DOCSLIB.ORG

Pavement, Box Culverts and Bridges

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Pavement, Box Culverts and Bridges MCHENRY COUNTY STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PLAN Alden Road Bridge - Alden, IL Photo by: Wynnyth Adair LAST REVISED MAY 2018 COUNTY OF MCHENRY MCHENRY COUNTY, ILLINOIS SMPP Prepared by of the McHenry County Division of Water Resources, Department of Health, and Division of Transportation 2200 N. Seminary Ave. Woodstock, IL 60098 Phone 815-334-4560 • Fax 815-334-4546 Adapted from Lake County Stormwater Management Commission Table of Contents 1 Overview of the Stormwater Management Program Plan ________________________1 1.A Introduction ____________________________________________________________1 1.B State & Federal Regulations_______________________________________________2 1.C Countywide Approach to NPDES Compliance _______________________________3 1.D Organization of the Stormwater Management Program Plan ___________________5 1.E Watersheds, Sub-watersheds, and Receiving Waters __________________________6 2 Program Management ___________________________________________________13 2.A Implementation of this SMPP ____________________________________________13 2.B Intra-Department Coordination __________________________________________13 2.B.1 Water Resources Manager ______________________________________________13 2.B.2 Department of Planning and Development, Division of Water Resources _________15 2.B.3 Division of Transportation and Facilities Management ________________________15 2.C Coordination between McHenry County Departments & Divisions _____________15 2.D Coordination with Fox River Study Group _________________________________16 2.E Coordination with Watershed Groups _____________________________________17 2.F Coordination of Contractors _____________________________________________17 2.G Coordination with the Public _____________________________________________17 2.H Coordination with the IEPA _____________________________________________17 2.I Coordination with the Development Community _____________________________18 2.J Coordination with the Other Stakeholders __________________________________18 3 The Program __________________________________________________________19 3.A Public Education and Outreach on Storm Water Impacts _____________________20 3.A.1 Distributed Paper Material ______________________________________________20 3.A.2 Speaking Engagement _________________________________________________21 3.A.3 Public Service Announcement ___________________________________________21 3.A.4 Community Event ____________________________________________________22 3.A.5 Classroom Education Material ___________________________________________23 3.A.6 Other Public Education ________________________________________________23 3.A.6.a Storm Drain Stenciling & Markers ___________________________________25 3.A.6.b Household Hazardous Waste _______________________________________25 3.A.6.c Maintenance of Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems ___________________27 3.A.6.d Vehicle Fluid Maintenance _________________________________________28 3.A.6.e Car Washing ____________________________________________________28 3.A.6.f Pool Dewatering _________________________________________________29 i 3.B Public Involvement/Participation _________________________________________30 3.B.1 Public Panel _________________________________________________________30 3.B.2 Educational Volunteer _________________________________________________30 3.B.3 Stakeholder Meeting __________________________________________________30 3.B.4 Public Hearing _______________________________________________________30 3.B.5 Volunteer Monitoring __________________________________________________31 3.B.6 Program Involvement __________________________________________________31 3.B.7 Other Public Involvement ______________________________________________31 3.B.7.a Environmental Justice Areas ________________________________________32 3.C Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination _________________________________33 3.C.1 Sewer Map Preparation ________________________________________________33 3.C.1.a Understanding Outfalls and Illicit Discharges __________________________33 3.C.1.b Identifying Outfalls and Receiving Waters _____________________________33 3.C.2 Regulatory Control Program ____________________________________________34 3.C.2.a Regulatory Authority ______________________________________________34 3.C.2.b Illicit Discharge Ordinance _________________________________________34 3.C.3 Detection/Elimination Prioritization Plan __________________________________34 3.C.3.a Program Planning ________________________________________________35 3.C.3.b Outfall Inspection Procedure ________________________________________36 3.C.3.c Follow Up Investigation and Program Evaluation _______________________42 3.C.3.d Potential Sources of Illicit Discharges ________________________________45 3.C.3.e USEPA Exclusions _______________________________________________45 3.C.3.f Pollutant Indicators _______________________________________________46 3.C.3.g Indirect Connection Program _______________________________________55 3.C.3.h Direct Connection Illicit Discharge Program ___________________________56 3.C.4 Illicit Discharge Tracing Procedures ______________________________________57 3.C.4.a Tracing _________________________________________________________57 3.C.5 Illicit Source Removal Procedures ________________________________________57 3.C.5.a Removal of Illicit Discharges _______________________________________58 3.C.6 Program Evaluation and Assessment ______________________________________58 3.C.6.a Program Evaluation _______________________________________________58 3.C.7 Visual Dry Weather Screening ___________________________________________61 3.C.8 Pollutant Field Testing _________________________________________________61 3.C.9 Public Notification ____________________________________________________61 3.C.10 Other Illicit Discharge Controls _________________________________________61 3.D Construction Site Storm Water Runoff Control _____________________________62 3.D.1 Regulatory Control Program ____________________________________________62 3.D.1.a Responsible Parties _______________________________________________63 3.D.2 Erosion and Sediment Control BMPs _____________________________________64 3.D.3 Other Waste Control Program ___________________________________________65 3.D.3.a Construction Site Waste Control _____________________________________65 3.D.3.b Development Tracking ____________________________________________65 3.D.3.c Pavement Projects ________________________________________________66 3.D.4 Site Plan Review Procedures ____________________________________________66 3.D.4.a Minimum Construction Site Practices_________________________________66 3.D.5 Public Information Handling Procedures ___________________________________67 ii 3.D.6 Site Inspection/Enforcement Procedures ___________________________________67 3.D.6.a Complaints _____________________________________________________68 3.D.6.b Performance Guarantees ___________________________________________68 3.D.7 Other Construction Site Runoff Controls___________________________________69 3.D.7.a Violation Notification Procedures ____________________________________69 3.E Post-Construction Storm Water Management in New Development and Redevelopment ________________________________________________________72 3.E.1 Community Control Strategy ____________________________________________72 3.E.2 Regulatory Control Program ____________________________________________72 3.E.2.a Runoff Volume Reduction Hierarchy _________________________________73 3.E.2.b Green Infrastructure_______________________________________________73 3.E.3 Long Term Operation and Maintenance Procedures __________________________73 3.E.4 Pre-Construction Review of BMP Designs _________________________________74 3.E.5 Site Inspections During Construction ______________________________________74 3.E.6 Post-Construction Inspections ___________________________________________74 3.E.7 Other Post-Construction Runoff Controls __________________________________75 3.F Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations ________76 3.F.1 Employee Training Program _____________________________________________76 3.F.1.a Training Approach ________________________________________________76 3.F.1.b Training Schedule and Frequency ____________________________________77 3.F.2 Inspection and Maintenance Program _____________________________________78 3.F.3 Municipal Operations Storm Water Control_________________________________78 3.F.3.a Street Sweeping __________________________________________________78 3.F.3.b Drainageways ___________________________________________________78 3.F.3.c Landscape Maintenance ____________________________________________80 3.F.3.d Snow Removal and Ice Control ______________________________________82 3.F.3.e Vehicle and Equipment Operations ___________________________________85 3.F.3.f Pet Waste _______________________________________________________87 3.F.3.g Animal Nuisance Control __________________________________________87 3.F.4 Municipal Operations Waste Disposal _____________________________________88 3.F.4.a Waste Management _______________________________________________88 3.F.5 Flood Management/Assessment Guidelines _________________________________89 3.F.6 Other Municipal Operations Controls _____________________________________89 3.F.6.a Water Conservation & Irrigation _____________________________________89 3.F.6.b Green Infrastructure _______________________________________________89
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hydrogeology and Simulation of Ground-Water Flow in the Aquifers Underlying Belvidere, Illinois
    U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Hydrogeology and Simulation of Ground-Water Flow in the Aquifers Underlying Belvidere, Illinois By P.C. Mills (U.S. Geological Survey), J.E. Nazimek (U.S. Geological Survey), K.J. Halford (U.S. Geological Survey), and D.J. Yeskis (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4100 In cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Urbana, Illinois 2002 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GALE A. NORTON, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Charles G. Groat, Director The use of firm, trade, and brand names in this report is for identification purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey. For additional information write to: Copies of this report can be purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Branch of Information Services 221 N. Broadway Avenue Box 25286 Urbana, IL 61801 Denver, CO 80225-0286 CONTENTS Abstract.................................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Purpose and Scope....................................................................................................................................................... 6
    [Show full text]
  • Mchenry County Water Resources 2020-9-4 SK-DS 1 MCHENRY
    MCHENRY COUNTY WATER RESOURCES Approximately 10,000 to 20,000 years ago glaciers from the most recent period of glaciation (Wisconsin glaciation) retreated from McHenry County leaving a water-rich tapestry of lakes, rivers, streams and wetlands. As soon as the landscape became more hospitable, Native Americans became regular visitors to McHenry County. Archaeologists have uncovered artifacts that verify the presence of Native Americans in McHenry County extending back 12,000 years before present (BP). Large and small wetlands likely provided the most productive and easily harvested food resources, including game and vegetation, for the earliest people 10. For thousands of years Native Americans of many tribes and cultures migrated through and occupied McHenry County, relying on its abundant natural resources. In the 1800’s, expanding European settlement forced Native American occupants from McHenry County and many man-made changes were implemented that degraded the health of water resources. Changes included converting prairie, wetland and woodland to agriculture; draining or filling wetlands and channelizing streams to increase agricultural land; and grading or paving over land for residential and commercial development. These changes accelerated as new technologies were introduced and urban development expanded into the countryside. Historically, the native vegetation in McHenry County consisted predominantly of deep rooted plant species that held soils in place, protected soil from erosion, intercepted and stored rainfall, and sequestered organic carbon in the soil. The canopy and roots of trees in woodlands, another historically dominant plant community in the county, were also capable of intercepting, storing and transpiring rainfall. The canopy and interconnected root systems of the native vegetation acted as a sponge capable of absorbing, storing, and transpiring tremendous volumes of water, thereby reducing the potential for flooding and promoting the infiltration of groundwater.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Harvard Comprehensive Plan APPENDIX B: Existing Conditions Report
    City of Harvard Comprehensive Plan APPENDIX B: Existing Conditions Report April 2015 Acknowledgements Funding Acknowledgement This project was supported through the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning’s (CMAP) Local Technical Assistance (LTA) program, which is funded by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT), and the Chicago Community Trust. The Metropolitan Mayors Caucus (MMC) and CMAP would like to thank these funders for their support for this project. Unless otherwise specified, all photos are by CMAP staff. 2 Table of Contents Introduction 4 Housing and Population 41 Regional Context 9 Economic Development 56 Previous Plans 13 Transportation 69 Community Engagement 18 Natural Environment 89 Governance and Community Services 25 Looking Forward 112 Land Use and Development 31 3 3 1. Introduction The City of Harvard has decided to update its comprehensive plan, which will define the vision of the City’s future and the steps needed to achieve that vision. Having an accurate understanding of the existing conditions in the City is necessary in order to develop an appropriate and effective comprehensive plan that addresses the issues and concerns of the community. Why Does Harvard Need a Comprehensive Plan? The history of the City of Harvard begins with its rich agricultural lands and the connection the railroad provided to the larger markets in the Chicago region. Responding to the demands of local farmers as well as the railroad, manufacturing industries took root and the community grew rapidly. Harvard continues to boast a small-town feel nestled in among farm fields and open spaces that is quite distinct from other places in the region.
    [Show full text]
  • Rock River Basin Streamflow Assessment Model
    Contract Report 2004-02 Rock River Basin Streamflow Assessment Model by H. Vernon Knapp and Amy M. Russell Prepared for the Illinois Department of Natural Resources Office of Water Resources February 2004 Illinois State Water Survey Watershed Science Section Champaign, Illinois A Division of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources Rock River Basin Streamflow Assessment Model by H. Vernon Knapp and Amy M. Russell Watershed Science Section Illinois State Water Survey Illinois Department of Natural Resources Prepared for the Illinois Department of Natural Resources Office of Water Resources February 2004 Rock River Basin Streamflow Assessment Model By H. Vernon Knapp and Amy M. Russell Watershed Science Section Illinois State Water Survey Abstract The Illinois Streamflow Assessment Model (ILSAM) is an analytical and information tool developed to predict the frequency of streamflows, and water-use impacts on streamflows, for every stream in selected major watersheds in Illinois. Streamflow frequency predictions produced by the model are useful for evaluating in-stream flow levels for the protection of aquatic habitat, providing streamflow estimates for water-quality analyses and regulations, evaluating drought and its impact on water supplies, and classifying Illinois streams by their hydrologic character for use in watershed management. The current version of ILSAM was developed to operate on a personal computer having a Microsoft Windows 98/2000/XP operating system. The model user can obtain streamflow frequency estimates for any location in the watershed by identifying the desired stream and location. The ILSAM currently is developed for use with streams in eight watersheds: the Fox, Kankakee, Kaskaskia, Little Wabash, Mackinaw, Rock, Sangamon, and Vermilion-Illinois River basins.
    [Show full text]
  • Lawrence Creek Watershed Plan Technical Report
    Lawrence Creek Watershed Plan Technical Report September 2008 Lawrence Creek Watershed Plan September 2008 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report was prepared using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency funds under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act distributed through the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Water. The findings and recommendations contained herein are not necessarily those of the funding agencies. Additionally, the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) provided a cash-match contribution as did the Kishwaukee River Ecosystem Partnership (KREP) through a grant from the Grand Victoria Foundation that was administered by the Natural Land Institute. An in-kind match has also been generously provided by the Natural Land Institute. The planning process was coordinated by CMAP and KREP. Contributions to the plan include Jesse Elam, Kristin Heery, Lori Heringa, and Tim Loftus of CMAP, and Lisa Haderlein of KREP. Nathan Hill of KREP provided GIS consultation and map analysis. Hey and Associates, Inc. provided assistance with urban best management practices and ecosystem restoration recommendations. The authors gratefully acknowledge the many contributors to this planning process and especially thank the staff of the City of Harvard, McHenry County Conservation District, McHenry County Soil and Water Conservation District, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and McHenry County Health Department. Finally, the authors wish to acknowledge the work and stewardship role of the Kishwaukee River Ecosystem Partnership. Prior to this planning process, KREP developed initial watershed plans for each of the 42 subwatersheds of the Kishwaukee River Basin. The KREP-developed watershed plan for Lawrence Creek was a valuable component to the award-winning Section 319 grant application.
    [Show full text]
  • Ground-Water Studies for Environmental Planning, Mchenry County, Illinois
    Contract Report 630 Ground-Water Studies for Environmental Planning, McHenry County, Illinois by Scott C. Meyer Office of Ground-Water Resources Evaluation Prepared for the McHenry County Board of Health and Illinois Department of Natural Resources June 1998 Illinois State Water Survey Hydrology Division Champaign, Illinois A Division of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources GROUND-WATER STUDIES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING, MCHENRY COUNTY, ILLINOIS by Scott C. Meyer Prepared for the McHenry County Board of Health and Illinois Department of Natural Resources Illinois State Water Survey 2204 Griffith Drive Champaign, IL 61820-7495 June 1998 ISSN 0733-3927 This report was printed on recycled and recyclable papers. CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 1 Purpose and Scope 1 Description of Study Area 3 Previous Investigations 3 Acknowledgments 6 GENERAL BACKGROUND 7 Aquifers and Confining Beds 7 Potentiometric Surface Maps 7 Shallow Hydrostratigraphy of McHenry County 8 Hydraulic Properties of Aquifers and Confining Beds 11 Ground-Water Recharge and Discharge 12 Capture Zones 14 Nitrates in Ground Water 16 METHODS AND DATABASES 17 Development of Potentiometric Surface Maps 17 Field Procedure 17 Considerations in Contouring the Head Data 18 Development of Final Maps 24 Uncertainties 25 Estimation of Time-Related Capture Zones 25 Potentiometric Surface Data 26 Hydraulic Conductivity and Effective Porosity Assumptions, Aquifers 1 through 4 29 Hydraulic Conductivity and Effective Porosity Assumptions, Aquifer 5 29 Scope of Capture Zone Estimations 35
    [Show full text]
  • Sand and Gravel Resources of Boone County, Illinois
    417 STATE OF ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION AND EDUCATION I � SAND AND GRAVEL RESOURCES OF BOONE COUNTY, ILLINOIS Ralph E. Hunter John P. Kempton ILLINOIJ •. LC! OC·t, r SUi,VE' APR 211986 ILLINOIS STATE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY John C. Frye, Chief URBANA CIRCULAR 41 7 1967 SAND AND GRAVEL RESOURCES OF BOONE COUNTY, ILLINOIS Ralph E. Hunter and John P. Kempton ABSTRACT Boone County has sand and gravel resources that could be adequate to meet needs for many years. The larg­ est deposits occur in terraces and floodplains along Pisca­ saw Creek and along the Kishwaukee River downstream from its junction with Piscasaw Creek. Other .deposits are found in the northeastern part of the county, along parts of Beaver Creek, east of Piscasaw Creek, and south of the Kishwaukee River. Only small deposits are found in the northwestern part of the county. The deposits have been mapped on the scale 1: 62,.500. IN TRODUCTION Purpose of Study This report is part of a program of the Illinois State Geological Survey to supply information regarding sand and gravel resources of the state (fig. 1). Boone County was selected for investigation because no report on sand and gravel re­ sources was available and because the county is undergoing rapid urban growth and industrialization, which call for increasing quantities of sand and gravel for the construction of roads, buildings, and other structures. The report points out the distribution of potential sources of sand and grav­ el in the county to those concerned with producing sand and gravel. In addition, knowledge of the distribution of these resources may be useful in local and region­ al land use planning.
    [Show full text]