Des Plaines River Watershed Plan February 1, 2017
FUNDING FOR THIS PROJECT PROVIDED, IN PART, BY THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY THROUGH SECTION 319 OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT. Des Plaines River Watershed Planning Area: • 235 square miles (150,361 acres) • Flows into Sanitary and Ship Canal, the Illinois and the Mississippi Rivers
Des Plaines River Watershed
Gulf Hypoxia – Dead Zone Des Plaines Subwatersheds
6 Previously Approved Watershed-Based Plans • Bull Creek/Bulls Brook (2009) • Indian Creek (2009) • North Mill Creek-Dutch Gap Canal (2013) • Mill Creek (2014) • Buffalo Creek (2015)
No Plan Approved • Newport Drainage Ditch • Upper Des Plaines • Lower Des Plaines • Aptakisic Creek About This Project • Create an umbrella “watershed-based plan” for the Des Plaines River Watershed
• Goals to reduce nonpoint source pollution, mitigate flood damage, protect natural resources
• The Des Plaines Watershed Workgroup (DRWW) is monitoring water quality Why a Watershed Plan? • Clean water, healthy lakes and streams, safety from flooding are important for residents & businesses • Existing problems: o Lake County and downstream water quality impairments o Flood damage
• H2O doesn’t flow with political boundaries, planning improves coordination & cooperation among communities • Population and land use change influences
• Eligibility for grant funds for plan implementation Watershed Plan Content 1. Introduction 2. Goals & Objectives 3. Watershed Characteristics Assessment 4. Watershed Problem Assessment (Consultant) 5. Flood Damage Problem Assessment 6. Prioritized Action Plan (Consultant) 7. Implementation and Evaluating Plan Performance (Consultant) 8. Education and Outreach Strategy Watershed-Based Plan 9 Elements (Consultant Deliverables) 1. Identification of the causes and sources of pollution 2. Estimate of the pollutant load reductions expected 3. Description of nonpoint source management measures & critical areas 4. Estimate of technical and financial assistance needed 5. Public information/education component (SMC) 6. Plan implementation schedule 7. Description of interim, measurable milestones 8. Criteria to determine whether pollutant loading reductions met 9. A monitoring component (Review and recommend changes to DRWW monitoring strategy as needed) RFP: Consultant Assistance Watershed Plan Components
• Watershed Problems Assessment – pollutant load model, causes & sources of pollution, critical areas • Action Plan - programmatic and prioritized site- specific action plan with implementation schedule • Plan Implementation – includes pollutant load reduction calculations, technical and financial assistance needed (action plan implementation costs) • Plan Evaluation – measureable milestones, success criteria and evaluation tool, and water quality monitoring strategy Plan Review and Adoption Review/Revision Phases 1. Stormwater Management Commission 2. ~45 day public review 3. IL EPA, stakeholders including DRWW, Adoption 1. Stormwater Management Commission 2. Lake County Board 3. DRWW 4. Municipalities/Townships 5. Other stakeholder organizations Process and Timeline • Stakeholder planning group is guiding the planning process
• SMC hosts 20 planning meetings 2016-early 2018 o 8 watershed-wide planning meetings (3 in 2016) o 12 topic-focused meetings (6 in 2016) Meeting materials are available on the SMC website
• Draft Plan will be delivered to IL EPA February 2018
• IL EPA and Stakeholder Review March-April 2018
• Final Plan will be delivered to IL EPA by May 31, 2018
• SMC & County adoption of WBP June-July 2018 Watershed Characteristics Watershed Assessment Methods • Use Existing Studies, Reports, Information to Assess Watershed Character & Condition • Fill in Holes by Collecting New Field Data: Stream, River, Detention Basin and Lake Shoreline Inventories • Monitor Water Quality in Lakes & Streams (DRWW) • Flood Problem Area Update and Flood Questionnaire • Forecast Future Conditions • Model Nonpoint Pollution Loads • Map Green Infrastructure System Identifying Critical Areas • Highly erodible soils on agricultural land and future development sites • Severe lake shoreline erosion • Severe streambank erosion • Problem discharge points & hydraulic structures • Poor buffers along stream corridors • Highly vulnerable land use catchments • Pollutant loading hotspot catchments Planning Jurisdictions Extent: Kenosha County, WI; Lake County & Cook County, IL
Portions of 38 municipalities; 18 townships
Unincorporated Lake County – 30% of watershed Topography
• Landscape formed by last glaciation
• Watershed drains to the southeast
• Topography used to delineate watersheds and used to produce planning models Water Resources
• 241 miles of streams
• 28,863 acres wetlands – 7,975 acres of open water
– 6,824 acres of High Quality wetlands
• 114 named lakes Catchments Mapped 422 catchments delineated for: • Nonpoint pollutant load modeling • Identifying Critical Areas • Action plan recommendations High Quality Natural Resources • 24 Natural Area Inventory Sites
• 41 Forest Preserves/County Parks
• 20 Nature Preserves
• ~55 Threatened & Endangered Species Historic Landscape
• Oak Woodland/Savanna • Wet Prairie • Prairie • Marsh Current Landscape
• Agriculture • Residential • Open Space • Commercial/Industrial
White Slough Wetland Demographics
Categories 2010 2040
Population 358,451 506,232 Households 145,585 184,403 Employment 195,067 254,942
Sources: CMAP Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission Projected Land Use Changes
Sources: Lake County Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning Impacts of Land Use Change
• Changes in land use impact watershed hydrology and alter stormwater runoff characteristics Stormwater Impacts on Streams
Resulting stream channel
Typical historic stream channel
Channel downcutting
and widening Source: Cruse et al., 2012 Stream Inventory
• SMC stream inventories used to objectively assess stream “reaches” or segments
• Characteristics Inventoried: – Channel Conditions – Hydraulic Structures – Discharge Points – Riparian Corridor – Aquatic Habitat
• “Snapshot” assessment of overall stream condition Approximately 246 miles of inventoried streams:
North Mill Creek - 2007 Mill Creek - 2013 Buffalo Creek – 2013 73 miles
Bull’s Brook - 2015 Bull Creek - 2015 Indian Creek - 2015 Newport Drainage Ditch - 2015 75 miles
Des Plaines River – 2016 98 miles including 38 miles of the Des Plaines River mainstem. Channel Conditions & Hydraulic Structures
Channel conditions include dimensions, Measure all in-stream (hydraulic) erosion & sediment, and channelization structures such as dams, culverts, and bridges, & note any obvious issues Discharge Points, Riparian Corridor, & Aquatic Habitat
Discharge points include the outlets of storm sewers, drainage ditches, and all drainage pipes and tiles >4” in diameter, note obvious Note riparian corridor and aquatic issues habitat characteristics in all reaches 26 Miles – No/Slight Channelization – 20% make labels readable 64 Miles – Low Channelization – 48% 29 Miles – Moderate Channelization – 22% 13 Miles – High Channelization – 10% 52 Miles – No/Slight Bank Erosion – 30% 107 Miles – Moderate Bank Erosion– 61% 17 Miles – Severe Bank Erosion– 10% 274 Areas Identified for Recommended Maintenance 810 Hydraulic Structures Identified 92 (11%) Identified as problems/maintenance recommended 1022 Discharge Locations Identified 181 (18%) Identified as problems/maintenance recommended Notes: COULD BE THE PIPE ITSELF, DISCHARGE OR DITCH OR SWALE 2073 Identified Debris Jams 1553 (75%) Identified as Obstructing Flow Inventory Output & Results Output: Inventory results used to: Discharge Points (pipes/tiles) = 1022 total, • Compile a general inventory 181 potential problems report for the watershed
Swale/Open Channel = 421 • Create maps and tables to total, 36 problem and/or compare conditions across the maintenance required watershed
Debris Jams = 2073 total, • Formulate action plan 1553 marked as obstructing recommendations for flow restoration and retrofits
Hydraulic Structures = 810 total, 92 potential problems Stream Water Quality
• Illinois EPA-Designated Uses in DPR Watershed: – Aquatic Life – Fish Consumption – Primary Contact (swimming) – Aesthetic Quality
• Nonsupport of Use = “Impairment”
Mouth of Bull Cr. (Left) at Des Plaines River, 2006 • Physical, chemical, & biological factors Impaired Segments 2016
• 14 Assessed Segments
• 12 Impaired (6 on DPR)
• 16 Causes
• 53 Total Impairments
• Mercury, Arsenic, Phosphorus, & Dissolved Oxygen most common causes High Quality & Non-Assessed Streams • Biological surveys indicate a few higher-quality reaches (Bull’s Br., Mill Cr.)
• Many streams NOT assessed, and no data exist DRWW Monitoring Map 2016 Stream Monitoring Effort • 70 Sites in watershed
• Physical, chemical, biological, &
Little Pend Oreille Wildlife Refuge Water flow data Quality Research • Data will be used to inform action plan Lakes
Lake (> 6 acres) Totals: Lakes greater than 6 acres = 88 Lakes greater than 20 acres = 55
Various Origins: Glacial Wetland-type Old gravel pits Etc… Lake Water Quality
Water quality is variable (some good/bad) Insert Map 61 of the waterbodies in the watershed are impaired for at least one designated use (IL EPA). o Examples: recreational impairment (too many “weeds”), fecal coliform, turbidity, phosphorus Water Quality in Lakes Main Concerns: Turbidity (suspended solids) Phosphorus (current and historic) Dissolved oxygen Aquatic plants Invasive species (Eurasian milfoil, zebra mussels, carp) Chlorides Des Plaines River Watershed Lakes (Lake Co.) Increased concentrations of Cl- measured in Lakes in Lake County Illinois
Samples collected between Apr. – Oct.
Graph from Walt Kelly, Illinois State Water Survey Harmful Algae Bloom (HAB) Toxins
Cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) Dermal Ingestion Aerosol Lake Measurements
Water quality: dissolved oxygen, conductivity, pH, water temperature, nutrients (phosphorus, nitrogen), chloride 1 x / month
Aquatic Plants 1-2 x / year Constructed Drainage System
• Detention Basin Inventory • Map Stormsewer System Detention Basin Inventory
• Identify and map all basins & conduct site visit
• Document existing conditions
• Identify potential management or retrofit opportunities
• Formulate watershed plan recommendations Green Infrastructure & Watershed Planning • Stormwater management benefits at “site” & “watershed” scales: – Runoff reduction – Water quality – Flood damage reduction Parcels prioritized based on water quality, flood reduction and natural resources green infrastructure criteria Components of a Watershed Green Infrastructure Network Action Plan • Open space areas • Riparian corridors • Wetlands • Floodplains • Potential restoration sites • Site-level BMPs Site-Scale Green Infrastructure Action Plan Recommendations: • Best Management Practices (BMPs) that maintain natural hydrologic functions – Rain gardens – Bioswales – Naturalized detention – Porous pavement – Green roofs – Filter strips & vegetated drainageways Watershed-Scale Green Infrastructure Action Plan Recommendations: • Network of open spaces & natural areas that mitigate runoff, recharge aquifers, & improve water quality
• Provide recreational opportunities & habitat
• Network of “hubs” and “links” Floodplain • Restudied in 2000 by US Army Corps of Engineers
• Revised study fixed errors, oversights, and inaccuracies of original study
Source: Suwannee River Water Management District Structures in the Floodplain • Assessment started in 1996; Currently ongoing by SMC Staff • 193 areas identified affecting ~3656 structures • Structures damaged by flood events include transportation and utility infrastructure Flood Problem Area Inventory • Lake County 1995 inventory updated in 2002 • Updated again for this watershed plan (including Wisconsin and Cook County data): – Letters/survey to municipalities and other jurisdictional agencies – Letters/survey to residents in known FPA’s and in the 100- year floodplain – Flood survey to general watershed stakeholder list
Area SMC Code/Site Cause of Flooding (acres)
02-03 Local Drainage 2.91
10-01 Depressional Storage 0.44
10-02 Local Drainage 13.08
11-03 Depressional Storage 5.34
11-02 Depressional Storage 13.85 54 11-05 Depressional Storage 1.05 Flood Problem Areas and Survey Results used for Action Plan recommendations Consulting Assistance Timeframe
Task Timeframe Project Coordination – (Project kick-off and follow-up coordination meetings March 2017-May 2018 with SMC) Develop Watershed Expertise (Review draft watershed plan chapters data March-October 2017 and studies. Optional windshield tour of watershed may be appropriate.)
Attend Watershed Stakeholder Meetings (5-6 stakeholder meetings) May 2017-May 2018
Watershed Problem Assessment: (Causes and Sources of Pollution; March-October 2017 Pollutant Model w/Nonpoint Pollutant Load Analysis; Identify Critical Areas)
Prioritized Watershed Action Plan: (Site-Specific and Programmatic Actions June-November 2017 w/lead responsibility, schedule, est. cost and priority rank)
June-November 2017 Plan Implementation: (Pollutant Load Reductions, Cost Estimates, Implementation Milestones, Performance/Progress Evaluation and augment DRWW Water Quality Monitoring Strategy if/as needed.)
Consultant’s complete draft report due to SMC November 15, 2017 SMC review comments to Consultant December 29, 2017 Consultant revisions to draft report due to SMC January 19, 2018 SMC delivers draft watershed plan to IL EPA February 28, 2018 March 2018 Consultant and SMC present draft plan to stakeholders and DRWW
Stakeholder, DRWW and IL EPA comments received April 15, 2018 May 15, 2018 Final revisions to Consultant portions of draft plan due to SMC
Final watershed plan report delivered to IL EPA by SMC May 31, 2018 Proposals Due 10 AM February 13, 2017 • Firm’s approach to project • Project schedule • Experience of project personnel • Firm’s experience/SMC contract history • Cost estimate • Proposed modifications to scope w/ rationale • GIS capabilities Keep proposal brief with information relevant to this project and assigned project team Proposal Evaluation
• Project Approach - 15 points • Project Team’s Experience with Watershed Plan Development - 40 points • Firm’s Experience with Watershed Plan Development/Previous SMC Contracts - 15 points • Project Schedule - 10 points • Firm’s Proximity to / Knowledge of the Study Area - 10 points • Proposed Fee - 5 points • Proposal Format and Quality - 5 points For More Information You can follow the planning process and view meeting documents at: http://www.lakecountyil.gov/Stormwater/LakeCou ntyWatersheds/DesPlainesRiver/Pages/default.aspx
RFP Contact: •Patty Werner [email protected] 847-377-7717