatershed Management Unit 3C 225 Figure 5.7 Subwatershed Management Unit 4 226 Figure 5.8 Subwatershed Management Unit 5 227 Figure 5.9 Subwatershed Management Unit 6 23 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 24

© Lake County Stormwater Management Commission DEAD RIVER Prepared for:

Dead River Watershed Planning Commission WATERSHED - Prepared by:

BASED PLAN Conservation Design Forum Montgomery Watson Harza 25 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