East Branch DuPage River Watershed & Resiliency Plan

Prepare, React and Recover March 2015

y eg He at a tr lth S & & W ip e h l s lb r e e i d n a g e L

I n f r a s t y r t u e c i t c u o r e S

& & y E m nv o iro on nm Ec ent

Prepared For DuPage County Stormwater Management

By:

Hey and Associates, Inc. Birchline Planning, LLC. Camiros, Ltd. Contents

1. Executive Summary ...... 1

1.1. The East Branch DuPage River Watershed ...... 1

1.2. Goals of this Plan ...... 1

1.3. How the Watershed Plan Helps the Community ...... 2

1.4. The Watershed Plan’s Recommendations...... 2

2. Glossary ...... 5

2.1. Agencies/Stakeholders ...... 5

2.2. Municipalities ...... 8

2.3. Acts/Ordinances/Programs ...... 8

2.4. Terms ...... 9

2.5. Watersheds, Subwatersheds and River Reaches...... 14

3. Introduction ...... 15

3.1. Watershed Planning Overview ...... 15

3.1.1. What is Watershed Planning? ...... 15 3.1.2. Watershed Planning for the East Branch DuPage River ...... 16 3.1.3. Resilience and Watershed Planning ...... 17 3.1.4. Addressing Unmet Needs in the East Branch DuPage River Watershed ...... 18 3.1.5. Statement of Plan Goals ...... 18 3.2. Watershed Planning Process & Data Collection ...... 20

3.2.1. Identifying Watershed Jurisdictions and Stakeholders ...... 20 3.2.2. Stakeholder Data Collection Process ...... 24 3.3. Watershed Physical and Water Quality Data ...... 25

3.3.1. Flooding-Related Data & Analysis ...... 25 3.3.2. Demographics & Socioeconomic Data ...... 26 3.4. Public Outreach & Stakeholder Engagement ...... 26

i 

Contents

3.5. Plan Adoption ...... 28

4. Watershed Characteristics Assessment ...... 29

4.1. The East Branch DuPage River Watershed ...... 29

4.1.1. Mainstem of the East Branch DuPage River ...... 30 4.1.2. East Branch Subwatersheds ...... 30 4.1.3. Channel Conditions ...... 34 4.2. Climate and Precipitation ...... 34

4.2.1. Climate ...... 34 4.2.2. Precipitation...... 35 4.3. Geology and Topography ...... 36

4.4. Soils ...... 37

4.4.1. Soil Series ...... 37 4.4.2. Hydric Soils ...... 39 4.4.3. Soil Erodibility ...... 39 4.4.4. Soil Infiltration Capacities (Hydrologic Soil Groups)...... 40 4.5. Cultural Resources ...... 42

4.6. Natural Resources ...... 43

4.6.1. Illinois Natural Area Inventory Sites ...... 43 4.6.2. Parks, Forest Preserve Lands and Trails ...... 44 4.6.3. Threatened and Endangered Species ...... 45 4.6.4. Wetlands, Riparian Areas, and Potential Wetland Restoration Sites ...... 46 4.7. Groundwater Resources ...... 49

4.8. Agricultural Best Management Practices ...... 50

4.9. Watershed Drainage, Hydrology & Hydraulics ...... 51

4.9.1. Stream Flow, Discharge & Baseflow Characteristics ...... 51 4.9.2. Channel Conditions ...... 54 4.9.3. Hydraulic Structures ...... 56 4.9.4. Stormwater Management Facilities ...... 58 4.10. Floodplains ...... 60 ii 

Contents

4.11. Water Quality ...... 62

4.11.1. State of Illinois Water Quality Reporting ...... 62 4.11.2. IEPA Permit Programs ...... 66 4.11.3. Water Quality Monitoring Stations, Results and Trends ...... 69 4.11.4. Nonpoint Pollution Sources & Load Analysis ...... 82 4.12. Critical Areas for Watershed Improvement ...... 86

4.12.1. Critical Subbasins ...... 87 4.12.2. Critical Stream Reaches ...... 87 4.12.3. Summary and Conclusions ...... 87 5. Land Use, Demographics and Transportation ...... 91

5.1. Watershed Land Use and Land Cover ...... 91

5.1.1. Historical Land Use ...... 91 5.1.2. Current Land Use and Land Cover ...... 92 5.1.3. Future Land Use / Land Cover Projections ...... 93 5.1.4. Land Use Impacts on the East Branch Watershed ...... 94 5.1.5. Impervious Area Analysis ...... 95 5.2. Watershed Socioeconomic and Demographic Conditions ...... 95

5.2.1. Population ...... 96 5.2.2. Income Profile & Low-Moderate Income Areas ...... 98 5.2.3. Economic Activity & Industry Profile ...... 100 5.2.4. Housing & Home Ownership ...... 101 5.2.5. Community Facilities ...... 104 5.2.6. Community & Organizational Resources ...... 105 5.3. Transportation ...... 107

5.3.1. Existing Transportation Network & Issues ...... 108 5.3.2. Proposed Transportation Projects ...... 110 6. Watershed Problems & Opportunities ...... 111

6.1. Water Quality Problems and Opportunities ...... 111

6.2. Flooding and Flood Resilience Issues ...... 111

6.2.1. Types of Flooding and Flood Damages in the Watershed ...... 112 iii 

Contents

6.2.2. Urban and Nuisance Flooding ...... 114 6.2.3. Description of Major Flood-Affected Areas ...... 116 6.2.4. Problem Areas Identified by Watershed Stakeholders ...... 119 6.2.5. Health and Wellbeing Impacts ...... 125 6.3. Land Use Plans, Policies & Practices ...... 127

6.3.1. DuPage County Countywide Stormwater and Flood Plain Ordinance (DCCSFPO) 127 6.3.2. Municipal Plans & Initiatives...... 131 6.3.3. Planning for Natural Areas ...... 133 6.4. Watershed Jurisdictional Coordination ...... 140

6.4.1. Roles and Responsibilities ...... 140 6.4.2. Policies and Regulations ...... 141 6.5. Watershed Flooding and Quality of Life Survey ...... 141

7. Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses: Studies, Economic Analysis and Preferred Alternatives...... 143

7.1. Existing Studies and Analyses ...... 143

7.1.1. FEMA Flood Insurance Study (FIS) ...... 143 7.1.2. East Branch Mapping Updates ...... 144 7.1.3. East Branch – River-Dumoulin Area ...... 145 7.1.4. East Branch – Valley View Area ...... 146 7.1.5. Illinois Route 53 North ...... 147 7.1.6. Other Local Studies ...... 147 7.2. Economic Analysis ...... 147

7.3. Recommended Alternatives ...... 147

8. Watershed Needs and Issues ...... 149

8.1. Watershed Resilience Principles & Goals...... 149

8.2. Identification of Unmet Needs ...... 152

8.2.1. Housing ...... 152 8.2.2. Infrastructure ...... 155 8.2.3. Impacts to Environmental Health ...... 159 iv 

Contents

8.2.4. Economic Impacts ...... 160 8.3. Most Impacted / Most Distressed Area...... 160

8.4. Additional Flood Impacted and Distressed Areas ...... 160

8.5. Critical Areas of Environmental Degradation ...... 161

9. Recommended Action Plan ...... 162

9.1. Watershed-wide Programmatic Plans ...... 162

9.1.1. Infrastructure ...... 163 9.1.2. Housing ...... 169 9.1.3. Environmental Health ...... 170 9.1.4. Policy, Finance and Regulatory Tools...... 171 9.1.5. Community Cohesion ...... 172 9.1.6. Leveraging ...... 173 9.2. Site Specific Flood Risk Reduction Plans ...... 174

9.2.1. Most Impacted / Most Distressed – River Dumoulin Area ...... 174 9.2.2. Local Projects ...... 177 9.2.3. East Branch DuPage River through Unincorporated Valley View Area ...... 181 9.2.4. Reserved ...... 181 9.3. Prioritized Non-Point Source Reduction Action Plan ...... 181

9.3.1. Non-Point Source Reduction Programmatic Action Plan ...... 182 9.3.2. Non-Point Source Reduction Site Specific Plans ...... 194 9.3.3. Non-Point Source Reduction Education and Outreach Plan ...... 208 10. Plan Implementation & Evaluation ...... 218

10.1. Implementation Process ...... 218

10.2. Stakeholder Engagement ...... 218

10.3. Implementation Roles & Responsibilities ...... 219

10.3.1. Conservation Strategies ...... 219 10.3.2. Jurisdictional Strategies ...... 219 10.3.3. Other Stakeholder Strategies ...... 219 10.4. Non-point Source Pollution Loads and Targets ...... 219 v 

Contents

10.4.1. Estimating Pollutant Load Reductions ...... 220 10.5. Implementation Schedule ...... 220

10.6. Funding Sources ...... 221

10.7. Watershed-Based Plan Monitoring and Evaluation ...... 234

10.7.1. Monitoring Plan Implementation ...... 234 10.8. Hydrologic and Hydraulic Monitoring ...... 236

10.9. Data Collection & Analysis ...... 236

10.10. Flood Forecasting & Watershed Resilience ...... 237

11. References ...... 238

12. Exhibits ...... 253

13. Appendices ...... 277

13.1. Appendix A: Stakeholder Questionnaires ...... 278

13.2. Appendix B: Other East Branch DuPage River Studies ...... 279

13.3. Appendix C: Watershed Jurisdictions ...... 281

13.4. Appendix D: Flood Risk Reduction Projects Identified by Stakeholders ..... 283

13.5. Appendix E: Report Card ...... 290

13.6. Appendix F: Water Quality Modeling ...... 291

Figures

Figure 1-1 Watershed Diagram ...... 1 Figure 4-1 Example Soil Profile ...... 37 Figure 4-2 USGS Flow Gauge 05540160 East Branch DuPage River near Downers Grove ..... 52 Figure 4-3 USGS Flow Gauge 05540195 St. Joseph Creek at Route 34 at Lisle ...... 52 Figure 4-4 USGS Flow Gauge 05540250 East Branch DuPage River at Bolingbrook ...... 53 Figure 4-5 2005 Qual2K East Branch DuPage River Baseline Model ...... 84 Figure 4-6 Predicted DO Conditions with removal of the Churchill Woods Dam ...... 85 Figure 5-1 Percent of Housing Units Constructed by Decade ...... 103

vi 

Contents

Figure 5-2 Distribution of Value of Owner-Occupied Housing Units ...... 104 Figure 5-3 Traffic Effects of Road Closures ...... 109 Figure 6-1 Chicago Wilderness Green Infrastructure Vision ...... 134 Figure 6-2 GIV for East Branch DuPage River ...... 137 Figure 6-3 Percentage of questionnaire respondents who indicated that the weather event was a concern ...... 142 Tables

Table 3-1 Jurisdictions within the East Branch DuPage River Watershed ...... 21 Table 3-2 Non-Geographic Stakeholders & County Departments ...... 22 Table 3-3 Public Sector Stakeholders and Areas of Responsibility ...... 24 Table 4-1 Drainage Areas of the East Branch DuPage River ...... 29 Table 4-2 East Branch Mainstem and Subwatershed Information ...... 30 Table 4-3 Soil Series in the East Branch DuPage River Watershed (DuPage County portion) .. 38 Table 4-4 Percent Coverage of hydric and non-hydric soils in the East Branch ...... 39 Table 4-5 Highly erodible soils in the East Branch DuPage River Watershed ...... 40 Table 4-6 Hydrologic Soil Groups and corresponding attributes in the East Branch DuPage River Watershed (DuPage County portion) ...... 41 Table 4-7 Hydrologic Soil Groups including acreage and percent of watershed ...... 41 Table 4-8 National Register of Historic Places sites in the East Branch watershed ...... 42 Table 4-9 INAI Sites located within East Branch DuPage River watershed ...... 44 Table 4-10 Natural Areas and Recreational Parks in the East Branch DuPage ...... 44 Table 4-11 List of Federal Endangered and Threatened Species in DuPage County ...... 46 Table 4-12 Historic and Existing Wetland Area, East Branch Watershed and DuPage County . 48 Table 4-13 Active and historic stream gauges in the East Branch DuPage River watershed ...... 53 Table 4-14 Historic Low and Mean Flows in the East Branch DuPage River watershed ...... 54 Table 4-15 Dams in the East Branch watershed ...... 56 Table 4-16 Major Culverts in the East Branch watershed ...... 58 Table 4-17 Open Water Areas of the Compensatory Storage Facilities within the East Branch Watershed ...... 60 Table 4-18 Categorization of 303(d) Listed Waters in Illinois ...... 63 Table 4-19 2014 303(d) Listings in the East Branch Watershed ...... 64 Table 4-20 Approved TMDLs in the East Branch watershed ...... 64 Table 4-21 TMDLs Under Development in the East Branch watershed ...... 65 Table 4-22 Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTPs) and NPDES Industrial Discharges in the East Branch watershed ...... 67 Table 4-23 Illinois DO Water Quality Standard ...... 70 Table 4-24 AWQMN Monitoring Stations in the East Branch DuPage River Watershed ...... 73 Table 4-25 Water Quality Studies Conducted by the DRSCW...... 74 Table 4-26 Sierra Club Sampling Sites in the East Branch DuPage River watershed ...... 78 Table 4-27 Estimate Pollutant Loading by Land Use – 22nd Street Tributary ...... 85 vii 

Contents

Table 4-28 Watershed Impairments, Causes and Sources ...... 89 Table 5-1 United States Geological Survey (USGS) GIRAS Land Use and Land Cover for the East Branch Watershed (DuPage County Portion)...... 91 Table 5-2 CMAP Existing Land Use for the East Branch Watershed ...... 92 Table 5-3 Projected Land Use for the East Branch Watershed ...... 93 Table 5-4 2013 Population and Household Structure ...... 96 Table 5-5 Educational Attainment and Language ...... 98 Table 5-6 Household Income Distribution (Household Income in the past 12 Months in Current 2013 Dollars) ...... 99 Table 5-7 Employment and Disability Status ...... 99 Table 5-8 FY2014 Income Limits for Low, Very Low & Extremely Low Income Households . 100 Table 5-9 2013 and Projected 2016 Jobs by Industry, DuPage County...... 101 Table 5-10 Housing Tenure, Values and Characteristics ...... 102 Table 5-11 Age of Housing Structures ...... 102 Table 5-12 Value of Owner-Occupied Housing Units, Median Value, Median Rent & Substandard Status ...... 103 Table 5-13 Community Organizations and Resources ...... 105 Table 5-14 Transportation Related Pollutants ...... 108 Table 6-1 Problem Areas Identified by Stakeholders ...... 120 Table 6-2 Private Well Water Samples following April 2013 Flood ...... 126 Table 7-1 Summary of FIS Data Sources for Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses per the 2007 FIS ...... 143 Table 8-1 Watershed Vulnerabilities and Resilience-Enhancing Actions ...... 150 Table 8-2 DuPage County Residential Ownership Unmet Needs – Damage at least $8,000 ... 153 Table 8-3 DuPage County Residential Ownership Unmet Needs – Flooding Over Four Feet .. 153 Table 8-4 Infrastructure Needs ...... 155 Table 8-5 Flood Risk Reduction Projects Identified by Stakeholders ...... 157 Table 9-1 Watershed Level Characteristics and Predictive Opportunities ...... 164 Table 9-2 Watershed Level Alert Distribution and Sensitivity ...... 164 Table 9-3 Planned Local Flood Risk Reduction Projects ...... 177 Table 9-4 Watershed-wide Non-Point Source Reduction Programmatic Action Plan for the East Branch DuPage River watershed ...... 188 Table 9-5 Chloride Reduction Actions ...... 205 Table 9-6 Streambank Stabilization and Restoration Projects in the East Branch DuPage River Watershed ...... 205 Table 9-7 Green Infrastructure Projects in the East Branch DuPage River Watershed ...... 207 Table 9-8 Wetland Restoration Projects in the East Branch DuPage River Watershed ...... 207 Table 9-9 Open Space Preservation and Restoration Projects in the East Branch DuPage River Watershed ...... 208 Table 9-10 Non-Point Source Reduction Education and Outreach Action Plan ...... 211 Table 10-1 Plan Implementation Summary Schedule ...... 221 Table 10-2 Potential Funding Sources ...... 221 Table 13-1 County, municipal, and township jurisdictions in the East Branch of the DuPage River watershed ...... 281 viii 

Contents

Exhibits

Exhibit 1 Overview of Watershed

Exhibit 2 Jurisdictions

Exhibit 3 Transportation Network

Exhibit 4 East Branch DuPage River Subwatersheds

Exhibit 5 Topography

Exhibit 6 Dominant Soil Series

Exhibit 7 Coverage of Hydric Soils

Exhibit 8 Highly Erodible Soils

Exhibit 9 Hydrologic Soil Groups

Exhibit 10 Historic Places/Districts

Exhibit 11 Forest Preserves and Recreational Trails

Exhibit 12 Wetlands

Exhibit 13 100-year Floodplain

Exhibit 14 NPDES Point Source Discharges

Exhibit 15 Sampling Sites

Exhibit 16 Existing Land Use in the East Branch DuPage River Watershed

Exhibit 17 Future Land Use in the East Branch DuPage River Watershed

Exhibit 18 Low to Moderate Income Census Tracts

Exhibit 19 Critical Facilities

Exhibit 20 Heat Map of Damages from April 2013 Flood Event

Exhibit 21 Road Construction Projects (2015-2020)

Exhibit 22 Identified Flood Problem Areas

Exhibit 23 Committed Flood Control Project Locations ix 

Acknowledgements

DuPage County would like to acknowledge its partners for their time and assistance in attending coordination and outreach meetings, providing information, and providing critical input throughout this process.

DuPage County Departments

• Community Services • County Board • Division of Transportation • Economic Development and Planning • Information Technology • Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Management • Public Works • Stormwater Management

Other Partners

• Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning • East Branch Municipalities • Chicago Wilderness  Village of Addison • Choose DuPage  Village of Bloomingdale • DuPage Community Foundation  Village of Bolingbrook • DuPage County Health Department  City of Darien • DuPage River Salt Creek Workgroup  Village of Downers Grove • Forest Preserve District of DuPage County  Village of Glen Ellyn • Illinois State Toll Highway Authority  Village of Glendale Heights • Morton Arboretum  Village of Lisle • SCARCE  Village of Lombard • State of Illinois  Village of Oak Brook  Village of Westmont  City of Wheaton  Village of Woodridge

In addition, the East Branch DuPage River Watershed’s Park Districts, Townships, Schools Districts and Residents played an important role in the development of this Plan.

x 

1. Executive Summary 1.1. The East Branch DuPage River Watershed What is a Watershed?

Everyone in DuPage County lives in a watershed - the area of land that drains water from rain, snowmelt, and groundwater to a single stream or lake. Although the definition of a watershed is straightforward, the interaction between natural and human systems in a watershed is complex and dynamic. As the East Branch of the DuPage River flows south from its headwaters in Addison through DuPage County’s eastern communities, meeting St. Joseph’s Creek in Downers Grove and ultimately the West Branch of the DuPage River in northern Will County, this River and the lands along its banks provide beneficial recreation opportunities, greenspace, and wildlife habitat. At the same time, the County and its residents see the impacts of human settlement on the River: The pollution and water quality problems in the River, the chronic or “nuisance” flooding that plagues several areas, and the severe, damaging floods that periodically strike, are reminders of the East Branch’s presence, and its potential to affect communities for better and for worse. Figure 1-1 Watershed Diagram 1.2. Goals of this Plan The relationships between water quality, flood risk reduction, and community well-being - and the opportunities to enhance all three through coordinated actions, investments, and public engagement - are the subject of this Watershed Plan for the East Branch of the DuPage River. This Plan’s overall goal is to enhance resilience, environmental quality, and community cohesion throughout the East Branch watershed. Watershed-wide strategies are crucial to achieving these goals, as are the specific actions needed in flood-impacted areas, such as the flood-prone River-Dumoulin area in the Village of Lisle.

This Watershed Plan presents a comprehensive look at the conditions and systems affecting the East Branch and its watershed, as well as the specific conditions, issues and unmet needs in those areas affected repeatedly by chronic or severe, episodic flooding. The Plan describes the impacts of human systems such as buildings, roads, sewer and stormwater systems, and parks on the River and its watershed. Past and ongoing impacts of floods, storms and climate on people and neighborhoods are detailed, to help illustrate where watershed planning and

1 

1. Executive Summary

investments can prevent or reduce the disruption and cost of these natural events. Finally, this Plan describes how the many parties or “stakeholders” in the East Branch watershed – government, individuals, businesses, community and professional organizations – can work cooperatively to build a healthy and resilient future. 1.3. How the Watershed Plan Helps the Community With completion and adoption of this Plan, DuPage County and the municipalities in the watershed will have new opportunities and resources for water quality, flood resilience, and community improvement. Once incorporated into the DuPage County Stormwater Management Plan, and approved by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, this Plan will provide three benefits:

1. Funding: Illinois EPA approval of this plan gives DuPage County and the watershed’s municipalities priority in applications for Section 319 Non-Point Pollution Source reduction project funds, which can be used to complete many different land conservation and water quality enhancement projects. The County and municipalities also can point to the Plan’s information, goals and specific recommendations in capital planning and other grant applications. 2. Flood Resilience: The watershed-specific information compiled in this Plan provides a new and important resource for coordinating actions to prevent flood- related damage to neighborhoods, businesses, infrastructure, and the natural environment – and to recover more quickly when flood damage occurs. Specific projects and investments, such as levee repairs, flood forecasting, and purchases of flood-prone properties, are related in this Plan to the government agencies and private or non-profit organizations that can, working collectively, reduce flood risk and ensure faster, less costly recovery when floods occur. 3. Community Engagement: Building a stronger sense of the community’s role in watershed enhancement and resilience is a core purpose of this Plan. Moving forward, building new and non-traditional partnerships around watershed issues (such as flood and emergency response, or financing stormwater and flood system maintenance) and building much stronger awareness of the East Branch watershed and its issues (whether through educational signs, outreach to civic groups, or data publication) will yield new and better insights, solutions, and strategies for enhancing the natural and human systems in the East Branch watershed. 1.4. The Watershed Plan’s Recommendations Watershed plans differ from standard municipal comprehensive plans or County flood control plans in the wide range of actions, and actors, that are involved in implementation. Because this Watershed Plan takes a comprehensive look at watershed conditions, and the needs for both human and natural systems, the recommendations span a wide range of topics, timeframes, and levels of investment. Some are general, while others identify particular engineering projects or call for a focused task force on a specific issue. Many recommended actions lie within the County’s scope of authority, while others would involve municipal government action, inter- agency partnerships, or agreements with private property owners. In all cases, there is a focus 2 

1. Executive Summary

on where and how investments and actions can generate greater benefit by using a holistic, watershed perspective: for example, where improvements to parks or recreation areas can incorporate flood prevention and streambank restoration as well, gaining greater benefit from the public’s investment. Taken together, the Plan’s recommendations provide several important tools:

A Prioritized Non-Point Source Reduction Action Plan, which is required by Illinois EPA to provide priority for water quality funding; the Action Plan focuses on enhancing overall water quality, aquatic habitat and wildlife habitat; protecting open space (which provides critical natural and habitat functions); preventing flood damage, which can further degrade water and habitat quality; and increasing stakeholder awareness and coordination on water quality issues.

An inventory of the identified, unmet needs from the April 2013 flood event that led to a federal disaster declaration in DuPage County, with a focus on impacts to the River- Dumoulin area of Lisle. Recommended actions for this area, which is referred to as the “Most Impacted/Most Distressed” area, include physical improvements to the levee, buyouts, floodproofing actions, flood damage repair, service coordination, property owner outreach and engagement, and land use planning to reduce or prevent future damage, mitigate past damage, and build social and economic resilience in the neighborhood.

Additional or complimentary recommended actions in six areas:

1. Developing an early flood warning system for the East Branch that can be replicated elsewhere in DuPage County, which would provide valuable information on the River’s dynamics and condition in addition to reducing the likelihood of serious injuries, property damage, and disruptions to emergency services during floods. 2. Improving the capacity and resilience of the transportation system during floods, severe storms, or blackouts, by implementing a County-wide LED traffic control program that provides temporary power during blackouts, and roadway improvements (notably to Illinois Route 53) that reduce the likelihood and impact of flood-related road closures. 3. Enhancing the watershed’s natural landscape and natural functions, which provide natural flood storage and control, through strategic land conservation, park and open space enhancement, tree plantings and canopy restoration, streambank stabilization, dam removal, and installation of vegetated or “green infrastructure” stormwater controls in developed areas. 4. Completing essential infrastructure projects, including repair and augmentation of the River-Dumoulin levee, that protect from flooding, reduce combined and sanitary sewer impacts, improve localized storm drainage and flooding conditions, and reduce stormwater pollution. 5. Amending County and municipal policies so that standards, incentives, easements, administrative procedures and enforcement are sufficient to support

3 

1. Executive Summary

effective flood control, restore and protect natural areas, and facilitate buyouts where desirable. 6. Conducting ongoing engagement, outreach and education on watershed issues, building residents’ awareness of the East Branch watershed and their role in its protection, and connecting organizations, businesses and agencies with watershed issues in continuing and innovative ways.

4 

2. Glossary 2.1. Agencies/Stakeholders Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad: http://metrarail.com/metra/en/home/maps_schedules/metra_system_map/bnsf/schedule.ht ml

Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT): http://www.cnt.org/

Chicago Metropolitan Association of Planning (CMAP): http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/

Chicago Region Trees Initiative (CRTI): http://www.mortonarb.org/science- conservation/chicago-region-trees-initiative

Chicago Wilderness (CW): http://www.chicagowilderness.org/

Corporate and Business Landowners (CBL)

Developers & Builders (DB)

Downtown Wheaton Association (DWA): http://downtownwheaton.com/

Drainage Districts (DD)

DuPage County Community Development Commission (DuPage County CDC): http://www.dupageco.org/cdc/

DuPage County Community Foundation (DCCF): http://www.dcfdn.org/

DuPage County Division of Transportation (DuDOT): http://www.dupageco.org/DOT/

DuPage County Economic Development & Planning (DuPage County EDP): http://www.dupageco.org/edp/

DuPage County Health Department (DCHD): http://www.dupagehealth.org/

DuPage County Homeland Security and Emergency Management (DuPage County OHSEM): http://www.dupageco.org/oem/

DuPage Housing Authority (DHA): http://www.dupagehousing.org/

DuPage County Department of Public Works (DCPW): http://www.dupageco.org/publicworks/

DuPage County Stormwater Management Plan (DCSMP)

DuPage County Stormwater Management Planning Committee (DCSWM or DCSWMPC): http://www.dupageco.org/swm/

DuPage County Watershed Steering Committee (DCWSC) 5 

2. Glossary

DuPage River Salt Creek Workgroup (DRSCW): http://www.drscw.org/

Educational Institutions (EI)

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA): http://www.fema.gov/

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA): http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/

Forest Preserve District of DuPage County (FPDDC): http://www.dupageforest.org/

Forest Preserve District of Kane County (FPDKC): http://www.kaneforest.com/

Golf Courses (GC)

Historic Architectural Resources Geographic Information System (HARGIS): http://gis.hpa.state.il.us/hargis/

Illinois Department of Agriculture (IDOA): http://www.agr.state.il.us/

Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR): http://www.dnr.illinois.gov/

Illinois Department of Natural Resources Office of Water Resources (IDNR/OWR): http://www.dnr.illinois.gov/WaterResources/Pages/default.aspx

Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT): http://www.idot.illinois.gov/

Illinois Emergency Management Agency (IEMA): http://www.illinois.gov/iema/Pages/default.aspx

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA): http://www.epa.illinois.gov/index

Illinois Historical Preservation Agency (IHPA): http://www.illinois.gov/ihpa/Pages/default.aspx

Illinois Natural Areas Inventory (INAI): http://wwx.inhs.illinois.edu/research/inai/

Illinois Public Works Mutual Aid Network (IPWMAN): https://www.ipwman.org/

Illinois State Geological Survey (ISGS): https://www.isgs.illinois.edu/

Illinois State Tollway Highway Authority (ISTHA): http://www.illinoistollway.com/homepage

Illinois State Water Survey (ISWS): http://www.isws.illinois.edu/

Kane-DuPage Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCD): http://www.kanedupageswcd.org/

Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (MWRD or MWRDGC): https://www.mwrd.org/

6 

2. Glossary

Midwest Biodiversity Institute (MBI): http://www.midwestbiodiversityinst.org/

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): http://www.noaa.gov/

National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils (NTCHS): http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/use/hydric/?cid=nrcs142p2_053963

National Wetlands Inventory (NWI): http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS): http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/site/national/home/

North American Wetlands Conservation Council (NAWCA)

Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission (NIPC), formerly NIPC, now part of CMAP

Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission (NIRPC): http://www.nirpc.org/

Parks Districts (PD)

Residents and Owners (RO)

School and Community Assistance for Recycling and Composting Education (SCARCE): http://www.scarceecoed.org/

Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Agency (SEWRPC): http://www.sewrpc.org/SEWRPC.htm

The Conservation Foundation (TCF): http://www.theconservationfoundation.org/

The Morton Arboretum (TMA): http://www.mortonarb.org/

Townships (TOWN)

Union Pacific West (UP-W) Railroad: http://metrarail.com/content/metra/en/home/maps_schedules/metra_system_map/up- w/map.html

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE): http://www.usace.army.mil/

United States Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency (USDA FSA): http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome

United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD): http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA): http://www.epa.gov/

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS): http://www.fws.gov/

7 

2. Glossary

United States Forest Service (US FS): http://www.fs.fed.us/

United States Geological Survey (USGS): http://www.usgs.gov/

2.2. Municipalities Village of Addison: http://www.addisonadvantage.org/

Village of Bloomingdale: http://www.villageofbloomingdale.org/

Village of Bolingbrook: http://www.bolingbrook.com/

City of Darien: http://www.darien.il.us/

Village of Downers Grove: http://www.downers.us/

Village of Glen Ellyn: http://www.glenellyn.org/

Village of Glendale Heights: http://www.glendaleheights.org/

Village of Lisle: http://www.villageoflisle.org/

Village of Lombard: http://www.villageoflombard.org/

Village of Oak Brook: http://www.oak-brook.org/

Village of Westmont: http://www.westmont.illinois.gov/

City of Wheaton: http://www.westmont.illinois.gov/

Village of Woodridge: http://www.vil.woodridge.il.us/

2.3. Acts/Ordinances/Programs Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Program (CDBG-DR): https://www.hudexchange.info/cdbg-dr/

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP): http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=copr&topic=crp

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP): http://www.creppa.org/

DuPage County Countywide Stormwater and Flood Plain Ordinance (DCCSFPO): http://www.dupageco.org/EDP/Stormwater_Management/Regulatory_Services/1420/

Endangered Species Act (ESA): http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/laws/esa/text.htm

8 

2. Glossary

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP): http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/financial/eqip/

Grasslands Reserve Program (GRP): http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/easements/grassland/

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP): https://www.fema.gov/hazard-mitigation-grant- program

HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME): http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/comm_planning/affordablehous ing/programs/home/

Illinois Disaster Assistance Program (IDAP): http://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=47579

Illinois Groundwater Protection Act (IGPA): http://www.epa.illinois.gov/topics/water- quality/groundwater/local-government-protection/index

Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF): http://lwcfcoalition.org/

Matching Aid to Restore State Habitats (MARSH) Program

National Disaster Resilience Competition (NRDC): http://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/our- work/current-work/resilience/national-disaster-resilience-competition

National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP): https://www.fema.gov/national-flood-insurance- program

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/

Open Space Acquisition and Development (OSLAD) Program: http://dnr.state.il.us/ocd/newoslad1.htm

State Revolving Fund (SRF) Programs: http://www.epa.illinois.gov/topics/grants-loans/water- financial-assistance/state-revolving-fund/index

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21)

Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP): http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/easements/wetlands/

Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP): http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/financial/whip/

2.4. Terms

9 

2. Glossary

Advance Identification of Disposal Areas (ADID)

Best Management Practice (BMP)

Carbonaceous Oxygen Demand (CBOD)

Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO)

Cubic feet per second (CFS)

Dissolved Oxygen (DO)

DuPage County Damages Model (DEC-2)

East Branch DuPage River (East Branch)

East Branch DuPage River Watershed and Resiliency Plan (Plan)

Emergency Operations Center (EOC)

Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG)

Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera taxa (EPT taxa)

Farmer’s Markets (FM)

Fiscal Year (FY)

Fish-based Index of Biotic Integrity (FIBI)

Flood Hydrograph Package (HEC-1)

Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)

Flood Insurance Study (FIS)

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)

Full Equations (FEQ) Model

Garden Clubs (GC)

General Permit (GP)

Geographic Information Retrieval and Analysis System (GIRAS)

Geographic Information Systems (GIS)

Green Infrastructure (GI)

Green Infrastructure Vision (GIV) 10 

2. Glossary

Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

High Impact-High Distressed (HIHD)

Home Owner Association (HOA)

Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC)

Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG)

Hydrological Simulation Program – Fortran (HSPF)

Identification and Prioritization Tool (IPS)

Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE)

Illinois (IL)

Incident of Non-compliance (ION)

Index of Biological Integrity (IBI)

Joint Information Center (JIC)

Joint Information System (JIS)

Land and Resource Managers (LM)

Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR)

Light-Emitting Diode (LED)

Limited Liability Corporation (LLC)

Linear Feet (LF)

Local Governments (LG)

Localized Poor Drainage Area (LPDA)

Low-Moderate Income (LMI)

Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)

Macroinvertebrates (mIBI)

Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)

Million gallons per day (MGD)

Most Impacted-Most Distressed (MIMD) 11 

2. Glossary

Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4)

Non-riparian landowners and residents (NR)

Nonpoint source (NPS)

Northeast (NE)

Notice of Intent (NOI)

Notice of Termination (NOT)

Off Highway Vehicles (OHV)

Office of Emergency Management (OEM)

Organizations, committees, and special interest groups involved in water resource management (OG)

Peak-to-Volume Statistics (PVSTATS)

Plan (See East Branch DuPage River Watershed and Resiliency Plan)

Polychlorinated Bi-phenyls (PCBs)

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH)

Post-Construction Best Management Practices (PCBMP)

Probable Effects Levels (PEL)

Public Relations (PR)

Public Service Announcement (PSA)

Public Works (PW)

Public Works Mutual Aid (PWMA)

Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC)

Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI)

Quality Review 3 (QR3)

Regional Permits (RP)

Resource Protection Area (RPA)

Riparian landowners and residents (RR)

12 

2. Glossary

Sanitary District (SD)

Sediment Oxygen Demand (SOD)

Sensitive Aquifer Recharge Areas (SARAs)

Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL)

Short Message Service (SMS)

Soil Erosion and Sediment Control (SESC)

Stormwater Pollution Prevent Plan (SWPPP)

Stream Water Quality Model (QUAL2K)

Tax Increment Financing (TIF)

Threatened and Endangered (T&E)

Threshold Effects Levels (TEL)

Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)

Total Kjehldahl Nitrogen (TKN)

Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)

Total Nitrogen (TN)

Total Phosphorus (TP)

Total Suspended Solids (TSS)

Uninterruptable Power Supply (UPS)

Universal Technical Institute (UTI)

Wastewater (WW)

Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP)

Water Quality Improvement Program (WQIP)

Water Surface Profiles Program (HEC-2)

Woodridge Greene Valley (WGV)

13 

2. Glossary

2.5. Watersheds, Subwatersheds and River Reaches 22nd Street (EBTS)

Armitage Creek (EBAR)

Army Trail Road Tributary (EBAT)

Crabtree Creek (EBCR)

East Branch DuPage River Mainstem (EBEB)

Glen Park (EBGP)

Glencrest Creek (EBGL)

Lacey Creek (EBLA)

Prentiss Creek (EBPR)

Rott Creek (EBRC)

St. Joseph’s Creek (EBSJ)

Swift Meadows (EBSM)

Tributary No. 1 (EBE1)

Tributary No. 2 (EBE2)

Tributary No. 3 (Schwartz Creek) (EBE3)

Tributary No. 6 (St. Procopius Creek) (EBE6)

Tributary No. 7 (EBE7)

Willoway Brook (EBWI)

14 

3. Introduction 3.1. Watershed Planning Overview 3.1.1. What is Watershed Planning? A watershed plan brings together assessment and management information for a geographically defined watershed of a particular water body – in this case, the watershed of the East Branch DuPage River (Exhibit 1, Overview of Watershed) – into a plan for the protection, enhancement and monitoring of the water body and its associated watershed. The Plan for the East Branch watershed, which drains all or parts of What’s in a Watershed Plan? Bloomingdale, Carol Stream, Glendale

In March 2008, the United States Environmental Protection Heights, Lombard, Addison, Glen Ellyn, Agency (USEPA) published a Handbook for Developing Wheaton, Warrenville, Naperville, Oak Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters (EPA Brook, Downers Grove, Lisle, Westmont, 841-B-08-002) for the development and implementation of plans that help to restore and protect water quality. USEPA Woodridge, Naperville, Darien, Bolingbrook requires that nine elements be addressed in watershed plans and portions of unincorporated DuPage funded with incremental Clean Water Act §319 funds, and County, compiles essential data and strongly recommends that they be included in all other watershed plans intended to address water quality analysis, along with identification of impairments. The nine elements of watershed plans, which are stakeholders, resources and actions, that incorporated into this Plan, include: will be needed to develop and implement the 1. Identification of causes of impairment and pollutant Plan’s goals over time. sources or groups of similar sources that need to be controlled to achieve needed load reductions, and any other goals identified in the watershed plan. Sources that Since the late 1980s, watershed need to be controlled should be identified at the organizations, tribes, and federal and state significant subcategory level along with estimates of the extent to which they are present in the watershed. agencies throughout the United States have 2. An estimate of the load reductions expected from management measures. moved toward managing water quality 3. A description of the nonpoint source management through a watershed approach (see sidebar measures that will need to be implemented to achieve load reductions and a description of the critical at left). A watershed approach is a flexible areas in which those measures will be needed to framework for managing water resource implement this plan. 4. Estimate of the amounts of technical and financial quality and quantity within specified assistance needed, associated costs, and/or the drainage areas, or watersheds. This sources and authorities that will be relied upon to implement this plan. approach includes stakeholder involvement 5. An information and education component used to enhance public understanding of the project and and management actions supported by encourage their early and continued participation in sound science and appropriate technology, selecting, designing, and implementing the nonpoint source management measures that will be implemented. and requires a certain level of technical 6. Schedule for implementing the nonpoint source expertise and the participation of a variety of management measures identified in this plan that is reasonably expeditious. people with diverse skills and knowledge. 7. A description of interim measureable milestones for The watershed planning process works determining whether nonpoint source management measures or other control actions are being implemented. within this framework by using a series of 8. A set of criteria that can be used to determine whether loading reductions are being achieved cooperative, iterative steps to characterize over time and substantial progress is being made toward existing conditions, identify and prioritize attaining water quality standards. 9. A monitoring component to evaluate the effectiveness problems, define management objectives, of the implementation efforts over time, measured against develop protection or remediation the criteria established. strategies, and implement and adapt 15 

3. Introduction selected actions, as necessary. The outcomes of this process are documented or referenced in the watershed plan. Watershed plans also then identify the parties responsible for implementation actions and the potential funding sources.

3.1.2. Watershed Planning for the East Branch DuPage River Historically, precipitation falling on DuPage County and within the watershed of the DuPage River was stored naturally in the soils and surface depressions where it fell. Over time, the natural drainage system of creeks and rivers developed a capacity for conveying stormwater that was balanced with these watershed characteristics of soils, vegetation and topography. Human land development practices – starting with agriculture, and continuing to urban development - offset this natural balance by eliminating naturally occurring storage, reducing the infiltration of stormwater into the ground, and generally increasing the velocity and quantity of the runoff. Because receiving streams do not naturally have the capacity to transport these increased flows, downstream flooding and reduced water quality have resulted. Working to bring natural and human systems and processes into greater balance, through engineered and natural systems and processes, is the purpose of the DuPage County Stormwater Management program, and a central purpose of this Watershed Plan.

In addition to documenting these ongoing issues and concerns for the East Branch, including physical conditions and pollutant loads, this Watershed Plan inventories the many restoration and protection activities being taken by public, non-profit and private stakeholders throughout the watershed. While no individual watershed plan using the EPA guidelines described above has been prepared, the East Branch has been the subject of monitoring, assessment, regulatory actions, and engineering studies. These water quality conditions, restoration, monitoring and water quality projects either ongoing, planned or possible, are compiled in this Plan. Evaluating the East Branch’s water quality problems against the The DuPage County Stormwater wide range of possible solutions, and identifying the Management Plan, approved by the DuPage stakeholders and resources needed to carry these County Board in September 1989, states that through is a primary purpose of this Watershed Plan. the following components will be part of each watershed plan: This Plan has been structured to serve several important purposes, including watershed • updated and revised flood plain maps; management, flood resilience, pollution prevention, • recommended remedial and environmental restoration. It reflects both the improvement projects, both structural and nonstructural, to requirements of the DuPage County Stormwater alleviate current and anticipated Management Plan (DCSMP), approved by the flooding problems; DuPage County Board in September 1989, and the • identification of natural storage areas, including wetlands; recommendations of US EPA’s Handbook for • identification of significant natural Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect areas; Our Waters (EPA 841-B-08-002). • identification of groundwater recharge areas within the watersheds; While a specific East Branch watershed plan has not • recommended site runoff and been completed to date, it has its roots in County- watershed storage criteria balanced and region-wide efforts from the 1990s. The initial with the watershed capacities; and • flood forecasting recommendations. effort to integrate issues and studies into a watershed 16 

3. Introduction plan was the original Upper DuPage River Watershed Implementation Plan, which was prepared in 1997. Covering both the East and West branches of the river, the original plan was one of the first watershed plans in the state. This plan was updated in 2004 by staff of The Conservation Foundation, working with many stakeholders; along with the issuance of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for the East Branch and West Branch Salt Creek. The plan helped initiate more watershed-focused efforts in the County and watershed.

One of the initiatives stemming from the Impairment, Designated Uses, and original DuPage River Watershed TMDLs Implementation Plan is the DuPage River Salt The US EPA defines an impaired waterbody as a Creek Workgroup (DRSCW). The DRSCW was waterbody (i.e., stream reaches, lakes, waterbody formed in 2005 as a forum for municipalities, segments, etc.) that because of pollution or physical wastewater treatment facility operators, and conditions does not meet established standards for its designated uses: the uses the waterbody environmentally-focused non-profit would be expected to provide to the public, and for stakeholders to respond to impairment issues aquatic life, given the local climate, watershed (see text box at right) and the TMDLs characteristics, and surrounding land uses. The established for the East and West Branches of designated uses for the East Branch include fish consumption, supporting aquatic life, and contact the DuPage River and Salt Creek. The DRSCW recreation. works to prepare comprehensive data sets for local watersheds in order to determine and If an Illinois waterbody is found through address stresses on the aquatic systems in each monitoring to be impaired, it is placed on the IEPA “Section 303(d)” list of impaired waters. For each of the three river systems, and works to impaired waterbody, a plan called a Total implement cost-effective projects to improve Maximum Daily Load or TMDL must conditions in a cost-effective way. The DRSCW ultimately be prepared to address how pollutant prepared water quality and biotic assessments loads will be reduced to levels that will support the of the East Branch in 2007 and 2011, both of designated uses. A TMDL is an estimation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody which were used as resources in the preparation can receive and still meet water quality standards. of this Watershed Plan. It assesses contributing point and nonpoint sources to identify pollution reductions necessary for In addition to reflecting County-wide standards designated use attainment. A TMDL identifies the and other higher-level directives, this Plan also source of impairment and provides reduction recognizes many municipal efforts and estimates to meet water quality standards. Pollutant reductions are then allocated to initiatives whose goals and outcomes will help contributing sources, thus triggering the need for achieve this Plan’s goals. Local efforts such as pollution control and increased management the Village of Woodridge’s stream assessment responsibilities amongst sources in the watershed. program are part and parcel of the ongoing, stakeholder-driven process for implementing this Plan’s goals. Throughout the Plan, municipal plans, goals and initiatives have been integrated into the analysis and recommendations.

3.1.3. Resilience and Watershed Planning Because impacts and damage from overbank and other types of flooding also continue to be a driving concern within the East Branch watershed, this Plan has a special focus on planning for watershed resilience: Identifying strategies and actions that will bolster the watershed’s ability

17 

3. Introduction

to prevent, withstand and recover from the acute shocks and chronic stresses in the watershed, such as severe storms and flooding. Major storms and natural flooding will continue to be a fact of life in the East Branch watershed; resilience strategies address the need to protect buildings and infrastructure when floods occur, but also to take actions that can prevent damage and disruption to homes, properties, roads and natural areas when floods, storms, and other natural events do occur. Throughout this Plan, this concept of “resilience” will be used to describe the process of helping people, communities, and institutions prepare for, withstand, and emerge stronger from the acute shocks and chronic stresses caused by flooding and storms.

3.1.4. Addressing Unmet Needs in the East Branch DuPage River Watershed Another objective of this Plan is to identify and integrate unmet needs from post-flood recovery efforts in heavily affected areas of the East Branch watershed. While this specific approach is not typically used in a water quality-oriented watershed plan, it is important to the approach in the East Branch watershed. By evaluating flood-related mitigation and investments in the context of a watershed plan, the County and other stakeholders can find synergies between programs such as buyouts, through which chronically flooded structures are purchased and demolished, and watershed restoration opportunities, such as wetland or stream corridor restoration in areas along the river. Looking at unmet needs also provides an opportunity to engage residents and businesses who have been adversely affected by the East Branch’s condition in envisioning different future outcomes with positive social and economic benefits - such as making flood control improvements, creating a neighborhood greenspace after buyouts, or strengthening communication and infrastructure systems so that floods, extended wet or dry periods, or harsh winter conditions cause less harm. Unmet needs are incorporated as part of the prioritization process that is used in this Plan.

In addition, following the April 2013 flood event, DuPage County obtained funding to address some known unmet needs through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) through their Community Development Block Grant – Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR). This program enables communities to document unmet needs for projects and actions related to the recovery from a disaster. This is discussed in further detail in Section 8.2.

3.1.5. Statement of Plan Goals This Plan for the East Branch watershed provides an “umbrella” document integrating the results of municipal, County, non-profit and educational plans and studies into a vision for the desired future of the East Branch watershed’s natural and human environment. Specific projects and strategies in the Plan, as well as recommended watershed- and County-wide actions, all are oriented towards achieving the “best case” future condition envisioned in these goals.

This Plan’s overall goal is to enhance resilience, environmental quality, and community cohesion throughout the East Branch watershed. This overall goal has three distinct, though inter-related, parts.

18 

3. Introduction

Goal #1: A resilient watershed.

In a resilient watershed:

• Residents, businesses, commuters, utilities, and public service providers will have more rapid and accurate predictions of adverse weather and particularly flood events, with more time to anticipate and avoid impacts – instead of reacting. • The County’s transportation and distribution systems, its public and emergency services, and its utility systems will experience less disruption during adverse weather and flood events, reducing the severity and “shock” to the community and economy. • Fewer structures and less critical infrastructure will be damaged when flooding does occur, reducing primary (damage repair/buyout) and secondary (business loss/homeowner disruption/social services) costs. • Preventive maintenance will be sufficiently funded, and the County and municipalities will have sufficient legal authority, to ensure that public and private investments throughout the watershed are protected and water infrastructure systems will function well. • Updated regulatory structures and policies will incentivize the use of best practices for watershed resilience and damage prevention as development and public investment occur.

Goal #2: A watershed with enhanced environmental quality and minimal degradation, where beneficial uses are fully attained.

In a future with enhanced environmental quality,

• Storm and flood events will carry reduced or minimal non-point source pollutant loads into the watershed’s surface and ground waters while increasing pollutant assimilation, reducing impacts from erosion and supporting healthy aquatic habitats. • Impacts from hydrologic modification will be reduced or eliminated through a combination of upstream controls and in-stream restoration. • Degraded stream segments will be restored using design and engineering strategies that are compatible with the needs of the surrounding community. • Capital investments, land purchases, buyouts, and preventive measures will be coordinated to improve natural function, reduce pollutant loads, and enhance environmental quality. • Sanitary and combined sewer overflows will be minimized, preventing detrimental impacts to water quality. • In-stream structures not required to support the County’s economy and community systems will be removed, and the aquatic health impact of necessary in-stream structures will be mitigated through engineering and environmental restoration techniques. • Where possible, land acquisitions, park and natural areas management, and community development planning will incorporate natural buffers for the East Branch, providing for natural floodplain and river dynamics.

19 

3. Introduction

Goal #3: Greater Community Cohesion.

In a future with greater community cohesion throughout the watershed:

• Residents, public agencies and businesses will know about and value the East Branch watershed as a natural system, and understand how “upstream” actions affect “downstream” outcomes. • A dynamic and effective stakeholder network for watershed issues will be an ongoing presence in DuPage County, similar to economic development, social service and recreation networks today. • Broad support will be secured readily for public investments that improve resilience, enhance and protect environmental quality, and mitigate or prevent flood damage. • Social and professional organizations will be knowledgeable about and engaged in watershed and resilience issues, contributing diverse expertise to resilience plans and actions. • Residents of flood-affected or environmentally degraded areas will be active participants in dialogue about the options and future scenarios for themselves and their neighbors. • Residents, businesses, employees and volunteers will have rapid, easy access to information on the watershed, and ways they can participate in its enhancement and protection. 3.2. Watershed Planning Process & Data Collection Preparing and adopting a watershed plan involves a different process from other municipal or agency plans such as a municipal Comprehensive Land Use Plan or the County’s annual Financial Plan. First, by nature, a watershed plan must be a multi-jurisdictional effort since surface waters cross multiple legal boundaries. Second, a watershed planning process must aggregate a wide range of different types of data from many different types of organizations, whose information management needs and procedures differ dramatically. For example, water quality data collected by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) for a 303(d) list will not use the same protocols or sampling methods as data collected by non-profit organizations; likewise, the goals of a municipal Comprehensive Plan for stormwater management or stream restoration will be different from, but complementary to, the goals of a regional open space or conservation strategy. The sections that follow describe the process that has been used to identify the jurisdictions, stakeholders and data sources needed to create a strong framework for planning and implementation in the East Branch watershed.

3.2.1. Identifying Watershed Jurisdictions and Stakeholders A watershed’s “stakeholders” are both the geographic jurisdictions in the watershed – those entities with legal authority over the physical area and infrastructure of the watershed, such as municipalities, counties, townships, sanitary districts, and forest preserves - and the non- geographic stakeholders whose lands, activities and areas of operation have authority or influence within the watershed. Municipalities and counties with land in the watershed are of primary importance, since these jurisdictions control so many aspects of land use and development, water infrastructure, emergency management, flood control and transportation; however, many non-jurisdictional stakeholders, such as large landowners and influential

20 

3. Introduction

community organizations, are likely to have equally significant roles in watershed policy development and particularly implementation.

For the East Branch watershed, Table 3-1 below lists the jurisdictions in the watershed, and the amount of the watershed’s land area each jurisdiction controls. Municipal jurisdictions are shown in Exhibit 2. While municipal and County unincorporated areas are by definition mutually exclusive (i.e. area within one village or city cannot be under the jurisdiction of another), the area within Township, Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) right-of-way, School District, and Forest Preserve lands may be in one or more municipal or county jurisdictions.

Table 3-1 Jurisdictions within the East Branch DuPage River Watershed

Area in East Branch Watershed Percent of Total Jurisdiction (square miles) Watershed Area Counties DuPage 75.2 (48,131 acres) 92.5% Will 6.0 (3,863 acres) 7.5% Municipalities (DuPage County portion of Watershed) Village of Downers Grove 14.49 19.27% Village of Lisle 6.54 8.69% Village of Glen Ellyn 6.30 8.38% Village of Lombard 6.25 8.32% Village of Woodridge 5.79 7.70% Village of Glendale Heights 3.68 4.89% City of Wheaton 3.49 4.64% Village of Westmont 2.28 3.03% Village of Bloomingdale 2.22 2.96% Village of Addison 1.37 1.83% City of Naperville 1.31 1.74% City of Darien 0.48 0.63% Village of Bolingbrook 0.20 0.27% Village of Oakbrook 0.11 0.15% Village of Carol Stream 0.03 0.04% City of Warrenville 0.00 0.00% Townships Lisle 23.32 31.01% Milton 20.94 27.85% Downers Grove North 13.04 17.35% Bloomingdale 9.41 12.51% Winfield 0.18 0.24% Addison 0.13 0.18% Naperville 0.00 0.00% Other Jurisdictions Forest Preserve District of DuPage County 7.47 10.00% IDOT Right of Way 28.79 centerline miles n/a Illinois Tollway 22.66 centerline miles n/a School Districts Coverage 55.2 73.40% Sanitary Districts Coverage TBD TBD Unincorporated Areas 20.64 27.40%

21 

3. Introduction

In addition to government units that manage the watershed’s land area, many Illinois and U.S. federal agencies also have important roles in watershed management and particularly in flooding and floodplain management. Within DuPage County’s government structure, there are many departments and agencies that have specific responsibilities important to watershed and resilience planning. In several cases, federal, state, and county departments have similar missions, such as emergency management and environmental protection; in others, non- governmental organizations such as the Morton Arboretum and The Conservation Foundation may have missions and resources that are highly complementary to those of government agencies. The stakeholders and departments listed in Table 3-2 represent those that have been identified as having a substantial and defined role within the East Branch watershed at this time, but the list is by no means exclusive of other organizations or agencies that may be valuable partners in planning and implementation.

Table 3-2 Non-Geographic Stakeholders & County Departments

Illinois Agencies U.S. Federal Agencies DuPage County Non-Governmental Departments Organizations and Work Groups Illinois Department of US Fish & Wildlife Service Department of Public DuPage County Natural Resources (IDNR) (USFWS) Works Community Foundation US Environmental Illinois Environmental Economic Development Protection Agency (US Choose DuPage Protection Agency (IEPA) & Planning EPA) Illinois Emergency Federal Emergency Office of Emergency DuPage River/Salt Creek Management Agency Management Agency Management Workgroup (IEMA) (FEMA) Illinois Department of Federal Highway Division of Morton Arboretum Transportation (IDOT) Administration (FHWA) Transportation Community US Army Corps of The Conservation Illinois Tollway Development Engineers Chicago District Foundation Commission SCARCE (School & Community Assistance for Health Department Recycling & Composting Education) Geographic Information Chicago Wilderness Systems (GIS)

Each public sector stakeholder has different, and sometimes overlapping, responsibility for key aspects of watershed management and flood control.

22 

3. Introduction

Table 3-3 below relates the public sector stakeholders to their responsibilities in five areas that affect watershed function, non-point source pollution, and flood and emergency management:

Land Conservation and Management: Because of the importance of maintaining natural areas and vegetation to protecting watershed hydrology, and providing space for flood events to occur without damage to roads and structures, land conservation and land management activities such as open space acquisition, tree planting and urban forestry, and wetland or riparian area restoration constitute an essential element of watershed management and planning.

Planning & Development: The amount, location and density of development and impervious surfaces is governed to a large extent by County and municipal planning, zoning and development review policies and standards. Comprehensive plans that incorporate watershed planning principles can provide important support to sound watershed management and resilience actions.

Water Infrastructure: Agencies responsible for providing safe drinking water supplies, wastewater treatment and disposal, stormwater management and flood control constitute one of the most important groups of stakeholders, since this infrastructure immediately affects river systems, water quality, and flood management.

Flooding and Emergency Response: In addition to IEMA and FEMA, which deal with floodplains, flood insurance, damages and buyout programs, many agencies not otherwise concerned with watershed and water quality issues are directly engaged through the economic, social and emergency services impacts of flood events and flood recovery.

Transportation: Transportation has many impacts on the watershed, including pollution caused by roadway runoff and deicing, water quality and stream channel impacts from roadway culverts and bridges, and the hydrologic impacts of roadway-related impervious surfaces and conveyance systems. However, transportation investments can be and often are designed to improve water quality and watershed conditions, providing multiple public benefits. An overview of the transportation network is provided in Exhibit 3.

23 

3. Introduction

Table 3-3 Public Sector Stakeholders and Areas of Responsibility

Land Planning & Water Flooding & Transportation Conservation Development Infrastructure Emergency & Mgmt Response

Management Traffic FlowTraffic Buyout Planning - Buyout Salt Dispersal Traffic Safety Snow Removal Buyout Programs Buyout Road Maintenance Land Conservation Land Safe Drinking Water Development Review Post Zoning & Subdivision & Zoning Urban ForestryTrees / Hydrology/ Conveyance Hydrology/ Flood Control Structures Control Flood Emergency Management Comprehensive Planning Comprehensive Wastewater DCCSFPO Implementation Wetland/Riparian Restoration

DuPage County                Municipalities                  Townships      IDOT/FHWA        Illinois Tollway        IEMA/FEMA    Forest Preserve     Park Districts    Sanitary Districts  School Districts     IEPA/US EPA IDNR/USFWS  

3.2.2. Stakeholder Data Collection Process An understanding of the unique features and natural processes associated with the East Branch DuPage River watershed, as well as, its current and potential future conditions, is critical to developing an effective watershed plan that provides planning, policy and improvement recommendations for future resilience. As such, developing a process for ongoing data collection and sharing among stakeholders is a key component of the planned stakeholder process.

As part of this watershed planning process, DuPage County Stormwater led an extensive and interactive data gathering process to obtain data from governmental and non-governmental entities and inter-agency working groups located in or active within the East Branch watershed. This process provided baseline data needed to meet the requirements for a watershed-based plan, and also helped develop a better understanding of how stakeholders can communicate and share information in the future.

Staff members from each municipality (i.e. incorporated city or village) with land in the watershed were contacted by the County to begin describing the types and locations of available data applicable to this plan. A questionnaire was developed (Appendix A) and provided to each

24 

3. Introduction

municipality. Completed questionnaires and a summary of responses are provided in Appendix A. The questionnaire focused on types of data required for an IEPA-compliant watershed plan, but also looked at issues and data of particular importance to the East Branch and the persistent flooding issues experienced in watershed municipalities. The key areas of inquiry were:

1. Municipal Codes, Open Space/Green Infrastructure Plans, and Comprehensive Plans: Status, and any planned actions or updates 2. Stormwater Management and Flooding: Adopted policies, actions and planned investments; funding sources; buyout program plans and status; records from the April 2013 floods 3. Environment, Water Quality and Sustainability: Actions of local committees or sustainability initiatives; local stream restoration/stabilization, habitat, and conservation projects; locally-collected water quality data 4. Public Outreach and Engagement: Recent Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) or public engagement, local outreach to flood-affected areas, and local surveys on environment, flooding, land use and water quality topics. 3.3. Watershed Physical and Water Quality Data Data that characterizes the physical condition and water quality of the East Branch comes from a variety of sources. Water quality monitoring conducted periodically by IEPA provides a baseline of the presence and concentration of various pollutants. Based on the results of these data, which are described in Section 4.11, the East Branch has been listed as “impaired” by the IEPA (see sidebar, Section 3.1.2) for multiple pollutants and conditions that exceed the limits established by the IEPA for the East Branch’s designated uses. In response to the listing, the IEPA prepared the Total Maximum Daily Loads for the East Branch DuPage River, Illinois in 2004, addressing pollution from chlorides (commonly caused by runoff from salted roadways) and low levels of dissolved oxygen (DO), which reduce the River’s ability to support aquatic life.

As of January 2015, additional TMDLs are in the process of being developed for by the IEPA for the East Branch DuPage River. The parameters that will be the focus of the new TMDLs are pH and fecal coliform. As noted in the summary response table in Appendix A, a handful of municipalities and several of the non-governmental and inter-agency stakeholders in the watershed are also collecting watershed data, including stream channel assessments, flood data reports, and water quality information. Some of this data was available for preparation of this Plan; further data collection and sharing on water quality will be important for stakeholder engagement and implementation as this Plan moves ahead.

3.3.1. Flooding-Related Data & Analysis A distinguishing component of this Plan is its inclusion of data on flooding and flood impacts, which is intended to provide a strong foundation for greater flood mitigation and resilience planning by the watershed’s jurisdictions and stakeholders. One major focus was data from the April 18, 2013 flood event, when more than 5 to 6-inches (~130 mm) of rain fell in the Chicago area in 24 hours from a slow-moving system falling on pre-saturated ground. The extent of the road closures, emergency services, transportation disruption, structure damage, and 911 or

25 

3. Introduction

other emergency calls makes the April 18, 2013 flood event an instructive “maximum case” for assessing potential flood impacts in a variety of areas throughout the watershed. Many different types of data including road closures, 911 and non-emergency calls, numbers of flood damaged structures and areas of inundation were collected from multiple agencies and departments and are referenced throughout this Plan.

3.3.2. Demographics & Socioeconomic Data An extensive look at the demographic and socioeconomic conditions in the watershed was also completed for this Plan, extending beyond the “basics” of population and development typically included in a watershed plan. As part of assessing needs and recommending actions, the Plan describes the spatial relationship of watershed flooding and water quality issues to areas of low and moderate income population within the watershed. This detailed evaluation of demographic and socioeconomic data provides a much stronger context for implementation, and particularly for resilience planning, as this analysis relates watershed planning and resilience principles to the conditions in disadvantaged or potentially vulnerable populations, disadvantaged neighborhoods, and even in industries that are integral to the County’s economy and potentially at risk from flooding and adverse conditions. This analysis will help the County and others leverage implementation resources, such as Community Development Block Grants and social initiatives, that can help carry out different aspects of the Plan. 3.4. Public Outreach & Stakeholder Engagement In a multi-jurisdiction watershed with many actors and authorities, engaging both specific stakeholders – persons or organizations with interests or concerns, and those who may be affected by related actions – and the public at large within the East Branch watershed is necessary. While different efforts have been underway in the larger DuPage River watershed, such as the DuPage River/Salt Creek Workgroup, there has not been a concerted effort to bring together the many jurisdictions and stakeholders in the East Branch watershed around its specific geography and issues. Thus DuPage County has used the preparation of this watershed plan as a platform to begin stakeholder engagement, to outline and better articulate the topics and needs of concern in the watershed, and to build a strong foundation for advancing watershed-based decision-making and engagement in the future.

As described in Section 3.2 above, the data collection process for this Plan was an integral part of the overall stakeholder engagement effort. The data collection process also is an ongoing activity that has carried throughout the development of this Plan, in order to assist the stakeholders in identification of their past, current and future policies and work products. By compiling and analyzing the data collected, holding stakeholder meetings, and using brainstorming sessions, stakeholders were able to identify water quality issues, related initiatives, and unmet needs throughout the watershed. This facilitated the development of recommendations to provide and promote future resilience in the watershed. As the outreach began, additional stakeholders were identified and provided a variety of information to be included in the Plan.

26 

3. Introduction

Outside the data collection effort, DuPage County Stormwater Management (DCSWM) began convening a stakeholder group before the Plan was developed, and has carried this process through preparation of the Plan and the adoption process. Key steps that have been taken to date include the following:

DuPage Steering Committee

• December 18, 2014 (Full Committee) • December 22, 2014 (County Staff) • January 8, 2015 (Full Committee) • January 26, 2015 (Full Committee) • February 19, 2015 (Full Committee) • March 2015 (TBD)

East Branch DuPage River Resiliency Plan Public Meetings

• January 14, 2015 (Lisle) • February 5, 2015 (Wheaton) • February 23, 2015 (Lombard)

East Branch DuPage River Resiliency Workshops

• January 14, 2015 • February 5, 2015 • February 23, 2015 • March 3, 2015 • March 9, 2015 • March 10, 2015

Other General Stakeholder Meetings

• November 21, 2014 (Initial Advisory Group Meeting for Region) • January 7, 2015 (Non-Profit Organizations) • January 8, 2015 (Non-Profit Organizations) • January 14, 2015 (Non-Profit Organizations) • January 14, 2015 (Park Districts, Chambers, Townships, Schools) • January 23, 2015 (Green Government Council) • January 27, 2015 (Finance Committee – All County Board Members) • February 3, 2015 (DuPage Stormwater Management Committee – County Board and Municipal Members) • February 5, 2015 (East Branch Environmental Focus Group) • February 5, 2015 (Flood Forecasting Focus Group) • February 9, 2015 (DHA) • March 19, 2015 (HUD-Required Public Hearing on Application)

27 

3. Introduction

Other Outreach

• Flooding and Quality of Life Survey. Currently over 700 respondents. A discussion on survey results is found in Section 6.5 • Municipalities have also assisted with outreach via their websites, emails, newsletters and social media • Non-Profit Organizations have also assisted with outreach via their websites, emails, newsletters and social media 3.5. Plan Adoption The Plan will be adopted by the DuPage County Board in March 2015 to facilitate the development and implementation of recommendations discussed in Section 9. In addition, the Plan will also be updated and finalized to meet Illinois EPA requirements for a Watershed Plan. The adoption process for a Watershed Plan allows for comment and review by the public and many agencies prior to submittal to Illinois EPA, which will approve the Plan as sufficient to give the watershed priority in competition for §319 non-point source reduction funds. The adoption process for this Plan includes the steps below:

• Preliminary draft for Stormwater Working Group review – February 9, 2015 • Stormwater Committee Opening of 30 day Public Comment Period -February, 2015 • IEPA preliminary comment review – February 2015 • Final draft – mid-February 2015 • Stormwater Committee Approval – March 2015 • DuPage County Board Approval – March 2015 • IEPA submittal - June 1, 2015

Once adopted, the East Branch Watershed Plan will be incorporated into Appendix N (East Branch DuPage River Watershed Plan) of the DuPage County Stormwater Management Plan.

As discussed in Section 10, implementation portions of the adopted Plan are expected to be incorporated into many different plans and grant applications that further this Plan’s goals and objectives. Development of a complete Watershed Plan also will provide projects identified within the plan with a competitive advantage in competing for §319 funds when evaluated against other projects that have not been vetted through such a process.

28 

4. Watershed Characteristics Assessment This section of the Plan describes the physical characteristics and resources in the East Branch watershed, along with some of the human-made features such as cultural resources and natural areas that are important parts of the watershed’s physical context. The section is intended to describe the interaction of the watershed’s natural systems, including soils, topography, vegetation, climate and flow paths, with the built environment and infrastructure systems. Land use, demographic and transportation systems are described in Section 5.2.

Understanding the condition of features such as riparian areas, groundwater, and historic and existing wetlands is crucial to planning for implementation, especially as stormwater management and flood control policies and practices focus on infiltration and restoration. The DuPage County Stormwater Management Plan requires that each watershed plan prepared within the county identify remedial measures to protect wetlands, riparian environments, and recharge areas threatened by stormwater management activities, so that these can be coordinated with County and municipal open space acquisition programs. The most recent revisions of the DuPage County Countywide Stormwater and Flood Plain Ordinance (DCCSFPO) encourage the use of green infrastructure practices to reduce the volume of runoff, as well as minimize the load of pollutants associated with runoff. Each of these important policy and regulatory measures is intended to maximize restoration of natural functions, protection of existing functions, and opportunities to make public investments that will achieve multiple objectives. 4.1. The East Branch DuPage River Watershed The watershed of the East Branch DuPage River lies approximately 30 miles west of downtown Chicago (Exhibit 1). From its headwaters in the Village of Bloomingdale, the East Branch drains approximately 81.2 square miles (52,000 acres) as it flows in a southerly direction approximately 24.2 miles before meeting its confluence with the West Branch DuPage River between Naperville and Bolingbrook. From this confluence, the DuPage River flows southerly through Plainfield before joining the Des Plaines River, which continues to flow south to meet the Kankakee River west of Channahon and form the Illinois River, a tributary of the Mississippi River. Water flowing through the East Branch DuPage River ultimately flows into the Gulf of Mexico.

Table 4-1 Drainage Areas of the East Branch DuPage River

Drainage Location Square Miles Acres Upstream of Butterfield Road 26.2 16,774 Upstream of Royce Road 76.0 48,608 Full Watershed (Upstream of 81.2 51,994 confluence with West Branch)

29 

4. Watershed Characteristics Assessment

4.1.1. Mainstem of the East Branch DuPage River The mainstem of the East Branch DuPage River traverses many of the major transportation routes as it makes its way from its headwaters, which are north of Glen Ellyn Road in Amherst Lake. From this point, the mainstem flows to the east-southeast passing through the East Branch Forest Preserve and under Army Trail Road and North Avenue (Illinois Route 64) where the mainstem joins with Armitage Creek. The East Branch DuPage River continues to flow to the south through the Churchill Woods Forest Preserve, under Crescent Boulevard, Columbine Avenue (Illinois Route 53) and Roosevelt Road before its confluence with Glencrest Creek north of Butterfield Road (Illinois Route 56) and Lacey Creek within the Hidden Lakes Forest Preserve. Continuing south, the mainstem passes through the Morton Arboretum and under Route 53 before its confluence with Willoway Brook north of Warrenville Road. The mainstem then passes under the I-88 Ronald Reagan Memorial Tollway and joins St. Joseph Creek and Tributary No. 3 (Schwartz Creek) north of Ogden Avenue. Downstream of Ogden Avenue, the East Branch DuPage River flows under Burlington Avenue and the Burlington Northern Railroad before joining Rott Creek north of Short Street. The mainstem then resumes flow under Maple Avenue, Four Lakes Avenue, and Summerhill Drive before its confluence with Prentiss Creek and Tributary No. 6 (St. Procopius Creek) north of Hobson Road and Crabtree Creek south of 75th Street. The last portion of the East Branch DuPage River continues south from 75th Street where it passes into Will County and under Royce Road and Washington Streets before joining the West Branch DuPage River approximately 3 miles south of the DuPage/Will County line.

4.1.2. East Branch Subwatersheds A more detailed look at smaller drainage areas or subwatersheds in the East Branch is helpful in locating and characterizing specific problem areas. There are 11 major subwatersheds in the East Branch watershed, which are listed in Table 4-2 below. There are also 6 minor named subwatersheds located within the watershed: East Branch Tributary #1, East Branch Tributary #3 (Schwartz Creek), East Branch Tributary #6 (St. Procopius Creek), East Branch Tributary #7, 22nd Street Tributary, and Glen Park Tributary. The stream length and drainage area for each subwatershed including the East Branch DuPage River mainstem are listed in Table 4-2. Subwatersheds are shown in Exhibit 4.

Table 4-2 East Branch Mainstem and Subwatershed Information

Subwatershed Name Subwatershed Stream Length (Miles) Drainage Area ID (Square Miles) East Branch Mainstem EBEB 24.2 33.8 Armitage Creek EBAR 2.2 2.1 Army Trail Road Tributary EBAT 0.3 0.4 Crabtree Creek EBCR 1.3 1.5 East Branch Tributary #2 EBE2 1.2 1.2 Glencrest Creek EBGP 1.6 2.7 Lacey Creek EBLA 3.0 4.6 Prentiss Creek EBPR 3.0 7.1 Rott Creek EBRC 3.6 6.0 St. Joseph Creek EBSJ 12.0 11.2 Swift Meadow EBSM 1.5 0.9 30 

4. Watershed Characteristics Assessment

Subwatershed Name Subwatershed Stream Length (Miles) Drainage Area ID (Square Miles) Willoway Brook EBWI 3.0 4 East Branch Tributary #1 EBE1 - 0.6 East Branch Tributary #3 EBE3 - 0.5 East Branch Tributary #6 EBE6 - 1.9 East Branch Tributary #7 EBE7 - 0.9 22nd Street Tributary EBTS - 0.8 Glen Park Tributary - 0.7 Total 56.9 81.2

Armitage Creek – The Armitage Creek subwatershed covers approximately 2.1 square miles of area in Glendale Heights and unincorporated Bloomingdale Township in northern DuPage County, Illinois. The land use within the subwatershed is primarily residential with commercial and industrial parks and a golf course located in the headwaters. The Armitage Creek mainstem originates at the Glen Point Business Park detention ponds located west of Bloomingdale Road and flows approximately 2.2 miles before its confluence with the East Branch DuPage River north of North Avenue (Route 64).

Army Trail Road Tributary– The Army Trail Road Tributary subwatershed covers approximately 0.4 square miles of area in northeastern DuPage County, Illinois. This subwatershed includes portions of the Villages of Addison and Bloomingdale and unincorporated Bloomingdale Township. The land uses within the subwatershed include residential and open space with small areas of commercial, industrial, institutional, and vacant lands. The Army Trail Road Tributary originates within a storm sewer system that parallels Army Trail Road near the intersection of Army Trail Road and I-355 Tollway and flows west for approximately 0.3 miles before its confluence with the East Branch DuPage River downstream of Valley View Road.

Crabtree Creek – The Crabtree Creek subwatershed covers approximately 1.5 square miles of area in the Village of Woodridge in southern DuPage County, Illinois. The land use within the subwatershed is residential and commercial development with small areas of corporate, open space, highways, and institutional areas. The Crabtree Creek mainstem begins on the west side of I-355 and flows approximately 1.6 miles westerly before its confluence with the East Branch DuPage River downstream of 75th Street.

East Branch Tributary #2 – The East Branch Tributary #2 subwatershed covers approximately 1.2 square miles in northern DuPage County, Illinois. The subwatershed includes parts of the Villages of Glen Ellyn and Glendale Heights, and areas of unincorporated Milton and Bloomingdale Townships. The land use within the subwatershed is primarily residential along with several commercial/industrial developments, a small wetland, and a neighborhood park. The East Branch Tributary #2 mainstem originates at a detention ponds located north of James Court and flows approximately 1.2 miles before its confluence with the East Branch DuPage River south of North Avenue (Route 64), just upstream of the Great Western Trail.

31 

4. Watershed Characteristics Assessment

East Branch Tributary #3 (Schwartz Creek) – The East Branch Tributary #2 subwatershed covers approximately 0.5 square miles in southern DuPage County, Illinois. The subwatershed includes parts of the village of Lisle and areas of unincorporated Lisle Township. The land use within the subwatershed is a combination of residential areas along with several office buildings and a multifamily development along Warrenville Road, industrial complexes and a few neighborhood parks. The mainstem originates just south of the I-88 Tollway in Tate Woods South Park and flows approximately 0.6 miles before its confluence with the East Branch DuPage River just north of Ogden Avenue (Route 34).

East Branch Tributary #6 (St. Procopius Creek) – The East Branch Tributary #6 subwatershed covers approximately 1.9 square miles in southern DuPage County, Illinois. The subwatershed includes parts of the Villages of Lisle and Woodridge and areas of unincorporated Lisle Township. The land use within the subwatershed is primarily residential, and includes large areas of open space, a small ponds and a gold course. The East Branch Tributary #6 mainstem originates at St. Procopius Abbey, flows through a series of ponds, a golf course, and a residential area, flowing for approximately 1.9 miles before its confluence with the East Branch DuPage River north of Hobson Road.

Glencrest Creek – The Glencrest Creek subwatershed covers approximately 2.7 square miles within the Village of Glen Ellyn and City of Wheaton in central DuPage County, Illinois. The land use within the subwatershed is primarily residential along with several commercial developments along Roosevelt Road (Route 38). The Glencrest Creek subwatershed is divided into an upper and lower watershed. The upper watershed is comprised of a 2.5 mile storm sewer conveyance system with several detention ponds and lakes. The lower watershed comprises approximately 1.6 miles of open channel beginning at Park Boulevard. Flow within the lower watershed generally flows to the east and enters the East Branch DuPage River between Roosevelt Road (Route 38) and Butterfield Road (Route 56).

Lacey Creek – The Lacey Creek subwatershed includes 4.6 square miles in central DuPage County, Illinois. The subwatershed includes the Villages of Downers Grove and Oak Brook and areas in unincorporated Milton, York, and Lisle Township. The land use is separated into two distinct areas by the I-88 and I-355 Tollways. East of the tollways contains a mixture of land use including residential subdivisions, institutions, commercial, office research, open space, and a limited number of undeveloped lands. Land use west of the tollway consists primarily of open space and agricultural lands, with some commercial and office research development along the northern edge of the subwatershed. Lacey Creek originates at a detention pond located south of 35th Street, between Fairview Road and Brougham Lane. From the ponds, Lacey Creek flows south and west, approximately 3.0 miles through the campus of Midwestern University, Lyman Woods, Forest Preserve, the Morton Arboretum, and Hidden Lake Forest Preserve before its confluence with the East Branch DuPage River south of Butterfield Road (Route 56), inside the Hidden Lake Forest Preserve.

Prentiss Creek– The Prentiss Creek subwatershed covers approximately 7.1 square miles within the Villages of Downers Grove, Woodridge, and Lisle in southern DuPage County, Illinois. The land use within the subwatershed is primarily residential with a scattering of 32 

4. Watershed Characteristics Assessment

commercial, industrial, and institutional developments, a golf course, and parks. Prentiss Creek originates within a series of online detention facilities. From its headwaters, the creek flows west approximately 3.0 miles through a series of open channels and storm sewers before its confluence with the East Branch DuPage River immediately upstream of Hobson Road.

Rott Creek– The Rott Creek subwatershed covers approximately 6.0 square miles in central DuPage County, Illinois. The subwatershed includes parts of the Village of Lisle, cities of Naperville and Wheaton, and areas of unincorporated Milton and Lisle townships. The land use within the subwatershed is a combination of open space, residential and office research with small pockets of commercial, industrial, and institutional developments and vacant land. Rott Creek subwatershed is divided into two distinct parts, separated by Naperville Road. The upper section begins at the headwaters of Rott Creek in the Herrick Lake Forest Preserve. The creek proceeds to the southeast through office research developments and a series of storm sewers, open channels, and a substantial amount of flood storage. The lower section, comprising the Rott Creek mainstem begins at the two outfalls of the Hesterman Drain just east of Naperville Road. From this point, the creek flows approximately 3.6 miles south through a series of detention basins, under the Burlington Northern Railroad, and the east through an industrial park before its confluence with the East Branch DuPage River north of Short Street, in Lisle Community Park.

St. Joseph Creek – The St. Joseph Creek subwatershed covers approximately 11.2 square miles within the Villages of Downers Grove, Westmont, and Lisle, as well as portions of unincorporated Lisle and Downers Grove North Townships in southern DuPage County, Illinois. The land use within the subwatershed is primarily residential with smaller areas of commercial, industrial, and institutional developments, a golf course, forest preserves, parks, and other open lands. From its headwaters near 63rd Street, the creek flows north and northwest, into an extended section of storm sewers through downtown of Downers Grove. The stream daylights and continues to flow to the west through Maple Grove Forest Preserve and under I-355 and Ogden Avenue, for approximately 12.0 miles to its confluence with the East Branch DuPage River north of Ogden Avenue in Lisle.

Swift Meadows– The Swift Creek subwatershed covers approximately 0.9 square miles in northern DuPage County, Illinois. The subwatershed includes parts of the Villages of Addison and Bloomingdale, and areas of unincorporated Bloomingdale Township. The land use within the subwatershed is primarily residential and open space, with small pockets of commercial, industrial, and institutional developments and vacant land. The headwaters of Swift Meadows originate within the Swift Meadows Business Park east of Swift Road. Flow from the headwaters travels west 1.4 miles through Swift Meadows Forest Preserve before its confluence with the East Branch DuPage River south of Army Trail Road.

Willoway Brook – The Willoway Brook subwatershed covers approximately 4.5 square miles within the City of Wheaton, Villages of Glen Ellyn and Lisle, and unincorporated Milton and Lisle Townships, in central DuPage County, Illinois. The land use within the subwatershed is primarily residential and open space (Morton Arboretum and the Danada Forest Preserve being the largest) with a scattering of commercial, office, and institutional developments. Willoway 33 

4. Watershed Characteristics Assessment

Brook originates at a storm sewer outlet located near the dead end of Windsor Drive. From its headwaters, the stream flows south to southeasterly approximately 3.0 miles before its confluence with the East Branch DuPage River north of Warrenville Road, about halfway between Warrenville Road and Route 53.

4.1.3. Channel Conditions Streams are in constant dynamic equilibrium. Although it can be imperceptible over years or even decades, a stream in equilibrium moves within its floodplain both laterally and vertically over long periods of time. A channel can be in balance with the hydrologic and sediment influences or can be in rapid transition as a result of changes in the watershed or within the stream corridor. Urban river systems are often in various states of disequilibrium. The impact of urbanization on stream systems is well documented and includes changes in the hydrology, water quality, sediment supply, and ecology. Other impacts include isolation from and reduction of available floodplain capacity and installation of road crossings and other lateral and vertical controls.

In general, the East Branch can be characterized as an urban stream with low gradients and extensive channelization. Canopy cover is limited due to development, resulting in higher summer stream temperatures and establishment of rooted vegetation within the stream bed. Contributions from point sources, including municipal wastewater treatment plant effluents are also significant, contributing phosphorus which may contribute to plant growth, but also provide higher flows during low flow and overall cooler temperatures. The IEPA has assessed the East Branch as partial. Identified causes of the less than full use support assessment include dissolved oxygen, chlorides, total nitrogen, habitat and flow alterations, suspended solids, phosphorous, sedimentation/siltation, algal growth, and fecal coliform. The sources contributing to impairment include municipal point sources, runoff and storm sewers, development, stream modifications, and upstream impoundments.

The channel bottom is variable and includes areas of soft sediment, rock and cobble, and artificial armoring. Generally, the East Branch has been highly channelized through developed areas of DuPage County. The stream banks are approximately three to six feet high for most of the stream length, with the exception of the few areas where the channel flows into a detention pond or wide stream reach. Stream flow velocity is generally slow moving with a few sections where the flow is restricted due to hydraulic structures. 4.2. Climate and Precipitation Because the DuPage River watershed and particularly the East Branch watershed is affected significantly by overbank and other types of flooding, understanding climate and especially precipitation patterns in the Watershed is especially important.

4.2.1. Climate An important feature of local climate for watersheds is understanding extremes. Extended periods of heat or below-freezing temperatures both have impacts on watershed hydrology and function.

34 

4. Watershed Characteristics Assessment

Illinois is situated midway between the Continental Divide and the Atlantic Ocean and is often underneath the polar jet-stream. The polar jet-stream is a focal point for movement between cold polar air masses from the north moving southward and warmer, tropical air from the south moving northward. The convergence of polar and tropical air causes Illinois to have a humid continental climate with hot humid summers and cool to cold winters with short frequent fluctuations in wind direction, cloudiness, humidity, and temperature. The average annual temperature of DuPage County is 48.6°F (DuPage County Weather available from http://www.usa.com/dupage-county-il-weather.htm). The average temperature for the summer months (June – August) is 71.1°F with an average humidity of 74.3% (DuPage County Weather); the highest recorded temperature was 105°F on July 14, 1995 (DuPage County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan). The average temperature for the winter months (December – February) is 24.3°F with an average humidity of 77.8%; the lowest recorded temperature was -26°F on January 20, 1985. Northern Illinois averages 140 days of temperatures at or below freezing annually (Did you know? Illinois Weather and Climate Statistics and Trends available from http://www.isws.illinois.edu/hilites/wx/didyouknow08.asp). Some minor effects on the climate are produced by Lake Michigan, but these are generally minimal, especially in regard to temperature.

4.2.2. Precipitation The average annual precipitation in DuPage County is 36 inches. May, June, and August are the months with the highest precipitation, averaging over 4 inches each. On average there are 68 days annually with 0.1 inch or more of precipitation. The average annual snowfall is 32 inches in DuPage County. There are on average 48 days with 1 inch or more snow depth in a year (DuPage County Weather). The most rainfall from a single event in the state of Illinois during a 24-hour period (spanning from July 17 – 18, 1996) was 16.94 inches in Aurora (Statewide Records and Normals for Illinois available from http://www.isws.illinois.edu/atmos/statecli/General/averages.htm#records). This location is approximately 15 miles west from DuPage County, but it provides insight on the magnitude of the rainfall that is possible from a single event in this area.

Data for Northeast Illinois show an annual precipitation of 37.1 inches per year, however the variations from year to year can be large. For example, the lowest annual rainfall was 23.9 inches and the highest annual rainfall was 46.9 inches. Precipitation has been above normal every year from 2005 to 2011, which was the most recent year included in the study (Rainfall Trends in Northeast Illinois available from http://www.sws.uiuc.edu/atmos/statecli/climate- change/NE-IL-trends/rainfall.htm).

Precipitation increases can play a key role in contributing to more severe flooding in the East Branch DuPage River watershed. If future precipitation trends indicate the potential for more severe rainstorms, it should be noted that much of the current risk assessments for flood prone areas will not necessarily portray the future risk of flooding.

35 

4. Watershed Characteristics Assessment

4.3. Geology and Topography Geologic History and the Understanding the geology and topography of a watershed DuPage River Watershed provides important context on how the structure of soils and groundwater affects the shape and behavior of stream During the Pleistocene Era or “Ice channels, the erodibility of streambanks, stream flows, and Age” advancing and receding glaciers flooding. DuPage County lies in the Great Lake and Till covered much of North America. The Illinoian glacier extended to southern Plaines Sections of the Central Lowland Province, a Illinois between 300,000 and glaciated lowland that extends from the Appalachian 125,000 years ago. It is the Illinoian Plateau on the east to the Great Plaines of Kansas, glacier that is responsible for the flat, Nebraska, and the Dakotas to the west. The entire county farm-rich areas in the southern half of is in the Wheaton moraine county subdivision of the Great the state. The northeastern portion of Illinois including the watershed area Lake section, with the exception of the southwest part was also covered by the most recent which is in the Bloomington ridged plain subdivision of the glacial event known as the Till Plaines Section. The County is characterized by low Wisconsinan. broad, glacial moraines with numerous swamps and The Wisconsinan began undrained areas. Bedrock is exposed and affects surface approximately 70,000 years ago and features only locally. The valley of the East Branch DuPage ended around 14,000 years ago. It River originated during deposition of glacial materials and was during this time that the has not been significantly modified since. The southern temperatures began to rise and the ice retreated to form a landscape similar reaches of the East Branch DuPage River are above a to the Alaskan tundra. As the bedrock valley that has been partially filled. temperatures began to rise, the tundra was replaced by cool moist The soils found in the watershed have been derived from deciduous forests, and eventually Wisconsin Age glacial tills, glacial outwash, loess, and oak-hickory forests and prairies. The alluvium. The surface soil layer and subsoils found in the final retreat of the Lake Michigan lobe of the Wisconsin glacier is watershed are typically a silty clay loam. Underlying responsible for the formation of the material is generally clay loam with strata of sand and Great Lakes and the landscape of the gravel. The bedrock beneath is Ordovician Age assigned to watershed. the Maquoketa and Galena Groups.

Topography refers to the elevations of landscape that describes the configuration of its surface. Topography is an essential tool in the watershed planning process because topography defines the boundaries of the East Branch DuPage River watershed. For this watershed-based plan, the DuPage County 2-foot topography was utilized (Exhibit 5).

The watershed, like most of the surrounding area, is generally relatively flat; in most portions of the East Branch watershed, relief in the uplands is typically less than 50 feet. Relief is greater along major valleys bordered by morainal deposits and often reaches a maximum of about 90 feet. The highest point in the watershed (878.6 feet) is located at Green Valley Hill (former landfill), a manmade feature. The highest natural point is the watershed (approximately 822 feet) is located near Wrightwood Court in Glendale Heights. The lowest point in the watershed (approximately 630 feet) is located near the creek’s confluence with the West Branch DuPage River. The difference in the highest and lowest points reflects a 192-foot change in elevation crossing from the northern to the southern section of the watershed.

36 

4. Watershed Characteristics Assessment

4.4. Soils Soils and geology provide the key to understanding major hydrologic processes in a watershed, and understanding why certain areas of a watershed may especially be prone to erosion, experience standing water or ponding during rains, or be important sites to consider for wetland restoration. Soil properties are key components to consider when designing and implementing water quality and flood reduction treatment systems (known as “Best Management Practices” or BMPs). Some soils are naturally saturated for extended periods of time throughout the year and become what are referred to as hydric soils. Hydric soils generally hold water or infiltrate water very slowly.

Soils also exhibit different infiltration capabilities. Knowing the infiltration capabilities of the watershed’s soils will allow for the proper placement of infiltration BMPs, as well as the location of wetland creation/restoration projects and detention basins. Soils also exhibit differences in erodibility depending on their composition and slope. Erodibility of soils is especially important on construction sites where improper installation and maintenance of soil erosion and sediment control practices can lead to the release of sediment into creeks and lakes.

The 2001 DuPage County Natural Resource Conservation Services’ (NRCS) Soil Survey was used to conduct a soil analysis for the East Branch watershed. The data was used to map the soil series, extent of hydric soils, soil susceptibility to erosion, and the infiltration capacity. Deposits left during by the Lake Michigan lobe of the Wisconsin Figure 4-1 Example glacier are the raw materials of the soils currently found in the East Soil Profile Branch watershed. A combination of biological, physical, and chemical variables such as climate, drainage patterns, vegetation, and topography have all interacted together to form the soils found today.

4.4.1. Soil Series Soils are identified by a name associated with each Hydric soils are wet frequently enough to series or class of soils with similar characteristics. A produce conditions that are devoid of oxygen soil series is commonly derived from a town or (anaerobic) thereby influencing the plant species landmark in or near the areas where the soil series was that can grow there. Tile drains historically were used in areas with hydric soils to make land first identified (type location), although sometimes suitable for farming. When tile drains are naming conventions vary by county or state. Soil broken, wetland hydrology may be able to be series are differentiated based on the amounts and restored, providing opportunities for wetland size of particles making up the soil (soil texture), restoration/enhancement and stormwater storage. Historic native vegetation in these areas water-holding capacity, the slopes where they are consisted of water tolerant grasses, forbs, trees located, permeability characteristics, and organic and shrubs. content. Table 4-3 lists the dominant soil series located within the East Branch watershed. Exhibit 6 shows the locations of the dominant soil series located within the East Branch watershed. 37 

4. Watershed Characteristics Assessment

Table 4-3 Soil Series in the East Branch DuPage River Watershed (DuPage County portion)

Soil Soil % of Soil Name Hydric? Erosivity Acres Code Group Watershed 805B Orthents, clayey, undulating No Moderate D 10537.81 21.90% 854B Markham-Ashkum-Beecher No Moderate C/D 9698.23 20.16% complex, 1 to 6 percent slopes 232A Ashkum silty clay loam, 0 to 2 Yes Moderate C/D 3782.02 7.86% percent slopes 531B Markham silt loam, 2 to 4 No Moderate C 3642.21 7.57% percent slopes 530B Ozaukee silt loam, 2 to 4 No High C 1954.78 4.06% percent slopes 531C2 Markham silt loam, 4 to 6 No Moderate C 1912.69 3.98% percent slopes, eroded 530C2 Ozaukee silt loam, 4 to 6 No High C 1823.97 3.79% percent slopes, eroded 3107A Sawmill silty clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently Yes Moderate B/D 1762.10 3.66% flooded 530D2 Ozaukee silt loam, 6 to 12 No High C 1455.14 3.02% percent slopes, eroded 146A Elliott silt loam, 0 to 2 percent No Moderate C/D 1336.46 2.78% slopes 223B Varna silt loam, 2 to 4 percent No Moderate C 1116.78 2.32% slopes 330A Peotone silty clay loam, 0 to 2 No Moderate C/D 853.89 1.77% percent slopes 298A Beecher silt loam, 0 to 2 No Moderate D 848.18 1.76% percent slopes W Water - - C 828.33 1.72% 802B Orthents, loamy, undulating No Moderate B 737.16 1.53% 369B Waupecan silt loam, 2 to 4 No Moderate C/D 637.66 1.33% percent slopes 69A Milford silty clay loam, 0 to 2 Yes Moderate B/D 398.88 0.83% percent slopes 526A Grundelein silt loam, 0 to 2 No Moderate C/D 386.48 0.80% percent slopes 189A Martinton silt loam, 0 to 2 No Moderate C/D 383.64 0.80% percent slopes 903A Muskego and Houghton mucks, Yes Moderate B 300.93 0.63% 0 to 2 percent slopes 327B Fox silt loam, 2 to 4 percent No High B 298.93 0.62% slopes 792B Bowes silt loam, 2 to 4 percent No Moderate D 265.35 0.55% slopes

There are 57 soil series found in the watershed; the majority of types are well drained, non- hydric soils. Native plant communities in the watershed were likely comprised of prairie grasses, forest, woodlands, and savannas. Of these 57, 22 are considered dominant soil types (greater than 0.5% of the watershed). The remaining 27 soil types have been classified as “non- dominant soils.” The “non-dominant” soils cover 6.55% of the East Branch DuPage River 38 

4. Watershed Characteristics Assessment

subwatershed. Orthents, clayey, undulating is the predominant soil type in the watershed, covering 10,537.8 acres or approximately 21.9% of the watershed. Orthents indicates that it is a made-land or man-altered soil not resembling any specific native soil series. The Markham- Ashkum-Beecher complex is the next most dominant soil series covering approximately 20.16% or 9,698.23 acres of the watershed.

4.4.2. Hydric Soils Hydric soils are defined by the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils (NTCHS) as soils that are formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding and retain moisture long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic (oxygen-deprived) conditions in the soil layers closest to the surface. Table 4-4 identifies the percent coverage of hydric soils in each subwatershed and Exhibit 7 displays the coverage of hydric soils.

Table 4-4 Percent Coverage of hydric and non-hydric soils in the East Branch

Soil Category Total area (acres) Percentage of Watershed Non-Hydric Soils 40,476 85% Hydric Soils 7,655 15% Total 48,131 100%

4.4.3. Soil Erodibility Soil erosion and sedimentation are significant causes of degraded water quality throughout Illinois, and in the East Branch watershed. Soil erosion is the process in which soil is detached and moved by flowing water, wave action or wind. Through erosion, sediment is transported from its original location and deposited in a new location such as a stream, river, lake, or other ground surface. This deposition process commonly referred to as sedimentation, affects surface water quality chemically, biologically, and physically.

Damage from sediment can be expensive both environmentally and economically. Over time, sediment deposits can blanket rock, cobble, and sandy substrate needed by fish and macroinvertebrates for habitat, food, and reproduction; reduce useful storage volumes in ponds, reservoirs, and lakes; and increase the need for costly water filtration systems for municipal drinking water supplies. Often, the impacts of erosion and sedimentation are additive and the effects and costs of the sedimentation can be severe, both for those immediately affected and for those who must mitigate subsequent problems.

A map identifying the highly erodible soils in the East Branch watershed was created (Exhibit 8) by selecting soils that have been classified as highly erodible by the NRCS. The maps of these soil groups indicate those areas that have the highest potential to degrade water quality when erosion and sedimentation occurs, and as such, that require special consideration for land use and stormwater management. In addition to identifying the locations of these highly erodible soil areas, it is also important to note that all of the remaining dominant soils in each of the three subwatersheds are considered moderately erodible soils.

39 

4. Watershed Characteristics Assessment

Table 4-5 Highly erodible soils in the East Branch DuPage River Watershed

Soil Name Soil Code Acres Percent of Watershed Area Del Rey silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 192A 32.37 0.07% Warsaw silt loam, 4 to 6 percent slopes, eroded 290C2 44.39 0.09% Fox silt loam, 4 to 6 percent slopes, eroded 327C2 65.54 0.14% Ozaukee silt loam, 2 to 4 percent slopes 530B 1954.78 4.06% Ozaukee silt loam, 4 to 6 percent slopes, eroded 530C2 1823.97 3.79% Ozaukee silt loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes, eroded 530D2 1455.14 3.02% Ozaukee silt loam, 12 to 20 percent slopes 530E 75.78 0.16% Ozaukee silt loam, 20 to 30 percent slopes 530F 1.31 0.00% Zurich silt loam, 4 to 6 percent slopes, eroded 696C2 16.13 0.03% Total 5,469.41 11.36%

4.4.4. Soil Infiltration Capacities (Hydrologic Soil Groups) The permeability and surface runoff potential of the soils in the United States have been classified by the NRCS into Hydrologic Soil Groups (HSGs). HSGs are based on a soil’s infiltration and transmission (or permeability) rates. The combination of HSG classification and land cover type (i.e. mowed lawn, rooftop, or forested area) is used by engineers to estimate runoff curve numbers, or how much stormwater is anticipated to flow off of a certain type of land area instead of percolating into the soil. This in turn affects the design and size of stormwater treatment systems for different development settings.

HSGs are classified into four primary categories: A, B, C, and D, and three dual classes, A/D, B/D, and C/D:

• Group A is comprised of the most permeable soil types and has the lowest runoff potential. These soils consist of mainly deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. Group A soils have a high rate of water transmission. • Group B soils have a moderate infiltration rate and are moderately deep, moderately well drained or well drained with fine texture to moderately course texture (silt and sand). Group B soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. • Group C soils have slow infiltration rates because of a fine texture soil layer comprised of silt and clay that impedes the downward migration of water. Group C soils have a slow rate of water transmission. • Group D soils have the slowest infiltration rates and a high runoff potential. These soils are typically clay and exhibit very slow rates of water transmission. • Dual hydrologic groups (A/D, B/D, and C/D) are classified differently. The first letter represents the HSGs for the artificially drained soils in the area. The second letter represents the HSGs for the undrained, natural conditions. Only soils that are Group D in the natural conditions are assigned to dual classes.

Table 4-6 summarizes the HSGs and their corresponding attributes and Table 4-7 identifies the acreage and percent of the watershed for each HSG. In summary, 36.7% of the soils in the East Branch DuPage River watershed are Group C with 28.59% classified as Group B/D and 24.15%

40 

4. Watershed Characteristics Assessment

classified as C/D. The remaining 10.56% of soils are comprised of Group A, B, D, and unclassified soils. There are no Group A/D soils in the East Branch DuPage River watershed.

Exhibit 9 shows the locations of various soils groups within the watershed. Along with understanding locations of hydric soils, identifying the location of Type A and B soils, and Type B/D soils, is imperative to a watershed planning process. Type A and B soils provide the greatest opportunity to infiltrate stormwater that could otherwise lead to overland transport of pollutants, erosion, and localized flooding. Many of the recommended actions in a watershed plan will include infiltration BMPs such as rain gardens, bioswales, and infiltration basins, which are best suited in Group A and Group B soil areas. However these areas comprise only 8.8% of the East Branch watershed’s area, making identification of these areas especially important.

Another 28.59% of the soils in the watershed are classified as B/D soils. Type B/D soils are soils with a water table within 24 inches of the surface. When adequately drained, Type B/D soils exhibit properties of Type B soils; however, in undrained conditions, Type B/D soils exhibit the properties of Type D soil and have a very high runoff potential when thoroughly wet. This requires very specific design considerations, engineering and planning for BMPs or flood control practices in these areas, but the predominance of these Type B/D soils in the East Branch DuPage River watershed should facilitate infiltration in pervious areas if proper design considerations are followed.

Table 4-6 Hydrologic Soil Groups and corresponding attributes in the East Branch DuPage River Watershed (DuPage County portion)

HSG Soil Texture Drainage Description Runoff Infiltration Transmission Potential Rate Rate A Sand, loamy sand, or Well to excessively well drained Low High High sandy loam A/D Sand or silt loam to Well drained to poorly drained High to High to High to Very clay Low Very Low Low B Silt loam or loam Moderately well to well drained Moderate Moderate Moderate B/D Silt loam, silty clay Moderately well to poorly Moderate Moderate to Moderate to loam, clay drained to Low Low Very Low C Sandy clay loam Somewhat poorly drained High Low Low C/D Sandy clay loam, Somewhat poorly drained to High Low to Very Low to Very silty clay loam, clay poorly drained Low Low D Clay loam, silty clay Poorly drained High Very Low Very Low loam, sandy clay loam, silty clay, clay

Table 4-7 Hydrologic Soil Groups including acreage and percent of watershed

HSG Total Acreage Percent of Watershed A 1,479 3.07% A/D 0 0.00% B 2,757 5.73% B/D 13,758 28.59% C 17,657 36.70% 41 

4. Watershed Characteristics Assessment

HSG Total Acreage Percent of Watershed C/D 11,619 24.15% D 1,479 3.07% Unclassified 845 1.76%

4.5. Cultural Resources Cultural resources are sites, structures, buildings, landscapes, districts, and objects that are significant in history, prehistory, archeology, architecture, engineering, and/or culture. Knowing the cultural resources of a watershed provides information on changes that occurred in the landscape and help define information related to historical vegetative communities, climate change, wildlife populations, and historic uses of the land, which is particularly useful in assessing potential restoration sites. And, as cultural resources provide learning opportunities for the public, the preservation and protection of cultural resources from development and damage can support public education and outreach objectives as well.

In 1966, the National Historic Preservation Act was passed to manage and protect cultural resources by requiring Federal and State agencies to establish historic preservation programs to identify, evaluate, and protect important sites under their jurisdiction. The National Park Service administers the National Register of Historic Places and Historic Landmarks as part of the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act. Properties in the Register include districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are significant in American history, archeology, architecture, engineering, and culture, and are nominated for inclusion in the Register by governments, organizations, and individuals. Different criteria and limitations on alteration apply to Historic Places and Historic Landmarks, with Historic Landmarks receiving the highest level of legal protection from modification or damage.

There are twelve Historic Places/Districts on the National Register in the East Branch watershed (Table 4-8 and Exhibit 10). There are no sites within the watershed listed on the National Register of Historic Landmarks. At the state level, the Illinois Historical Preservation Agency (IHPA) preserves and protects public and private historical properties and library collections. A review of the IHPA Historic Architectural Resources Geographic Information System (HARGIS) (http://gis.hpa.state.il.us/hargis/) indicates there are no sites within the East Branch DuPage River watershed identified on the HARGIS site as Illinois Historic Sites or Monuments.

Table 4-8 National Register of Historic Places sites in the East Branch watershed

Site Name Address Certification Date Bloomingdale School - Village 108 W. Lake St. 10/28/1994 Hall Bloomingdale, Illinois Randecker's Hardware Store 112 S. Bloomingdale Rd. 10/28/1994 Bloomingdale, Illinois Avery Coonley School 1400 Maple Ave. 08/08/2007 Downers Grove, Illinois George Baker House 1 S. 500 Taylor Rd. 03/01/2010

42 

4. Watershed Characteristics Assessment

Site Name Address Certification Date Glen Ellyn Downtown North Main St., Crescent Blvd., & Pennsylvania Ave. 09/18/2013 Historic District Glen Ellyn, Illinois Glen Ellyn Downtown South Main & Duane Sts., Hillside Ave. 09/18/2013 Historic District Glen Ellyn, Illinois Glen Ellyn Main Street Historic Main St. btwn Cottage Ave. and Hawthorne St. Glen 10/29/1984 District Ellyn, Illinois Alfred A. Schiller House 734 Lenox Rd. 09/03/2008 Glen Ellyn, Illinois Stacy's Tavern Geneva Rd. and Main St. 10/29/1974 Glen Ellyn, Illinois DuPage Theatre and DuPage 101--109 S. Main St. 11/20/1987 Shoppes Lombard, Illinois First Church of Lombard Maple and Main Sts. 08/10/1978 Lombard, Illinois Adams Memorial Library 9th St. 06/04/1981 Wheaton, Illinois

4.6. Natural Resources This section of the plan describes the natural resources found within the East Branch watershed, including natural areas, parks, recreational trails, plant and animal species, wetlands, and groundwater. Because natural areas provide a natural defense against the ecological, social and economic impacts of both urban runoff and flooding, this Section has a special focus on the watershed’s significant natural areas, open lands and preserves, including the Morton Arboretum and lands managed by the Forest Preserve District of DuPage County.

4.6.1. Illinois Natural Area Inventory Sites

The Illinois Natural Areas Inventory (INAI) provides Illinois Natural Areas Inventory (INAI) a set of information about high quality natural areas, Scale of Natural Area Quality: habitats of endangered species, and other significant natural features. Information from the INAI is used Cat. I=High quality natural community and natural community restorations to guide and support land acquisition and protection programs by all levels of government as well as by Cat. II= Specific suitable habitat for state- private landowners and conservation organizations. listed species or state-listed species relocations The original Illinois Natural Areas Inventory was Cat. III= State dictated Nature Preserves, carried out in 1975–78, and it has been maintained Land and Water Reserves, and Natural by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources Heritage Landmarks since then. On June 1, 2007, a statewide update of Cat. IV= Outstanding ecological features the INAI was begun. Its goal is to develop an updated inventory of the highest quality grasslands, Cat. V= Not used at this time woodlands, and wetlands, based on the current Cat. VI= Unusual concentrations of flora or condition of Illinois’ landscapes using the latest fauna and high quality streams scientific knowledge and technology. The INAI Update will systematically screen the entire state to

43 

4. Watershed Characteristics Assessment

find, describe, evaluate, classify, and map natural areas. There are eight INAI sites located within in the East Branch DuPage River watershed (Table 4-9). These sites provide either Category I (high quality natural community or restoration), Category II (specific suitable habitat for listed species or relocations), or Category III (Nature Preserves, Reserves or Landmarks) natural areas benefits. From a watershed planning perspective, these areas require special protection from runoff and other potentially adverse modifications.

Table 4-9 INAI Sites located within East Branch DuPage River watershed

INAI Site Name Municipality Number Categories Acres Belmont Prairie Downers Grove 0526 I, III 25.7 Churchill Prairie Lombard 0524 II, III 100 East Branch Marsh Glendale Heights 1399 II 8.5 Herrick Lake Forest Preserve Naperville 1397 II 765.6 Lyman Woods Downers Grove 1471 II 97 Maple Grove Forest Preserve Downers Grove 0527 I, II 48.7 Morton Arboretum Lisle 0506 I 1,406.3 Swift Road Meadows Addison 1391 II 136

4.6.2. Parks, Forest Preserve Lands and Trails Permanently preserved and managed natural areas are an essential element of the watershed’s natural areas “green infrastructure” network, providing areas where natural hydrologic processes and pollution uptake can help offset the many impacts of urbanization. In many cases, parks and forest preserve lands that are inundated during floods provide natural storage and protection of other developed areas. Temporary flood storage can be built or structured on park sites without compromising public recreation uses or natural area quality.

The East Branch watershed’s preserved open spaces principally consist of three types: Municipal-owned and managed; Park District lands; the Forest Preserve of DuPage County’s lands; and the 1,700 acre Morton Arboretum (Table 4-10). Local park districts manage numerous natural areas and recreational parks located entirely or partially within the East Branch watershed. There are eighteen properties managed by the Forest Preserve District of DuPage County (FPDDC) located in the watershed as shown in Exhibit 11, along with more than 34 miles of recreational trails within these preserves. Table 4-10 below notes if the trail is currently connected to or proposed to be connected to a regional trail.

Table 4-10 Natural Areas and Recreational Parks in the East Branch DuPage

Municipal Park DuPage County Forest Miles of Existing/ District Lands Acres Preserve Lands Acres Trail Proposed Regional Segment? 53 Trails Estates 20.16 Broadview Slough 27.30 0 Addison 844.67 Churchill Woods 257.98 1  Bloomingdale 1522.48 Danada 797.00 8  Butterfield 1386.82 East Branch 519.46 2  Carol Stream 19.21 East Branch Riverway 127.61 0 

44 

4. Watershed Characteristics Assessment

Municipal Park DuPage County Forest Miles of Existing/ District Lands Acres Preserve Lands Acres Trail Proposed Regional Segment? Darien 303.22 Egermann Woods 69.69 1 Downers Grove 8994.26 Glen Oak 4.87 0 G E Countryside 567.51 Green Meadows 43.31 0 Glen Ellyn 5939.14 Greene Valley 1382.16 11  Lisle 5598.98 Herrick Lake 733.50 7  Lombard 3354.91 Hickory Grove 31.18 0 Naperville 683.90 Hidden Lake 390.17 2  Oak Brook 74.35 Hitchcock Woods 18.33 0 Warrenville 23.60 Lyman Woods 134.69 0  Westmont 1551.65 Maple Grove 79.94 1 Wheaton 3368.02 Swift Prairie 114.66 0 Woodridge 4016.96 Willowbrook 48.20 1 York Center 13.63 Total Park Total FPDDC 4,780 34 38,283 District Morton Arboretum 1,700

4.6.2.1 The Morton Arboretum The Morton Arboretum is an internationally recognized nonprofit organization dedicated to the planting and conservation of trees. The Arboretum was founded in 1922 by Morton Salt magnate Joy Morton whose inspiration came from his father, J. Sterling Morton, the founder of Arbor Day in the United States. The Arboretum’s 1,700 acres of land hold more than 222,000 live plants representing nearly 4,300 taxa from around the world. Situated on the rolling Valparaiso moraine and bisected by the East Branch DuPage River, The Morton Arboretum is planned and planted to nurture and display trees and shrubs in environments conducive to their growth. The Arboretum offers extensive educational programming for all ages, conducts leading research on tree health and tree improvement, breeds and introduces hardy and disease- resistant trees and shrubs for distribution throughout the Midwest, and presents nature-related activities year-round for people of all ages and interests.

The Arboretum’s 1700 acres of land are bisected by the East Branch DuPage River and it lies centrally in the watershed. Thus it is a relatively large, non-public land holder central to the watershed, and located just north of one of the most impacted, most distressed areas of the watershed as well as immediately east and south of another flood impacted area (Valley View Subdivision in unincorporated Glen Ellyn/Milton Township). The Arboretum grounds also include 14 ponds and lakes of varying sizes, numerous seasonal drainage features, and Willoway Brook flows through the west side of the Arboretum grounds before joining the East Branch DuPage River.

4.6.3. Threatened and Endangered Species The Illinois Endangered Species Protection Board was created by the passage of the Illinois Endangered Species Protection Act in 1972 and determines which plant and animal species are threatened or endangered (T&E) in the state. The Illinois Endangered Species Protection Board 45 

4. Watershed Characteristics Assessment

also advises the IDNR on means of conserving those species. State listed T&E species are designated “endangered” if a species is in danger of extinction as a “breeding” species in Illinois and is considered “threatened” if the species is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future.

A Freedom of Information Act Request was submitted to the Illinois Natural Heritage Database for the location of all threatened and endangered species documented within the East Branch DuPage River watershed. The Illinois Natural Heritage Database is requesting a $500 fee to provide the requested data. The acquisition of the Natural Heritage Database data is a recommended action to be completed as part of the development on this plan.

In addition, the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, provides protection for species considered federally endangered or threatened. The definitions of threatened and endangered are the same as that provided above for the state act, but for federal designation they are considered endangered or threatened throughout their worldwide range, rather than only within the state. Many species are listed by states as endangered or threatened that are not considered such in neighboring states and do not rise to that level of protection federally. There are 6 species of plants and animals considered federally threatened, endangered or are candidates for such listing within DuPage County (Table X-X). Several of these are not likely present within the East Branch DuPage River watershed, but the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service who administers the federal ESA, does not provide watershed or location-specific information. Under the state rules, all federally listed endangered and threatened species are also automatically considered state-listed.

Table 4-11 List of Federal Endangered and Threatened Species in DuPage County

Common Name Scientific Name Status Habitat Eastern Massasauga Sistrurus catenatus Candidate Shrub wetlands Hine’s Emerald Dragonfly Somatochlora hineana Endangered Spring fed wetlands, wet meadows and marshes Eastern Prairie Orchid Platanthera leucophaea Threatened Mesic to wet prairies Leafy Prairie Clover Dalea foliosa Threatened Prairie remnants on thin soil over limestone Mead’s milkweed Asclepias meadii Threatened Virgin prairies Northern long-eared bat Myotis septentrionalis Proposed as Endangered Hibernated in caves and mines- swarming in surrounding woodlands areas in autumn. Roosts and forages in upland forests and woods.

4.6.4. Wetlands, Riparian Areas, and Potential Wetland Restoration Sites This section describes both wetlands and the riparian areas – whether upland or wetland - associated with the tributaries and mainstem of the East Branch DuPage River.

46 

4. Watershed Characteristics Assessment

Of the many natural resources and features in a watershed, wetlands play perhaps the most significant role in supporting the health of the watershed. Wetlands provide habitat for fish, wildlife and a variety of plants. Wetlands are also important landscape features: By holding and slowly releasing flood water and snow melt, wetlands

recharge groundwater, recycle nutrients, and provide Defining a “Wetland” recreation and wildlife viewing opportunities for residents. Wetlands and their buffers also provide the Land areas that are inundated or substrate for a complex web of organic and inorganic saturated with water for prolonged durations of time and support processes. The products of these ecosystems, which vegetation typically found in saturated then flow downstream, are crucial resources for a soil conditions are considered properly functioning riverine ecosystem and riparian wetlands. Wetlands generally include environment. swamps, bogs, marshes, ponds, streams, wet meadows and similar However, wetland areas, once prevalent within Illinois, areas. Three factors are used to determine the presence of wetlands: have continued to decline in area and quality. The loss of wetlands contributes both to flooding, since the 1. Hydric Soils - Soils which present storage function of flood waters is lost, and to certain characteristics when saturated.

pollution, since valuable pollutant capture and uptake 2. Hydrophytic vegetation – Plants functions are lost. Wetland restoration, in areas where which grow in water or saturated soils. soil types, drainage and topography are suitable for re- establishing wetland plants, can be an important 3. Hydrology - Saturation of soils with water component of watershed restoration and flood resilience.

4.6.4.1 Riparian Areas In general, riparian areas can be defined as the ecosystems, vegetation, and habitats located along the banks of streams and rivers. When left as undeveloped or natural areas, the riparian areas of streams and their tributaries perform several important functions. A riparian area with soils and vegetation in a natural condition, and particularly an area with trees, forms an important buffer to reduce the amount of pollution, particularly nutrients and sediment that reaches the river through over-land flows.

Some of the banks of the East Branch are highly incised and close to residential properties. Some of the areas are within open space but still show signs of degraded and unstabilized banks, heavy sedimentation and weedy species dominating the edges of the stream. Many of the areas are vegetated although the predominant vegetation in many portions of the river corridor is undesirable weedy or invasive species. There are also portions of the watershed where development has removed the natural buffer in its entirety. Based on a survey conducted by the DuPage River Salt Creek Workgroup, the majority of the riparian buffers within the watershed are in poor condition (Midwest Biodiversity Institute, 2014).

Riparian areas within DuPage County are protected under Article XII of the DCCSFPO. Under this protection use or development within the riparian area is limited or restricted to certain activities. However, specific definitions of the width and features of a riparian area vary by jurisdiction, and even within different stream segments. For example, DuPage County has 47 

4. Watershed Characteristics Assessment defined riparian areas as those lands within the limits of the 100-year floodplain, but this area can be reduced to a minimum of 15 feet in some areas with documented limited functional value.

4.6.4.2 Historic and Existing Wetland Resources The NWI was established by According to an analysis of National Wetlands Inventory the US Fish and Wildlife (NWI)/DuPage County Wetland Survey, there are approximately Service (USFWS) to conduct a 2,583 acres of wetlands existing in the East Branch watershed. nationwide inventory of U.S. Field inspections and wetland delineations were not utilized in wetlands to provide biologists and others with information on the preparation of these maps. Certain wetland habitats are not the distribution and type of included on their maps due to limitations of aerial wetlands to aid in conservation reconnaissance to properly identify these habitats as wetlands. efforts. The NWI maps are Wetlands are shown in Exhibit 12. prepared from the analysis of high altitude imagery, As with most of the DuPage County area, wetlands in East vegetation, visible hydrology, and geography. Branch DuPage River watershed were relatively intact until European settlers began to alter significant portions of the watershed’s natural hydrology and wetland processes for the rich agricultural resources. According to data compiled by DuPage County, as shown in Table 4-12, comparing hydric soils from the Soil Survey data (81,737 acres) to the most updated NWI/DuPage County wetland inventory (15,256 acres of wetlands), DuPage County as a whole has experienced a loss of roughly 81 percent of its wetlands since pre-settlement times. A similar reduction in wetlands can also been seen within the East Branch DuPage River watershed as the watershed has lost approximately 85.9% of its wetlands since pre-settlement times (15,724 acres of historical areas to 2,583 existing wetlands).

Table 4-12 Historic and Existing Wetland Area, East Branch Watershed and DuPage County

Historic (acres) Existing (acres) Change Acres Percent East Branch 15,724 2,583 13,141 -84% Watershed DuPage County 81,737 15,256 66,481 -81%

Historic wetlands loss is largely attributed to physical alterations made through the removal or addition of material such as dredging, filling, or draining. These impacts were sometimes regulated through the federal and state wetland permitting process; however, even with additional regulations many wetlands remain susceptible to indirect impacts, such as those caused by uncontrolled stormwater discharges from upstream development. Altered hydrology, increased pollutant loadings, and buffer encroachment caused by urbanization often promote the spread of invasive species, reduce native habitat and vital ecosystem processes and increase sediment deposition.

48 

4. Watershed Characteristics Assessment

4.6.4.3 Regulatory Policies and Protections Recognizing the damage caused by wetland loss and unregulated discharges, DuPage County implemented one of the most restrictive ordinances in the region. The DCCSFPO not only requires avoidance and/or minimization of wetland impact but also had some of the most stringent wetland mitigation requirements. The resolution of the County to administer this DCCSFPO also brought recognition from federal and state partners. This trust in the County’s regulations and ability to administer the DCCSFPO forged a partnership with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for authorization of a General Permit 25 (GP25). This agreement gives the County review authority on behalf of the USACE for developments that could potentially affect wetlands. DuPage County was the only county in the region to receive this delegation which was originally granted in 1993 and reauthorized most recently in 2014. Additionally, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) has also granted the County 401 Water Quality Certification as part of that GP25. Together these agency partnerships will help promote resource protection, reduce duplication of permitting efforts and provide better watershed decision making tools at the local level.

4.6.4.4 Wetland Restoration Wetland restoration and creation has the potential to improve flood resilience and water quality in the East Branch watershed. By restoring the environmental functions of degraded wetlands or creating new wetlands in suitable areas, wetland restoration and wetland creation could potentially reduce flood volumes and rates, increase plant and animal diversity, and improve water quality conditions.

Potential restoration sites within the watershed should be identified. The identification of potential wetland restoration sites is a recommended action to be completed as part of the development of this plan as a means of obtaining IEPA approval as a “watershed-based” plan. 4.7. Groundwater Resources Residents in the East Branch DuPage River Watershed utilize groundwater for a variety of purposes including drinking water, irrigation, and industrial process water. While under natural undisturbed conditions, groundwater in the East Branch DuPage River Watershed is of high quality and meets the drinking and groundwater standards set for different contaminants by the Illinois Pollution Control Board. Due to the nature of the aquifers in the region, impacts associated with urbanization have the potential to negatively impact drinking and groundwater. Potential sources for contamination associated with urbanization include septic system effluent, oil, gasoline, animal wastes, industrial effluent, paint, solvents, road salt, and lawn and household chemicals. The Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning’s “Go to 2040” regional comprehensive plan makes numerous recommendations regarding water resource conservation, including Integrated Land Use Policies and Site Planning with Water Resources, where it is stated, “[Land use policies that encourage compact development] should be coupled with the identification of sensitive aquifer recharge areas (SARAs) and their protection from potential contamination, which will help ensure the security of water supplies for future generations.”

49 

4. Watershed Characteristics Assessment

Groundwater supplies in DuPage County are withdrawn from four principal geohydrologic units: 1) glacial drift aquifers, 2) Silurian dolomite aquifer, 3) Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer, and 4) the Mt. Simon aquifer. The glacial drift and Silurian dolomite aquifers receive recharge chiefly from precipitation that falls within the county limits. Relatively impermeable shales of the Maquoketa Formation separate these aquifers from the deeper Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer. Recharge to the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer occurs in the areas of Kane, McHenry, Kendall, Boone, and DeKalb Counties where the Maquoketa Formation is appreciably dolomitic, relatively thin, or absent. The water moves southeastward from these recharge areas through the aquifer toward a deep cone of depression centered near Summit in Cook County.

In order to protect groundwater in Illinois in 1987, the General Assembly passed the Illinois Groundwater Protection Act (IGPA). The IGPA emphasizes the comprehensive management of groundwater resources by requiring the implementation of practices and policies to protect groundwater. These include implementing groundwater protection policies such as setback zones; assessing the quality and quantity of groundwater resources being utilized; and establishing groundwater standards.

Groundwater resource protection is an integral component of the East Branch DuPage River watershed planning process. As regulatory requirements favoring the infiltration of stormwater become more commonplace, it is imperative that proper knowledge exists regarding the location and condition of recharge aquifers and public water supply areas that could be threatened by stormwater management activities. However, infiltration of runoff from certain land uses is not necessarily desired in areas of groundwater recharge for community water system and private wells.

While watershed plans are to identify groundwater recharge areas within the watershed, at this time, there is not sufficient detailed technical information readily available to provide such information. DuPage County Department of Stormwater Management has sought technical assistance in identifying sensitive aquifer recharge areas within the county so that the information can be utilized to discourage activities that would facilitate the transport of soluble contaminants in these areas. However, at this time these technical assistance requests have not been granted. Outputs of such assistance could include a technical document detailing an overview of this topic and providing clarification regarding the requirements of applicable legislation (Illinois Groundwater Protection Act, Section 17.3 of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act, and 35 Illinois Administrative Code 620); review of available data (IEPA, DuPage County Health Department, Illinois State Geological Survey , or other sources); development of geospatial information; and/or other appropriate materials.

4.8. Agricultural Best Management Practices While the agricultural land area in DuPage County has declined as the County’s population and economic development have evolved, there are areas within the watershed with remaining agricultural lands that could, potentially, contribute both important natural and open space functions for the watershed, but also overland transport of pollutants and sediment. Various programs sponsored by the NRCS and Farm Service Agency Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP),

50 

4. Watershed Characteristics Assessment

Grasslands Reserve Program (GRP), Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP), Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP), and Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) promote and fund the construction of agricultural BMPs on farmland.

Per the requirements of Section 1619, b, 4, B of the Farm Bill, the NRCS state office in Champaign, Illinois is only able to provide the number of contracts and the obligation amount by County for following programs: WRP, GRP, WHIP, and EQIP. According to the NRCS, there are no active or completed WHIP and EQIP contracts and WRP and GRP easements in DuPage County. 4.9. Watershed Drainage, Hydrology & Hydraulics 4.9.1. Stream Flow, Discharge & Baseflow Characteristics The dynamics of any river system are best managed and understood with data from stream gauges, which determine the rate of flow (in cubic feet per second, or CFS) and height above or below flood stage of a surface water at a certain point. Stream gauge data also allows modeling of how a river will respond to precipitation events, by coupling stream gauge data with precipitation and temperature data.

4.9.1.1 Stream Gauges There are three active USGS stream gauges in the East Branch DuPage River watershed. The mean annual flows at these gauges are shown in the three figures below. The gauge on the East Branch DuPage River near Downers Grove shows a trend of increasing mean annual flows. The gauge on St. Joseph Creek in Lisle shows variation in the mean annual flows and the trend line shows a small increase in flows. The gauge on the East Branch DuPage River in Bolingbrook shows a trend of increasing mean annual flows (USGS gauge data available from http://waterdata.usgs.gov/il/nwis/).

51 

4. Watershed Characteristics Assessment

Figure 4-2 USGS Flow Gauge 05540160 East Branch DuPage River near Downers Grove

Flow Gauge USGS 05540160 East Branch DuPage River near Downers Grove 80

70

60

50

40

30

20

Annual Mean Discharge (cfs) 10

0 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Year

Figure 4-3 USGS Flow Gauge 05540195 St. Joseph Creek at Route 34 at Lisle

Flow Gauge USGS 05540195 St. Joseph Creek at Route 34 at Lisle 16

14

12

10

8

6

4

Annual Mean Discharge (cfs) 2

0 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Year

52 

4. Watershed Characteristics Assessment

Figure 4-4 USGS Flow Gauge 05540250 East Branch DuPage River at Bolingbrook

Flow Gauge USGS 05540250 East Branch DuPage River at Bolingbrook 180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40 Annual Mean Discharge (cfs)

20

0 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Year

The USGS gauge data for the period of record also showed a trend of increasing annual peak flows. The gauge on the East Branch DuPage River near Downers Grove shows that four out of six of the highest annual peak flows (for the available data set which included the years 1955 through 2013) have occurred since 2006. The annual peak flows at the gauge on St. Joseph Creek in Lisle shows a similar pattern to the mean annual flows – the overall trend is more flat, but increasing slightly. The annual peak flow in 2013 for the gauge on St. Joseph Creek was almost twice as much as the annual peak in any other year in the data set which included data from 1990 to 2013. The gauge on the East Branch DuPage River in Bolingbrook shows a trend of slight increases in the annual peak flows. Similar to the gauge on St. Joseph Creek in Lisle, the highest annual peak flow was in 2013

Table 4-13 Active and historic stream gauges in the East Branch DuPage River watershed

USGS DuPage County Stream Gauge Location Period of Identification Identification Number Record Number Active Gauges East Branch DuPage River near Active 05540160 SG7 Downers Grove St Joseph Creek at Route 34 at Active 05540195 SG8 Lisle 53 

4. Watershed Characteristics Assessment

USGS DuPage County Stream Gauge Location Period of Identification Identification Number Record Number East Branch DuPage River at Active 05540250 SG9 Bolingbrook Historic Gauges East Branch DuPage 1961 to 1979 05510140 River near Bloomingdale East Branch DuPage 1961, 1963 to 1976, 1978-1980 05540150 River at Glen Ellyn St Joseph Creek at Route Not available 05540180 34 at Lisle St Joseph Creek at Route 1985 to 1990 05540200 34 at Lisle 05540220 Rott Creek near Lisle Not available 05540240 Prentiss Creek near Lisle 1961 to 1980

4.9.1.2 Flow Characteristics During summer-fall base flow, the East Branch is largely an effluent dominated river (Midwest Biodiversity Institute, 2014). Using the USGS gauge at Bolingbrook for September 2011, the median daily flow was 48 cfs while the average flow of 80.4 cfs was influenced by storms late in the month. From records of average daily flows from wastewater treatment plans (WWTPs) that discharge to the river upstream from the gauge, it appears that the average effluent discharge is 30.445 million gallons per day (MGD), or 56.6 cfs. This represents 98.1% of the median flow of 48 cfs recorded September 2011. While there is variability in effluent flow over this period, it is clear that during summer low flow periods, wastewater effluent is a dominant portion of the river’s base flow.

Table 4-14 Historic Low and Mean Flows in the East Branch DuPage River watershed

Location 7-Day 10-Year Harmonic Mean Low Flow (cfs) Flow (cfs) Crescent Boulevard 4.0 13 Above Glenbard Wastewater 3.6 33 Authority – Glenbard Below Downers Grove Sanitary 23.6 54 District Above Woodridge 25.6 61 Before confluence 38.0 78

4.9.2. Channel Conditions The physical structure of the main stream channel of the East Branch River provides important information on the stream’s health and condition. The two most important processes are hydrologic modification or “hydromodification,” and channelization, as discussed below.

54 

4. Watershed Characteristics Assessment

4.9.2.1 Hydromodifications Hydromodification describes how human activities change the dynamics of surface or subsurface flow in a river or stream. Historically, draining wetlands and channelizing or “ditching” streams to drain agricultural fields was the most common form of hydromodification. Early settlers of the Midwest quickly realized that the soils found under wetlands and wet prairies were ideal for crop production once dried, and installed sub-surface drainage tiles to re- route the water away from the wetlands and wet prairies and into ditches or streams. Since drain tiles work with gravity flow, receiving streams were excavated to a deeper depth and straightened to facilitate quicker drainage. This approach led to significant modification of the watershed’s original drainage patterns and wetland cover.

More recently, hydromodification has occurred throughout the East Branch watershed as a result of urbanization, which alters watershed hydrology and sediment-transport patterns. Development increases the amount of impervious surfaces (parking lots, rooftops, highly compacted ground, etc.) on formerly undeveloped landscapes. As a result, a larger percentage of rainfall becomes runoff during any given storm. Subsequently, runoff reaches stream channels much more quickly, and peak discharge rates and volumes are higher than before development for the same size rainfall event. The short-term impact result of this type of hydromodification is localized, overbank flooding, which is a persistent problem in the East Branch watershed.

Over the long term, hydromodification causes a stream channel to expand as a means of handling these higher storm flows. As the stream channel expands, banks will erode and the bottom of a channel will become deeper, a process called incision or down cutting. Incision releases significant amounts of sediment into the stream. Sediment in stream flow acts as an abrasive on downstream banks, causing further erosion or scouring, and ultimately all of the released sediment is deposited into other portions of the stream, affecting aquatic life and habitat. Channel incision also leads to a disconnect between the stream and its floodplain. Once separated, high flows that were once stored in the floodplain and slowly released back into the stream are forced to remain in the channel. These “trapped” flows have high velocities, leading to additional streambank erosion and incision of the stream channel. This becomes a self-reinforcing cycle. With each rainfall event, a stream continues to erode, adding additional sediments to the watershed and further preventing the stream from accessing its floodplain.

4.9.2.2 Channelization Channelization is the practice of dredging and straightening stream channels to increase flow rates and carrying capacities (conveyance). In some cases, the stream channel will be paved with concrete during channelization or placed within underground pipes. Traditionally, channelization was done to move as much water as possible away from an area in a short period of time and prevent flooding. However, there are problems resulting from channelization. Channelization is detrimental for the health of streams and rivers through the elimination of suitable instream habitat for fish and wildlife and the creation of excessive flows in the stream leading to hydromodification both within and downstream of the channelized areas. In addition, this approach treats water as a waste product and leads to heightened water shortages within these aquatic systems during drought when water becomes a precious resource.

55 

4. Watershed Characteristics Assessment

Channelization is prevalent throughout the East Branch DuPage River watershed. Bioassessment conducted by the Midwest Biodiversity Institute in 2007 and 2011 has identified channelization along the following streams within the watershed: Armitage Ditch, Lacey Creek, 22nd Tributary, Rott Creek, St. Joseph’s Creek, East Branch Tributary #2 and East Branch Tributary #6. Channelization has also been identified along the mainstem East Branch south of I-88 through Lisle and Woodridge and near the former Churchill Woods dam.

4.9.3. Hydraulic Structures Hydraulic structures are categorized as bridges, culverts, levees, weirs, dams, fencing and any other human made structures located in or over the stream channel. The location and condition of hydraulic structures is a valuable piece of information as hydraulic structures may act as possible constrictions in conveying river flow, increase the potential for backwater flooding problems, and impede the movement of fish and other aquatic species up and down the stream. A hydraulic structure inventory was not conducted as part of the watershed planning process.

4.9.3.1 Dams Dams create barriers to the movement and dispersal of aquatic organisms such as fish and may limit available habitat for breeding and feeding. There are currently three dams in the watershed which are also shown in Exhibit 13; the Churchill Woods dam was removed in February of 2011 (see Table 4-15).

Table 4-15 Dams in the East Branch watershed

Dam Name Waterway River Impoundment Impedes Fish Mile Size (acres) Passage? West Lake Dam East Branch 26.8 13 Yes Maryknoll Gabion Weir East Branch 16.8 None No Prentiss Creek flow-through Dam Prentiss Creek/ East 0.1/8.6 N/A No Branch Churchill Woods Dam (removed 2/2011) East Branch 18.7 12 n/a

West Lake Dam

The West Lake Dam is locate at West Lake Park in Bloomingdale, Illinois and is situated approximately 0.5 miles north of Army Trail Road and 500 feet west of Glen Ellyn Road. The existing concrete inlet and outlet channels, and the existing lake outfall structure were constructed in the early 1970’s in conjunction with the development of the Westlake Subdivision. The primary function of the impoundment is to provide retention for excess stormwater runoff from the upstream Westland development. Additionally, the impoundment provides aesthetic and recreational uses as a public park operated and owned by the Bloomingdale Park District. The maintenance required to retain the impoundments function as a stormwater retention facility is handled by the Village of Bloomingdale.

56 

4. Watershed Characteristics Assessment

Maryknoll Gabion Weir Dam

The Maryknoll gabion weir dam is located on the East Branch DuPage River adjacent to the Maryknoll subdivision in Glen Ellyn and is situated east of Maryknoll Circle, approximately ¼ mile south of Illinois State Route 38 (Roosevelt Road) and 200 feet west of I-355. The dam was constructed in the early 1980’s as part of the Maryknoll Development to provide stormwater detention for the development. Flow at normal water level is not impeded. The dam consists of gabions with no concrete caps. The impoundment does not extend further upstream than Illinois State Route 38.

Prentiss Creek Dam (flow-through)

The Prentiss Creek Dam is located on the East Branch DuPage River within the Seven Bridges Golf Club in Woodridge, Illinois. The dam actually consists of two structures, one on the East Branch DuPage River and one at the mouth of Prentiss Creek, both located upstream of Hobson Road. The structures are owned by the Village of Woodridge and were constructed in 1989 to provide online stormwater detention for the adjacent development. The dams are gravity structures consisting of rock-filled gabions that impound water at a greater rate as the flow rate increases. The East Branch DuPage River is 20 feet wide and the Prentiss Creek structure is 10 feet wide.

Churchill Woods Dam

The Churchill Woods Dam was located on the East Branch DuPage River within the Churchill Woods Forest Preserve in Glen Ellyn, Illinois. The dam was originally built in the 1930’s as part of the Works Progress Administration. The dam was a 50-foot long and 3.5 feet high concrete gravity dam and created an impoundment that was approximately 31 acres in size that extended from Crescent Boulevard to approximately St. Charles Road. The dam was removed in February 2011, and this reach of the river has shown improvement in Dissolved Oxygen levels as a result. However, the river is still somewhat impounded at the site, with the new impoundment elevation set by three box culverts under Crescent Boulevard. The new impoundment is approximately 12 acres in size.

4.9.3.2 Levees One major levee system is located within the East Branch DuPage River watershed. The levee system is located along the East Branch DuPage River in Lisle. A levee is situated along the west bank of the East Branch DuPage River from just south of the I-88 Tollway ponds to the Burlington Northern Railroad. The levee on the east bank of the river is located from just south of the I-88 Tollway ponds to Maple Avenue. The levee system was built by the State Division of Waterways in the 1960s to protect the area from flooding. At that time, the levee was designed to give a 50-year level of protection but over time the levee has settled and eroded in several locations reducing the level of protection. In addition, development within the watershed had contributed to increase flow rates along the river, further reducing the level of protection.

57 

4. Watershed Characteristics Assessment

4.9.3.3 Major Bridges and Culverts Bridges and culverts are structures that allow water to flow under a road, railroad, trail, or similar obstructions. Culverts are typically made of concrete, galvanized steel, aluminum, or plastic, typically high density polyethylene and may be used to form a bridge-like structure to carry traffic. When culverts do not provide sufficient space for high flows, ponding or flooding on the upstream side can result, and scouring can result downstream as outflows are concentrated by the associated outlet. Re-sizing culverts, or replacing culverts with bridges or other structures with larger spans that allow high flows to pass, is an important watershed restoration and protection strategy. Table 4-16 will identify the major bridges and culverts in the East Branch DuPage River watershed. As additional work is needed to identify major bridges and culverts, it is the recommendation of this Plan that stakeholders provide input for this table.

Table 4-16 Major Culverts in the East Branch watershed

Identification Location Size Description/Comments Number East Branch DuPage River

St. Joseph Creek Downtown Downers Grove 11-ft

4.9.4. Stormwater Management Facilities As DuPage County transitioned from agricultural uses to residential, industrial, commercial, and transportation land uses, the stormwater management structures and systems evolved from reliance on natural streams and ditches to an engineered system of storm drains. The goal of storm drain engineering until very recently was to remove stormwater runoff from the developed areas to streams as quickly as possible. This resulted in rapidly changing or “flashy” hydrology, where the water level in streams rises quickly during storm events and then falls quickly once the storm passes. Without detaining or managing stormwater from developed areas, hydromodification – described in Section 4.9.2.1 above – rapidly occurs, leading to stream channel degradation such as down cutting and channel widening, as well as, flooding.

Over time, stormwater management and engineering shifted from a philosophy of rapid conveyance of water to streams, to the benefit of temporarily detaining stormwater runoff in detention basins, regional compensatory storage basins, or other stormwater management facilities, to the more recently developed “green infrastructure” or “Low Impact Development” approach that manages stormwater as close to its source as possible, using techniques that mimic the natural hydrologic processes of infiltration, evaporation or evapotranspiration by plants.

58 

4. Watershed Characteristics Assessment

Throughout DuPage County and the East Branch watershed, there are flood control and detention structures constructed over time that have become an essential part of the watershed’s function and hydrology. The major types of structures and their implications are described below.

4.9.4.1 Detention Basins Detention basins or detention ponds are stormwater management facilities that are constructed on or adjacent to rivers, streams, or lakes that are designed to temporarily detain runoff in order to protect against flooding and protect downstream channels from hydromodification. Detention facilities that are constructed on a river or stream are commonly referred to as “on- line” basins. On-line basins are not recommended and are prohibited under a variety of stormwater regulations.

Detention basins that are not on-line are typically constructed in low areas relative to development and either discharge directly to a surface water or discharge to surface water through a storm sewer network. Detention basins are often designed to be dry, where no water is stored permanently, or wet, where a permanent pool of water is maintained. Dry detention basins typically hold water for short periods of time following rain events. They are commonly lined with manicured turf grass. While dry detention basins may slow water from reaching creeks and rivers, their short residence time does not promote groundwater infiltration, allow settling and removal of pollutants, or provide significant water quality benefits.

Wet basins are designed to retain some volume of water at all times. The amount of water is determined by the elevation of the outlet pipe of the basin. The side slopes of wet basins can be planted with both turf grass or native grasses. Wet detention basins planted with native vegetation are commonly referred to as “naturalized” detention basins, and have an emergent zone planted with native plants, flowers, and shrubs. In addition to providing stormwater management, naturalized detention basins can promote groundwater infiltration and maximize the water quality benefits and wildlife habitat.

Retention basins can also be used for stormwater management. The difference between a retention basin and a detention basin is that a retention basin is designed to hold water on a more permanent basis. Water often remains indefinitely in a retention basin until it evaporates or infiltrates into the soil.

A detailed detention and/or retention basin inventory was not conducted as part of this watershed-based planning process. However, several local municipalities within the watershed have conducted detention basin inventories. Additionally, as DuPage County has had the DCCSFPO in place since the 1991, it is assumed that all development constructed since that time has met the respective stormwater management requirements that include provisions for detention and/or retention.

4.9.4.2 Compensatory Storage Facilities Under the DCCSFPO and state regulations, any fill placed within an active defined floodplain requires some measure of compensatory flood storage to offset the volume lost. Floodplains

59 

4. Watershed Characteristics Assessment

provide the functions of flood storage, natural habitat, and water quality. Placement of fill impairs these functions and should be avoided. Impacts of fill in the floodplain are particularly important in smaller watersheds which respond more quickly to changes in topography. In cases when placement of fill is necessary, compensatory storage can mitigate some of the negative impacts of floodplain fill. The developer is required to offset new fill put in the floodplain by excavating an additional floodable section of the floodplain to replace the lost storage volume. The difference between compensatory storage and a detention or retention basin is that the purpose of compensatory storage is to provide flood volume storage to replace storage lost due to fill placed in the flood plain and the purpose of a retention or detention basin is to reduce the peak rate of runoff to a stream or storm sewer. Usually referred to as comp- storage areas, there are five compensatory flood storage facilities located within the East Branch DuPage River watershed. The facilities and their storage basins are detailed in Table 4-17.

Table 4-17 Open Water Areas of the Compensatory Storage Facilities within the East Branch Watershed

Facility Location Approximate Area of Open Water (acres) Roosevelt and I-355 West of 355, near intersection of 355 and Roosevelt 37.2 Hidden Lake reservoir Southeast of intersection of IL Rt. 53 and IL Rt. 56 18.7 Corps East South of 88, just east of the East Branch DuPage 3.9 River Corps West South of 88, just west of the East Branch DuPage 3.7 River Four Lake South of Maple Ave, west of IL Rt. 53 and River 40 Bend Golf Club Seven Bridges North of Hobson Road and west of IL Rt. 53 28 Prairie Walk Pond South of Ogden Ave, east of IL Rt. 53, west of Main 1.8 St

4.10. Floodplains Floodplains are generically defined as low flat areas along streams and rivers that frequently flood when stream flows are high. In the DCCSFPO, a floodplain is defined as the area typically adjacent to and including a body of water where ground surface elevations are at or below a specified flood elevation.

To address flooding and control water quality, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requires municipalities to perform floodplain mapping and develop management plans to receive federal flood insurance. This information is also relevant to water quality protection and restoration activities because floodplains, when inundated, serve many functions and provide important habitats for a variety of fish and wildlife. Floodplains are important for spawning and rearing areas. Floodplain wetlands act as nutrient and sediment sinks, which can improve water quality in streams. They also provide storage that can decrease the magnitude of floods downstream, which can benefit fish and landowners in riparian areas. In addition, streams that are actively connected to their floodplains are less prone to severe down cutting and erosion.

60 

4. Watershed Characteristics Assessment

Generally speaking, many stakeholders have heard the phrase “100-year flood” related to rain events and subsequent flooding. This nomenclature was popularized in the 1970s when the National Flood Insurance Program was setting the standards for the mapping of flood hazard areas and for regulations regarding development standards. This standard frequency of flooding was selected as a compromise of what the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers used for design purposes and what most communities used for their stormwater infrastructure systems. The “100-year flood” is actually a statistical frequency description. The more accurate definition is the 1% Chance of Occurrence flood event meaning that there is a one-percent chance that this flood could occur in any given year. The reason for the “100-year flood” nomenclature is that a flood event that has this 1% chance of occurring in a year would occur statistically once every 100 years. Floodplain mapping is important to assign a risk to areas to determine the potential frequency of flooding. Floodplain maps will show the potential risk associated with the 1% chance of occurrence flood event. More information and discussion can be found in FEMA’s handout entitled “The 100 Year Flood Myth.”

DuPage County became heavily developed during the 1960’s and 1970’s due to a rapid growth of the area. As a result of this new development, many natural stormwater drainage systems in DuPage County are no longer adequate to handle the increased surface runoff. In addition, many developments built in or adjacent to floodplain or other flood prone areas that have had increased risk due to substantial development prior to stormwater and floodplain regulations. This lack of natural stormwater storage combined with ineffective stormwater practices resulted in large areas of commercial and residential development within flood hazard areas. Flooding occurred frequently during the 1970’s and 1980’s, which caused damage to many residential and commercial buildings. A damaging flood occurred in August 1987, causing more than $200 million in damages in DuPage County.

After experiencing the damaging effects of flooding from the August 1987 flood event, DuPage County began to take measures to protect against future flooding. In 1989 the County began construction of over $100 million in flood control projects, the strict enforcement of a comprehensive stormwater and floodplain ordinance, and the development of updated regulatory floodplain maps throughout the County. These principal improvements were managed by what is now DuPage County Stormwater Management. DuPage County Stormwater Management has managed the planning, design, and construction of many major flood control facilities since 1989 and one of its main purposes is to develop a watershed plan for each stream in DuPage County. Furthermore, it is responsible for implementing the countywide stormwater ordinance. Additional discussion is found in Section 6.3.1.

Current FEMA FIRM floodplains are shown in Exhibit 13.

In addition, some areas of low lying elevations can be considered depressional areas which can become inundated with stormwater runoff during flood events. FEMA FIRMs occasionally have these areas shown depending on the detail of the Flood Insurance Study. In addition, the County and some municipalities also delineate these areas of inundation or poor drainage for regulatory purposes as well as analysis of improvement projects to reduce the risk of flood damages. 61 

4. Watershed Characteristics Assessment

4.11. Water Quality Water quality in the East Branch is affected by the discharge of pollutants from both point and non-point sources into the River. Storm drain and wastewater treatment plant outfalls are found throughout the watershed. During storms, pollutants on the landscape are washed from the ground and impervious surfaces into storm sewers and roadside drainage ditches, and ultimately into the East Branch DuPage River stream system. Physical changes in the watershed, such as hydromodification, channelization and the loss of riparian vegetation and wetlands, also affect water quality and aquatic habitat.

The causes and sources of water quality problems in the Point sources of pollution are East Branch result principally from urbanization, rather discharges from a single, than agricultural runoff (which affects many other Illinois discrete source, such as a storm watersheds). Pollutant sources and loads in the watershed drain or wastewater pipe are the result of many years of modification of the discharging into a river. watershed landscape as it changed from natural to agricultural to urban, which have led to modification of Non-point sources are the stream channel, encroachments in the floodplain, and diffuse; non-point pollution the loss of wetlands. Other changes are the result of the occurs primarily through over- increased watershed impervious cover that has led to an land runoff from yards, rooftops, increase in the volume and rate of runoff in the roads, parking lots, and farm watershed. The increased quantity of runoff has caused fields reaching rivers and other problems such as excessive stream bank erosion and the surface waters. deepening of the stream channel due to channel erosion. In addition to increasing surface runoff, impervious surfaces reduce the amount of rainwater that infiltrates into the ground to recharge groundwater sources.

The urban environment has also introduced increased amounts of various pollutants into the watershed. Examples include increased chlorides from deicing salts used on roadways and parking lots during winter storm events, pesticides used in manicured landscapes, and industrial chemicals that may be accidentally released into the environment. Other chemicals and pollutants are introduced from household products that cannot be removed by current wastewater treatment technologies. These all add up to impact the water quality of the East Branch DuPage River.

4.11.1. State of Illinois Water Quality Reporting Surface water quality monitoring is used by limnologists and scientists to evaluate the ecological health of a waterbody. The overall objective for water quality sampling is to assess the existing conditions of a stream, river or lake in an attempt to restore or maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the monitored surface water. The surface water assessments included in the 2014 Illinois Integrated Water Quality Report and Section 303(d) List, which IEPA submits to the US EPA bi-annually pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act, are based on data obtained through chemical, physical, and biological sampling of the State’s waterways. The Integrated Report has four primary parts:

62 

4. Watershed Characteristics Assessment

• A detailed description of the how the State assesses water quality, including the frequency of and parameters used in its monitoring program. • The designated uses established for each waterway, or those human uses and ecological functions that a waterway would be expected to provide, based on the waterway’s structure and setting. In Illinois, the “designated uses” for surface waters include aquatic life, indigenous aquatic life, fish consumption, primary contact, secondary contact, water supply and aesthetic quality. • A determination whether waterways do or do not meet the standards established for their designated uses – waterways not meeting the standards are designated as “fully supporting” or “not supporting” the use, and any water not supporting the use is considered “Impaired;” and • For any waterway designated as “impaired,” an identification of the types and sources of pollutants causing the impairment, and a priority ranking for the development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), or pollution budgets, by waterway or segment.

Priority for TMDLs in Illinois is based on the amount of information available to demonstrate that a designated use is not supported, and whether USEPA required that the assessed waters be placed into categories based on their attainment (Table 4-18). Category 5 waters – those for which available data indicate that designated use is not supported, a TMDL has not been prepared, the impairment is due to pollution, and controls on discharges are not likely to bring the water back into compliance – comprise the Illinois 303 (d) list.

Table 4-18 Categorization of 303(d) Listed Waters in Illinois

Category Sub- Description Category 1 All designated uses are assessed as fully supporting and no use is threatened (Note- Illinois does not assess any waters as threatened). 2 Available data and/or information indicate that some but not all designated uses are supported 3 Insufficient data and/or information to make a use support determine for any use 4 Waterbodies contain at least one impaired use but TMDL is not required. Category 4 is subdivided as listed below based on the reason a TMDL is not required. 4a TMDL has been approved or established by the USEPA. 4b Technology based effluent limitations required by the Clean Water Act, more stringent effluent limits required by the state, local, or federal authority, or other pollution control requirements required by state, local or federal authority are stringent enough to implement applicable water quality standards within a reasonable period of time 4c Failure to meet the applicable water quality standards is not caused but a pollutant but other types of pollution (such as aquatic life impairment due to habitat degradation) 5 Available data and/or information indicate that at least one designated use is impaired and a TMDL is required.

4.11.1.1 Impairments in the East Branch Watershed The 2014 Integrated Water Quality Report and Section 303(d) list, two streams located in the East Branch watershed are listed as impaired for one or more designated uses: The East Branch mainstem, and St. Joseph’s Creek. It should be noted that at the time of this report, these were 63 

4. Watershed Characteristics Assessment

the only two water bodies in the East Branch DuPage River watershed that are assessed by the state. The DRSCW has performed surveys using IEPA methodology and has noted that all stream segments listed in this report are impaired for aquatic life. Details on the 2014 303(d) listing are provided in Table 4-19.

Table 4-19 2014 303(d) Listings in the East Branch Watershed

Stream Assessment Length Designated Use Cause of Impairment Priority Name ID of Reach St Joseph IL_GBLB-01 4.29 Aquatic Life Dissolved Oxygen, Oil and Low Creek Grease, Total Suspended Solids (TSS) East Branch IL_GBL-02 8.01 Aquatic Life Arsenic, Dissolved Oxygen, Low DuPage Methoxychlor, Phosphorus River (Total) Fish Consumption Polychlorinated biphenyl Low (PCBs) IL_GBL-05 3.18 Aquatic Life Phosphorus (Total), Total Low Suspended Solids (TSS) Fish Consumption PCBs Low IL_GBL-08 4.69 Aquatic Life Arsenic, Dieldrin, Low Hexachlorobenzene, Methoxychlor, pH, Phosphorus (Total), Sedimentation/Siltation, Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Fish Consumption PCBs Low IL_GBL-10 4.66 Aquatic Life Arsenic, Dieldrin, Low Hexachlorobenzene, Methoxychlor, pH, Phosphorus (Total) Fish Consumption PCBs Low Primary Fecal Coliform Low Recreation IL_GBL-11 3.45 Aquatic Life Dissolved Oxygen, Low Phosphorus (Total) Fish Consumption PCBs Low

4.11.1.2 TMDLs in the East Branch Watershed Between 1992 and 1998, both Salt Creek and the East Branch DuPage River were listed on the Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waters by the State of Illinois. Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for Salt Creek, the East Branch and St. Joseph’s Creek were prepared by the State and approved by USEPA in October 2004 (Table 4-20). Additional TMDLs are being prepared for the East Branch DuPage River for Assessment IDs IL_GBL-08 and IL_GBL-10 (Table 4-21).

Table 4-20 Approved TMDLs in the East Branch watershed

Stream Name Assessment ID Impairment TMDL Status TMDL Approval Addressed Date St. Joseph Creek IL_GBLB-01 Dissolved Oxygen Approved September 24, 64 

4. Watershed Characteristics Assessment

Stream Name Assessment ID Impairment TMDL Status TMDL Approval Addressed Date 2004 East Branch IL_GBL-05 Ammonia-N Approved September 24, DuPage River 2004 Carbonaceous Approved September 24, Oxygen Demand 2004 (CBOD) IL_GBL-08 Ammonia-N Approved September 24, 2004 CBOD Approved September 24, 2004 Excessive Algae Approved September 24, 2004 Dissolved Oxygen Approved September 24, 2004 IL_GBL-10 Ammonia-N Approved September 24, 2004 CBOD Approved September 24, 2004 Excessive Algae Approved September 24, 2004 Total dissolved Approved September 24, solids 2004 Chloride Approved September 24, 2004 Dissolved Oxygen Approved September 24, 2004 IL_GBL-05 Chloride Approved September 24, 2004 Total dissolved Approved September 24, solids 2004 Dissolved Oxygen Approved September 24, 2004

Table 4-21 TMDLs Under Development in the East Branch watershed

Stream Name Assessment Impairment TMDL Status ID Addressed East Branch DuPage IL_GBL-08 pH Phosphorus (Total), River Sedimentation/Siltation, Total Suspended Solids East Branch DuPage IL_GBL-10 Fecal Coliform, Phosphorus (Total) River pH

4.11.1.3 TMDL Implementation Requirements and Steps Each TMDL for the East Branch watershed was intended to provide a roadmap to reducing pollutant levels enough to achieve full compliance with Illinois water quality standards, and by extension to support the designated uses for each waterway. The chloride TMDL, for example, originally called for a 33 percent reduction in overall chloride application within the East Branch watershed in order for the water quality standard for chloride (500 mg/L) to be met. The 33% 65 

4. Watershed Characteristics Assessment

reduction has since been amended as that figure was calculated using inaccurate application rates. The DuPage River/Salt Creek Workgroup (DRSCW) has formed a Chloride Committee and the Chloride Usage Education and Reduction Program to develop and promote alternatives to conventional roadway deicing practices and guide the implementation of the alternatives. See Section 4.11.3.4 and 9.3 for more information on the DRSCW’s Chloride Committee and the Chloride Usage Education and Reduction Program

Three allocation scenarios were developed for the dissolved oxygen (DO) TMDL. In the first scenario, point sources (chiefly wastewater treatment plants) would have to reduce their permitted load of CBOD5 (Carbonaceous biological oxygen demand 5 day test) and ammonia nitrogen. The scenario was intended to achieve CBOD5 limits of 8 mg/L and ammonia limits of 1 mg/L. However, since the issuance of the TMDL, the IEPA issued an addendum to the TMDL and confirmed that the initial NH3 and CBOD5 recommendations were higher than the loadings in place when the model was calculated. A such, the initial recommendation were deemed inaccurate and the IEPA agreed to allow the point sources to use adaptive management techniques in place of a reduction in permitted loads. In the second allocation scenario, point sources would remain at existing monthly average permit limits, but either the Churchill Woods dam was to be removed, or the water behind the dam artificially aerated in order to achieve the water quality target. Through efforts of the working group, DuPage County, and other collaborating agencies, the Churchill Woods dam was removed in February 2011. However, the river is still somewhat impounded at the site with the new impoundment elevation set by three box culverts under Crescent Boulevard. Additional studies are on-going to determine the impacts the dam removal has had on DO levels within the East Branch DuPage River.

4.11.2. IEPA Permit Programs The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) Bureau of Water regulates point-source discharges of water and wastes into the State’s surface waters through its implementation of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. This program was initiated under the Clean Water Act to reduce (and ultimately eliminate) the discharge of pollutants to surface waters. The NPDES program requires permits to be issued for the discharge of wastewater treatment plant effluent, treated industrial effluent, and stormwater from both municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) and construction sites. The NPDES program is an important means that the State of Illinois has for implementing the goals and recommended actions in a watershed plan: Requirements or provisions in NPDES permits can compel actions that actively reduce pollutant loading and hydromodification, such as the construction of BMPs to treat wastewater and stormwater discharges, the effective maintenance of municipal systems and construction sites, and public education aimed at reducing non-point source pollutants.

4.11.2.1 NPDES Point Source Discharges for Wastewater, Combined Sewer Overflow and Industrial Effluent The point sources of effluent within the East Branch watershed, which are more easily identified and defined than non-point sources, are eight major wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) in

66 

4. Watershed Characteristics Assessment the watershed, the combined storm and sanitary sewer system in portions of the Village of Lombard, and three permitted discharges of treated industrial wastewater.

Lombard’s combined sewer system discharges a combination of stormwater and untreated wastewater known as a Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) during heavy rain events when the WWTP cannot fully treat all of the influent reaching the plant. CSO reduction, a goal of this Plan, can be accomplished over time through the addition of stormwater storage, separation of storm and sanitary sewers, and construction of stormwater treatment BMPs that prevent stormwater from reaching the storm sewer system, such as permeable surfacing, green streets, or infiltration basins.

There are eight permitted WWTPs in the watershed discharging an average total of 52.77 million gallons per day (MGD) of treated wastewater into the East Branch itself (Table 4-22). Three industrial users, also listed in the table, likewise contribute discharges into the East Branch. Each WWTP must meet the treatment and pollutant load reduction requirements of its NPDES permit, which must be re-issued every five years and which may be modified to require more reductions through application of new technology or different operational practices. Wastewater treatment plants are, in fact, an important source of the base flow in the East Branch. None of the eleven permitted discharges are prone to exceeding their permitted limits. During the summer-fall period (July through October), the volume of effluent exceeds the typical base flow in the river, making the East Branch an “effluent dominated” stream system during this period. The WWTP discharges and industrial discharges into the East Branch are quantified in Table 4-22 and shown in Exhibit 14.

Table 4-22 Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTPs) and NPDES Industrial Discharges in the East Branch watershed

NPDES Facility Name Average Maximum Receiving Permit Flow Design Flow Stream Number (MGD) (MGD) Municipal WWTPs IL0021130 Bloomingdale – Reeves 3.45 8.625 East Branch IL0028967 Glendale Heights 5.26 10.52 Armitage Ditch IL0022741 Glenbard WW Authority – Lombard 58.0 East Branch IL0021547 Glenbard WW Authority-Glenbard 16.02 47.0 East Branch IL0028380 Downers Grove SD 11 22.0 East Branch IL0031844 DuPage Co. – Woodridge 12 28.6 East Branch IL0032689 Bolingbrook #1 2.04 4.51 East Branch IL0032735 Bolingbrook #2 3.0 7.5 East Branch Industrial Discharges IL0053155 Elmhurst Chicago Stone-Barber (Pit pumpage and stormwater) IL0065021 Blackhawk Molding Company (non-contact cooling water) IL0075426 Pepperidge Farm, Downers Grove (non-contact cooling water and cooling tower spillage)

67 

4. Watershed Characteristics Assessment

4.11.2.2 NPDES Stormwater Regulations Stormwater runoff is a major source of point (MS4) and non-point source pollution loads in the East Branch watershed. Stormwater runoff includes rainwater and snow melt that flows off the land into storm sewers or directly into lakes, rivers, or streams. Stormwater runoff can carry a wide range of pollutants including sediment, nutrients, metals, chlorides, and petroleum. Additionally, as the runoff flows over land, it can lead to increased erosion of exposed soils, especially on construction sites.

The State’s implementation of stormwater regulations through the NPDES program began in the 1990s with the Phase I program, which required cities with populations over 100,000 to obtain a NPDES permit for their municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s). Phase I also required NPDES permits for certain industrial uses, and for construction sites disturbing 5 acres or more of land. The NPDES Phase II program, initiated in 2003, included additional smaller communities in the MS4 permit program, and decreased the threshold for a construction site permit to one acre or more of land disturbing activity.

All of the municipal jurisdictions in the East Branch watershed are now covered under the MS4 permit. The MS4 communities are required to complete a series of Best Management Practices (BMPs) and measurable goals for the six “minimum measures” of the permit program:

1. Public education and outreach on stormwater impacts; 2. Public involvement in water quality and watershed health; 3. Illicit discharge detection and elimination; 4. Construction site stormwater runoff control; 5. Post-construction stormwater runoff control in new developments exceeding minimum thresholds; and 6. Pollution prevention and “good housekeeping” for municipal operations.

In addition to the six control measures, the MS4s must also submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) and an annual report of activities related to the permit to the Illinois EPA.

4.11.2.3 NPDES Construction Permits NPDES Phase II stormwater regulations also address potential erosion from construction including commercial, residential, road building, and demolition sites in the state that disturb more than one acre of land. Each County and the municipalities in the East Branch watershed have in place soil erosion and sediment control ordinances that are aimed at reducing the potential for sediment from construction activities from negatively impacting the East Branch DuPage River watershed.

Land disturbance is defined as exposing soil during clearing, grading, or excavation. The regulations specifically require the operator (person with operational control of the day to day construction activities) of the property to ensure compliance with the permit conditions outlined in the Illinois Construction Site General Permit (ILR10). These requirements include submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI) to begin construction, create a Stormwater Pollution Prevent Plan (SWPPP) to control erosion during construction, and submit a Notice of

68 

4. Watershed Characteristics Assessment

Termination (NOT) when the site is permanently stabilized. The regulations also require that the construction site be inspected every 7 days and after every 0.5-inch or greater rainfall event or equivalent snowfall by a qualified inspector. During the weekly inspection, existing soil erosion and sediment control (SESC) practices are inspected for needed repairs. Additionally, the inspections are used to identify additional potential sources of erosion and sedimentation and make recommendations for additional SESC control practices. If construction activities result in an off-site discharge of sediment bearing waters, the operator is required to submit an Incident of Non-compliance (ION) to the Illinois EPA and provide a plan to prevent further releases of sediment.

4.11.3. Water Quality Monitoring Stations, Results and Trends Typically, chemical and physical water quality monitoring includes the collection of water quality samples that are analyzed for the following parameters:

• Temperature • pH • Dissolved oxygen (DO) • Conductivity • Total suspended solids (TSS) • Total dissolved solids (TDS) • Metals including cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, manganese, mercury, silver, and zinc • Nitrogen including nitrite, nitrate, total nitrogen, and total kjehldahl nitrogen (TKN), ammonia-N • Phosphorus including dissolved phosphorus and total phosphorus • Bacteria • Chlorides

Temperature

Water temperatures fluctuated with daily air temperatures as well as with seasonal changes, i.e., water temperatures are higher in summer and cooler in spring and fall. Maximum water temperatures over 20°C may preclude most fish from using these streams for habitat. pH

Normal pH (a measure of hydrogen ions in the water) values in streams should range from 6.5 to 8.5, good conditions for aquatic life.

Dissolved Oxygen

Algae and aquatic plants in the creek elevate dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations during the day (due to photosynthesis) and lower DO concentrations at night (due to respiration). Low DO conditions typically exist in mid to late summer when air and water temperatures are high and water levels are low. DO concentrations below 5.0 mg/L can stress many fish species, and

69 

4. Watershed Characteristics Assessment

concentrations below 1.0 mg/L (hypoxic conditions) can be detrimental to aquatic life. The Illinois water quality standard for DO is detailed in the Table 4-23

Table 4-23 Illinois DO Water Quality Standard

Measurement Interval Water Quality Standard August-February March-July At any time 3.5 mg/L 5.0 mg/L 7 day average 4.5 mg/L Daily Min Average 6.0 mg/L Daily Min Average 30 day average 5.5 mg/L Daily Mean N/A

Conductivity

Specific conductivity indirectly measures the concentration of chemical ions or dissolved salts in the water, and may be an indicator of salt as a pollutant. The more chemical ions or dissolved salts a body of water contains, the higher the conductivity will be. Conductivity levels of 200- 1,000 µS/cm are indicative of normal background levels. Conductivity outside of this range may not be suitable for certain species of fish or bugs. High conductivity (1000 to 10,000 µS/cm) is an indicator of saline conditions. High chloride concentrations following salt applications for snow melting in winter can lead to high conductivity readings, as can the leaching of effluent from a sanitary sewer line into a stream. Low water levels tend to increase concentrations of ions in the water column, while rain events tended to temporarily flush ions out of the stream system.

Total Suspended Solids (TSS)

Total suspended solids (TSS) include all particles suspended in water which will not pass through a filter. Suspended solids are present in effluent from wastewater treatment plants and many types of industrial wastewater. There are also nonpoint sources of suspended solids, such as soil erosion from agriculture, eroding banks, re-suspended bed sediment, and construction sites.

As levels of TSS increase, a water body begins to lose its ability to support a diversity of aquatic life. ). Suspended materials include soil particles (clay, silt, and sand), algae, plankton, microbes, and other substances. Suspended solids absorb heat from sunlight, which increases water temperature and subsequently decreases levels of dissolved oxygen (warmer water holds less oxygen than cooler water). Photosynthesis also decreases, since less light penetrates the water. As less oxygen is produced by plants and algae, there is a further drop in dissolved oxygen levels.

TSS can also destroy fish habitat because suspended solids settle to the bottom and can eventually blanket the river bed. Suspended solids can smother the eggs of fish and aquatic insects, and can suffocate newly-hatched insect larvae. Suspended solids can also harm fish directly by clogging gills, reducing growth rates, and lowering resistance to disease. Changes to the aquatic environment may result in a diminished food sources, and increased difficulties in finding food. Natural movements and migrations of aquatic populations may be disrupted. 70 

4. Watershed Characteristics Assessment

Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)

Total dissolved solids (TDS) refers to the total amount of all inorganic and organic substances that are dispersed or dissolved in water. These substances include minerals, salts, metals, cations or anions. By definition, the solids must be small enough to be filtered through a sieve measuring 2 micrometers to be considered “dissolved”. Sources for TDS include agricultural run-off, urban run-off, industrial wastewater, waste water effluent, and natural sources such as leaves, silt, and rocks.

Metals

Toxic metals are natural components of the earth's crust found throughout the ecosphere in at least small (or "background") concentrations. The most common toxic metals to aquatic organisms include copper (Cu), iron (Fe), cadmium (Cd), zinc (Zn), mercury (Hg), and lead (Pb). Background concentrations of toxic metals are harmless to living organisms. Human activities, however, can cause concentrations of toxic metals to reach levels that pose hazards to living organisms. Some of these activities include burning of fossil fuels, metal refining, agriculture, mining operations, and wastewater discharge. For most of the toxic metals, the quantities of these substances mobilized by humans far outweigh the amounts that would naturally cycle through air, soil, and water of the earth.

Nitrogen

Nitrogen can be found in several different forms in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. These forms of nitrogen include ammonia (NH3), nitrates (NO3), nitrites (NO2), and total kjehldahl nitrogen (TKN). TKN is the total concentration of organic nitrogen and ammonia. Nitrogen is an essential plant nutrient, but in excess amounts it can cause significant water quality problems. Together with phosphorus, nitrogen in excess amounts can accelerate eutrophication, causing dramatic increases in aquatic plant growth (for example algae blooms) and changes in the types of plants and animals that live in stream and lakes. The increase in aquatic plant growth, in turn, affects dissolved oxygen (DO), temperature, and other indicators. Excess ammonia (NH3), nitrates (NO3), and nitrites (NO2) can cause hypoxia (low levels of dissolved oxygen) and can become toxic to warm-blooded animals at high concentrations under certain conditions. Nitrate levels above 10 mg/L are above drinking water guidelines. The natural level of ammonia or nitrate in surface water is typically low (less than 1 mg/L).

Sources of nitrates include wastewater treatment plants, runoff from fertilized lawns and cropland, failing on-site septic systems, runoff from animal manure storage areas, and industrial discharges that contain corrosion inhibitors.

Phosphate

Similar to nitrogen, phosphorus is an essential nutrient for the plants and animals that make up the aquatic food web. Since phosphorus is the nutrient in short supply (limiting nutrient) in

71 

4. Watershed Characteristics Assessment

most fresh waters, even a modest increase in phosphorus can, under the right conditions, set off a whole chain of undesirable events in a stream including accelerated plant growth, algae blooms, low dissolved oxygen, and the death of certain fish, invertebrates, and other aquatic animals.

Pure, "elemental" phosphorus (P) is rarely found in nature. Typically, phosphorus exists as part of a phosphate molecule (PO4). Phosphorus in aquatic systems occurs as organic phosphate and inorganic phosphate. Organic phosphate consists of a phosphate molecule associated with a carbon-based molecule, as in plant or animal tissue. Phosphate that is not associated with organic material is inorganic. Inorganic phosphorus is the form required by plants. Animals can use either organic or inorganic phosphate. Both organic and inorganic phosphorus can either be dissolved in the water or suspended (attached to particles in the water column).

There are many sources of phosphorus, both natural and human. These include soil and rocks, wastewater treatment plants, runoff from fertilized lawns and cropland, failing septic systems, runoff from animal manure storage areas, disturbed land areas, drained wetlands, water treatment, and commercial cleaning preparations.

Bacteria

Members of two bacteria groups, coliforms and fecal streptococci, are used as indicators of possible sewage contamination in surface water because they are commonly found in human and animal feces. Although they are generally not harmful themselves, they indicate the possible presence of pathogenic (disease-causing) bacteria, viruses, and protozoans that also live in human and animal digestive systems. Therefore, their presence in streams suggests that pathogenic microorganisms might also be present and that swimming and eating shellfish might be a health risk. Since it is difficult, time-consuming, and expensive to test directly for the presence of a large variety of pathogens, water is usually tested for coliforms and fecal streptococci instead. Sources of fecal contamination to surface waters include wastewater treatment plants, on-site septic systems, domestic and wild animal manure, and storm runoff.

Chlorides

Chloride salts are essential for aquatic health. However, when high levels of chloride contaminate fresh water streams and lakes, it becomes toxic to fish and other aquatic life forms. Water conductivity has a strong correlation with dissolved ions such as chloride and is used as a proxy. Chlorides may enter surface water from rocks, agricultural runoff, industrial wastewater, wastewater treatment plant effluents and, most significantly, wintertime road salts. Road salt is almost entirely sodium chloride, which is composed of 39.3% sodium and 60.7% chloride, by mass. The Illinois water quality standard for chloride is 500 mg/L.

A significant amount of water quality data has been collected in the East Branch DuPage River by numerous stakeholders including the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA), the DuPage River Salt Creek Workgroup (DRSCW), and the Sierra Club. Locations are shown in Exhibit 15.

72 

4. Watershed Characteristics Assessment

4.11.3.1 Data Collected by the IEPA Illinois EPA, with contractual assistance provided by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and Illinois State Water Survey (ISWS), operates an Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Network (AWQMN) consisting of 146 fixed stations to support surface water chemistry data needs. Integrated water column samples are collected on a six week sampling frequency and analyzed for a minimum of 55 universal parameters including field pH, temperature, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, suspended solids, nutrients, fecal coliform bacteria, and total and dissolved heavy metals. Additional parameters specific for the station, watershed, and/or subnetwork within the ambient network are also analyzed. Where stream flow is available from the USGS water quality data are analyzed for flow-adjusted water quality trends. There is 1 AWQMN station within the East Branch DuPage River watershed (Table 4-24)

Table 4-24 AWQMN Monitoring Stations in the East Branch DuPage River Watershed

IEPA Station USGS Station Location Code Number GBL-10 05540210 East Branch DuPage River at Illinois State Route 34 at Lisle, Illinois

In addition to the AWQMN sampling, the IEPA also conducts basin-specific surveys to characterize the chemical, physical and biological conditions of Illinois’ streams. Each year, two or three of the thirty-three major watersheds in Illinois are sampled by the IEPA. Under this cooperative agreement with Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR), more than 100 stations are monitored annually for biological, chemical and physical indicators of water resource quality. This schedule allows each of the State’s major watersheds to be sampled on a five-year rotational basis. Intensive basin survey monitoring stations are routinely located at Illinois EPA Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Network stations and IDNR fish monitoring locations.

As part of the basin-specific surveys, water and sediment chemistry, physical habitat, biological (macroinvertebrate and fish) assemblages, and fish tissue samples are collected to assess stream quality. One round of biological and habitat sampling is conducted at each station, typically during summer low flow conditions. Three water samples are collected at each survey station; one prior to biological sampling, one on the day of biological sample collection and one post- biological sampling in late summer/early fall. Instream surficial sediment is also collected at each station to screen for toxic substances. Fish tissue samples are taken from fish assemblage collections (typically those stations known to support sport fishing) to screen for toxic substances. In order to minimize sample variability and enhance data comparability across time, all samples are collected within a June to mid-October time period.

The most recent basin-specific survey of the East Branch DuPage River watershed was conducted in 2013.

73 

4. Watershed Characteristics Assessment

4.11.3.2 Water Quality Data Collected by the DRSCW The objectives of DRSCW’s monitoring in the watersheds are multi-faceted and include the following:

• Characterize water quality conditions and trends throughout the watershed; • Support the development of segment specific water quality standards and in-stream targets and projects ; • Provide technical information to help guide implementation efforts; and • Document the effectiveness of water quality management strategies.

Since 2006, the DRSCW has conducted numerous surveys in the East Branch DuPage River watershed including DO monitoring, bioassessments, and sediment oxygen demand (SOD) monitoring. Developing and implementing a monitoring program that produces credible data for decision making purposes involved various activities including establishing and documenting quality assurance procedures; training or hiring certified staff; purchasing and maintaining sampling equipment; collecting and managing samples; conducting quality assurance/quality control; and managing, analyzing, and reporting data. To date the DRSCW has prepared and Illinois EPA has approved Quality Assurance Project Plans for the continuous DO monitoring program and the bioassessment sampling program. Table 4-25 details the sampling conducted by the DRSCW.

Table 4-25 Water Quality Studies Conducted by the DRSCW

Parameter(s) Dates Description Report, Analysis & Data Surveyed Collected Water 2007, Demand, nutrients, Biological and Water Quality Study of the East and West Column 2011, organics & metals Branch DuPage Rivers and Salt Creek Watersheds Chemistry * 2014* collected at (Bioassessment report) (2007, 2011, 2014*). approximately 39 http://www.drscw.org/bioassessment.html. sites. http://www.drscw.org/data.html.

Dissolved 2008 Calibrated and DO Improvement Feasibility Study. Oxygen validated QUAL 2K East Branch DuPage River. (DO) DO model QUAL 2K Model. developed for East http://www.drscw.org/dissolvedoxygen/ebdofinal.pdf. Branch DuPage River. Prioritization analysis carried out by stakeholder group.

Dissolved 2006-2014 DO, pH, Excel spreadsheet and Bioassessment reports. Oxygen (June – conductivity and (continuous) August) water temperature collected hourly.

74 

4. Watershed Characteristics Assessment

Parameter(s) Dates Description Report, Analysis & Data Surveyed Collected Ammonia- 2012- 2013 Sample collection Ammonia Mass Balance on the Lower East Branch DuPage Nitrogen and flow duration River curve analysis for ammonia nitrogen on St. Prentiss Creek and lower East Branch main stem

Conductivity 2008 -2015 Conductivity Conductivity and Chloride Monitoring Summary 2007/2008. (proxy for (Dec.– collected at 2 Annual updates (winter 2013/14). Chloride) March) locations.

Sediment 2007, Organics and metals Biological and Water Quality Study of the East and West Chemistry 2011, 2014 collected at Branch DuPage Rivers and Salt Creek Watersheds (2007, 2011, approximately 16 2014). sites.

Fish Survey 2007, Fish shocking survey Biological and Water Quality Study of the East and West 2011, 2014 on main stem and Branch DuPage Rivers and Salt Creek Watersheds (2007, 2011, tributaries at 2014). approximately 37 sites (2 sweeps per sample year).

Macro 2007, Macroinvertebrate Biological and Water Quality Study of the East and West invertebrate 2011, 2014 sampling at Branch DuPage Rivers and Salt Creek Watersheds (2007, 2011, Survey approximately 37 2014). sites. Physical 2007, Qualitative Habitat Biological and Water Quality Study of the East and West Habitat 2011, 2014 Evaluation Index Branch DuPage Rivers and Salt Creek Watersheds (2007, 2011, Evaluation (QHEI). 2014).

SOD Survey 2006 Sediment Oxygen SOD Measurement Survey East Branch DuPage River & Salt (DO Demand (SOD) Creek (2007, 2011, 2014). Feasibility measured at 8 Study) locations.

Point Source 1995-2011 Evaluation of flow Biological and Water Quality Study of the East and West Evaluation and effluent quality Branch DuPage Rivers and Salt Creek Watersheds (2007, 2011, for 7 Publicly Owned 2014). Wastewater Treatment Plants. Chlorides 2007 (Bi- Review public roads Chloride Usage Education and Reduction Program Study annual loading and source http://www.drscw.org/chlorides/ChlorideRecomendations.Fi updates) reduction measures. nal_Report.pdf. Annual questionnaire to public agencies with winter roads management responsibilities tracks progress of BMP uptake.

75 

4. Watershed Characteristics Assessment

Parameter(s) Dates Description Report, Analysis & Data Surveyed Collected Aquatic Life 2012 Causal analysis of Priority rankings based on estimated restorability for stream Stressor proximate stressors segments in the DuPage River and Salt Creek Watersheds. Analysis and to aquatic life and Segment application of Prioritization prioritization algorithm to main stem and tributaries.

Canoe Survey 2006 100 geo-referenced Geo-database file. of Channel images of the East Form Branch DuPage River. Aerial Survey 2007 30 minute flyovers Geo-referenced DVD of East Branch DuPage River. of Channel USGS DVDs with geo- Form aerial referenced readout. flyover videos

* 2014 report is under development

Dissolved Oxygen Monitoring

The DRSCW launched the continuous dissolved oxygen (DO) monitoring network in 2006. Prior to that DO was monitored continuously at only one site in the Upper DuPage, at the City of Wheaton under the authority of Wheaton Sanitary District and four on Salt Creek under the authority of Metropolitan Waster Water Authority of Greater Chicago (MWRDGC). To date, five DO monitoring stations have been established on East Branch DuPage River.

Each of the 5 sites are equipped with a HydroLab DS 5X and collect continuous DO and hourly data on pH, conductivity and water temperature from April through to October (the seasonal period recognized as containing the lowest annual levels of stream DO).

As the 2004 TMDL reports prepared by the IEPA for the East Branch DuPage River addressed the impact that sediment oxygen demand can have on low DO levels. The DRSCW conducted a one-time sediment oxygen demand study that involved monitoring at 8 sites throughout the watershed. The data from this monitoring project was used to develop an updated water quality model and help the DRSCW to better understand the sources affecting DO levels.

The current DO data collection, data analysis, and modeling efforts focus primarily on dry weather conditions. Given that data have also revealed DO concerns in wet weather conditions, the DRSCW is considering initiating work focused on the impacts of wet weather events on DO levels in the watersheds.

Additional information and the results of the DO monitoring project can be found at: http://www.drscw.org/dissolvedoxygen.html.

76 

4. Watershed Characteristics Assessment

Bioassessment Program

In 2006 the Workgroup also initiated an extensive bioassessment program within the watershed. This component of the monitoring work will provide expanded information about water quality conditions across the watersheds from a spatial perspective. Through bioassessment sampling, the DRSCW established baseline information on fish, macroinvertebrates, and habitat, as well as water and sediment chemistry. To track trends, subsequent sampling will be conducted every three years.

Approximately 40 sites in the East Branch DuPage River watershed were sampled in 2006, 2011, and 2014. Water quality and sediment parameters analyzed include:

• Demand Parameters - 5 Day Biological Oxygen Demand(BOD), Chloride, Conductivity, Dissolved Oxygen (DO), pH , Temperature, Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) • Nutrients – Ammonia, Nitrogen/(Nitrate, Nitrite), Nitrogen – Total Kjeldahl (TKN), and Total Phosphorus (TP) • Metals – Cadmium, Calcium, Copper, Iron, Lead, Magnesium, and Zinc • Organics – Water - Polychlorinated bi-phenyls (PCBS), Pesticides, Semivolatile Organics (SVOCs), Volatile Organics (VOCs) • Sediment Metals – Arsenic, Barium, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Iron, Lead, Manganese, Nickel, Potassium, Silver, and Zinc • Sediment Organics - Organochlorine Pesticides, PCBS, PAHs, Percent Moisture, SVOCs, and VOCs

Additional information and results of the Bioassessment Program can be found at http://www.drscw.org/bioassessment.html.

Chlorides

The DRSCWP monitors chlorides both summer and winter throughout the watershed. During the winter, continuous conductivity monitoring is conducted at two sites and summer data is gathered at 35 sites using grab samples. Additionally 215 chloride samples are gathered throughout the watershed as part of the bioassessment program. A 2008 study in the plan area established a statistical correlation between chloride and conductivity, proving conductivity a cheap and reliable surrogate for chlorides (DRSCW 2008).

4.11.3.3 Water Quality Data Collected by the Sierra Club DuPage County’s local Sierra Club group, the River Prairie Group, conducts water tests on rivers throughout the county. Their River Monitoring Project, launched in January 2000, performs quarterly and monthly testing on a number of sites in the East Branch of the DuPage River watershed (Table 4-26). Most aspects of the tests are performed by local Sierra Club volunteers and collected river samples are routinely tested for four chemicals (phosphate, nitrate, ammonia, chloride), temperature, pH, and in some areas, dissolved oxygen, and mercury. The group summarizes the test results on their website (http://illinois.sierraclub.org/rpg/watermonitorproj.htm), to educate DuPage residents about 77 

4. Watershed Characteristics Assessment

the waterways in their backyards. Their test data is also valuable to researchers, educators, and policymakers, and have ongoing value, providing a baseline against which the rivers’ water quality can be analyzed in the future.

Table 4-26 Sierra Club Sampling Sites in the East Branch DuPage River watershed

Site Site Name Site Location Identification Number EB1 East Branch DuPage River - Churchill Woods Forest Preserve in Glen Ellyn. Sampling site Churchill Woods Forest Preserve was previously the shore of the river's south channel; in April 2006, it was moved to the bridge on the north channel EB2 East Branch DuPage River - Pedestrian bridge on north shoulder of Butterfield Road Butterfield Rd. approximately ¼ mile east of Route 53, in Downers Grove EB3 East Branch DuPage River - Sampling site was previously the shore near Ogden Avenue Burlington Ave. and Route 53; in April 2000, it was moved to the shore approximately fifty yards south of the BNSF bridge (intersection of Dumoulin and Burlington avenues). EB4 East Branch DuPage River - St. Shore of St. Joseph's Creek, approximately fifty yards south of Joseph's Creek Ogden Avenue in Lisle Source: http://illinois.sierraclub.org/rpg/watermonitorproj.htm

4.11.3.4 Summary of Water Quality Sampling Results and Trends Based on sampling conducted within the East Branch DuPage River watershed by the Midwest Biodiversity Institute for the DRSCW in accordance with IEPA criterion, biological assemblages sampled are rated poor to fair. No fish Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) values met the “good” IEPA criterion and “good” macroinvertebrate IBIs (mIBI) were limited to only three of 36 sites located within the lower 7.6 miles of the East Branch mainstem. Because of the low biological performance, none of the 40 sites sampled within the watershed fully supported Illinois EPA aquatic life goals.

This section provides a brief summary of the water quality sampling results and trends observed in the East Branch DuPage River watershed. A comprehensive discussion of the sampling methods, results, and trends is available in the reports provided by the DRSCW and the Sierra Club on their websites as referenced in Sections 4.11.3.2 and 4.11.3.3.

Chemical Water Quality

As previously discussed, the East Branch DuPage River mainstem flows are waste water effluent dominated during late summer-early fall months. As such, summer chemical water quality is highly influenced by the concentration and composition of chemical constituents in effluents, as well as urban runoff in the highly developed watershed.

Sampling conducted in 2011 during low flow periods indicate that treated effluent quality, with respect to regulated parameters (i.e., cBOD5, TSS, NH3-N), did not result in exceedances of Illinois water quality criteria. Although, no ammonia exceedances were detected in grab samples, Nitrate-N values and total kjehldahl nitrogen (TKN) levels observed were considered high compared to unpolluted streams. Concentrations of total phosphorus (TP) were also 78 

4. Watershed Characteristics Assessment elevated relative to unpolluted streams, and significantly higher than had been observed in 2007. As there are no established water quality criteria for aquatic life for nitrate-N, TKN, or TP in Illinois streams and rivers, the Midwest Biodiversity Institute compared the measured values to the U.S. EPA regional nutrient targets (for the Central Corn Belt Plains (CCBP) ecoregion for nitrate-N and total P, the Illinois statistical thresholds “non-standards-based numeric criteria” for total P (0.61 mg/l) and nitrate-N (7.8 mg/l) and the 10 mg/l human health-based water quality criterion was used for nitrate for comparison purposes. This comparison indicated that the samples collected in the East Branch DuPage River watershed are indicative of a nutrient rich condition.

Although no exceedances of Illinois water quality parameters for cBOD5 and TSS were observed in 2011, sampling in 2007 high concentrations of cBOD5 in the ditched channel located immediately downstream of the West Lake dam. These elevated concentrations are largely attributed to autotrophic activity from additional impoundments and excess flows from CSOs or WWTPs. During both the 2007 and 2011 surveys, cBOD5 concentrations declined immediately downstream from the Bloomingdale-Reeves WWTP as the discharge dominates the flow. A sharp reduction in cBOD5 in 2011 was also observed below the former Churchill Woods dam and points to the benefits of the dam’s removal. Further downstream cBOD5 continue to decline, but then tended to increase over the lower, approximate 10 river miles.

Total suspended solids (TSS) followed a similar pattern to cBOD5. Most concentrations were within ranges associated with relatively unpolluted streams, but showed a sharp spike immediately downstream from the former Churchill Woods impoundment in 2011. A localized release of soft, mucky fines from the former impoundment was considered a likely source. TSS levels declined with increased distance downstream and experienced a similar trend of increase over the lower, approximate 10 river miles. Increased algal productivity may be related to the increase in suspended material. It is predicted that this increase on TSS will have abated by the 2014 survey.

Higher algal activity also drove wider swings in dissolved oxygen (DO) resulting in periodic exceedances of water quality criteria between 2007 and 2011 at five mainstem sites where continuous monitors were deployed. In addition, exceedances of rolling 7-day averages for both minimum and mean values were observed at many stations and periods. The pattern reflects an overly enriched urban river where DO values are likely an important limitation to fish and macroinvertebrate assemblages during periods of most summers. A 2011 causal analysis ranked DO as a limiting factor for aquatic assemblages, lower than several other water quality parameters and physical features. According to data collected by the DRSCW, violation of the state chloride water quality standards (500 mg/l) is common in the main stem during winter months with exceedances making up between 10 and 99% of the total data collected. Violations were observed every winter since 2007. Spikes in chloride concentration in waterways correlate with call-outs of snow and ice crews in Department of Transportation and public works departments, suggesting that snow fighting operations are the principle cause of the water quality violations. Wastewater treatment facilities are also a source of chlorides. While data does not exist for concentrations in effluent from the East Branch POTWs, data

79 

4. Watershed Characteristics Assessment gathered for plants discharging to the West Branch DuPage River and Salt Creek that have similar residential and commercial users and also use water originating in Lake Michigan, have been surveyed and their median concentration (summer) was 159 mg/l. The East Branch DuPage River watershed annually shows declining chloride concentrations from March through to September. This pattern was discernable in all the years for which summer data exists (2007, 2011 and 2014) and is again indicative of large inputs of winter deicing compounds.

Large spatial variation in chloride concentrations is also found within the watershed with samples collected in tributaries during early spring/summer is higher than those collected in the main stem. As summer progresses, the situation reverse with main stem concentrations becoming the higher of the two. This is probably due to the ratio of drainage area to flow and the presence of POTWs that all discharge to the main stem so moderating its summer concentrations at the upper end and set a floor at the lower end of the scale. Occasion warm weather violations of the State water quality standard are observed in tributaries but not the main stem.

Sediment Chemistry

Sediment samples collected by the Midwest Biodiversity Institute were evaluated against guidelines that list ranges of contaminant values by probable toxic effects on aquatic life. Specifically, threshold effects levels (TEL) are those where toxic effects are initially apparent and likely to affect the most sensitive organisms. Probable effects levels (PEL) are those where toxic effects are more likely to be observed over a wide range of organism sensitivities. TELs for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were exceeded in every sample in both 2007 and 2011 and PELs were exceeded in all but four samples. PAHs result from the incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons and are a common component of stormwater runoff in urban areas. The mean number of PAH TEL exceedances was slightly higher in 2007 vs. 2011, but PEL exceedances were much lower in 2011.

Physical Habitat Quality fir Aquatic Life

The physical habitat of a stream is a strong determinant of biological quality. Streams in the glaciated Midwest, left in their natural state, typically possess riffle-pool-run sequences, high sinuosity, and well-developed channels with deep pools, heterogeneous substrates and cover in the form of woody debris, glacial tills, and aquatic macrophytes (Midwest Biodiversity Institute, 2004). The Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI) categorically scores the basic components of stream habitat into ranks according to the degree to which those components are found in a natural state, or conversely, in an altered or modified state.

Data collected by the Midwest Biodiversity Institute for the DRSCW has shown that habitat quality trends in the East Branch mainstem varied by location. Prior to the removal of the Churchill Woods dam, an impoundment extended approximately 1.5 river miles upstream between River Miles (RMs 18.7 and 20.0). Following removal in February 2011, incremental improvements in habitat occurred within the former impoundment, particularly by the summer of 2012. QHEI scores in this reach averaged an approximate 9-point increase by 2012, reflecting

80 

4. Watershed Characteristics Assessment

the appearance of riffles and increased habitat heterogeneity. While recovery and stabilization of impounded habitats continues, existing conditions including the low stream gradient, the remaining impoundment and lingering, thick accumulations of fine depositional substrates likely means considerable time for full recovery. Data collected in the 18 river mile stretch of the lower East Branch mainstem indicate QHEI scores in the fair range. It should be noted that the median score declined an average of five points per site, from 57 to 52 between 2007 and 2011. The specific reasons for the decline vary by site, but include siltier substrates and different flow conditions that influenced the habitat features (e.g., shoreline, vegetation) available to boat sampling transects. The lower 18 miles of the East Branch, while largely unimpounded, consists mostly of pools and runs rarely interrupted by riffle habitats. In fact, riffles were absent from 10 of 14 sampling stations in this lower reach in 2011.

Habitat in the tributaries show a more marked decline than the mainstem between 2007 and 2011 as a majority of comparable sites dropped from the good to the fair quality range. An approximate 9 point drop in median scores coincided with the loss of numerous, Good Quality Habitat Attributes and subsequent increases in Moderate Influence Modified Attributes. Lost attributes were most reflective of increased site embeddedness, riffle embeddedness, and a loss of coarse substrates and deep pools.

Macroinvertebrates

Based on data collected by the Midwest Biodiversity Institute for the DRSCW, macroinvertebrates (mIBI) from the East Branch DuPage River mainstem are largely in the fair or poor quality ranges with a few lower East Branch mainstem sites reaching the good range. Overall, assemblages throughout the study area were predominated by facultative and tolerant organisms most often associated with elevated nutrients, dissolved solids, and low DO. Many of these same organisms are common to sluggish, impounded, or wetland habitats containing muck or silt substrates. Few sensitive taxa were encountered and the limited numbers of distinct EPT taxa (16 in the entire watershed) often represented the more facultative or tolerant varieties within each group. Data collected in 2011 was similar to 2007 although most collections from comparable locations reflected lower quality. However, it should be noted that some improvements as a result of the removal of the Churchill Woods dam are beginning to be observed in the upper reaches of the mainstem.

As in 2007, all 2011 East Branch DuPage River tributaries had mIBI scores in the poor or fair ranges. While mIBI scores from comparable stations suggest a slight improvement over the much more degraded condition of small drainage sites in 2007, overall changes in narrative condition were minimal. An exception to this trend was Armitage Ditch, a 2.2 sq. mi. drainage that experienced an over 20-point increase in mIBI, from the lower poor to solidly fair narrative range. Surprisingly, field observations described the station as recently channelized with the installation of rock gabions, bank armoring, and riparian removal. Since much of the stream channel was enclosed in a culvert directly upstream from the site in the 1990s, urban runoff and water quality conditions may be having a greater influence on community health than variation in habitat condition

81 

4. Watershed Characteristics Assessment

Fish

Fish assemblage condition in the East Branch DuPage River watershed in range from poor to fair. Prior to removal of the Churchill Woods dam, East Branch mainstem fish assemblages upstream from the dam were essentially that of a pond, predominated by sunfish, bullheads, golden shiner, and mosquito fish. Downstream from the dam, the assemblage reflected more lotic, stream-like conditions and populations of sand shiner, johnny darter, hornyhead chub, and rock bass were present. Since the removal of the dam, eight new species have been recorded upstream and a number of other populations have expanded their ranges. The fish communities found downstream from the Churchill Woods dam have not maintained the improvements in quality documented upstream. All comparable sites from the lower sections of the East Branch mainstem had lower fIBI scores in 2011 than in 2007.

Fish IBI scores from tributary sites were very similar to 2007 and continue to reflect mostly poor to marginally fair quality. Pollution tolerant populations, or those characteristic of lakes and ponds, frequently dominated the tributary sites and included green sunfish, bluegill, black and yellow bullhead, fathead minnow, white sucker, and common carp. In contrast, intolerant species were almost entirely absent.

4.11.4. Nonpoint Pollution Sources & Load Analysis When rain flows across the landscape, pollutants such as oil and grease, road salt, eroding soil and sediment, metals, bacteria from pet wastes, and excess nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) from fertilizers are washed from streets, buildings, parking lots, construction sites, lawns and golf courses into the streams. This kind of pollution is called nonpoint source pollution, because it comes from the entire watershed rather than a single point, plant, or facility. These pollutants dissolve, suspend or accumulate in sediment as the water moves downstream and create a non- viable medium for supporting aquatic life, as well as, for human uses such as fishing, wading, and bird watching. In this way, every small bit of pollution adds up to a very large problem.

In addition to chemicals and other substances picked up from the landscape, nonpoint source pollution includes other measures such as temperature, acidity, and the amount of oxygen in the water. Aquatic organisms including fish and benthic macroinvertebrates that are critical links in the food chain need oxygen that is dissolved in the water to breathe. Low flows and nonpoint source pollution can cause the dissolved oxygen levels in the water to fall below healthy levels. When this happens, some plants and animals will die, including fish kills, other animals will leave that location to try to find cleaner water.

Elevated water temperature from stormwater crossing heated surfaces also causes problems. Many fish and other aquatic animals require cool or cold flowing water to survive. As rainwater flows across urban surfaces and through the sewer system, these surfaces warm the water causing the overall temperature of the receiving stream to be too warm for many aquatic plants and animals. This water can also be either more acidic (low pH) or more alkaline (high pH) than is healthy for these organisms to survive.

82 

4. Watershed Characteristics Assessment

4.11.4.1 Non-point Source Pollutant Load Analysis 4.11.4.1.1 Historical Non-point Source Pollutant Load Analysis Qual2K Modeling for Dissolved Oxygen

As discussed in Section 4.11.1, in 2004, dissolved oxygen (DO) Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) were developed in Qual2E for two main stem reaches of the East Branch DuPage River. The TMDLs recommended steep reductions in effluent concentrations of 5-day carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD5) and ammonia-nitrogen at the wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) that discharge into the East Branch DuPage River. Members of the local regulated community objected to the TMDL, partially due to costs, but also on the grounds that the TMDL’s modeling lacked empirical data and over emphasized wastewater input contributions to the impairments. Local environmental groups also voiced skepticism about the ability of the TMDLs to improve the local aquatic environment. In 2005, an agreement was reached between the IEPA and the local regulated community that allowed local partners time to examine a number of scenarios to achieve compliance with the DO water quality standards. Local partners rebuilt the models in Qual2K used in the original Qual2E TMDLs and populated them with data from a newly implemented network of stream monitoring stations (See Section 4.11.3.2 for more information on the DO monitoring program) and observed WWTP loading information. The result was two calibrated and validated models that were accepted by the regulated community, local environmental groups, and the IEPA. A baseline QUAL2K model was run to reflect-worse case conditions. Results of the baseline QUAL2K model (Figure 4-5) showed that upstream of the Churchill Woods dam, DO minimum levels were predicted to drop to zero mg/L and daily mean DO was predicted to decline to 1.5 mg/L. The computed values suggested that other warm weather DO sags along the East Branch DuPage River were minor compared to the DO impact from the Churchill Woods dam.

83 

4. Watershed Characteristics Assessment

Figure 4-5 2005 Qual2K East Branch DuPage River Baseline Model

East Branch DuPage River Mainstem. Baseline Model

Monthly Average of June 2005 DMR Condition with 3oC Increased Plant Discharge and Air Temperature 14

12

Prentiss Creek/ EB DuPage Dam 10 Churchill Woods Dam

8

6

DO (mg/L) DO 4

2

0 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Distance from downstream (km) Daily Average DO (mgO2/L) DO(mgO2/L) Min DO(mgO2/L) Max DO sat Point Source Locations Source: McCracken, S. and Huff, J., 2014

Once the baseline was complete, the models were then used to project the impacts of a number of possible alternatives including effluent loading reductions and removal of the Churchill Woods dam. The “zero loading” model run for the East Branch DuPage River showed that the DO impairment would still exist in the river above the Churchill Woods dam, even without any pollutant loading from the WWTPs. Given that this alternative was projected to cost up to $67 million for just the two WWTPs above the Churchill Woods dam, the preferred action became full dam removal at that location (at a cost of $1.7 million inclusive of engineering and permitting). The dam removal alternative model (shown in Figure 4-6) projected that daily average DO concentrations at the site would be in compliance following full removal and the higher DO levels would continue downstream. Engineering and permitting for removal of the dam was carried out in 2009 and 2010. The dam itself was removed in March 2011. The project was complicated by the presence of culverts immediately downstream of the dam that set the stream floor elevation higher than that used in the dam removal model mitigating some of the potential DO improvements. However, the culvert inverts were also higher than the sediment depth in the impoundment, so dam removal did not result in mobilizing impoundment sediment. Monitoring at the site will continue to confirm whether the project DO goals are achieved. In 2014 monitoring was conducted in the project impact area as well as the remaining impoundment.

84 

4. Watershed Characteristics Assessment

Figure 4-6 Predicted DO Conditions with removal of the Churchill Woods Dam

Dissolved Oxygen in East Branch DuPage River. Baseline Model Model Projection Scenario: Churchill Woods Dam Removed Churchill Woods Dam (removed) Prentiss Creek/ EB DuPage Dam 14

12

10

8

6 DO (mg/L) DO 4

2

0 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Distance from downstream (km) DO(mgO2/L) DO(mgO2/L) Min DO(mgO2/L) Max DO sat Source: McCracken, S. and Huff, J., 2014

WinSLAMM modeling

As part of the preparation of the 2007 Upper DuPage River Watershed Plan a WinSLAMM model was run to determine the source and nature of watershed pollutants in the East Branch DuPage River (DuPage River Coalition, 2007). It should be noted that this report also included discussion and modeling for the West Branch DuPage River. The WinSLAMM model focused on two pollutants: total suspended solids (TSS) and total phosphorus (TP). the WinSLAMM model was not run for the entire East Branch DuPage River watershed. A representative subwatershed was selected to be mapped in detail and the findings extrapolated to the entire watershed. The subwatershed selected was the 22nd Tributary and it was selected as it was broadly representative of the entire watershed area and had a mix of land use types.

The model results for the 22nd Street Tributary subwatershed are depicted in Table 4-27.

Table 4-27 Estimate Pollutant Loading by Land Use – 22nd Street Tributary

Land Use Residential Institutional/ Commercial Industrial Other Urban/ Freeway Total Educational Open Space Total 330 14 74 42 23 11 494 Acreage

85 

4. Watershed Characteristics Assessment

Land Use Residential Institutional/ Commercial Industrial Other Urban/ Freeway Total Educational Open Space % of 67% 3% 15% 9% 5% 2% 100% Total Acreage Existing 157,518 1,132 41,167 59,749 3,146 10,610 273,320 TSS load (lbs/year) % TSS 58% 0% 15% 22% 1% 4% 100% Load Existing 371.9 2.8 73 72.8 13.1 18.6 552.2 TP load (lbs/year) % TP 67% 1% 13% 13% 2% 3% 100% Load

Given the detail of the mapping conducted in the watershed, the WinSLAMM model was also used to examine pollutant loading from source areas such as roofs, parking areas, sidewalks, streets and landscape areas with each of the Land Uses (residential, institutional/educational, commercial, etc.). The results of the subwatershed modeling were then extrapolated to the entire East Branch DuPage River watershed in order to calculate existing non-point source loads for the entire watershed. The calculated watershed-wide non-point sources by sub watershed for the East Branch DuPage River watershed are included in Appendix F

The models were also utilized to predict load reductions expected after the implementation of various best management practices (BMPs) including rain barrels, dry wells, porous pavement, rain gardens, grassed swales, street sweeping, and centrifugal separators that were included as recommendations in the plan.

Chlorides

A non-point source chloride loading analysis was carried out for the 2004 TMDL. The analysis looked at loading from public snow fighting entities and reductions necessary to hit the chloride water quality standard. The analysis was updated in 2007 using actual agency data

4.11.4.1.2 Updated Non-point Source Pollutant Load Analysis Non-point source pollutant load analysis was not conducted as part of the preparation of this Plan. Updated non-point source pollutant load analysis may be required prior to the submittal of this plan to the IEPA for approval as a “watershed-based” plan. The preparation of non-point source pollutant load analysis is a recommended action to be completed as part of the development of this plan as a means of obtaining IEPA approval. 4.12. Critical Areas for Watershed Improvement The intent of identifying Critical Areas is select areas where stakeholders wish to focus their watershed improvement efforts. Critical areas can include areas where impairments are concentrated or relatively worse than in other areas of the watershed. Critical Areas may also include areas where impairments are minimal and used a means of preserving undisturbed 86 

4. Watershed Characteristics Assessment areas and preventing future degradation of areas in good condition. Through the analysis of the non-point source pollutant load model, known watershed conditions, and available water quality and habitat data, stakeholders should identify critical subbasins and critical stream reaches within the East Branch DuPage River watershed. The identification of Critical Areas is a recommended action to be completed as part of the development of this plan as a means of obtaining IEPA approval as a “watershed-based” plan.

4.12.1. Critical Subbasins The identification of Critical Subbasin is a recommended action to be completed as part of the development of this plan as a means of obtaining IEPA approval as a “watershed-based” plan.

4.12.2. Critical Stream Reaches The identification of Critical Stream Reaches is a recommended action to be completed as part of the development of this plan as a means of obtaining IEPA approval as a “watershed-based” plan.

4.12.3. Summary and Conclusions While the non-point source loading analysis was not completed as part of this plan, historical modeling and the water quality and habitat data available for the East Branch DuPage River provide important insight into the issues and problems in the watershed and the opportunities available for preserving and improving watershed resources. The vast majority of the impacts and impairments to watershed resources identified are the direct result of years of modification of the stream and surrounding lands as land use in the watershed changed from undeveloped to agriculture to urban.

It is important to identify potential causes and sources of impairment in the watershed so that preventive and restorative measures can be planned and implemented. The preliminary issues, causes and sources identified below and in Table 4-28 are based on either the 2011 causal analysis (relative to aquatic life), the best professional judgment based on the watershed inventory assessment and/or input from the watershed stakeholders. The levels of confidence attached to each cause may vary with some having an objective certainty while others should be considered as potential rather than confirmed until additional sampling, surveying and modeling can be done. Table 4-28 includes those impairments, causes, and sources that are most relevant to the Watershed-Based Plan nine element requirements of the US EPA.

Water Quality The most important water quality issues that need to be addressed include the following: • Elevated levels of total suspended solids generated from streambank and riparian erosion, sediment re- suspension and storm water runoff; • low dissolved oxygen concentrations due to the lack of adequate stream habitat features to help oxygenate the water, algae biomass and high sediment oxygen demand ; • elevated levels of chlorides from de-icing activities; • elevated levels of bacteria and nutrients from failing septic systems and animal wastes; • Elevated nutrient load (fractions of nitrogen and TP) correlating with point source dischargers; • Elevated nutrient loading form non-point sources ; and • Elevated levels of polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) from coal-based seal coating. 87 

4. Watershed Characteristics Assessment

Watershed Hydrology The most important issues related to watershed hydrology that need to be addressed include the following. • flashy hydrology (higher high flows and lower low flows), which impact a number of other watershed resources; and • unmaintained, undersized and/or damaged culverts and roadside conveyance systems restricting flow in the stream channels; and

Stream Channels The most important issues related to stream channels that need to be addressed include the following: • streambank erosion resulting from poor riparian management, flashy hydrology, unstable streambanks, embedded channels and stormwater discharges; • Lack of channel sinuosity; and • Muck substrates and lack of pool and riffle sequences

Riparian Corridors The most important riparian corridor issues that need to be addressed include the following: • lack of riparian vegetation; • inadequate riparian vegetation management that leads to destabilizes streambanks and provides no water quality or riparian habitat benefits; and • dumping of yard waste along the stream banks and in stream channels, which smothers ground level vegetation and adds organic matter and nutrients to the water.

Natural Areas and Wetlands The most important issues related to watershed wetlands include the following: • lack of management and restoration plans and action to preserve and restore native habitat; • invasive species infestations that degrade natural habitat; • lost wetland acreage; and • impairment of natural hydrologic patterns that support healthy wetlands resulting from stormwater discharge.

Flooding The most important flooding issues that need to be addressed include the following: • risk of flood damage to structures located along the waterways; • hydrologic modification causing high flows; and • creation of detention and retention areas including wetlands and depressional storage.

Land Use The most important land use issues that need to be addressed include the following: • redevelopment of existing developed land to other land uses with greater impervious surface area and/or higher pollutant loading rates.

88 

4. Watershed Characteristics Assessment

Table 4-28 Watershed Impairments, Causes and Sources

Impairment Causes Sources Water Quality Total suspended In channel erosion caused by streambank solids/sedimentation and modification and destabilization siltation Urban runoff/storm sewers Construction sites Streets, highway and bridge runoff Water Quality Nutrients – phosphorus and Urban runoff/storm sewers nitrogen Soil erosion Golf courses Improper disposal of wastes (yard waste, pet waste, etc.) Leaking septic systems and straight pipes Point source dischargers Water Quality Low dissolved oxygen Flow alteration (low flow) (elevated biological oxygen Habitat modifications demand & chemical oxygen demand) Urban runoff/storm sewers Improper disposal of wastes (yard waste, pet waste, etc.) Water Quality Chlorides De-icing activities Water Quality Bacteria Leaking septic systems and straight pipes Habitat Hydromodification and flow Urban runoff/storm sewers degradation alterations Loss of riparian buffer Loss of floodplain, wetlands, and depressional storage Modification to stream flow regime Development Habitat modifications Habitat Lack of instream habitat Unstable streambanks degradation Channelization Bed modifications/sedimentation Flow homogeneity (lack of pool and riffle sections) Habitat Loss of riparian buffer Development degradation Inappropriate land management Unstable streambanks Habitat modifications Increased Increased rate and volume or Development stream flows runoff Loss of floodplain, wetlands, and depressional storage

89 

4. Watershed Characteristics Assessment

Impairment Causes Sources Poorly functioning/undersized detention Increased Loss of floodplain, wetlands, Draining of floodplain, wetlands, and stream flows and depressional storage depressional storage Development Flood damage Past encroachment on Past floodplain development floodplain Flood damage Undersize/improperly Development maintained infrastructure Lack of infrastructure maintenance (storm sewers, culverts, detention, etc.)

As discussed in previous sections, additional work and stakeholder input will be required prior to the submittal of this plan to the IEPA for approval as a watershed-based plan. It is a recommendation of this Plan that the preliminary issues, causes and sources discussed above be modified as this work is conducted to include any additional knowledge gained through the completion of the additional work.

90 

5. Land Use, Demographics and Transportation This section concerns the human settlements and systems within the East Branch watershed – both how these systems affect conditions within the stream, and how human systems are affected by natural watershed processes. 5.1. Watershed Land Use and Land Cover Evaluating the land uses of a watershed is essential to understanding the hydrologic conditions, pollutant sources and loading, and dynamics. Land use and land cover types, together with other physical features such as soils and topography, influence the hydrologic and physical nature of the watershed. The volume of stormwater runoff, and the amount and type of non- point source pollution in stormwater runoff, is to a very large extent a function of land use and land cover type, making this perhaps the most important parameter to understand in determining the sources and loading of various pollutants and possible reduction strategies.

5.1.1. Historical Land Use Understanding when and how a watershed developed is essential to understanding its function, stressors, and in many cases, its flooding patterns. The East Branch watershed has undergone a transition from native prairie and forest ecosystems to agriculture, and subsequently to suburban and urban land uses, that resulted in modifications to the River’s tributaries, its main channel, its hydrology, and the types and sources of pollutants reaching the River.

1972 Land Use data for the East Branch DuPage River watershed was obtained from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) GIRAS Land Use and Land Cover database. This data in conjunction with current and future land use can be used to evaluate water quality and flood impacts and changes on a historical basis. USGS GIRAS Land Use and Land Cover for the East Branch DuPage River watershed are summarized in Table 5-1 and completed as part of the development of this plan as a means of obtaining IEPA approval as a “watershed-based” plan.

Table 5-1 United States Geological Survey (USGS) GIRAS Land Use and Land Cover for the East Branch Watershed (DuPage County Portion)

USGS GIRAS Land Use and Description Acres Percent of Land Cover Type Watershed Commercial and Services: Contains commercial areas used predominately for sale of products and services; urban business districts, shopping centers, commercial strip developments, junkyards, resorts, etc. Institutional land uses such as educational, religious, health, correctional and military facilities are also included in this land use. Combined Animal Feeding Operations: Land cover than contains areas used predominately for specialized livestock production including beef cattle feedlots, dairy operations with confined feeding, large poultry farms, and hog feedlots. Cropland and Pasture: agricultural land used for harvest and pasture. Deciduous Forest Lands: all forested areas having a predominance of trees that lose their leaves at the beginning of the forest system or at the beginning of a dry season. Evergreen Forest Land: all forested areas dominated by trees where 75 percent or more of the tree species `maintain their leaves all year. Canopy is never without green foliage. Industrial: commercial areas used predominately for the manufacturing, production, and warehousing of goods. 91 

5. Land Use, Demographics and Transportation

USGS GIRAS Land Use and Description Acres Percent of Land Cover Type Watershed Mixed Urban or Built-Up Land: commercial areas where one third of the land area is comprised of a non-commercial use such as residential or institutional; typically downtown business districts. Orchards, Groves, Vineyards, Nurseries, and Ornamental Horticulture: areas utilized as orchards and groves that produce fruit and nut crops and nurseries and horticulture areas such as seed-and-sod areas, greenhouses, and floriculture Other Agricultural Lands: other agricultural land uses not included in confined feeding operations, crop and pasture lands, and orchards, vineyards, nurseries, & horticulture; typically include farmsteads, holding areas for livestock, breeding & training facilities on horse farms, similar uses. Other Urban or Built-Up Land: golf driving ranges, zoos, urban parks, cemeteries, waste sumps, water-control structures and spillways, golf courses, and ski areas Reservoirs: artificial impoundments of water used for irrigation, flood control, municipal water supplies, hydroelectricity, recreation, and similar uses. Residential: residential areas ranging from high density to low density. Strip Mines: extractive mining activities with a significant surface expression Transportation, Communication and Utilities: roads, railways, airports, seaports, and major lake ports Transitional Areas: Areas in transition from one land use activity to another

5.1.2. Current Land Use and Land Cover To assess change in land use and current land use, 2010 land use data for DuPage County was obtained from the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) and summarized in Table 5-2 below and depicted in Exhibit 16. The definitions vary slightly from the 1972 USGS data above.

Table 5-2 CMAP Existing Land Use for the East Branch Watershed

Land Use Description Acres Percent of Watershed Agriculture agricultural land used for harvest and 212 0.44% pasture Conservation/ Open parks, golf courses, nature preserves, 10,410 21.6% Space playgrounds and athletic fields when associated with another open space activity; wetlands, open water and riparian corridors; parks and open areas located in residential, commercial, and industrial areas Industrial manufacturing and processing, 1,255 2.6% warehousing and distribution centers, wholesale facilities, and industrial parks Infrastructure roads, railways, airports, seaports, and 9,926 20.6% major lake ports; also includes non- parcel data Institutional large institutional structures such as 2,236 4.7% schools and governmental administration buildings

92 

5. Land Use, Demographics and Transportation

Land Use Description Acres Percent of Watershed Mixed Use various types of residential and 711 1.9% commercial land uses are grouped or clustered together as a planned development Multi-Family multi-family and duplex residential 1,757 3.7% Residential properties of varying density Office primary usage of structures is for office 1,171 2.4% space and/or business park and limited or no retail sales occur Retail/Commercial commercial areas used predominately for 2,332 4.8% sale of products and services (includes urban business districts, shopping centers, commercial strip developments, etc.) Single Family single family residential properties of 18,121 37.7% Residential varying densities

5.1.3. Future Land Use / Land Cover Projections Information on future built out lands for the DuPage County portion of the watershed was obtained from the DuPage County Zoning Map.

It is often useful to compare existing land use data to future land use data to identify anticipated changes within the watershed. Due to difference in the way the values of the two data sets were calculated, a direct comparison of the two data sets is not practical. For example the 2010 CMAP Land Use data includes park and open space areas located within residential areas in the Conservation/Open Space data set while the DuPage County Zoning data includes these areas in the Multi-Family Residential and Single Family Residential data. However, the data is still useful in predicting general trends. The available data indicated that single family residential, office and mixed use areas are likely to increase as a share of land use in the watershed as shown in Table 5-3. Future land use is shown in Exhibit 17.

Table 5-3 Projected Land Use for the East Branch Watershed

Future Land Use Estimated Percent of 2010 Trend as % of watershed area Acres Watershed Estimate (positive, neutral, negative) (Acres) Agriculture 0 0% 212 - Conservation/ Open 8,422 21.0% 10,410 - Space Industrial 1,802 4.5% 1,255 + Infrastructure 434 1.1% 9,926 - Institutional 629 1.6% 2,236 - Mixed Use 0 0.0% 711 Multi-Family 1,951 4.9% 1,757 + Residential 93 

5. Land Use, Demographics and Transportation

Future Land Use Estimated Percent of 2010 Trend as % of watershed area Acres Watershed Estimate (positive, neutral, negative) (Acres) Office 3,283 8.1% 1,171 + Retail/Commercial 780 1.9% 2,332 - Single Family 22,813 56.9% 18,121 + Residential

5.1.4. Land Use Impacts on the East Branch Watershed The conversion of agricultural lands to residential and retail/commercial land uses increases the amount of impervious cover for a given area and reduces the amount of open space available for infiltration and storing storm water runoff. Imperviousness is generally defined as the sum of roads, parking lots, sidewalks, rooftops, and other surfaces within an urban landscape that prevent infiltration of storm water runoff. Imperviousness can be used to measure the impacts of urban land uses on aquatic systems. For example, an increase in imperviousness has negative implications on the natural functions of streams including water quality; hydrology and flows; flooding and depressional storage; and instream and riparian habitat.

Water Quality

Increases in impervious area negatively affect water quality in streams and lakes by increasing both pollutant loads from over-land transport of storm waters into surface waters or storm drains, and from increases in water temperature (known as thermal pollution). During dry conditions, land surfaces accumulate pollutants including nutrients, sediment, oils, bacteria, and metals from the atmosphere, vehicles, roof surfaces, lawns, and other sources. During storm events, these pollutants are washed from the impervious surface and delivered to streams and lakes. Additionally, runoff from impervious surfaces is typically 12 degrees (Fahrenheit) higher in temperature than runoff from vegetated areas. As these warmer flows enter streams, habitat and ability to sustain aquatic life can be impaired; water temperatures over 68°F may preclude most fish from using the streams for habitat.

Hydrology and Flows

Hydromodification is a term that is used to describe human activities that change the dynamics of surface or subsurface flow. The process of urbanization affects streams by altering watershed hydrology and sediment-transport patterns. Development increases the amount of impervious surfaces (parking lots, rooftops, highly compacted ground, etc.) on formerly undeveloped landscapes. This reduces the amount of remaining pervious surfaces available to capture and filter rainfall, and allow the rainfall to infiltrate into the ground. As a result, a larger percentage of rainfall becomes runoff during any given storm. Subsequently, runoff reaches stream channels much more quickly, and peak discharge rates and volumes are higher than before development for the same size rainfall event.

94 

5. Land Use, Demographics and Transportation

Habitat

Increased impervious cover negatively affects stream habitat and its associated biological communities (fish, macroinvertebrates, amphibians, etc.). As discussed above, hydromodification and the process of stream bank erosion and channel incision causes a significant amount of sediment to be generated within the stream and carried through the watershed. The sediment suspended in the water causes turbid conditions that can be detrimental to aquatic organisms; once it falls out of the water column, the deposited sediment negatively affects aquatic organisms by filling interstitial spaces in substrates that are necessary for macroinvertebrate and fish propagation. Physical habitat degradation can also occur when hydromodification causes loss of riffle-pool structures and loss of riparian cover.

5.1.5. Impervious Area Analysis As discussed above in Section 5.1.4, impervious area can be used to qualitatively and to some extent quantitatively measure the impacts of urban land uses on aquatic systems. Studies on impervious areas have indicated that stream health begins to degrade when the watershed reaches approximately 10% impervious cover, due to changes in vegetative cover and function, hydrologic modification during storms, and reductions in stream base flows as more stormwater flows over land and less infiltrates into the ground, ultimately recharging a stream or river.

The Impervious Area Analysis for the East Branch was used to help understand how stream quality relates to the subwatershed areas that drains to a particular stream reach. The completion of an Impervious Area Analysis is a recommended action to be completed as part of the development of this plan as a means of obtaining IEPA approval as a “watershed-based” plan. 5.2. Watershed Socioeconomic and Demographic Conditions DuPage County occupies a prominent place within the greater Chicago region’s economy. The transportation networks, residential areas and commercial corridors in the East Branch watershed are integral to the economy and social character of the County. For watershed planning, the demographic and socioeconomic analysis is important for several purposes. Understanding the basic population density and trends in a watershed informs planning for future development as well as retrofits in existing areas. In addition, specific data analysis informs three other components of watershed management and resilience:

1. Improving education, outreach and engagement: Understanding watershed demographics allows the County and other stakeholders to design more effective education and outreach for local neighborhoods and groups. 2. Identifying vulnerable populations: Areas with concentrations of children or elderly residents, below-average incomes or home values, or aging housing stock may also be vulnerable to impacts from flooding and severe storms. Households where English is not a first language, or where residents are transit dependent, also warrant identification and special planning for flood or weather events. While DuPage County is, on the whole, wealthier in terms of household and per capita income than the Chicago region as a whole, there are pockets within the East Branch 95 

5. Land Use, Demographics and Transportation

watershed where low- to moderate-income households (as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development) predominate and transit is lacking, as well as areas with concentrations of elderly residents and neighborhoods where English is not the first language. 3. Planning for flood damage resilience: In areas where there has been repeated flood damage to homes and buildings, the profile of housing tenure (ownership versus renting), home and business values, and structure age is especially important. Planning for flood-prone areas must take into account the potential loss of value from flood damage, the potential cost of repairs, and the likely cost of buyouts where acquisition is pursued. All of these decisions should be informed by demographic and economic analysis.

This Section describes the population and housing characteristics of the County, East Branch watershed, and for certain data, the U.S. Census tracts in three chronically flood-prone areas of the East Branch watershed: The Valley View area along Route 53 south of Glen Ellyn and North of Lisle; downtown Downers Grove; and the River-Dumoulin area in Lisle at the confluence of St. Joseph’s Creek and the East Branch, where flooding was particularly acute in the April 2013 flood event.

5.2.1. Population Table 5-4 provides key population and household information for the County, Watershed, and three flood-prone areas1. Roughly one-quarter of the population of DuPage County lives within the boundaries of the East Branch watershed. While the populations in the three flood-affected areas represent a very small share of the County and watershed totals, these areas represent a substantial share of the County-wide damage from the April 2013 flood event, and a significant amount of the remaining unmet need for repairs, buyouts, and flood-related improvements.

Table 5-4 2013 Population and Household Structure

VALLEY EAST RIVER- DOWNTOWN DUPAGE VIEW AREA BRANCH DUMOULIN DOWNERS COUNTY (UNINC. WATERSHED LISLE GROVE COUNTY) POPULATION

Total Population 916,924 254,994 4,561 7,695 12,240 % of County 100% 27.8% 0.5% 0.84% 1.33% White Only 714,140 199,596 4,106 6,557 10,968 Percent 77.9% 78.3% 90.0% 85.2% 89.6% HOUSEHOLDS

Total Households 337,132 98,831 1,715 3,369 4,948 Average Household 2.73 2.61 2.66 2.23 2.47 Size

1 For purposes of this analysis, the three flood prone areas were defined by selecting the 2010 US Census tract or tracts whose boundaries most closely aligned with County mapping of chronic flooding areas. 96 

5. Land Use, Demographics and Transportation

VALLEY EAST RIVER- DOWNTOWN DUPAGE VIEW AREA BRANCH DUMOULIN DOWNERS COUNTY (UNINC. WATERSHED LISLE GROVE COUNTY) Single Householder, 21,811 6,413 89 166 269 children present Percent 6.5% 6.5% 5.2% 4.9% 5.4% All households, 119,774 32,402 599 828 1,549 children present Percent 35.5% 32.8% 34.9% 24.6% 31.3% Householder 85+ years 10,156 3,246 40 355 168 Percent 3.0% 3.3% 2.3% 10.5% 3.4% Source: 2013 American Community Survey; Hey & Associates/Birchline Planning LLC

The size and composition of households is important information for flood resilience planning. Households in two of the East Branch’s flood-affected areas (Downers Grove and particularly River-Dumoulin) are notably smaller than the County- and watershed-wide averages. Even more important, 10.5% percent of households in the River-Dumoulin area are single individuals ages 85 years and over, compared with only 3% of households in the County and only 2.3% in the Valley View area. This area also has a smaller average household size and a lower proportion of households with children present – 24.6% compared to roughly 33% on average elsewhere in the watershed and County. During flood events older people living alone are particularly vulnerable to both primary (structure flooding) impacts and secondary impacts, such as a lack of access to health care due to flooded roads and reduced options for temporary relocation. Taken together, this presents a profile of an aging neighborhood with fewer younger households, an important consideration for outreach, education and potentially buyouts.

Like DuPage County as a whole, the East Branch watershed and the flood-prone areas studied show very high educational attainment relative to the Chicago region and the US as a whole (Table 5-5). The percent of households where English is limited is lower in the East Branch watershed and each of the flood-prone areas than in the County as a whole; nonetheless, the County and municipalities may need to identify second-language needs for emergency communications and post-flood recovery work.

97 

5. Land Use, Demographics and Transportation

Table 5-5 Educational Attainment and Language

VALLEY EAST VIEW RIVER- DOWNTOWN DUPAGE BRANCH AREA DUMOULIN DOWNERS COUNTY WATERSHED (UNINC. (LISLE) GROVE COUNTY) High School graduate 92.6% 94.6% 99.0% 94.9% 94.0% Bachelor’s degree or 46.6% 48.3% 61.6% 41.9% 48.4% higher Population 5 yrs and older - Speak only English at 73.7% 77.1% 80.2% 84.3% 84.4% home Household, Primary Language is not English, 8.1% 7.5% 8.6% 6.0% 5.4% but Not Limited Speaking English Household, Limited 16,421 4,342 65 70 193 English Percent 1.8% 1.7% 1.4% 0.9% 1.6% Source: 2013 American Community Survey

5.2.2. Income Profile & Low-Moderate Income Areas A review of household income and Census tracts with substantial shares of low and moderate income households helps identify other areas with potential vulnerabilities during flood or other emergency events in the watershed. These households also have greater potential for economic disruption if homes are damaged or become uninhabitable from flooding, or if floods or severe storms disrupt transportation systems.

Within the East Branch watershed, the distribution of household incomes is very similar to the County-wide profile, with the exception of the higher share of households with less than $25,000 in annual income in downtown Downers Grove (17.5% of households versus 9.2% County-wide, and 9.5% in the East Branch watershed). Also notable is the disparity between family income and household income in the River-Dumoulin area. The Census defines a “family” as a married/civil union couple with or without children; the term “household”, by contrast, encompasses all types of household structures including individuals living alone, single-parent households, or unmarried couples. Families tend on the whole to have higher household incomes; as such, a gap between median household income and median family income often indicates that a larger share of non-family households such as elderly persons living alone or single-parent families have substantially less annual income than family households in a given area. This appears to be the case in the River-Dumoulin area, which has a high percentage of householders age 85 and older. Median household income in the River- Dumoulin area is markedly lower than for the watershed as a whole or the County, and for median family income within the same Census tract area, indicating that the many households

98 

5. Land Use, Demographics and Transportation

comprised of one elderly person noted in Section 5.2.1 above also may have lower incomes than are typical in the area as a whole. Data is summarized in Table 5-6.

Table 5-6 Household Income Distribution (Household Income in the past 12 Months in Current 2013 Dollars)

VALLEY EAST RIVER- DOWNTOWN DUPAGE VIEW AREA BRANCH DUMOULIN DOWNERS COUNTY (UNINC. WATERSHED (LISLE) GROVE COUNTY) Under $24,999 9.2% 9.5% 5.1% 10.7% 17.5% $25,000 to $74,999 24.3% 26.4% 20.5% 26.4% 21.6% $75,000 to $124,999 36.1% 35.1% 36.3% 29.8% 30.3% $125,000 or more 30.5% 29.0% 38.2% 33.1% 30.6% Per Capita Income $38,896 $38,919 $41,430 $41,370 $36,736 Percent of County 100.0% 100.1% 106.5% 106.4% 94.4% Median household income $79,383 $71,575 $91,136 $64,737 $76,375 Percent of County median 100.0% 90.2% 114.8% 81.6% 96.2% Median family income $95,436 $92,177 $108,536 $101,444 $104,238 Percent of County median 100.0% 96.6% 113.7% 106.3% 109.2% Source: 2013 American Community Survey

Unemployment and disability status reflect workforce engagement and, for many purposes, economic robustness in an area. Rates of unemployment are comparable in the East Branch watershed and slightly lower in the focus areas; the notably lower rate in the River-Dumoulin area may be a result of the higher proportion of households headed by elderly persons, who are less likely to be part of the labor force and thus would not be employed. The proportion of persons between 18 and 64 with a disability status is slightly elevated in the River-Dumoulin area, but in general rates within the watershed are very close to those for the County as a whole. Employment and disability status is summarized in Table 5-7.

Table 5-7 Employment and Disability Status

VALLEY EAST VIEW RIVER- DOWNTOWN DUPAGE BRANCH AREA DUMOULIN DOWNERS COUNTY WATERSHED (UNINC. (LISLE) GROVE COUNTY) Unemployment Rate, 8.5% 8.8% 7.4% 5.0% 7.0% population 16 yrs and older Disability Status, with any 3.5% 3.8% 2.9% 4.1% 3.8% disability (18 to 64 yrs) Source: 2013 American Community Survey

Census tracts with low- and moderate-income households also are important to identify, both in terms of potential economic vulnerability if flooding occurs and homes are damaged, and in

99 

5. Land Use, Demographics and Transportation terms of identifying eligibility for different types of grants and programs targeted towards these areas. Table 5-8 below shows the income limits considered “Low,” “Very Low” and “Extremely Low” for DuPage County for Fiscal Year 2014. Exhibit 18 shows the census tracts throughout the watershed that have a substantial percentage of low or moderate income households. Notably, few of these defined low-moderate income geographies line up precisely with areas of recurrent flooding in the watershed. However, the impact of watershed conditions on low- and moderate-income areas remains important to watershed planning. The environmental condition of the East Branch affects recreational use of the River in public parks and recreation areas, several of which (such as the Churchill Woods natural area in Glen Ellyn) are adjacent to the low-moderate income areas identified on the map. Transportation system disruptions during storms and floods, as noted above, also can have a disproportionate impact on low- and moderate-income households, particularly when the ability to travel to work is affected or businesses must temporarily close.

Table 5-8 FY2014 Income Limits for Low, Very Low & Extremely Low Income Households

DuPage County, IL Persons in Family: 1 2 3 4 5 Low (80% of County) $40,500 $46,350 $52,150 $57,900 $62,550 Very Low (50% of $25,350 $29,000 $32,600 $36,200 $39,100 County) Extremely Low (30% of $15,200 $17,400 $19,790 $23,850 $27,910 County) Source: US Department of Housing & Urban Development

5.2.3. Economic Activity & Industry Profile Economic activity in the East Branch watershed affects water quality, flooding and environmental quality in several ways. From a positive standpoint, a robust local economy provides taxes, private investment, cooperative partnerships and matching funds that are essential to completing watershed protection projects such as land conservation, stream restoration, flood risk reduction, and where necessary, property buyouts. Conversely, land development and transportation systems that support the County’s economy have led to loss of wetlands and storage capacity for rainfall, increased stormwater runoff, and greater pollutant loads in the East Branch, particularly before contemporary regulations and the DCSSFPO were put in place.

From the standpoint of flood resilience, it is important to identify where and how industry and the economy in the watershed are affected by flood events and where strategic actions, whether structural or operational, can reduce the potential for disruption and economic loss in the County. During this watershed planning process, manufacturing (which still represents one job in ten in DuPage County) was identified as an industry that could potentially be adversely affected by over-bank flooding damaging structures, power disruptions from flooding or heat waves, or by flood- or power-related disruptions to the transportation system – particularly Route 53.

100 

5. Land Use, Demographics and Transportation

Choose DuPage has prepared periodic Cluster Studies, the most recent in 2013, to provide a detailed analysis of each cluster, identifying industries within a particular cluster as leading, emerging, or mature based off of three benchmarks (employment growth, concentration, and wage). Since clusters are linked through the buyer-supplier relationship, they share common resources, depend on similar labor pools and institutions and on special infrastructure. Table 5-9 below shows the economic sectors in the County and their anticipated growth through 2016.

Table 5-9 2013 and Projected 2016 Jobs by Industry, DuPage County

Average Projected Industry 2013 Jobs Employment 2016 Jobs Growth Management 26,065 28,481 9.3% Wholesale Trade 48,992 48,325 -1.4% Professional Services 52,991 57,634 8.8% Administrative Services 51,696 53,992 4.4% Education 15,565 17,648 13.4% Transportation and Warehousing 23,626 24,534 3.8% Finance and Insurance 31,891 31,898 0.0% Real Estate 8,751 8,794 0.5% Manufacturing 51,865 47,999 -7.5% Utilities 2,480 2,291 -7.6% Retail Trade 62,312 62,058 -0.4% Health Care 58,810 64,417 9.5% Hotel and Food Services 41,111 42,950 4.5% Information Technology 9,915 8,862 -10.6% construction 21,110 19,710 -6.6% Arts and Entertainment 5,651 5,830 3.2% Government 52,246 52,859 1.2% Agriculture 415 372 -10.4% Mining 139 134 -3.6% Source: Choose DuPage Industry Cluster Study Report 2014

5.2.4. Housing & Home Ownership The housing and home ownership characteristics of the East Branch watershed are very comparable to those of DuPage County as a whole, as shown in Table 5-10. Housing characteristics of the watershed closely resemble those of DuPage County as a whole in terms of vacancy rate, proportion of single family and multi-family units, owner occupied versus renter occupied units, household size and reported home value.

With respect to home ownership, the East Branch watershed has a slightly higher proportion of owner-occupied homes than the County as a whole. Conditions within specific focus areas, however, differ from the County and watershed profile. The Valley View area has a higher proportion of home owners than the County as a whole, and the River-Dumoulin area a substantially lower proportion with more units occupied by renters. 101 

5. Land Use, Demographics and Transportation

Table 5-10 Housing Tenure, Values and Characteristics

EAST VALLEY DOWNTOWN DUPAGE RIVER- BRANCH VIEW DOWNERS COUNTY DUMOULIN WATERSHED AREA GROVE Total Number of 336,028 99,022 1,702 3,379 4,787 Occupied Housing Units Owner-Occupied 250,115 71,000 1,453 2,221 3,313 Housing Units Percent 74.4% 71.7% 85.4% 65.7% 69.2% Renter-Occupied 85,913 28,022 249 1,158 1,474 Housing Units Percent 25.6% 28.3% 14.6% 34.3% 30.8% Source: 2013 American Community Survey

Understanding the age of housing structures in a watershed or area, and the periods when construction took place, provides helpful information for stormwater watershed management. Because engineering and floodproofing practices change over time, knowing how many structures in a particular area were constructed at various times can provide insights on where, as an example, having roof downspouts connected to sanitary sewers may be more common, or where street drainage consists of vegetated swales rather than curbs and drains. As illustrated in Table 5-11 and Figure 5-1 below, the timing of housing development in the East Branch watershed closely mirrored development in the County. Downers Grove, which is an historic downtown, has both the largest percentage of structures built before 1939 and the largest percentage built after 2000 of any of the areas evaluated. The River-Dumoulin area had the steadiest pace of development, with 326 units constructed in 1939 or earlier, at least 150 or more units added in every decade since. The Valley View area, by contrast, was complete principally between 1950 and 1979. Notably for the watershed as a whole, housing construction tapered off significantly after 2010.

Table 5-11 Age of Housing Structures

EAST VALLEY DOWNTOWN DUPAGE RIVER- STRUCTURE AGE BRANCH VIEW DOWNERS COUNTY DUMOULIN WATERSHED AREA GROVE Built 1939 or earlier 20,561 6,555 10 326 867 Built 1940 to 1949 10,620 3,018 20 157 229 Built 1950 to 1959 39,438 11,973 262 585 953 Built 1960 to 1969 47,406 17,830 629 380 916 Built 1970 to 1979 85,544 29,929 406 796 1,132 Built 1980 to 1989 65,296 17,927 167 510 379 Built 1990 to 1999 54,452 9,604 146 512 230 Built 2000 to 2009 32,068 7,879 158 322 514 Built 2010 or later 832 262 0 5 19

102 

5. Land Use, Demographics and Transportation

Figure 5-1 Percent of Housing Units Constructed by Decade

40%

35%

30% DUPAGE COUNTY 25% EAST BRANCH WATERSHED 20%

VALLEY VIEW 15%

RIVER-DUMOULIN 10%

DOWNTOWN DOWNERS 5% GROVE

0%

Source: American Community Survey 2013; Birchline Planning LLC

In addition to the age of housing structure, the value of housing also informs planning for flood- prone areas. Table 5-12 and Figure 5-2 below show the 2013 value of owner-occupied housing units in DuPage County, watershed and focus areas. Valley View generally has a higher proportion of high-value structures than the County, watershed or other focus areas; The River- Dumoulin area has a lower median value and a smaller percentage of structures valued at $500,000 or more (and none valued at $1,000,000 or more) than DuPage County, watershed or other focus areas. This becomes important for communities in understanding the potential cost and property tax implications of buyout programs.

Table 5-12 Value of Owner-Occupied Housing Units, Median Value, Median Rent & Substandard Status

VALLEY DOWNTOWN DUPAGE EAST BRANCH RIVER- VIEW DOWNERS COUNTY WATERSHED DUMOULIN AREA GROVE Less than $50,000 4,359 1,110 28 25 43 $50,000 to $99,999 8,166 3,144 17 88 59 $100,000 to $149,999 17,928 5,303 8 115 142 $150,000 to $199,999 31,188 8,317 28 307 252 $200,000 to $299,999 73,084 21,295 528 806 1,093

103 

5. Land Use, Demographics and Transportation

VALLEY DOWNTOWN DUPAGE EAST BRANCH RIVER- VIEW DOWNERS COUNTY WATERSHED DUMOULIN AREA GROVE $300,000 to $499,999 79,080 22,148 553 737 1,236 $500,000 to $999,999 29,840 8,577 231 143 433 $1,000,000 or more 6,470 1,106 60 0 55 Median Value $281,150 $272,250 $332,100 $264,700 $317,600 Median Monthly Rent $1,152 $1,077 $923 $979 $999 Substandard (Lacking 621 172 0 0 0 complete plumbing) Source: 2013 American Community Survey

Figure 5-2 Distribution of Value of Owner-Occupied Housing Units

40%

35%

30%

25% DUPAGE COUNTY

20% EAST BRANCH WATERSHED 15% VALLEY VIEW 10% RIVER-DUMOULIN 5%

0% DOWNTOWN DOWNERS GROVE

Source: American Community Survey 2013; Birchline Planning LLC

5.2.5. Community Facilities Community facilities that provide essential services and disaster or crisis-time services are an important part of the watershed’s social infrastructure and resilience. Exhibit 19 shows the relative location of 52 health/safety facilities and 62 government service facilities that were located within the areas most affected by the April 2013 flood event, as shown on the “Heat Map” (Exhibit 20). Much of the impact came from the five major road closures that occurred, which are depicted on Figure 5-3. Generally, access to any facilities located within one mile of any road closure is likely to be constrained; 44 health/safety facilities and thirty government

104 

5. Land Use, Demographics and Transportation service facilities are located within one mile of a road that was closed during the April 2013 flood event.

5.2.6. Community & Organizational Resources Community and Organizational Resources within the East Branch watershed provide links for food, clothing and shelter during the immediate occurrence and aftermath of flood events, and also provide ongoing services to people and households who are displaced, who lose wages and salaries due to work interruptions, who are affected by mold, and who participate in buyout programs. Table 5-13 below describes the major community organizations and resources that provided some support during the April 2013 flood event, and their potential future roles in resilience support.

Table 5-13 Community Organizations and Resources

Participation in Physical Potential Planning/ Response Capabilities 2013 Flood Location(s) Resilience Support Relief The Rauner Preparedness, Response & Shelter support, Center Recovery (disaster action team, clean-up kits, American Red 2200 W. food, shelter, health services, long-term Cross of Greater Harrison mental health support, etc.) recovery, client Chicago Street casework Chicago, IL 60612 **No A number of capabilities Shelter support, Community Physical depending on the organization debit cards, Organizations Location** that’s providing them (i.e. clean-up health services, Active in This group kits, debris removal, comfort dogs, mental health Disaster holds food, money, vouchers) services, clean- (COAD) – i.e. meetings at up kits, comfort Faith Based various dogs Partners locations 418 North − Activate and manage the Emergency Increase planning County County Emergency Operations Operations capabilities between Farm Rd. Center Center (EOC) stakeholders Wheaton, IL − Coordinate County resources activated for 5 60187 (equipment, personnel, and days (24/7) Community facilities for supporting operations to Outreach/Public agencies) accordingly to support 2013 Education DuPage County support the incident response flood. (Preparedness Office of and recovery. messaging, radio/TV Homeland − Assist with emergency Flood Interviews, Public Security & management operations within intelligence Service Emergency the County gathering Announcements, Management − Coordinate regional response Social Media (OHSEM) efforts during large incidents Dissemination of interaction) − Act on behalf of the County as Situational the designated representative Reports Mitigation Planning on all response and recovery (Expanding upon issues. Coordination of current Natural − Report to and advise County clean-up kits, Hazard Mitigation Board, County Board sandbags, Plan) 105 

5. Land Use, Demographics and Transportation

Participation in Physical Potential Planning/ Response Capabilities 2013 Flood Location(s) Resilience Support Relief Chairman, and County Board volunteers and Department Heads on other critical All-Hazards Planning emergency operations and resource requests regularly provide situational Volunteer Support status. Public Management − Gather and process Information information pertaining to the support ***Additional incident from municipalities planning to be and stakeholders involved. Coordinate with identified and − Coordinate public information utility partners developed*** by activating the Joint (ComEd and Information System (JIS)/Joint Nicor) Information Center (JIC) − Authorize emergency Support purchases to support resource Evacuation requests requests − Disseminate information to Municipal and important Support Shelter stakeholders needs/requests − Maintain mass notification system State and Federal − Maintain Functional Needs resources Database –Operation Helping Hand Recovery process (Individual and − Act as a liaison for the local Public jurisdictions to the State and Federal agencies Assistance)

− Provide space and equipment Communications for supporting agencies within support for the EOC public safety − Coordination of resources &

volunteers ***Additional − Act as a liaison between local, Information state, federal, NGOs regarding − Coordinate/collect/disseminate OHSEM Flood incident related information response and − Coordinate damage support can be assessments provided as Emergency Communication needed*** support 5040 N. Mobile feeding, counseling, Food, Pulaski Rd emergency shelter assistance, counseling, The Salvation Chicago, IL clean-up kits, etc. emergency Army 60630 shelter assistance, etc. 5700 Shelter, Warming/Cooling center Primary Benedictine College Rd. countywide University Lisle, IL shelter site 60532

106 

5. Land Use, Demographics and Transportation

Participation in Physical Potential Planning/ Response Capabilities 2013 Flood Location(s) Resilience Support Relief Operation Helping Hand is a Provided cooperative public safety program municipal in DuPage County. It is designed partners with **No to ensure the safety of those information Physical residents of DuPage County that regarding people Location** are most vulnerable to emergencies with access and This and disasters, the elderly and functional needs Operation program is infirmed and those with various within their local Helping Hand maintained disabilities. The information you jurisdictions. by DuPage provide about your health and County medical condition may be shared OHSEM with police, fire and other emergency workers to assist them in responding to a disaster or emergency. Food Pantries Varies (Lisle Township, REACH, Glen Ellyn, FISH Downers Grove, St Vincent DePaul Downers Grove & Lombard, St Matthew Glendale Hts, Lombard Villa Park)

5.3. Transportation The transportation system is essential infrastructure, underpinning the economy and land use in any settled area. The function of the transportation system and its continued use during floods is important to community resilience, public services and the economy. In addition to overbank flooding leading to road closures, the transportation system has impacts on pollutant loading and river function. Runoff from road surfaces and particularly deicing activities contributes substantially to non-point source pollutant loads, and improperly or under-sized in-stream bridge and culvert structures aggravate channel instability, habitat loss and flooding. Therefore in a watershed plan, the transportation system must be evaluated both from risk standpoint, and from how practices and projects can make the transportation system more watershed-friendly.

The impact of streets and highways on the watershed, particularly water quality, is significant. Table 5-14 lists a number of water quality pollutants and their sources, all of which are associated with the transportation system. Rain water flowing over roadway surfaces can carry these pollutants into our wetlands and streams, where pollutants can accumulate and impair the ability of these resources to support aquatic life.

107 

5. Land Use, Demographics and Transportation

Table 5-14 Transportation Related Pollutants

Pollutant Primary Sources Particulates Pavement wear, atmosphere, vehicles Nutrients including nitrogen and Atmosphere, fertilizer application, leaf litter phosphorus Lead Tire wear, exhaust Zinc Tire wear, motor oil and grease Iron Rust, steel highway structures, engine parts Copper Metal plating, break lining wear, engine parts, bearing and bushing wear, fungicides and pesticides Cadmium Tire wear, insecticides Chromium Metal plating, engine parts, break lining wear Nickel Diesel fuel, gasoline, oils, metal plating, break lining wear, asphalt paving Manganese Engine parts Cyanide Anticake compound used in deicing salts Sodium, Calcium, Chloride Deicing salts Sulfate Fuel, deicing salts Petroleum Spills and leaks of motor oils, antifreeze and hydraulic fluids, asphalt surface leachate PAHs Incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons, coal tar based sealants

5.3.1. Existing Transportation Network & Issues Transportation issues take the form of water inundation that results in reduced accessibility within portions of the watershed and increased travel times due to road/lane closures. Figure 5- 3 shows the impacts to the local road network during the 2013 flood. The most significant impacts were in the form of major road closures, most notably Route 53, as outlined below.

Major Road Closures Resulting from the April 2013 Flood

• IL 53 (IDOT) south of IL 56 Butterfield Road • IL 53 (Warrenville Road to Maple Avenue) • Maple Avenue (DuPage DOT) west of IL 53 • Highland Avenue (DuPage DOT) between 31st Street and 39th Street • 55th Street (DuPage DOT) between Main Street and Fairview Avenue

Figure 5-3 illustrates the impacts of the 2013 on the surface transportation system major roads. In addition to impacts on major roads, there were numerous cases of local roads being inundated with flood water, making access to individual homes difficult or impossible. The effect of impacts on the roadway system included: a) delayed response time in providing emergency services, b) impaired access to homes and businesses; c) lost economic activity; and d) damage to roadway infrastructure.

108 

5. Land Use, Demographics and Transportation

The DuPage County Department of Transportation analyzed the traffic effects of road/lane closures within the watershed to gauge the impact of these closures on the transportation system. This was done using the County’s regional transportation model, which was manipulated to reduce traffic on the five roads affected by road closures, above, and rerouting that traffic onto other roads. The effects of the road closures on traffic volumes are shown on Figure 5-3, which illustrates that high traffic was diverted off of impacted roads such as IL Route 53 and Maple Avenue, and onto local road as well as onto I-355 and I-88. This analysis demonstrates that the regional transportation system displayed resiliency by maintaining overall functionality. However, the flood did result in longer travel times, increased vehicle miles traveled, and high traffic volumes on some local road. In addition, homes and businesses in the immediate vicinity of the road closures were not accessible.

Figure 5-3 Traffic Effects of Road Closures

109 

5. Land Use, Demographics and Transportation

5.3.2. Proposed Transportation Projects The Illinois State Tollway Highway Authority (ISTHA), the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT), the DuPage County Division of Transportation (DuDOT), and the local municipalities are each responsible for the construction, repair, and reconfiguration of their respective roadways. At this time, the following construction, repairs, or reconfiguration are ongoing or proposed (2015-2020) for roads located within the East Branch DuPage River watershed as shown in Exhibit 21.

• Intersection reconstruction of Illinois State Route 53 at Illinois State Route 56 (IDOT) • Intersection reconstruction of Illinois State Route 53 at Parkview Boulevard/Surrey Land (IDOT) • Culvert replacement at Illinois State Route 53 and Glencrest Creek (IDOT) • Phase II engineering of Illinois State Route 53 from Illinois State Route 64 to St Charles Road • Resurfacing of United States Highway 34 from Raymond Drive to I-355 (IDOT) • Resurfacing of Illinois State Route 38 from Bryant Avenue to Finley Road (IDOT) • Resurfacing of Illinois State Route 56 from Naperville Road to Illinois State Route 53 (IDOT) • Resurfacing of Illinois State Route 56 from Finley Road to Highland Avenue (IDOT) • Resurfacing of Illinois State Route 64 from Gary Avenue to Illinois State Route 53 (IDOT) • Removal and replacement of Warrenville Road Bridge over the East Branch DuPage River (DuDOT) • Removal and reconstruction of the Four Lakes Bridge over the East Branch DuPage River (Village of Lisle) • Removal and reconstruction of the Hill Avenue over the East Branch DuPage River (Village of Lombard) • Reconstruction of the intersection of Illinois State Route 53 and Madison Street (Village of Lombard) • Reconstruction of Crescent Boulevard between Park Boulevard and Riford Road (Village of Glen Ellyn)

In addition, improvements to Illinois State Route 53 from Illinois State Route 56 to Park Boulevard have been studied to reduce the risk of the roadway being flooded during large storm events while providing compensatory storage improvements in the floodplain. However, the project area south of Route 56 is currently unfunded for land acquisition, design and construction.

110 

6. Watershed Problems & Opportunities 6.1. Water Quality Problems and Opportunities Water quality problems are further discussed in Section 4.11 and 4.12. Additional information will be completed as part of the development of this plan as a means of obtaining IEPA approval as a “watershed-based” plan. 6.2. Flooding and Flood Resilience Issues Flooding impacts residents of this watershed over a range of scales. The most severe impacts occur as a result of overbank flooding along the waterways, however, there are also impacts in areas that are isolated and away from these waterways. Any solutions that are implemented in the watershed will have benefits, potential impacts and potential opportunities. A solution such as removing a restrictive structure or increasing storm sewer conveyance may solve one problem while inadvertently worsening a downstream problem. These simple projects must be evaluated at the largest scale to ensure that proposed actions increase flood resilience and do not inadvertently relocate risk. In this watershed, relocated risk is most likely to find its way to the most vulnerable populations with the highest unmet needs.

Potential solutions must be comprehensively evaluated for the immediate benefits, future benefits as well as potential foreseen impacts or missed opportunities. Historically, solutions that are actually implemented have well defined benefits that provide the incentive for action. These improvements are typically implemented by a local unit of government seeking to improve the quality of life for its constituents. Jurisdictional boundaries provide a limitation to the creativity that can be employed for implementing solutions. It is simply too complex for a municipality to look outside its boundaries for potential solutions. Only a broader reaching entity can help set policy and identify projects outside of municipal “silos” to provide greater benefits.

Depending on the location and type of flooding, residents and stakeholders of the watershed may have to contact different agencies or departments. The list below provides a general outline of contacts depending on the type and location.

Overbank Flooding Contacts

Contact: DuPage County Stormwater Management and/or Municipality

Levee Associated Flooding Contacts

Contact: Depending on the ownership, this could change. However, contacting DuPage County Stormwater Management and/or Municipality can provide clarification on additional contacts.

Restrictive Culverts / Bridges Contacts

Contact: This can vary depending on the ownership of the structure. Contacts can include IDOT, Illinois Tollway, DuDOT, Township, or the Municipality. For unincorporated areas,

111 

6. Watershed Problems & Opportunities

contact the DuPage County Department of Public Works – Drainage Division. In addition, DuPage County Stormwater Management can be of assistance.

Flood Storage Facility Overtopping Contacts

Contact: This can also vary depending on the ownership of the facility. Contacts can include IDOT, Illinois Tollway, DuPage County Stormwater Management or the Municipality. For unincorporated areas, contact the DuPage County Department of Public Works – Drainage Division.

High Groundwater Issues Contacts

Contact: Typically the first contact would be the Municipality or DuPage County Department of Public Works – Drainage Division for unincorporated areas. They may refer to DuPage County Stormwater Management depending if the issue is related to floodplains or overbank flooding.

Road Closures Contacts

Contact: This can vary depending on the ownership of the roadway. Contacts can include IDOT, Illinois Tollway, DuDOT, Township, or the Municipality. For unincorporated areas, contact the DuPage County Department of Public Works – Drainage Division. In addition, DuPage County Stormwater Management can be of assistance.

Contacts for Other Local Nuisance Flooding (i.e. storm sewers, clogged inlets, depressional areas, etc.)

Contact: Typically the first contact would be the Municipality or DuPage County Department of Public Works – Drainage Division for unincorporated areas. They may refer to DuPage County Stormwater Management depending if the issue is related to floodplains or overbank flooding.

Sanitary Sewer Issues Contacts

Contact: This can generally be the Municipality or the appropriate Sanitary District.

6.2.1. Types of Flooding and Flood Damages in the Watershed 6.2.1.1 Overbank Flooding Overbank flooding is characterized as water overflowing the banks of an open channel such as a creek, stream or waterway. Generally the areas affected by overbank flooding are typically associated with FEMA and regulatory floodplains denoted on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) or other Regulatory Flood Maps. The waterway channel cannot contain the amount of water flowing at that time and as a result, water surface elevations increase to overtop the tops of the channel banks in order to have more area to flow downstream. Overbank flooding is highly prevalent throughout DuPage County during larger storm events and damages can occur when development is too close to the channel banks or within the delineated risks associated with floodplain maps. Additional discussion on floodplains is provided in Section 4.10.

112 

6. Watershed Problems & Opportunities

6.2.1.2 Levee Associated Flooding Levees are man-made structures typically constructed out of a variety of earthen materials to create an embankment which can contain or control floodwaters. Generally levees provide protection from flooding from upstream flood waters along a river for a certain level of flood risk but in turn cut off the inflow of local drainage back into the river. Levees are typically designed to protect to a certain design storm event and typically have freeboard (additional height above the design storm elevations) to provide a factor of safety to the protection. Levees do not totally eliminate the risk of flooding; rather they are designed to reduce the risk of flooding. Active maintenance and monitoring of a levee system is also important to further minimize risk and damage.

Overtopping of a levee occurs when the water surface elevation of the floodwaters exceed the top of the levee causing water to cascade into the area behind the levee and potentially causing extensive flooding and damages to areas designed to be protected. Overtopping can also exacerbate local flooding behind the levee because the volume of water overtopping the levee can exceed the capacity of the local stormwater drainage system serving this interior area. This is extremely important for the area of the East Branch DuPage River near the confluence with St. Joseph Creek since the levees in this area were originally designed for a 50-year storm event and have been frequently overtopped.

Local drainage and stormwater infrastructure provides drainage for the areas behind the levees. These systems typically need to have systems to prevent floodwaters from the waterway coming through the local drainage system and flooding the area protected by the levee. These outlets to the waterway typically consist of sewers or culverts with backflow preventers/flap gates, pump stations to pump water above the levee and out to the waterway, or some combination. When these local interior drainage systems are inadequate to convey stormwater runoff from their tributary areas, there can be local flooding behind the levee which can cause nuisance flooding, damages and road closures. Areas of Lisle have experienced local drainage issues due to inadequate stormwater infrastructure behind the levee and due to exacerbation of the problem by levee overtopping. In addition, the levee was originally constructed with unsuitable materials and has seepage issues causing further flooding.

Levees can also fail in a variety of ways causing sudden and dangerous amounts of floodwater to flow into and inundate the protected area behind the levee. Levees can fail by overtopping (floodwaters are above the crown or top of the levee), breaching (part of the levee gives way or opens up), or seepage (floodwaters flowing through the ground under or through the levee). These failures can happen quickly and without warning which is a serious and dangerous threat to the people, homes and businesses behind the levee. The levee along the East Branch DuPage River in Lisle was overtopped during the April 2013 flood event causing extensive damage. In addition, according to a 2012 study on the levee system, the levee foundation consists of saturated, loose, highly permeable sands and broken rock. Additional encroachments such as garages, trees and power poles have further weakened the levee. These issues have made the levee system in its current state susceptible to future failures.

113 

6. Watershed Problems & Opportunities

6.2.1.3 Restrictive Culverts / Bridges Bridges, culverts and other hydraulic structures are typically designed to convey floodwaters while minimizing increases in flood stages upstream of the structure. Many of these structures along waterways are fairly old or constructed prior to current regulatory requirements. In many of these cases, the structures are inadequately sized to have an opening large enough to convey floodwaters safely through the structure. This causes flood waters to stage up on the upstream side of the structure and potentially cause roadway overtopping/flooding, overbank flooding, and possible damages to homes and structures. These impacts can extend up through the waterway for significant distance further impacting property and roads. Removing these structures and replacing them with larger structures may improve the areas upstream of the structure, but could impact areas downstream because of increased peak flood flows.

6.2.1.4 Flood Storage Facility Overtopping Flood storage facilities are typically composed of dry or wet bottom detention ponds, lakes or ponds, underground detention facilities, in-line channel storage, or other large flood control reservoirs. Current regulations in DuPage County require dedicated emergency overflows on these facilities to safely convey floodwaters downstream when these facilities are filled and overtopped to prevent damages to surrounding property. Many facilities have existed prior to current regulatory requirements and do not have safe overflow routes for large flood events. When these facilities are overtopped, floodwaters leaving the facility will flow along the ground surface until water reenters a drainage system or collects in a depressional area. These overtoppings may cause road closures and property damage.

6.2.1.5 Saturation of High Groundwater Areas There are areas that are low lying or near existing waterways where there might be the possibility of high groundwater elevations. These high elevations might be the result of a generally high groundwater table in the area, significant rainfall, or waterway flooding. High groundwater elevations can cause damages to homes, businesses and other structures if the groundwater seepage exceeds the capacity of the structure’s sump pumps. In addition, higher groundwater levels can have an impact on the infiltration of water into storm and sanitary sewer systems causing them to reach their capacity quicker than what was originally designed. High groundwater levels can also cause significant pressure on below grade building components causing problems and failures. The Valley View subdivision adjacent to Illinois Route 53 has significant groundwater issues associated with rainfall and East Branch DuPage River water levels.

6.2.2. Urban and Nuisance Flooding 6.2.2.1 Road Closures Road closures due to flooding can be a result of different issues including waterway overtopping bridges/culverts, insufficient storm sewer or roadway drainage systems, insufficient inlet capacity, inadequate pavement grades, or depressional / low lying areas along roadways. Water on the pavement can cause major issues for transportation. Emergency vehicles may not be able to traverse roadway flooding if it is too deep. Drivers may attempt to go through the roadway flooding with their vehicles, and have the vehicle get stuck or flooded out potentially requiring

114 

6. Watershed Problems & Opportunities

emergency rescue. Partial roadway flooding can cause drivers to lose control of their vehicle while driving through the flooded section. In addition, road closures can cause significant impacts to the economy due to loss of access to local businesses, traffic build ups which can cause delays and economic losses for businesses.

6.2.2.2 Drainage / Depressional Area or Nuisance Flooding Many stormwater infrastructure systems are only designed to serve small storm events and can be overwhelmed by quick and heavy thunderstorms or long and steady rainfall events. These areas are typically served by minor drainage systems comprised of small diameter storm sewers, ditches, yard drains or other drainage features. Large rain events can cause these local drainage systems to restrict water in low lying areas adjacent to roads, homes and businesses and can potentially cause flood damages to property. Many of these systems are located in the upper sections of the watershed or subwatersheds and may have been installed prior to regulatory requirements or standard design practices. There are also areas with no drainage or stormwater infrastructure causing stormwater runoff to pond and flow overland in potentially damaging manners.

Throughout the area, there are also depressional areas which are low lying areas with no positive open channel or waterway outlet. Depressional areas can be drained by storm sewers or drain tiles. These areas can collect a significant amount of stormwater runoff during large storm events and they generally have inadequate and undersized storm sewer systems. These areas can cause flooding which impact and damages properties and closes roads. Many communities in DuPage have documented the locations of these areas and associated flood damages to these areas. It is often the case, however, that these areas were historically wetlands and naturally stored this water. And this may offer opportunities to restore wetlands and riparian areas to better address this flooding.

Nuisance flooding can be general flood issues associated at the property level. Examples of what can cause nuisance flooding include poor lot to lot grading, settlement of the property’s ground surface, clogged catch basin and inlet grates, and other minor property drainage issues. This type of flooding can be associated with both new and old developments and can generally be improved by property level improvements and occasionally local drainage improvements such as improved sewer capacity or additional inlets.

6.2.2.3 Sanitary Sewer Backups Sanitary backups occur when the system where the home or structure’s sanitary sewer connects into mainline sewers becomes full and overwhelmed with floodwaters. This can happen with sanitary sewers due to significant infiltration of groundwater and interception of surface water. Septic systems can also become overwhelmed due to high groundwater and large amounts of infiltration. When the sanitary system becomes overwhelmed, sewage can back up into the house if the structure does not have overhead sewers or flood protection valves. Sanitary backups can cause extensive damage to property and belongings in addition to becoming a safety hazard due to mold and other bacteria developing and growing after a flood event. In addition, sanitary sewer systems may discharge to a sewage pump lift station to connect deep sanitary sewers higher level sewer systems. These pump stations are highly dependent on power 115 

6. Watershed Problems & Opportunities

and working backup systems. If there is a power failure or inadequate backup systems, these lift stations can potentially cause sewage backups upstream in the area the station services.

6.2.3. Description of Major Flood-Affected Areas There are more than 223 homes identified by DuPage County that meet flood-prone criteria and are subsequently eligible for purchase under the County’s buyout program. Much of this area is low to moderate income housing. FEMA also has reported an additional 87 repetitive loss structures throughout the entire DuPage County that meet their substantive damage threshold (Note: explicit locations of repetitive loss structures were not available as part of this effort).

6.2.3.1 East Branch DuPage River and St. Joseph Creek in Lisle The neighborhoods at the confluence of the East Branch DuPage River and St. Joseph Creek in the Village of Lisle, known as the River-Dumoulin area, have been affected repeatedly by flooding. Because of the frequency, extent and severity of these flood impacts, and the documented, unmet needs of both the fifty-year-old levee system and nearly 200 damaged or flood-prone homes, this area is considered to be the Most Impacted-Most Distressed (MIMD) area in the East Branch watershed. Damaging flooding comes from a variety of sources, including:

• Locally-generated stormwater runoff backing up behind the levee system, • High floodwater overtopping the existing levee, • Overbank flooding from the East Branch DuPage River and St. Joseph Creek, • Sanitary system backups, and • Flood water overflows diverting to localized depressional (i.e. low-lying elevation) areas such as the Route 53 underpass

During the April 2013 storm event, Lisle was hit with devastating flooding throughout the floodplain along the East Branch DuPage River and St. Josephs Creek, with nearly 200 structures flooded. Much of the area hardest hit, with up to four feet of floodwater, is low to moderate income housing. Under FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), thirty- five homes were declared substantially damaged, having met the 50-percent damage threshold thus requiring mitigation. Allowed mitigation measures for residential structure are elevation, demolition or relocation out of the floodplain. A majority of the homes will be mitigated through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) or Community Development Block Grant – Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funding. Funding has not been secured for thirteen of the substantially damaged structures. Numerous other homes were damaged just below the 50- percent threshold, leaving them limited to future home repairs and improvements under the cumulative substantial improvement requirements of the NFIP. More information on these types of damages associated with the NFIP can be found in Section 8.2.1. This flooding highlighted the need for a multi-pronged response to prevent and respond to flooding and associated damages.

The current levee system protecting the River-Dumoulin area was originally constructed in the 1960s, and was designed at the time to provide protection for up to a 50-year flood event. Since the levee’s construction, the area has experienced exceptional flooding that has overtopped the 116 

6. Watershed Problems & Opportunities levee roughly once each decade. The levee overtopped or breached in 1972, 1987, 1996, twice in 2008, and most recently in April 2013. During this last event, the levee system, which has settled and suffered from improper maintenance over time, was overtopped, causing widespread damage and impacts to homes, businesses and roadways in Lisle.

The levee overtopping in 2013 and subsequent damage to homes highlighted the significant unmet needs related to recovery from and resilience to flood events. A significant number of flood prone homes in DuPage County are located in the River-Dumoulin area which is why this area has been assigned the MIMD designation. Finally, while the Village of Lisle and DuPage County have worked with the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) and CDBG-DR funding programs to attempt to repair/floodproof or buy out these properties, the Village of Lisle still has 25 properties in place that were damaged by the April 2013 flood but have not been repaired and floodproofed, or purchased for demolition.

Taken together, the condition of the levee, vulnerability of housing to flood damage, proportion of older and in some cases lower-income homeowners described in Section 5.2, and challenges completing repairs and buyouts combine to yield the “Most Impacted/Most Distressed” classification of this area. In its current, inadequate condition, the levee system will continue to place the community at risk during flood events. Many flood control and levee studies have been completed highlighting the need for additional flood protection, maintenance, improvements, buyouts, flood proofing, and other resiliency measures. DuPage County did construct four pumps stations in this area in 2007 to improve local drainage behind the levee. However, associated improvements necessary to improve local drainage behind the levee could not be constructed due to the difficulty and expense involved in obtaining easements from private property owners.

Another major issue affecting the cost, timing and feasibility of future improvements in this area also relates to private property easements. For most of its length, the levee system is located on private property. Although easements were proposed in the original design plans, neither title to the properties nor permanent easements were acquired when the levee was constructed in the 1960s. Most of the levee remains private property, which limits the access available to the County, Lisle or other government entities. With limited access and a lack of clear levee ownership and responsibility, the levee has fallen into disrepair including settlement, erosion and other detrimental vegetation and structures located on the levee. A May 2013 memorandum noted that the levee had significant erosion, signs of overtopping, potential piping and seepage, and failure. Another report, the East Branch DuPage River Levee Study, completed in 2012 conducted a detailed levee assessment including soil borings. This report found that the existing levee system was constructed of structurally unsuitable material and was in dire need of maintenance. Recommended improvements included significant reconstruction or retrofits to have the levee meet standard design practices.

In addition, the levee system generally has undesirable woody vegetation, animal burrows and other miscellaneous structures (i.e. power poles, garages, fences, stairways, and piers) in or on the levee footprint. These encroachments should be removed. The U.S. Army Corps of

117 

6. Watershed Problems & Opportunities

Engineers recommends no woody vegetation or encroachments on a levee or within 15 feet of the bottom of the levee in order to allow access for maintenance and flood fighting.

6.2.3.2 St. Joseph Creek in Downers Grove and Westmont St. Joseph Creek has been a source of flooding including overbank flooding, restrictive bridges/culverts, storage facility overtopping, high groundwater, road closures, depressional areas, inadequate stormwater infrastructure and other nuisance flooding. The Villages of Downers Grove and Westmont have been proactive in studying existing flood issues and documenting them through a variety of reports, watershed plans, flood control plans, and project prioritization plans. Damages from flooding in these areas include home, business and property damage as well as road closures. In addition, many areas are in need of significant stormwater infrastructure improvements and retrofits to improve inadequate stormwater conveyance and provide safe passage of overland flood waters during large storm events. The various reports and plans documenting the existing stormwater issues and in some cases, potential improvement opportunities, are provided in the references section and are available on the Village’s website or in their offices.

6.2.3.3 East Branch DuPage River through Unincorporated Valley View Area Illinois Route 53 between Illinois Route 56 (Butterfield Road) and Park Boulevard has been a subject of significant overbank flooding and high groundwater issues causing damages to homes and extended road closures. The Valley View subdivision in unincorporated Glen Ellyn is located on the west side of Illinois Route 53 in this area. Several flood control plans have been prepared for this area to analyze damages and recommend solutions to minimize the risk of flooding and road closures. DuPage County has previously purchased buyout eligible homes within the floodplain and is currently working with IDOT to relocate Illinois Route 53 onto the purchased properties and raise it above flood stages to minimize the risk of road closures. If this roadway project were to be fully realized through design and construction, there are still property acquisitions required to provide the necessary right of way for construction. In addition, the Valley View area has been subject to high groundwater levels due to stormwater runoff and East Branch DuPage River flood stages. A report was prepared to document the issues and recommend solutions for groundwater issues. At this time, no additional work is proposed for high groundwater levels. Additional details on previous studies can be found in Section 7.1.4. Additional problems include high groundwater issues, sanitary backups and overbank flooding, roadway overtopping, and debris blockages for two small tributaries flowing through this area.

The Morton Arboretum has experienced flooding issues similar to the Valley View and Illinois Route 53 area. Overbank flooding and high groundwater levels have caused road closures and extensive damage to the Arboretum’s facilities. They have developed several recommendations to minimize the risk of future flooding including additional sump pump systems and groundwater flow diversions on-site.

6.2.3.4 East Branch DuPage River in Glen Ellyn and Lombard Flooding in these areas is a result of detention pond overtopping, inadequate storm sewer infrastructure systems and low-lying depressional areas. 118 

6. Watershed Problems & Opportunities

In addition, Lombard currently has a combined sewer system that becomes surcharged in heavy rain events leading to sewage backups and other associated flooding.

6.2.3.5 Lacey Creek Similar to the problems in St. Joseph Creek, Lacey Creek and its tributary stormwater infrastructure has caused a variety of flooding issues documented by Downers Grove in their published reports and watershed plans.

6.2.3.6 Willoway Brook Several areas within the Willoway Brook subwatershed are subject to flooding due to inadequate stormwater infrastructure, depressional areas and storage facility overtopping. The City of Wheaton has conducted and is currently completing several stormwater studies and plans in order to assess flood issues and develop potential projects. A watershed plan was developed by DuPage County in 1985 and evaluated and recommended stormwater infrastructure improvements. However, this plan is most likely out-of-date and would require significant updates and analysis to develop up to date flood assessments and alternative analysis.

6.2.3.7 Armitage Creek At the time of this report, no additional information on flooding on Armitage Creek was obtained and summarized.

6.2.4. Problem Areas Identified by Watershed Stakeholders Significant historical flooding within the East Branch DuPage River has occurred at several locations that have been well documented by DuPage County and municipalities. Major flooding in the watershed has generally been a result of overbank flooding, high groundwater levels during flood events, local drainage backups behind levees, high flood waters overtopping existing levees, levee failure, flood storage overtopping, sanitary backups, depressional areas, and inadequate stormwater conveyance systems.

The many types of flood-related problems were illustrated vividly in the April 2013 flood event in the East Branch watershed. The April 2013 flood event was a longer duration storm event covering a wide area of northeastern Illinois which ultimately resulted in a high volume of stormwater runoff overwhelming the conveyance capacity of local (i.e. storm sewers, ditches, culverts) and regional (i.e. streams and rivers) systems. In addition, the high volume of stormwater runoff caused many detention and retention facilities to fill to capacity and in many cases, overtop and direct large amounts of flow downstream. Significant flooding also caused extended road closures of local streets, County routes and State routes impacting emergency services, evacuation routes, and residential and business traffic. DuPage County received between approximately 5.5 to 7 inches of rainfall on the ground that was already fairly well saturated from prior rain and snowmelt. The magnitude of this event makes it a useful reference point for reporting problems in a “worst-case” event.

During the initial phase of the development of this plan, DuPage County hosted several stakeholder coordination and input meetings on the East Branch Watershed Plan and associated processes. During these meetings, stakeholders were asked to identify problem areas within the

119 

6. Watershed Problems & Opportunities watershed. Additional discussion on data collection is detailed in Section 3.2. Problems were reported through a variety of means including submitting completed questionnaires, providing existing watershed and flood control plans, providing maps/data, and other means. The problem areas identified were compiled into nine main problem types and are listed in Table 6-1 and shown on Exhibit 22.

In addition, 911 and other emergency calls during and after the flood event were compiled by the DuPage County Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Management. These calls were mapped and a “heat map” was prepared to ascertain major areas impacted by flooding. This mapping effort combined with other problem areas identified by the stakeholders provided an easy to understand visual understanding of major flood impacted areas in the watershed. This map is provided in Exhibit 20.

Table 6-1 Problem Areas Identified by Stakeholders

Problem Type

Bridge \

Facility

ID Municipality General Location Description

Overbank Flooding Overtopping Levee /Failure Levee behind Drainage Local Culvert Restrictive Storage Flood Overtopping High Groundwater Closure Road Other Drainage Local / Nuisance / Depressional Sanitary Backups 2nd St Overbank flooding and Uninc. between EBE2-01 overtopping of Main St and   DuPage Main and Forest Forest Uninc. Glenrise EBE2-02 Overtopping of Glenrise Ave  DuPage Ave Local drainage through levee River Drive through culverts with flap gates Area north and a pump station. Ponding EBEB-01 Lisle       of Ogden occurs due to insufficient local Avenue drainage to pump station. Levee is overtopped frequently. Local drainage through levee Dumoulin through culverts with flap gates Ave north of and a pump station. Ponding EBEB-02 Lisle       Ogden occurs due to insufficient local Avenue drainage to pump station. Levee is overtopped frequently. Local drainage through levee River Drive through culverts with flap gates and and a pump station. Ponding EBEB-03 Lisle       Burlington occurs due to insufficient local Avenue drainage to pump station. Levee is overtopped frequently.

120 

6. Watershed Problems & Opportunities

Problem Type

Bridge \

Facility

ID Municipality General Location Description

Overbank Flooding Overtopping Levee /Failure Levee behind Drainage Local Culvert Restrictive Storage Flood Overtopping High Groundwater Closure Road Other Drainage Local / Nuisance / Depressional Sanitary Backups Local drainage through levee through culverts with flap gates and a pump station. Ponding Dumoulin occurs due to insufficient local Ave and drainage to pump station. Levee EBEB-04 Lisle       Burlington is overtopped frequently. Also Avenue subject to diverted overflow from St. Joseph Creek through IL 53 viaduct and from the south from the BNSF viaduct IL 53 south Levee overtopping. Sanitary EBEB-05 Lisle of BNSF    system full and causing backups viaduct IL 53 (Warrenville Extended roadway closure due EBEB-06 Lisle Road to    to flooding Maple Avenue) Maple Lisle Avenue (at Extended roadway closure due EBEB-07 Uninc. East Branch   to flooding DuPage DuPage River) IL 53 (IL 56 Uninc. Extended roadway closure due EBEB-08 to Park   DuPage to flooding Blvd) IL 53 at Valley View Overbank flooding causing Uninc. EBEB-09 (between IL additional high groundwater      DuPage 56 and Park levels and road closures Blvd) Arbor Ln Overbank flooding , local EBEB- Uninc. from drainage causing additional high      09A DuPage Shabark to groundwater levels and road Cypress closures Glen IL 53 north Ellyn EBEB-10 of IL 38 to Overbank flooding  Uninc. east of I-355 DuPage Uninc. Morton Overbank flooding and high EBEB-11   DuPage Arboretum groundwater

121 

6. Watershed Problems & Opportunities

Problem Type

Bridge \

Facility

ID Municipality General Location Description

Overbank Flooding Overtopping Levee /Failure Levee behind Drainage Local Culvert Restrictive Storage Flood Overtopping High Groundwater Closure Road Other Drainage Local / Nuisance / Depressional Sanitary Backups Four Lakes Roadway overtopping closing all EBEB-11 Lisle   Complex entrances to facility Blooming Indian Lakes General flooding and roadway EBEB-12   dale area flooding Glen Riford Ave Lake Ellyn overtopping and EBEB-13    Ellyn and Oak St flooding area Glen Flooding impacting surround EBEB-14 Perry’s Pond  Ellyn areas and upstream areas Overtopping of Terrace View Greenfield Pond and associated overbank to Sunset, flooding of tributary. Inadequate west of EBEB-15 Lombard storm sewer infrastructure. High      Main St and groundwater issues causing east of basement flooding and sewage Elizabeth St backups Windsor Ave area Overbank flooding with from inadequate stormwater EBEB-16 Lombard Broadview   infrastructure and depressional to Elizabeth areas and Grove St St. Charles to the north, Combined sewer area in East Branch Lombard with significant divide to the EBEB-17 Lombard sewage backups, inadequate   East, Wilson stormwater infrastructure and to the south, depressional areas Edison to the west Hickory St to the north, Main St to Inadequate stormwater the east, EBEB-18 Lombard infrastructure and depressional  Edison St to areas the west, Madison to the south Glen Hillside and Depressional area with flood EBEB-19  Ellyn Bryant damages

122 

6. Watershed Problems & Opportunities

Problem Type

Bridge \

Facility

ID Municipality General Location Description

Overbank Flooding Overtopping Levee /Failure Levee behind Drainage Local Culvert Restrictive Storage Flood Overtopping High Groundwater Closure Road Other Drainage Local / Nuisance / Depressional Sanitary Backups Park Blvd, Uninc. Sycamore Overopping roadways, EBEB-20   DuPage Dr, restrictive culverts Shagbark Ln IL Route 56, Uninc. Restrictive culvert and debris EBEB-21 west of IL   DuPage cause overtopping and flooding Route 53 Glen Fairview Depressional area with flood EBGL-01   Ellyn and Main St damages and roadway flooding Glen Turner west Depressional areas with sanitary EBGL-02   Ellyn of Regent backups Black Oak Drive Downers Overflow from inadequate local EBLA-01 between  Grove stormwater infrastructure Saratoga and Candlewood Downers Inadequate stormwater Downers Dr., Virginia EBLA-02 infrastructure and undefined  Grove St, Seeley overflow paths Ave, 40th St Elm and Earlston Inadequate stormwater Downers EBLA-03 between infrastructure and depressional  Grove Ogden Ave areas and 41st St Inadequate stormwater Downers Puffer south EBPR-01 infrastructure and depressional  Grove of 61st St areas 63rd St and Woodridg Winston Overbank flooding along park in EBPR-02   e Dr.(Triangle open channel Park) Overbank flooding and road closures. Levee overtopping and IL 53 and EBSJ-01 Lisle road closures with overflow    Lacey Ave diversion to other areas. Similar to Problem ID EBDR-2. BNSF RR, Long restrictive culvert on Downers Douglas EBSJ-02 private property causes upstream   Grove Ave, Rogers flooding St

123 

6. Watershed Problems & Opportunities

Problem Type

Bridge \

Facility

ID Municipality General Location Description

Overbank Flooding Overtopping Levee /Failure Levee behind Drainage Local Culvert Restrictive Storage Flood Overtopping High Groundwater Closure Road Other Drainage Local / Nuisance / Depressional Sanitary Backups Hill St and Culvert with restrictive grate Downers EBSJ-03 Grand Ave accumulates debris and causes   Grove to 55th St flooding Deer Creek area - 56th Downers St and Restrictive culvert at Fairview, EBSJ-04 Grove Fairview overbank flooding through   Westmont Ave to 59th overland flow routes St and Williams St Maple Ave Long restrictive culvert with Downers EBSJ-05 and Blodgett storm sewer connection from    Grove Ave depressional area Pershing Inadequate stormwater Downers between EBSJ-06 infrastructure and depressional  Grove Ogden and areas Grant Grant St and Downers EBSJ-07 Downers Localized residential issues  Grove Ave Downers Washington Inadequate stormwater EBSJ-08 Grove St south of infrastructure and depressional  Westmont Ogden Ave areas Drendel Roadway flooding with Downers Road south inadequate stormwater EBSJ-09   Grove of infrastructure and depressional Indianapolis areas Chase Ave Inadequate stormwater Downers between EBSJ-10 infrastructure causing road   Grove Haddow and flooding and property flooding Warren Walbank Historical flooding at Downers EBSJ-11 north of depressional area with bypass   Grove Warren flow from steep tributary area Prairie Depressional area flooding due Downers between EBSJ-12 to inadequate stormwater   Grove Forest and infrastructure Prince Deboldt / Downers Inadequate stormwater EBSJ-13 Linden /  Grove infrastructure and intersection Gierz

124 

6. Watershed Problems & Opportunities

Problem Type

Bridge \

Facility

ID Municipality General Location Description

Overbank Flooding Overtopping Levee /Failure Levee behind Drainage Local Culvert Restrictive Storage Flood Overtopping High Groundwater Closure Road Other Drainage Local / Nuisance / Depressional Sanitary Backups Hitchcock Downers between Depressional area with no EBSJ-14  Grove Cornell and known outlets Glenview Middaugh Inadequate stormwater Downers EBSJ-15 and infrastructure and depressional  Grove Jefferson areas Lyman Downers between Inadequate stormwater EBSJ-16  Grove Kenyan and infrastructure Blanchard Downers Francisco at Inadequate stormwater EBSJ-17  Grove Burlington infrastructure Liberty Inadequate stormwater Park, Adams Westmont infrastructure and depressional St, Cass Ave EBSJ-18 Uninc. areas. Detention pond   and Ogden DuPage overtopping flooding Ave to Park neighborhood and 40th Richmond Depressional storage areas EBSJ-19 Westmont  and Grant flooding Roslyn and Depressional storage areas EBSJ-20 Westmont  Burlington flooding Williston Inadequate stormwater EBWI-01 Wheaton and infrastructure and depressional  Evergreen areas Pershing Inadequate stormwater from EBWI-02 Wheaton infrastructure and overland flow  President to paths Prospect Brentwood Storage overtopping and EBWI-03 Wheaton and inadequate stormwater   Briarcliffe infrastructure

6.2.5. Health and Wellbeing Impacts Flooding has the potential to negatively impact the health and wellbeing of residents. Contamination of groundwater wells and mold growth in housing structures are two health issues that may result from flooding.

125 

6. Watershed Problems & Opportunities

Floodwater intrusion to groundwater wells can be a source of contamination that can impact residents obtaining potable water from private water wells. After the April 2013 flood, the DuPage County Health Department tested 395 private well samples for residents who felt that their well may have been impacted by the flood. The majority of the samples came from Lisle, Westmont, and Villa Park residents. Of the initial samples that were received, approximately 32% of the sample tested positive for microbial contamination. Table 6-2 identifies the number of samples tested in the months following the April 2013 flood.

Table 6-2 Private Well Water Samples following April 2013 Flood

Month (2013) Number of Samples April 148 May 214 June 16 July 8 August 1 September 7 October 0 November 0 December 1 Total 395

Mold is another health issue that can result from flooding. Mold is a concern because of a variety of health impacts. For individuals allergic to mold, it can cause nasal congestion, throat irritation, coughing or wheezing, and eye or skin irritation. Immune-compromised people and people with chronic lung illness may get serious infections in their lungs from mold exposure. Indoor mold exposure has been linked with upper respiratory tract symptoms in otherwise healthy people and asthma symptoms in people with asthma (Facts about Mold and Dampness available from http://www.cdc.gov/mold/dampness_facts.htm). This issue can linger for an extended time after the flood, especially for low-income and elderly households that may not have the resources or the physical ability to deal with the aftermath. For example, two years after the flooding events of 2008 it was identified through outreach that there was an unreported unmet need, particularly among low-income and elderly households for repair and mold remediation and $200,000 of Illinois Disaster Assistance Program (IDAP) funds were spent to aid approximately 40 households. In the aftermath following the April 2013 flood event, it was anticipated that a similar unmet need would exist. In the DuPage County Action Plan for CDBG Disaster Recovery Funds, $300,000 is budgeted toward Rehabilitation/Mold Remediation to provide assistance to approximately 60 households. In order for as many individuals to be able to take advantage of the mold remediation assistance as possible, Spanish translations about the informational materials is needed in areas with higher Spanish-speaking populations.

126 

6. Watershed Problems & Opportunities

6.3. Land Use Plans, Policies & Practices Information on how the land is managed in a watershed is helpful to identify both current control practices and potential targets for future management. This information not only will support the characterization of the watershed but also will be important in identifying current watershed sources, future management efforts, and areas for additional management efforts.

6.3.1. DuPage County Countywide Stormwater and Flood Plain Ordinance (DCCSFPO) The DCCSFPO contains detailed regulations for the protection of wetlands and floodplains, and for all stormwater management, and soil erosion and sediment control. It is one of the oldest (first passed in 1991) and strictest countywide stormwater ordinances in the Chicago region and has evolved through 13 revisions to better address the flooding and stormwater issues of DuPage County. To help further guide regulation it calls for the development of watershed-specific plans, including for the East Branch DuPage River.

The DCCSFPO has been adopted as Appendix F to the DuPage County Stormwater Management Plan. The primary purpose of the DCCSFPO is to promote effective, equitable, acceptable, and legal stormwater management measures. Its specific purposes include:

• Managing and mitigating the effects of urbanization on stormwater drainage; • Reducing the existing potential for stormwater damage to public health, safety, life, and property; • Protecting human life and health from the hazards of flooding and degradation of water quality; • Protecting and enhancing the quality, quantity, and availability of surface and groundwater resources; • Preserving and enhancing existing wetlands, buffers and aquatic environments, and encouraging restoration of degraded areas; • Controlling sediment and erosion in and from stormwater facilities, developments, and construction sites; • Preventing the further degradation of the quality of ground and surface waters; • Requiring appropriate and adequate provision for site runoff control, especially when the land is developed for human activity; • Requiring that the design and evaluation of each site runoff control plan consistent with watershed capacities; • Encouraging the use of stormwater storage in preference to stormwater conveyance; • Lessening the taxpayers' burden for flood-related disasters, repairs to flood-damaged public facilities and utilities, and flood rescue and relief operations; • Meeting the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Office of Water Resources' Floodway permitting requirements; • Making federally subsidized flood insurance available to individual communities and for property throughout the County; • Complying with the rules and regulations of the National Flood Insurance Program; • Encouraging cooperation between the County, communities, and other governmental entities with respect to floodplain and stormwater management; 127 

6. Watershed Problems & Opportunities

• Requiring cooperation and consistency in stormwater management activities within and between the units of government having stormwater management jurisdiction; • Restricting future development in the floodplain to facilities that will not adversely affect the floodplain environments or adversely affect the potential for flood damage; • Incorporating water quality and habitat protection measures in all stormwater management activities within DuPage County; • Requiring regular, planned maintenance of stormwater management facilities; • Encouraging control of stormwater quantity and quality at the most site-specific or local level; • Allowing use of simple technologies whenever appropriate and realistic, but requiring the use of more sophisticated techniques when necessary to ensure the adequacy of stormwater controls; • Providing a procedure by which communities throughout the County may petition the Committee to implement enforce the provisions of this Ordinance.

The DCCSFPO is currently providing some measures of resiliency and flood protection across the East Branch DuPage River watershed. The following benefits of the current ordinance have been identified by County staff:

• Protections for wetlands following a general avoidance, minimization, and mitigation sequencing mirroring the federal wetland protections under the Clean Water Act, but also providing protection for isolated wetlands not currently under federal jurisdiction. • For any impact, wetlands must be replaced in the same major watershed (e.g. East Branch). • Wetland compensatory mitigation ratios range from 1.5:1 for standard wetlands to 3.0:1 for high quality wetlands. • Wetland buffers and floodplain functions must be replaced if impacted. • Compensatory storage is required for floodplain impacts at a 1.5:1 replacement ratio. • Required permanent stormwater volume control/water quality BMPs such as wetland basins, infiltration practices, and stormwater detention for developments that exceed certain thresholds. • Currently mapping most wetlands in DuPage County through a grant from the EPA. The mapping effort will help regulators and property owners to more easily identify where wetlands are likely to occur. Better maps may help developers and property owners know about wetlands earlier in the planning process so that they are more easily avoided and make inadvertent impacts less likely. • Currently updating FEMA flood maps as a Cooperating Technical Community with FEMA. Accurate maps are needed as a source of information for property owners, regulators and developers to reduce and prevent future flood damages. The new maps will reflect changes in land use, topography, hydraulic structures, and modeling technology since the original FIRM effective dates. • Sediment and erosion control is required during construction.

All of these are positive measures contributing to the current level of resiliency in the East Branch DuPage River watershed. Additional items that could be addressed or considered as this Watershed Plan is implemented or that may be implemented through future revisions to the

128 

6. Watershed Problems & Opportunities

DCCSFPO for this watershed to improve resiliency and reduce flood impacts are discussed below:

• Develop a comprehensive watershed plan for the East Branch and for its tributaries. The DCCSFPO requires applicants and regulators to consult watershed plans during the development planning phase and calls for the development of detailed watershed plans across the County. With a watershed plan in place pointing out key issues, regulators may be able to ask for specific development features that may help solve flooding or other stormwater problems incrementally. For example, since this Plan notes that the use of green infrastructure and enhanced tree canopy will build watershed resilience, regulators, applicants and designers may incorporate measures into plans and projects that add more storage volume, naturalize landscaping, and remove pollutants. • Increase watershed-specific wetland, buffer and riparian protections. As more specific information is developed for the East Branch watershed, such as the information called for in Section 9.3.2 of this Plan, targeted protections for vulnerable or high-value wetlands and riparian zones can be developed. • Encourage/incentivize establishment and protection of broader native floodplains. This is an important component for prioritization of land acquisition, or enhancements to recreation and park areas along the River and its tributaries. • Lower thresholds that trigger requirements for stormwater BMPs in areas with local drainage problems. Identification of high-priority sub-catchments in future phases will provide important guidance on where and how to target additional requirements where needed. • Provide for more regular stormwater and compensatory storage basin inspections for loss of volume, other performance issues, and better enforcement of sediment and erosion control and BMP/runoff basin conditions. Maintenance and inspection regularity is cited throughout this Plan as a need, and an important investment for the health of the East Branch and its watershed. Proper funding or assumption of operation, maintenance and monitoring of basins and BMPs countywide may also be considered to ensure ongoing function and performance. • Encourage owners/managers of older open water stormwater basins to retrofit to wetland bottom without loss of storage to provide additional benefits such as improved water quality, increased evapotranspiration, more resilient habitat, increased dissolved oxygen, and reductions in nuisance issues such as geese, algae, sediment accumulation and bank erosion. Typically, older basins that no longer meet contemporary design standards can be retrofitted to provide water quality protection, rather than simply dredging ponds and replacing the prior design when maintenance is required. Voluntary or mandatory upgrades could be funded through grants or cost-share agreements, and could be managed by the County or municipalities. • Protect trees in the watershed and augment tree canopy. Mature trees uptake between 65 and 100 gallons of water per day during the summer (Akbari, 1992; Thomas, 2000; Cermak et. al., 2000), and a tree crown can store about 50-100 gallons per tree during a rain event (USDA Northeast Community Tree Guide). The uptake of soil water by tree roots increases the available water storage potential in the soil. 129 

6. Watershed Problems & Opportunities

• Require that wetland compensatory mitigation from development impacts be provided in the same tributary watershed rather than just within the East Branch basin. Fine tuning where compensatory mitigation can occur will help balance hydrologic impacts more closely within the overall watershed. • Seek out opportunities to install subdivision-scale volume control and pollutant control permanent best management practices or wetlands. Providing this type of regional BMP can provide cost-effective pollutant reduction and flood prevention. • To improve water quality, limit the use of salt and fertilizer near wetlands, buffers, waterways, and floodplains. A voluntary and educational campaign can be an effective means to improve outreach and understanding of these issues. • For required landscaping plans, develop standards that enhance the functions of wetlands, buffers and riparian environments through native plant management. More diverse native plant communities can increase infiltration, evapotranspiration, and the assimilation of pollutants. These plantings are also more resilient to climate change, pests, and other environmental stressors. • Preserve the infiltration capacity of native existing soils where possible by protecting them from unnecessary compaction. This can reduce runoff volume and pollutants. • Consider ways to restructure the fee in lieu system so that providing site specific BMPs is a more attractive option. A shift in the incentives created by the County’s ordinances could encourage better on-site practices. • Examine sizing criteria for stormwater BMPs based on the tributary area instead of the new impervious area which may reduce sediment and pollutants in the watershed. A new guidance document for the Ordinance is desirable, as this would provide education for the consulting and development community and encourage bringing special management areas into the process as early as possible. In conjunction with a review of the sizing criteria, the potential to require sizing of detention facilities and BMPs for full future build-out potential on certain sites should be considered. • Require long-term inspections and maintenance on all stormwater runoff control, floodplain compensatory storage, and post construction best management practices. Verify that restrictors are still in place and verify that volume is still being provided. • Prohibit snow from plowing to be stored in wetlands, riparian buffers, waterways, or floodplains. Residuals from snow plowing leaves significant sediment residue, which decreases storage in wetlands and floodplain. • Develop sample or typical detailed design specifications for best management practices such as detention basins, volume control facilities, post construction best management practices, and native plantings. • Provide funding incentives for the design, implementation, maintenance, and monitoring of public and private BMPs, including both voluntary and required facilities. The County could offer a tax or permit fee breaks for installing BMPs that reduce runoff. An incentive system may encourage more voluntary BMPs to be constructed, and maintenance support will keep them functioning providing greater resiliency in the watershed.

130 

6. Watershed Problems & Opportunities

• Purchase fee title or easements on wetland and floodplain properties that are in private ownership and have not been developed. Preserving properties that have not yet been developed adds to the valuable network of wetlands and floodplains. Preservation and restoration of these areas is many times more cost effective than building a facility of the same size that provides the same benefits. • Provide education, training and outreach for municipalities, professionals, realtors, property owners, and children on:

 Flooding processes, causes, damage prevention, regulations and mitigation  Wetland, buffer, and riparian benefits and protections  Water quality in the watershed  Sediment and erosion control  Bringing wetlands, buffers, and floodplain into the development process before a property is purchased to increase chances of avoidance.  A PR campaign to make owning a healthy rain garden, wetland, or rain collection (rain barrel) system more common and appealing, increasing the social acceptability and visibility of these practices.

Moving forward to provide greater resiliency and flood protection, it will be important to balance new project ideas against their impacts to the overall resiliency of the watershed. For instance, floodproofing utilities and buildings may impact or degrade wetlands and riparian environments. Both are important and the benefits and costs (trade-offs) should be weighed and impacts minimized as projects move forward.

6.3.2. Municipal Plans & Initiatives Several of the watershed community’s comprehensive plans were reviewed to determine if there were any efforts to address stormwater, water quality, environmental or other issues. Discussions on a selection of municipalities are in the following sections.

6.3.2.1 Village of Downers Grove Comprehensive Plan The 2011 Comprehensive Plan was reviewed and a brief summary or pull-out of Plan elements is below. There are several statements under Parks, Open Space and Environmental Features Policy Recommendations that pertain to protecting floodplains and enhancing stormwater management. Similarly, there are several statements under Infrastructure and Development section in the Appendix - Goals & Objectives. The term water quality does not appear in the Plan.

Stormwater Management under Residential Areas Plan & Policies:

Improved stormwater management should be a near- and long-term priority for the Village and should continue to be addressed in a comprehensive manner within all residential areas. In addition to investments in public infrastructure, the Village should consider updating the Subdivision Control Ordinance to reflect current design and stormwater practices. The Village should encourage the use of naturalized storm water retention and detention basin areas and pervious paving materials, to reduce long-term contributions to stormwater run-off. 131 

6. Watershed Problems & Opportunities

Then under sidewalks:

Alternative solutions to traditional sidewalk construction should be considered in sensitive areas where, for example, such improvements may contribute to additional flooding or negatively impact existing parkway trees.

Under Environmental Features Plan & Policies:

Both floodways and floodplains are present in Downers Grove and the potential for development/redevelopment can be limited within these areas. In addition, the Village has identified Localized Poor Drainage Areas (LPDA) which are prone to flooding due to local topography. While LPDAs are not recognized by FEMA, they are regulated at the local level in similar manner as a floodplain. A property’s location within a floodplain or LPDA should be a consideration in any development or redevelopment recommendations. The Village should continue to regulate development in flood-prone areas. The Village should also consider establishing guidelines that minimize the amount of impervious surface created by new development and reduce long term contributions to stormwater run-off.

6.3.2.2 Village of Glen Ellyn Comprehensive Plan The 2001 Comprehensive Plan was reviewed and a brief summary or pull-out of Plan elements is below. The term water quality does not appear in the Plan.

Objective under the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Goal:

Preserve the environmental corridor adjoining the East Branch of the DuPage River for aesthetic and recreational purposes, wildlife habitat and flood plain protection.

Under Community Facilities Policies:

The Village should continue to acquire or otherwise preserve floodplain areas. While development of these areas should not be permitted, they may represent opportunities for new public open spaces.

Stormwater management has always been of great concern within the Village. The location of many parts of the Village in areas susceptible to flooding has placed significant emphasis on better ways to control stormwater. Expansion of storage facilities and addressing additional runoff from development areas must be addressed.

6.3.2.3 Village of Lisle Comprehensive Plan The 2004 Comprehensive Plan was reviewed and a brief summary or pull-out of Plan elements is below. The term water quality does not appear in the Plan. No explicit flooding or floodplain related goals are stated. The following general statements are provided:

Natural features influencing a parcel of land were analyzed. Information on natural vegetation, wildlife, flood plain and wetland areas, soil conditions, topography and geological formations play an important role in determining land uses.

132 

6. Watershed Problems & Opportunities

The primary functions of property with the Open Space area designation are Village parks (P), public and private golf courses (GC), the Morton Arboretum, private common open space as is found in some of the Village’s newer residential subdivisions, and areas that are environmentally sensitive such as woodlands, wetlands, and floodplain areas. Open Space areas serve as places for passive and active recreation and, in general, the long term use of open space lands will not convert to more intense land use activities.

Only for Leask Lane Sub-Area:

That no building be built or lots be platted in the 100 year floodplain boundaries.

6.3.2.4 Village of Lombard The 2014 Comprehensive Plan was reviewed and a brief summary or pull-out of Plan elements is below.

Under Follow-up Studies and Projects:

The Village should continue to adopt and implement subarea stormwater management plans for areas with combined sewers and other flooding concerns. A comprehensive stormwater management plan should also address opportunities for combined detention or retention in the Village.

Under the Open Space Recommendations Section:

Open space is an important quality of life concern because it provides recreational opportunities, aids in stormwater management and water quality, and adds to the overall suburban character of the Village.

6.3.3. Planning for Natural Areas 6.3.3.1 DuPage Natural Areas Master Plan In 2013, efforts began to coordinate the efforts of all local and regional open space organizations in the acquisition or protection of property that will benefit and improve the quality of life for the residents of DuPage County. The principal goals of the plan were to: identify and prioritize parcels of property in DuPage County that will provide trail and greenway linkages, expand existing open space properties, buffer existing open space, and protect forests, woodlands, prairies, wetlands, watersheds, streams, and river corridors; identify natural areas that will promote protection and preservation of endangered and threatened wildlife and plant species; and create a plan that various agencies in DuPage County can use to protect the identified remaining open space, as well as foster cooperation and partnerships in implementing the plan over time.

The purpose of this open space and natural areas plan is to coordinate the efforts of local and regional open space organizations in the acquisition or protection of property that will benefit and improve the quality of life for the residents of DuPage County. Specifically it seeks to identify and prioritize parcels of property in DuPage County that will provide trail and greenway linkages, expand existing open space properties, buffer existing open space, and protect forests, 133 

6. Watershed Problems & Opportunities

woodlands, prairies, wetlands, watersheds, streams and river corridors. It provides a plan that various agencies and organizations in DuPage County can use to protect the identified remaining open space, and foster cooperation and partnerships in implementing the plan over time. Implementation of this plan over time, will protect remaining pieces of DuPage County’s natural heritage, and provide better resiliency in the face of a changing climate. While it is not centered on stormwater and flood control, these pieces of existing, natural green infrastructure will provide stormwater, flood control, and water quality benefits in addition to the biodiversity and recreational goals.

This county-specific open space or green infrastructure network plan can provide an important framework for the details of an East Branch DuPage River watershed plan by identifying existing protected open space, and remaining privately owned open space that may provide opportunities for increased watershed resiliency.

6.3.3.2 Chicago Wilderness Green Infrastructure Vision In 2004, the Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission (NIPC, now part of CMAP) completed a Green Infrastructure Vision (“GIV 1.0”) for the Chicago Wilderness (CW) region. This product identified large Resource Protection Areas (RPAs) and recommended protection approaches for each, including additional land preservation, ecological restoration, or development restrictions. These recommendations were based primarily on charrettes that distilled the professional judgment of natural resource experts within Chicago Wilderness. GIV 1.0 resulted in a final report containing the recommendations, as well as, several printed maps and GIS data representing the RPAs. In 2012, CW undertook a refinement of the previous work that was intended to classify and characterize important resources in a more analytically robust manner, as well as, to define ecological and human connectivity needs, and provide enhanced Figure 6-1 Chicago Wilderness Green Infrastructure Vision information to support conservation

134 

6. Watershed Problems & Opportunities and development decisions. The Green Infrastructure Vision has often been described as a visual representation of the Chicago Wilderness Biodiversity Recovery Plan, and the refinements of GIV completed in 2012 were meant to help further advance the broad conservation agenda established by the Biodiversity Recovery Plan. The main products of the revised GIV project are derived GIS datasets that describe and characterize the regional green infrastructure or ecological network.

The GIV covers the Chicago Wilderness ecoregion which includes counties in Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana, with a small portion of Berrien County, Michigan. The ecoregion includes some or all of the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) boundaries of CMAP, the Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission (NIRPC), and the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Agency (SEWRPC), along with portions of additional outlying counties in Illinois and Indiana.

The primary purpose of the GIV is to identify a regionally important network of land and water that is critical to protect and restore to the conserve biodiversity of the region. This regional green infrastructure network was developed for the Chicago Wilderness region area using the core-hub-corridor approach. The building blocks of the network are “core areas” that contain well-functioning natural ecosystems that provide high-quality habitat for native plants and animals. By contrast, “hubs” are aggregations of core areas, as well as, nearby lands that contribute significantly to ecosystem services like clean water, flood control, carbon sequestration, and recreation opportunities. Finally, “corridors” are relatively linear features linking cores and hubs together, providing essential connectivity for animal, plant, and human movement.

The current revised GIV retains the emphasis on protecting biodiversity from the original GIV, but it also seeks to address a broader range of issues and provide a wide array of benefits. Continuing the original approach, the current GIV gives “a high priority… to identifying and preserving important but unprotected natural communities, especially those threatened by development, and to protecting areas that can function as large blocks of natural habitat though restoration and management.” Thus GIV addresses the following conservation strategies:

• Creation of large preserves: The GIV identifies the largest blocks of unfragmented landscapes based on ecological resources rather than property boundaries. • Creation of community mosaics: The GIV assembles blocks of forest/woodlands, prairie/savanna, wetlands, and aquatic systems into hubs of multiple landscape types to reflect the importance of a mix of habitats that support biodiversity. • Protection of priority areas, especially remaining high-quality sites: The GIV incorporates the best available data on high quality natural heritage sites, natural areas, and important bird areas regardless of the size of the site and current protected status. • Protection of any large sites with some remnant communities: The GIV includes adjacent compatible land cover around known remnant communities to buffer and hopefully expand them over time.

135 

6. Watershed Problems & Opportunities

• Protection of land that connects or expands existing natural areas: The GIV uses functional connectivity to link core areas and hubs together and identify potential locations for restoration. • Expansion of public preserves, acquisition of large new sites, and/or protection through the actions of private land owners where possible: The GIV can be used to identify gaps in protection and opportunities for private land stewardship that advances the goals of the Biodiversity Recovery Plan.

This regional green infrastructure network also provides multiple benefits. At its broadest, landscape- scale green infrastructure provides important ecosystem services like clean air and water, critical plant and animal habitat, and wildlife migration corridors along with compatible working landscapes. At the regional scale, green space can help protect water quality and help ensure the availability of drinking water. Green infrastructure can also provide key recreational areas that link people to natural lands and facilitate the use of transportation modes other than automobiles to reach key community assets. At the site scale, green infrastructure enhances neighborhoods and downtowns through environmentally-sensitive site design techniques, urban forestry, and stormwater management systems that reduce the environmental impact of urban settlements and increase community resiliency. All of these scales of activity can be linked together and can ensure resiliency in urban, suburban, and rural areas of a region. Green infrastructure can be implemented at many different scales. Finally, as surveys of conservation organizations by the Land Trust Alliance have documented, producing a strategic conservation plan is associated with a dramatic increase in the pace of land conservation (Amundsen, 2011).

The emerging consensus on climate adaptation planning is that well-defined spatial priorities are needed to facilitate adaptation for wildlife and ecosystem processes. This approach identifies those elements of the landscape most relevant to wildlife now, in the face of current threats, as well as, in the future as the climate changes, and it provides a spatial framework for climate adaptation planning relevant to land conservation efforts. At a landscape scale, the GIV network incorporates places where building resilience by conserving large habitat blocks and realigning corridors to build connectivity will ultimately help wildlife and people adapt to an altered climate.

The GIV groups landscape or cover types into the following groups for the purposes of mapping: prairie/grasslands/savannas, woodlands/forests, wetlands, streams/lakes/rivers, and urban- scale green infrastructure. Each group was mapping based on biologically based criteria coupled with best available data that provided local accuracy. All of the geospatial data has been made available to any potential users and partners. Several local communities, 3 Illinois counties, and some other localities have used the GIV to create their own stepped-down green infrastructure plan that includes local priorities and features that could not be mapped at a regional scale. These plans are then used to guide conservation and land planning in those localized areas. It is the intent that the GIV can be used as a tool for any local planning, including municipal revisions to comprehensive plans. Considering the regional and watershed-scale green infrastructure along with site and neighborhood scale constructed green infrastructure practices can greatly enhance resiliency.

136 

6. Watershed Problems & Opportunities

In 2014, CMAP contracted with the Conservation Fund to complete an economic valuation study of the ecosystem services provided by the GIV within the 7-county area they serve. Ecosystem services are the collective benefits from an array of resources and processes that are supplied by nature. Forests, wetlands, prairies, water bodies, and other natural ecosystems support our existence. Since 2004, the GIV has served as a visual representation of the Chicago Wilderness Biodiversity Recovery Plan, but it also served as a spatial representation of the region’s ecosystem services. Only recently has it become possible to reliably estimate the contributions the GIV makes to human well-being and to measure the benefits that nature provides us for free. This economic valuation study provided a review and visualization of ecosystem service values for six ecosystem services within the CMAP 7‐county region: water flow regulation/flood control, water purification, groundwater recharge, carbon storage, native flora and fauna, and recreation and ecotourism. In addition, three additional ecosystem services were researched but did not have sufficient information to support visualization at the CMAP regional scale: air purification, microclimate moderation, and increases in property values.

According to analysis completed for this project, natural ecosystems contribute well more than $6 billion per year in economic value to the 7‐county CMAP region. In comparison, the gross domestic product (GDP) of the Chicago Metropolitan Statistical Area (which mostly overlaps the 7 counties) was $586 billion in 2013. And this estimate may undercount the total value since this estimate is only from ecosystem services that could be reliably measured, this total does not include any of the economic activity supported by the region’s recreation and ecotourism Figure 6-2 GIV for East Branch DuPage River infrastructure, and did not measure contributions from Lake Michigan.

The Chicago Wilderness GIV is used every day by planners and decision makers at the local, state, regional, and federal levels to guide existing planning efforts and evaluate conservation and restoration opportunities that support preserving and managing the GIV network. The GIV 137 

6. Watershed Problems & Opportunities

can now help identify the most strategic locations for CMAP and its partners to implement the land conservation goals of the GO TO 2040 metropolitan Chicago comprehensive regional plan. Specifically, GIV now provides an estimate of return on investment for conservation capital in different locations within the CMAP service area.

A recent study found that if the values of ecological services are considered, the benefits from conserving natural land gives a return on investment of at least 100 to 1. Using the GIV to estimate the monetized social benefit of conservation in comparison with the investments required to protect land is a scientifically valid and valuable product that will lead to increased awareness of decision makers and the general public regarding the importance and contribution of green infrastructure to the region’s quality of life and resiliency.

6.3.3.3 Morton Arboretum Plans The Morton Arboretum property contains 14 ponds and lakes, several seasonal drainageways, several wetland areas, and Willoway Creek, in addition to the main channel of the East Branch DuPage River. The Arboretum has been manipulating the landscape for their mission as an outdoor museum since the 1920’s, and in recent decades has undertaken several projects to improve the condition of the lakes and ponds. Drainage and flooding have also been issues addressed in various ways over the decades.

Drain Tile Investigation

In 2013-2014 the Morton Arboretum conducted a detailed drain tile investigation of their property. Their purpose was to locate all drain tiles throughout the property, assess their condition/function, consolidate all historic and current information into one geospatial database, and develop plans to improve the drainage system where needed to support their outdoor museum collections. The investigation revealed 18.4 miles of drain tile of which 14.9 miles were actively functioning, and 3.5 miles were inactive due to previous restoration projects. Of the functioning tiles, approximately 8.6 miles were clay tile, and 6.3 miles were plastic. There are also 0.8 miles of concrete stormwater pipes on the property. Drain tiles were found to both enter and exit the Arboretum property. The Arboretum has proposed a total of 29 drain tile improvement projects to ensure safety for people and equipment, reduce drainage liability, and improve the conservation value of the collections.

Visitor Center Parking Lot BMPs

A significant recent project undertaken by the Arboretum includes several aspects that altered and improved drainage and water quality entering the East Branch DuPage River, while improving the Arboretum’s visitor service capacity. In the 1990s the Arboretum created a new master plan which included a large new visitor center and several new gardens adjacent to it. The purpose was to increase visitorship from the general public and so this also necessitated a new larger parking lot adjacent to the river. Meadow Lake, which is adjacent to the Visitor Center and parking lot, was undergoing Illinois EPA Clean Lakes Program funded improvements. To provide good stewardship of the River and Meadow Lake, the Arboretum undertook the design and installation of a “green” parking lot, one of the first of its kind in the

138 

6. Watershed Problems & Opportunities region. The parking lot was approximately 5 acres in size, needed to accommodate about 500 vehicles, and is located within the floodplain of the River. It was designed with significant bioswales to provide filtration and infiltration of runoff, and used permeable, interlocking concrete pavers. Level spreaders, treatment wetlands, and other BMPs were also included in the design. Compensatory flood storage is provided within the void space of the aggregate base beneath the permeable paver parking lot. Ongoing efforts monitor and maintain the performance of this parking lot and drainage system designed to be an example demonstration project.

Section 206 Ecosystem Restoration Project

An ongoing, multiphase project affecting over 80 acres along the East Branch, the main channel of the East Branch, and Arbor Lake is funded through the Section 206 Ecosystem Restoration program of the US Army Corps of Engineers, Chicago District. This project will include river bank stabilization, in-stream habitat features, recontouring the shoreline of Arbor Lake, and removing shoreline invasive plants on both the river and the lake. Portions of this project have been completed, while other parts are planned to begin during summer 2015. More information is available at the Morton Arboretum.

Chicago Region Trees Initiative

Finally, the Morton Arboretum is leading a new effort called the Chicago Region Trees Initiative across the Chicago region, including the East Branch watershed. The premise is that our regional forest is a critical asset in need of protection. Trees clean the air and water, reduce flooding, improve property values, create habitat for wildlife, and provide significant social and health benefits. Invasive species, including buckthorn and honeysuckle, the death of ash trees due to emerald ash borer, and the lack of funding for proper tree care and attention are having significant impacts on the health and survival of our regional forest. The Chicago Region Trees Initiative (CRTI) is a unique and collaborative response to key issues facing trees across our urban landscape.

The Chicago Region Trees Initiative was established in 2013 as a collaboration of Chicago region partners working together to develop and implement a strategy that builds a healthier and more diverse urban forest by 2040. This strategy was developed based on findings from the Regional Tree Census produced in cooperation with the USDA Forest Service and The Morton Arboretum. A coalition of agency, industry, and community representatives are working together to expand the understanding of the value of the region's trees and to make meaningful tree and forest improvements in the region.

Ten key organizations form the leadership of CRTI: The Morton Arboretum, Openlands, The Nature Conservancy, the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Chicago Wilderness, the Illinois Landscape Contractors Association, the Cook County Forest Preserve District, the Metropolitan Mayors Caucus, and the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning.

The overarching mission of CRTI is ambitious: to make a significant, measurable improvement to the regional forest and the lives of its inhabitants by the year 2040. The broad geographic 139 

6. Watershed Problems & Opportunities

scale and depth of the work will help the Chicago region establish a healthier forest. CRTI is setting actionable goals for canopy cover, species and age class diversity, and management expertise to create a more resilient forest. CRTI will establish these goals using baseline data of forest composition and operational capacity of forestry programs collected by local and national forest researchers. CRTI will compile and analyze these data, including public and private tree inventories, regional tree census results, and LIDAR imagery. The information, planning, and implementation of the various goals of the CRTI will encompass the East Branch DuPage River and represents an ongoing effort that will improve watershed resiliency.

6.3.3.4 DRSCW Identification and Prioritization Tool The Identification and Prioritization Tool (IPS) was developed by the DRSCW in 2011 for the watersheds of the Salt Creek and East and West Branch of the DuPage River. It is based on the results of a casual analysis applied to fish and macro invertebrates, water and sediment chemistry and the habitat components making up the QHEI score. The causal analysis was designed to tease out the relationship between the dependent variables (fish and macro- invertebrates) and the independent variables (habitat, chemistry and landscape features such as road density). The results of the analysis were then placed in a GIS program and each sample site weighted according to the number of statistically significant stressors, geographical proximity to open space and proximity of the sites IBI scores to the state standards. Segments were then prioritized based on their composite score and the stressors for the reach listed so projects to mitigate them could be designed. The system has 16 sites on the East Branch DuPage River. 6.4. Watershed Jurisdictional Coordination 6.4.1. Roles and Responsibilities It is critical to establish appropriate roles and responsibilities of stakeholders, departments and agencies throughout the watershed. As this Plan is further implemented, roles and responsibilities can be refined to maximize efficiency and benefits for the watershed and its stakeholders.

6.4.1.1 DuPage County Stormwater Management Plan In 1989 DuPage County adopted the DuPage County Stormwater Management Plan. This plan provided the foundation for future watershed planning efforts, the DCCSFPO and water quality improvements throughout the county. It was established in recognition of the critical need to limit the reoccurrences of extensive flood damages within the County, and was implemented by the Stormwater Committee to reverse that trend. This plan responds to the opportunity inherent in State of Illinois P.A. 85-905, which authorizes regional stormwater management in northeastern Illinois counties. It also recognizes the integrated nature of the watershed system and the need to consider stormwater management planning on a watershed basis. This plan accomplished three main purposes. It consolidates the stormwater management framework throughout DuPage County into a united, countywide structure; sets minimum countywide standards for flood plain and stormwater management; and provides for countywide coordination for the management of stormwater runoff in both natural and manmade drainageways and storage. 140 

6. Watershed Problems & Opportunities

In addition, this plan establishes standards for many aspects of County stormwater program, including Objectives and Policies; Watershed Plans and Flood Maps; Problems and Project Planning; Maintenance Programs; Regulatory programs; Facility and Local Data; Technical Guidance; Funding; and Implementation and Enforcement.

6.4.2. Policies and Regulations DuPage County has a comprehensive DCCSFPO that was based on the Management Plan (dated 1989). This DCCSFPO was first implemented in 1991 with several revisions and the last update in 2013. This DCCSFPO has helped the County improve localized flooding with restrictive detention requirements and a no-net loss policy for wetlands. By infiltrating more water at the source demonstrated benefits recognized by local communities. Once the County established itself within the region with a strong DCCSFPO it was recognized by other state and federal agencies as serious for stormwater management, resource protection and water quality. In 1996, the County received IDNR/OWR delegation to review for development and/or impacts within the floodway. With wetland protection the County was granted review authority by the USACE for all jurisdictional wetlands. Added to that delegation in 2009 was the IEPA 401 Water Quality Certification. These agency partnerships will help promote resource protection, reduce duplication of permitting efforts and provide better watershed decision making tools at the local level. 6.5. Watershed Flooding and Quality of Life Survey In January 2015, DuPage County residents were given the opportunity to respond to a questionnaire on topics related to severe weather events, disaster resiliency, and the impact on quality of life. There were approximately 700 responses to the questionnaire from a variety of municipalities within the county. Glen Ellyn, Lisle, Wheaton, Elmhurst, and Lombard were the municipalities with the highest number of participants in the questionnaire.

The results of the survey showed that the respondents have a high level of concern when heavy rains are forecast (2015 National Disaster Resilience Competition Questionnaire). The survey participants were asked how worried they are when heavy rains are forecast and the result was that a scale from 1 to 10 (with 1 meaning not at all worried and 10 meaning worried very much), the weighted average was 7.66. Only 15% of the respondents answered less than 5 on the scale for their level of worry. The types of issues that caused the most concern for respondents were surface water flooding from rainfall (78%), road flooding (61%), sewer backups (60%), and groundwater flooding (57%). In comparison to other types of natural disasters, respondents were significantly more concerned about floods. Responses for 90% of the questionnaire participants indicated that floods were a weather event that caused concern as shown in Figure 6-3.

141 

6. Watershed Problems & Opportunities

Figure 6-3 Percentage of questionnaire respondents who indicated that the weather event was a concern

Floods

High Winds

Blizzards

Extreme Heat

Extreme Cold

Drought

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

There are a variety of reasons for the concern relating to flooding. The challenges that have been experienced by respondents in the past include property damage (65%), trauma or stress(55%), inability to commute or travel due to road or transit closure (48%), inability to go to work or lost wages (45%), displaced from home or business location either permanently or temporarily (19%), inability to go to school (18%), disrupted business production (4%), and forced to close business (1%). Many of the comments indicated that repairs and decrease in property value caused a financial burden. For a majority of respondents (approximately 7 out of 10), the type of property damage that occurred was water in the yard or water in the house or garage. Damage to the foundation and mold were a problem for approximately 3 out of 10 respondents. On a scale from 1 to 10 (with 1 meaning not at all and 10 meaning very much), the weighted average for how inconvenienced respondents are when flooding occurs is 7.84.

The questionnaire participants were also asked about their opinion about their municipality’s ability to recover from a flood event. Only 7% of respondents answered that they thought that their municipality was prepared for any type of flooding event. Comments in response to the question about how long the respondent intended to continue living in their current municipality indicated that some residents were already planning to leave due to flood issues and some residents would like to stay in their municipality in the long term but that decision is dependent on whether flooding issues are improved. When asked about the quality of life in their municipality over the last five years, the majority of respondents said either it has stayed the same (42%) or declined (30%). Only 19% of respondents answered that the quality of life has improved over the last 5 years in their municipality. The outcome of the survey indicates that the respondents are worried about flooding and have been inconvenienced in their daily life. These two issues could be a factor in the quality of life for the respondents.

142 

7. Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses: Studies, Economic Analysis and Preferred Alternatives 7.1. Existing Studies and Analyses 7.1.1. FEMA Flood Insurance Study (FIS) The current FEMA Flood Insurance Study (FIS) was published in March 2007 and provides a summary of potential flood risks generally associated with open waterways (i.e. rivers, streams, creeks, lakes, etc.) throughout DuPage County. The first FIS for DuPage County was originally published with an effective date of December 4, 1985. Since then, numerous updates to hydrologic and hydraulic model as well as other mapping updates have caused the FIS to be updated and republished for use. A Flood Insurance Study is used to document the existence and potential hazards of flooding throughout the study area. An FIS study is used in conjunction with FIRMs to illustrate the details and extents of flood hazard areas. These two sets of documents help with the administration of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973. The flood risk data is used to establish actuarial flood insurance rates for properties. The information provided in these documents also allows DuPage County to update floodplain regulations as part of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

For the East Branch, the current FIS utilizes hydrologic data and results from the USACE’s Chicago Metropolitan Study, DuPage River Basin published in 1974. The hydraulic data and results are based on the USACE HEC-2 modeling program as part of the HEC-2 Water Surface Profiles study published in 1976. A summary of the data sources and dates for the mainstem and its tributaries is provided in Table 7-1 with full references provided in the FIS. According to the FIS, other sources of flooding for smaller tributaries and FIRM areas noted as unnumbered Zone A have typically come from local studies or USGS Flood of Record Maps

Table 7-1 Summary of FIS Data Sources for Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses per the 2007 FIS

River Hydrology Hydraulics East Branch DuPage River HEC-1 HEC-2 Mainstem 1973 1976 (EBEB) Armitage Creek Regression Equations HEC-2 (EBAR) 1973 1973 Army Trail Road Tributary HEC-1 Backwater from EBEB only (EBAT) 1973 1976 Crabtree Creek Regression Equations HEC-2 (EBCR) 1973 1982 Tributary No. 1 Log-Pearson Type III HEC-2 (EBE1) 1976 1974 Tributary No. 2 HSPF FEQ (EBE2) 2001 2001 Tributary No. 3 (Schwartz Creek) HEC-1 Backwater from EBEB only (EBE3) 1973 1976

143 

7. Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses: Studies, Economic Analysis and Preferred Alternatives

River Hydrology Hydraulics Tributary No. 6 (St. Procopius Ratio of Lacey Creek HEC-2 Creek) 1976 (EBE6) Tributary No. 7 Log-Pearson Type III HEC-2 (EBE7) 1976 1976 Glencrest Creek Log-Pearson Type III HEC-2 (EBGL) 1976 1982 Glen Park HEC-1 Backwater from EBEB only (EBGP) 1973 1976 Lacey Creek HEC-1 HEC-2 (EBLA) 1973 1976 Prentiss Creek Log-Pearson Type III HEC-2 (EBPR) 1976 1982 Rott Creek Regional Statistics HEC-2 (EBRC) St. Joseph’s Creek Log-Pearson Type III HEC-2 (EBSJ) 1976 1976 Swift Meadows HEC-1 HEC-2 (EBSM) 1973 1976 22nd Street Log-Pearson Type III HEC-2 (EBTS) 1976 1976 Willoway Brook Log-Pearson Type III HEC-2 (EBWI) 1976 1976 Other Areas Zone A Varies (Local Studies, floods of Varies (Local Studies, floods of record, etc.) record, etc.)

The data currently being used for the FIS is severely out of date and is in need of significant updates due to large changes in land use, hydrology, channel condition, storage and other major changes within the watershed. DuPage County has revised the FIRMs to have existing flood profiles plotted on updated topography. In addition, DuPage County has developed a set of Regulatory Flood Maps which are map panels similar to FIRMs except that they reflect the latest effective flood zone boundaries as noted on the FIRMs and all effective Letters of Map Change issued by FEMA.

Floodplains are shown in Exhibit 13.

7.1.2. East Branch Mapping Updates DuPage County became a Cooperating Technical Partner with FEMA in order to update and modernize the County’s floodplain maps and identify other flood mapping tasks that need to be completed. DuPage County received grant funds from FEMA under the FY08 Map Maintenance initiative. As part of this program, DuPage County has updated hydrologic and hydraulic models for the three major watersheds (West Branch DuPage River, East Branch DuPage River, and Salt Creek) as well as a majority of its larger tributaries. The County utilizes HSPF for hydrology and FEQ for hydraulics in order to develop peak flood stages, peak flood flows, and flood volume tabulation for use in developing updated flood profiles. The flood profiles are computed through a peak-to-volume statistical method using a program called PVSTATS. These resulting flood elevations are plotted on County topography to create updated flood risk extents 144 

7. Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses: Studies, Economic Analysis and Preferred Alternatives to be used on the latest FIRMs. Detailed discussion reports on the hydrology and hydraulic methods and results can be obtained through DuPage County Stormwater Management.

Model changes and updates generally include, but are not limited to the following:

• Updated land use representing 2003 data • Updated hydrology • Extended historical storm event series: 1948-2008 • Cross sections • Hydraulic structures (i.e. bridges, culverts, weirs, etc.) • Flood control facilities and other floodwater storage areas

These major updates for the watersheds include report documentation, flood profiles, and new flood maps which are on file with the County. The ultimate goal of these reports and maps is to have an updated DuPage County FIS and FIRM set that better represents existing flood risks throughout the County. The reports and maps were submitted to FEMA through the mapping process for the final approvals.

As of January 2015, the current status of the flood mapping is that the mapping and FIS are currently in FEMA’s Quality Review 3 (QR3) stage of the QA/QC process. The County is anticipating an open house on the latest mapping updates in April or May of 2015.

7.1.3. East Branch – River-Dumoulin Area A 2004 report, East Branch River-Dumoulin Flood Control Plan (River-Dumoulin Plan), analyzed major flooding issues centered on the Lisle area south of I-88 and north of Maple Avenue. As discussed in Section 6.2.3.1, this area is protected by a non-accredited system of levees which were originally designed and constructed in the 1960’s for a 50-year level of protection. This plan divided the area into seven zones for analysis and discussion. HSPF and FEQ were utilized to perform hydrologic and hydraulic analyses of existing and alternative conditions. Various alternatives were analyzed to reduce flood damages in this area. The recommended plan was to perform levee maintenance and improve local drainage behind the levees by constructing four pump stations and constructing drainage swales and other infrastructure to convey water to the pump stations.

In 2008, DuPage County purchased four properties, constructed four pump stations, and began acquiring maintenance easements along the levee. DuPage County was unable to secure all the easements to perform levee maintenance and improve local drainage towards the pump stations. Additionally, the easements and the River-Dumoulin Plan did not address encroachments, including garages, trees and power poles or the property owner’s future use of the levees.

To provide a more detailed analysis of the levee systems structure, Lisle completed a study in 2012 called the East Branch DuPage River Levee Study Middleton Ave to Maple Ave. The study looked at the levee system along the East Branch DuPage River, as well as St. Joseph Creek. It was determined that levee system was in dire need of maintenance due to significant settlement 145 

7. Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses: Studies, Economic Analysis and Preferred Alternatives and erosion issues. It was also noted that the levee system was typically constructed of unsuitable materials which promote unstable embankment foundations. The recommendations generally comprised an improved maintenance plan in conjunction with strengthening the current levee system through bentonite or grout injection and capping. Due to the significant cost and lack of property rights or easements, the recommendations have not been able to proceed to design and construction.

7.1.4. East Branch – Valley View Area Several studies and reports were prepared for an area along the mainstem of the East Branch DuPage River in unincorporated DuPage County called Valley View. Valley View is generally located along Illinois Route 53 south of Butterfield Road (Illinois Route 56) and north of Park Boulevard. This area is subject to frequent overbank flooding causing damages to homes and properties and extended road closures of Illinois Route 53. A 1992 Feasibility Study prepared by DuPage County and the USACE utilized updated hydrology and hydraulics to obtain peak stages and flows for the East Branch DuPage River for USACE to utilize for additional analyses. This study utilized the continuous simulation hydrologic model LANDS and the one-dimensional, unsteady flow hydraulic model FEQ. These updated models were initially started by DuPage County in 1984 in order to provide a tool for floodplain remapping, watershed planning and project analyses. This 1992 study included two versions of the hydraulic model to represent pre- and post-tollway (I-355) developments along the floodplain corridor. This model used actual precipitation and meteorological data from local rain gages covering the years 1949-1988. The model was calibrated to existing gages and hydraulic results for the storm events were statistically analyzed for USACE use.

The 1996 Valley View Flood Control Plan analyzed flooding along the East Branch DuPage River in Valley View and assessed damages associated with the residential properties along Illinois Route 53. This study facilitated the eventual voluntary buyout of various homes along this stretch of the floodplain corridor to reduce damages.

Another 2005 report focusing on the Valley View area was prepared by DuPage County for IDOT to prepare alternatives for Illinois Route 53 improvements in this area. This report utilized the latest version of the HSPF and FEQ model to analyze alternatives for raising the roadway profile above the base flood elevations to reduce the risk of extended road closures. The evaluation included maintaining floodplain storage and cross culvert drainage paths throughout the corridor. The recommendation was to shift and raise the roadway west while providing new local drainage on the west side and excavated compensatory floodplain storage on the east side.

In 2003, the Report on Groundwater Impact Assessment for Valley View Subdivision was prepared for DuPage County. This report assessed 117 homes in the floodplain area of the Valley View subdivision. It was determined that the area has a thin layer of clay with very permeable sand and gravel aquifer extending to the top of the bedrock. Groundwater is typically higher than the East Branch DuPage River with the river acting as a receiving stream for groundwater in this area. Flood events cause stormwater to back up in the subdivision leading to increases in groundwater levels. There is also a rapid rise and response to groundwater levels related to 146 

7. Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses: Studies, Economic Analysis and Preferred Alternatives

rainfall. Two options were analyzed to lower groundwater levels including constructing a cutoff wall and groundwater extraction wells. These options did not address overbank flooding which would also exacerbate groundwater issues.

7.1.5. Illinois Route 53 North DuPage County has prepared two reports from 1998 and 2003 for the East Branch DuPage River Route 53 North Flood Control Plan. The area around Illinois Route 53 north of Roosevelt Road (Illinois Route 38) has been subject to flood damages from overbank flooding in Glen Ellyn and unincorporated DuPage County. HSPF and FEQ modeling was conducted to analyze flood control alternatives to reduce the risk of flood damages. In addition, DuPage County worked with IDOT for the development of an appropriate bridge replacement for IL 53 which was eventually constructed. Recommendations generally included voluntary buyouts and flood proofing.

7.1.6. Other Local Studies Stakeholders within the watershed have conducted studies to evaluate flood impacts and potential projects on East Branch DuPage River tributaries, drainage ways, and storm sewer system. A summary of other studies completed is provided in Appendix B. This list is continuously updated based on updates from stakeholders regarding ongoing or planned studies. 7.2. Economic Analysis Many of the existing studies developing alternatives to address flood damage involve an economic analysis of the project. These analyses help evaluate the feasibility of flood control projects.

DuPage County typically performs an economic analysis by predicting flood damages on properties based on simulated flood stages from the FEQ hydraulic model results. A Depth- Damage curve was developed based on information compiled from FEMA, NRCS and USACE resources. This model, DEC-2, determines the expected structural, contents and associated damages to each structure for each storm event in DuPage County’s historical storms period of record (1949-2008). Damages for existing conditions are compared to the various alternatives to determine the benefits of the proposed action. In addition, the DEC-2 model also evaluates whether a structure is eligible for voluntary buyout under County guidelines for flood damages.

Other economic analysis concepts include evaluating the cost per acre of impervious areas or cost per homes impacted. 7.3. Recommended Alternatives Each existing study evaluating potential projects to reduce flood damages has a set of recommendations to move into design and construction phases. Recommendations typically involve the following:

• Conveyance improvements (larger channels, ditches, sewers, etc.) 147 

7. Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses: Studies, Economic Analysis and Preferred Alternatives

• Removing restrictive structures (bridges, culverts, dams, weirs, etc.) • Storage facilities (detention ponds, retention ponds, underground detention, compensatory storage, pumped flood control facilities, etc.) • Buyouts (purchasing and removing structure from flood prone area) • Flood proofing (protecting the structure from flooding through a variety of methods)

As projects are prioritized for implementation, complimentary benefits and long-term benefits must be identified. When several alternatives have similar benefits that meet the implementer’s objectives, the typical decision is to proceed with the most acceptable and lowest cost project. This is not only the fundamental approach of a design engineer, it is also the logical choice of municipal representatives seeking to best serve their constituency. But what if these alternatives were analyzed in a broader context - to identify benefits on a larger geographical plan or a longer planning horizon? When this is done, opportunities to build long-term resilience will not be missed. As an implementation plan is prepared, the East Branch DuPage River projects must be analyzed in this context.

A summary of recommended infrastructure alternatives not yet implemented are listed in Section 8.2.2 in the identification of unmet needs throughout the watershed.

148 

8. Watershed Needs and Issues 8.1. Watershed Resilience Principles & Goals This Plan’s overall goal, as stated in Section 3.1 is to enhance Resilience is a term that emerged resilience, environmental quality, and community cohesion from the field of ecology to describe throughout the East Branch DuPage River watershed. the capacity of a system to maintain Resilience, as described in the sidebar, is an approach to or recover functionality in the event of a disruption or disturbance. planning that improves a community’s capacity to prepare Resilience describes an area’s for and respond to shocks and stresses – whether floods, capacity to prepare for, withstand, power outages, cold snaps or heat waves, or economic and recover from exogenous and conditions – in a way that reduces adverse effects on people, unpredictable shocks with minimal impact to people, infrastructure, economies, infrastructure, and the environment. In the environments, and economies. In context of the East Branch watershed and this watershed practice, resilience provides a Plan and the goals of Section 3.1, resilience refers most framework for guiding planning, directly to: investment, and actions to reduce vulnerabilities. Resilience: Building community’s collective ability to - The Rockefeller Foundation: prevent, anticipate, and withstand flood events in the Resilience Overview, National watershed with as little damage and disruption and possible. Disaster Resilience Competition

Environmental Quality: Taking steps to protect and enhance the water quality and physical condition of the East Branch, and to allow the riparian system to function more naturally.

Community Cohesion: Creating a framework for ongoing engagement in watershed issues, where stakeholders have a measurable and beneficial effect on decision-making and investments in the East Branch watershed.

As described throughout this Plan, communities and people throughout the East Branch watershed face economic and physical risks from extreme weather events including heat waves, drought, winter storms, and high winds, and most often and significantly, from heavy downpours and flooding. Under most climate models and predictions for Northern Illinois and the Great Lakes region, these types of adverse events are projected to increase in frequency and severity. Communities can most effectively increase their resilience, and decrease their exposure and vulnerability to risk, by considering these adverse events in their planning and decision- making. And following a significant flood or storm, the recovery phase presents a valuable opportunity to consider how to rebuild in a way that reduces future risks.

This Section focuses on the specific actions that will enhance resilience, and to address four areas of significant vulnerability to “shocks,” damage, cost and disruption.

149 

8. Watershed Needs and Issues

Table 8-1 Watershed Vulnerabilities and Resilience-Enhancing Actions

Vulnerabilities Resilience-Enhancing Actions

Infrastructure: The watershed’s physical and River-Dumoulin levee improvements environmental condition are threatened by aging infrastructure and inconsistent maintenance funding, Drainage improvements in flood-prone areas leaving essential systems such as levees, other flood control structures, sanitary and storm sewers, roads, Improvements to the County’s traffic lights to utility substations, and water systems vulnerable to ensure functioning during power outages disruption by storms and weather events

Housing: The watershed’s physical, social and Engage municipalities with flood-prone economic health is compromised by the ongoing neighborhoods on affordable housing, aging-in- needs for repairs, floodproofing, and buyouts of place, and neighborhood land use planning in the flood-damaged and flood-prone structures, which context of flood damage. represent both current unmet need and future economic and social risk particularly in the Most Complete buyouts and repairs in areas affected by Impacted-Most Distressed area. April 2013 flood.

Initiate voluntary buyouts of flood-prone structures Secure easements for maintenance of flood-related areas and key drainage corridors

Improve sanitary sewers to prevent overflows, backups and impacts on housing

Promote “landscape resilience” through rain barrels, native plantings, and other site-scale measures in key areas.

Environmental Degradation: The watershed’s Section 319 grant-funded water quality environmental health and ability to support improvement projects Beneficial Uses (aquatic life, contact recreation, fish consumption) are compromised by flood-related Tree canopy restoration pollution, ongoing non-point source pollution, hydrologic modification from watershed Non-point source education and outreach imperviousness and storm discharges, lack of tree canopy and stream bank buffers, poor quality or Strategic land conservation degraded physical in-stream habitat, and in-stream constrictions. Strategic stream restoration (increase percentage cobble substrate, add riffle pool sequence and stream sinuosity)

Invasive species removal

Dam/in-stream structures removal

Sanitary sewer separation in Lombard

Storage of rock salt by private contractors

150 

8. Watershed Needs and Issues

Vulnerabilities Resilience-Enhancing Actions

Outdated/inadequate policy, finance and Review and assistance to update local codes, zoning regulatory tools: DuPage County and the and plans for water quality and resilience watershed’s municipalities lack sufficient authority gain access to key flood infrastructure; appropriate Strategy for securing easements or title to the River- financing for operation and maintenance; and Dumoulin Levee for maintenance and repairs incentives and standards that incentivize best practices in new development and redevelopment. Strategy for incorporating incentives and standards into new development

Creative strategy for ensuring consistent financing for essential operation and maintenance

Cooperative Bar Association/Title/ Insurance workgroup to assess needs and options for flood- prone areas, maintenance access

Social Cohesion: Resilience will be enhanced by Direct work with most affected neighborhoods to encouraging social cohesion in affected areas, and engage residents in defining options and outcomes throughout the watershed, enabling municipalities, residents and businesses better to prepare for and Field trips for officials and decision-makers to view respond to climate- and environment-related affected areas and infrastructure, particularly the stresses. River-Dumoulin levee

Watershed and river signage, including flood stage and high water levels, to greatly increase awareness of the river and watershed

Technical exchange with areas in the region farther along in the buyout and redesign process to gain insights and strategies

Direct engagement with foundations, social services providers, faith communities and organizations on flood preparedness, response and recovery options.

151 

8. Watershed Needs and Issues

Vulnerabilities Resilience-Enhancing Actions

Leveraging: The watershed will benefit from a Leverage and explore alternative methods for cross-jurisdiction effort to identify potential county maintenance funding resources that can support resilience-enhancing actions. Begin to apply for Section 319 grant funds for water quality improvements

Utilize floodproofing funds

Use SRF and other sources for sanitary sewer and CSO improvements to help leverage water quality projects

Work with Illinois DOT on cooperative, resilience- enhancing projects such as traffic signals, alternatives to Route 53, wetland mitigation, and hydraulic projects.

Closely coordinate on open space and buffer acquisition with Park Districts, the Arboretum, and the Forest Preserve

8.2. Identification of Unmet Needs Unmet needs related to the prevention of, response to, and recovery from damaging flood events has been obtained through the stakeholder outreach process. Stakeholders have provided information that has been used to understand where there are needs related to housing, infrastructure, environmental degradation and economic revitalization. In addition, following the April 2013 flood event, DuPage County obtained funding through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) through their Community Development Block Grant – Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR). The County was required to publish an action plan that documents unmet needs and how the funds can be used to address the recommended actions to assist with the disaster recovery efforts. Summaries of the CDBG-DR needs are described in the following sections in addition to other needs documented through the development of this Plan.

8.2.1. Housing Significant damage to housing occurred in the April 2013 flood event.

DuPage County consulted with affected citizens, stakeholders, local governments, and the public housing authority to identify unmet needs. This consultation was accomplished through personal interviews, telephone conversations, discussion at public meetings, written correspondence, and surveys. DuPage County was required to describe how it would address the rehabilitation, mitigation and new construction needs of non-owner occupied housing such as emergency shelters, interim (transitional) and permanent supportive housing, housing for tenants utilizing Housing Choice Vouchers, multi-family market rate rental properties, HUD- assisted (and other assisted) multi-family housing, McKinney-Vento funded housing, low income housing tax credit financed developments and other subsidized and tax credit-assisted

152 

8. Watershed Needs and Issues affordable housing. No unmet need was identified for any of the foregoing housing types. DuPage County does not have any units of public housing.

Owner-Occupied Unmet housing needs of owner-occupied residential property was calculated using HUD’s methodology of using the number of housing units with unmet needs times the estimated cost to repair those units, less repair funds already provided by FEMA. To meet the statutory requirement of “most impacted,” homes are determined to have a high level of damage if they have damage of “major-low” or higher which is a real property FEMA inspected damage of $8,000 or flooding over four (4) feet (see Table 8-2 and Table 8-3). Using this methodology, the unmet housing need is calculated to be (may be duplicated households):

Table 8-2 DuPage County Residential Ownership Unmet Needs – Damage at least $8,000

Damage # of Units FEMA Loss-Pay Out Difference between Loss and Level Verified Loss Payout – Unmet Need Major-Low 308 $3,260,201 $2,578,938 $681,263 Major-High 152 $3,110,549 $1,837,064 $1,273,485 Severe 27 $1,040,798 $273,951 $766,847 TOTAL 487 $7,411,548 $4,689,953 $2,721,595

Table 8-3 DuPage County Residential Ownership Unmet Needs – Flooding Over Four Feet

Category Damage Level # of FEMA Loss-Pay Difference between Loss Units Verified Loss Out and Payout – Unmet Need 4-6 Feet Minor-Low 1 $2,394 $2,367 $27

1st Floor Minor-High 3 $21,103 $12,588 $8,515 Major-Low 9 $111,515 $72,538 $38,977 Major-High 13 $249,829 $174,865 $74,964 Severe 1 40,847 0 $40,847 4-6 Feet Minor-Low 17 $31,786 $25,845 $5,941 Basement Minor-High 59 $315,081 $223,646 $91,435 Major-Low 22 $221,857 $149,073 $72,784 Major-High 4 $73,805 $73,805 0 Severe 0 Over 6 Minor-Low 0

Feet – 1st Minor-High 2 $10,567 0 $10,567 Floor Major-Low 0 Major-High 1 $15,718 $15,718 0 Severe 0 TOTALS 132 $1,094,502 $1,750,445 $344,057

Based on previous experiences administering flood money, the initial CDBG-Disaster Recovery Action Plan (Action Plan) allocated $300,000 for rehabilitation and mold remediation for low/mod income households and anticipates a performance measure of 60 units. Although units may be located anywhere within DuPage County, it is anticipated that the most impacted neighborhoods (previously identified in Downers Grove, Elmhurst, Lombard, Wheaton, Naperville, and Lisle) will be the most likely areas for this activity to occur. When the activity 153 

8. Watershed Needs and Issues

actually commences, if it is determined that $300,000 is not a sufficient amount of funding for this activity, the unmet need will be addressed in a subsequent amendment. This unmet need for owner-occupied housing is only part of the story when it comes to housing needs in DuPage County. The initial Action Plan stated over 300 properties that meet the criteria for property buy-out that were affected by the April, 2013 flood event (subject to flooding depth of one foot above the low entry elevation for any one historic event, subject to a flooding depth of one-half foot for any two historic food events, or a FEMA repetitive loss structure). For planning purposes, it is estimated that the cost to complete a residential property buy-out will be $200,000 - $250,000 for the appraisal, acquisition, securing of the property, environmental hazards testing, and demolition of each property. The initial Action Plan allocated $2,700,000 for property buy-out of 10 to 14 properties, leaving an unmet need for these structures of $71,500,000.

As stated in the CDBG-DR Action Plan, as amended, there are many areas within DuPage County where property buy-out and demolition is the only solution to repetitive flooding of housing. Completion of infrastructure projects can also protect residential properties from future flooding. The projects proposed to date in the CDBG-DR Action Plan, as amended, would result in the following housing impact:

• Buy-out of approximately 54 to 60 properties (Approximately 14 properties with $3,297,000 for strategic buy-outs and approximately 30 properties using $1,250,000 in leveraging with HMGP buy-out match). The HMGP “buy-out match” will provide the required 25% match share for FEMA/IEMA buyouts. It is anticipated that Lisle, Unincorporated DuPage Repetitive Loss Properties: County, Downers Grove and Westmont will • Four or more separate flood claim payments have been made and each claim payment participate in the HMGP buy-out activity. exceeds $5,000, or • Infrastructure that will benefit at least 257 • At least two flood claim payments have been homes by lessening the impact of future flood made and the cumulative payments exceed the value of the property events. Substantial Damage / Substantial In addition to the properties submitted either in Improvements Requirements the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) • NFIP requires new buildings and substantially improved building to be constructed to minimize or CDBG-DR funding, the Village of Lisle still or prevent damage during a flood. has 25 properties that were damaged by the • These requirement are triggered when the local official determines that the cost of repairing or April 2013 flood. Under FEMA’s NFIP, a improving a building in a Special Flood Hazard majority of the homes meet the 50-percent Area (SFHA) equals or exceeds 50 percent of the damage threshold and therefore cannot be building’s market value (excluding land value) • The purpose is to protect the property owner’s repaired. The other homes have incurred investment and safety as well as reducing over significant damage and still have unmet repair time the total number of buildings that are exposed to flood damages needs. Acquisition of homes is needed in some For more information, contact your municipal areas to prevent future damage. More than 223 stormwater administrator, or the local FEMA office homes identified by DuPage County meet flood- Source: FEMA P-758 Substantial Improvement / prone criteria and are eligible for purchase Substantial Damage Desk Reference under the County’s buyout program. FEMA also

154 

8. Watershed Needs and Issues reported an additional 87 repetitive loss structures in DuPage County that meet the substantive damage threshold. One particular flood-prone area in the Village of Lisle has initiated a home buyout, which is described in Section 8.3. Thirty-four homes are identified for acquisition in this area. The Village of Lisle projects the cost to acquire these thirty-six homes to be approximately $7,500,000, or $208,333 per house, including demolition costs. It should be noted that the average home value in this acquisition area is $174,445, well below the reported home value within the watershed of $280,745 reported in the U.S. Census. The magnitude of potential home acquisition costs, in the absence of flood prevention measures, would be the number of flood-prone or repetitive loss homes (310) multiplied by the home value ($280,745) plus demolition costs ($40,000), which yields a total eventual cost of $99,430,950.

The acquisition of flood-prone homes will clearly be an incremental process. The process is voluntary on the part of the homeowner and the decision to accept a buyout offer requires time to consider. Within the East Branch Watershed, it is expected that a buyout program will attract participation in the range of 50% of the 310 eligible homes over a ten year period, resulting in an estimated total of 155 homes acquired in that period. Based on these assumptions, the estimated budget for home acquisition is $36,885,675.

8.2.2. Infrastructure CDBG-DR Updated infrastructure needs: The initial Action Plan identified unmet need that was unable to be addressed with the first allocation of funds that will now be addressed with this second allocation of funds. Additional infrastructure needs within the East Branch DuPage River watershed have also been identified as noted in Table 8-4.

Table 8-4 Infrastructure Needs

Impact of April 2013 Link to Housing Needs, if Location Unmet Need Flood applicable Westmont Liberty Park Detention pond 175 homes directly Improvement Project – expansion, storm sewer impacted by this project massive residential rehabilitation - flooding during the improvements of April, 2013 flood. Many $1,000,000. This need properties in Liberty was identified after the Park are on the property initial Action Plan. The buy-out waiting list. buy- outs proposed under the initial Action Plan and in this Amendment 1 will enable this infrastructure project to be completed.

155 

8. Watershed Needs and Issues

Impact of April 2013 Link to Housing Needs, if Location Unmet Need Flood applicable Glen Ellyn Flooding at Lake Ellyn Improvements of outlet control structure $245,000 were identified as an unmet need in the initial Action Plan. The project, however, is contingent upon completion of planning by the Village of Glen Ellyn and final eligibility review. Glen Ellyn Flooding at Perry’s New inlet structure and Pond (connection revision to storm sewer between Joseph Sam pipe configuration - Perry Preserve and $275,000 was identified Perry’s Pond) as an unmet need in the initial Action Plan. The project, however, is contingent upon completion of planning by the Village of Glen Ellyn and final eligibility review.

Other Infrastructure Needs

Increased roadway capacity for diversions and detours during flood events is an unmet need of this watershed due to major routes being closed or severely limited in their capacity to maintain vehicular traffic patterns efficiently. Example is improving College Road in Lisle to provide adequate traffic capacity for Route 53 closures around Ogden Avenue during flood events. This type of improvement will provide opportunities for increased use of arterial streets instead of local streets not designed to handle the traffic and vehicular weight of diverted traffic from Route 53.

As noted in Section 7.1.6, various municipalities and other stakeholder entities have conducted studies on flood risk and potential projects throughout the watershed. As of the date of initial publication of this Plan, Table 8-5 provides a summary of flood risk reduction projects identified by the stakeholders. Additional projects including those listed in this table can be found in Appendix D.

156 

8. Watershed Needs and Issues

Table 8-5 Flood Risk Reduction Projects Identified by Stakeholders

Problem ID Cost Project Location Description Addressed (Year of Cost Est.) Main St and Glenrise culvert East Branch replacement Tributary No. 2 Uninc. EBE2-01 $752,000 Compensatory Storage Watershed Plan DuPage EBE2-02 (1996) Buyout Alternative 3 Floodproofing Levee Maintenance 4 – Stormwater Pump Stations EBEB-01 and associated stormwater EBEB-02 River-Dumoulin improvements EBEB-03 $11,578,000 Flood Control Plan Lisle Buyouts EBEB-04 (2004) Alternative A2 Floodproofing EBEB-05 (Note: 4 pump stations EBSJ-01 constructed in 2008) EBEB-01 $7,000,000 Levee Maintenance / East Branch EBEB-02 to $20,000,000 Replacement DuPage River EBEB-03 (range of options does Lisle Streambank Stabilization Levee Study EBEB-04 not include Easements Operations Plan EBEB-05 or Property Easements EBSJ-01 Acquisitions) TBD. Note many voluntary buyouts completed. However, Valley View Flood Uninc. Buyouts and Acquisitions EBEB-09 some owners chose not Control Plan DuPage to be part of the process. Additional studies might be warranted. Relocate and raise IL 53 above Illinois Route 53 flood elevations. $12,000,000 Uninc. IL 56 to Park Improved cross culverts under IL EBEB-08 Acquisition: DuPage Boulevard 53 $9,000,000 Compensatory Storage Illinois Route 53 Glen Ellyn North Flood Buyouts $598,000 Uninc. EBEB-10 Control Plan Floodproofing (2003) DuPage Alternative 1 Morton Sump pumps (completed) Arboretum Uninc. Floodproofing (completed) EBEB-11 TBD Building DuPage Groundwater flow diversion Protection $245,000 Lake Ellyn Outlet Outlet control structure Glen Ellyn EBEB-13 (funding through Control Structure modification CDBG-DR Funds) $275,000 Perry’s Pond Storm sewer improvements and Glen Ellyn EBEB-14 (funding through Improvements modifications CDBG-DR Funds)

157 

8. Watershed Needs and Issues

Problem ID Cost Project Location Description Addressed (Year of Cost Est.) Storage facility $244,000 Downers Sewer improvements (2014) Black Oak Drive EBLA-01 Grove Berms Does not include Easements easements $393,800 Downers Dr / Sewer improvements To $664,000 Virginia St / Seeley Downers Online flood storage EBLA-02 (2014) Ave / Grove Easements/Property Does not include 40th St easements $429,000 Downers Sewer improvements (2014) Elm and Earlston EBLA-03 Grove Easements Does not include easements Storage facility $565,000 Hobson Triangle Downers Sewer improvements EBPR-01 (2014) Area Grove Acquisition Storage facility $875,000 Triangle Park Woodridge Streambank stabilization EBPR-02 (2014) Sewer improvements St. Joseph’s Creek Downers Culvert replacement $3,412,000 North Flood Plain EBSJ-02 Grove Compensatory storage facility (2014) Project No. 1 Overflow route $2,009,000 St. Joseph’s Creek Downers Berms (2014) South Flood Plain Grove Culvert improvements EBSJ-04 Does not include Project No. 3 Westmont Compensatory Storage easements Easements / Property St. Joseph’s Creek Overflow route $1,470,000 Downers South Flood Plain Storage facility EBSJ-05 (2014) Grove Project No. 4 Property Storage facility $1,233,000 Pershing between Downers Sewer improvements EBSJ-06 (2014) Ogden and Grant Grove Property $1,580,000 Washington south Storage facility Downers (2014) of Ogden/Highland Sewer improvements EBSJ-08 Grove Does not include Court Easements/Property easements $252,000 Drendel Road Storage facility Downers (2014) South of Sewer improvements EBSJ-09 Grove Does not include Indianapolis Easements/Property easements Property coordination $903,000 Chase Avenue Berms Downers (2014) between Haddow Storage Facility EBSJ-10 Grove Does not include and Warren Sewer Improvements easements Easements/Property Walbank north of Downers $13,000 Restrictors removal EBSJ-11 Warren Grove (2014) $784,000 South of Prairie Sewer improvements Downers (2014) between Forest Storage Facility EBSJ-12 Grove Does not include and Price Easements/Property easements 158 

8. Watershed Needs and Issues

Problem ID Cost Project Location Description Addressed (Year of Cost Est.) Debolt / Linden / Downers Roadway improvements $241,000 EBSJ-13 Gierz Grove Sewer improvements (2014) $944,000 Hitchcock between Downers Sewer improvements (2014) Cornell and EBSJ-14 Grove Easements Does not include Glenview easements $694,000 Sewer improvements Middaugh and Downers (2014) Storage Facility EBSJ-15 Jefferson Grove Does not include Property easements West side of $422,000 Berm Lyman between Downers (2014) Sewer improvements EBSJ-16 Kenyon and Grove Does not include Easements Blanchard easements $66,000 Francisco Street at Downers Sewer improvements EBSJ-17 To $178,000 Burlington Grove (2014) Storage facility $1,000,000 Liberty Park Westmont Sewer improvements EBSJ-18 (funding through Improvement Property CDBG-DR Funds) Backflow preventers Richmond-Grant $35,000 Westmont Sewer improvements EBSJ-19 Project (2011) Monitoring wells Storage Facility Roslyn-Burlington $350,000 Westmont Sewer improvement EBSJ-20 Project (2011) Backflow preventers Pershing from President to Wheaton TBD. Study in review phase EBWI-02 TBD Prospect Brentwood and Wheaton TBD. Study in review phase EBWI-03 TBD Briarcliffe Streambank restoration $600,000 - $750,000 Triangle Park Woodridge EBPR-02 Storage Facility (2015)

The County and some municipalities have conducted a variety of studies to assess existing flood risk and develop potential solutions. However, other municipalities and areas of the watershed have either outdated local studies or are completely lacking in studies focusing on more localized issues associated with smaller stormwater systems. Examples include several smaller tributaries to the East Branch DuPage River that have outdated and minimal data available relative to floodplain mapping. Many of these smaller tributaries are contained within a single community and typically require the community to develop updated analyses and assessments of flood risk.

8.2.3. Impacts to Environmental Health Upstream land use can impact both flood risk and water quality of the streams and rivers. In addition, flooding in structures and on properties can cause a myriad of environmental issues including mold or bacteria formation. Water quality impacts come from a variety of sources and are discussed further in Sections 4.11 and 8.5. 159 

8. Watershed Needs and Issues

8.2.4. Economic Impacts Flooding and other disasters can cause impacts to the economic vitality of DuPage County. Road closures, additional traffic, and flooding can impact the daily life of a resident or business owner. It is critical to maintain resilience throughout the watershed in order to maintain and improve the ability of the area to respond and recover to disasters. 8.3. Most Impacted / Most Distressed Area During the April 2013 storm event, levee overtopping and failure coupled with poor internal drainage systems conveying runoff to the pumps stations caused numerous homes and buildings to be flooded. The Village of Lisle noted that approximately 180 structures in the floodplain were damaged with 35 homes declared substantially damaged (damage estimated at or above 50% of the value of the structure). The Village and DuPage County have been actively pursuing funding to acquire and floodproof homes in this area through Hazard Mitigation Grant Programs and CDBG-DR funds. However, there are still unmet needs related to property acquisitions, levee maintenance access, levee improvements and local drainage improvements. Many of these homes cannot be occupied due to their substantial damage threshold and this causing severe stress on residents of this area who cannot repair or move back into their homes combined with the lack of available and similar housing nearby.

There is a critical and immediate need for assistance in this area. Currently Lisle and DuPage County have funding available to acquire approximately 20 properties in this area. There is significant concern with the restrictions placed on the funding types. Funding obtained through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) to purchase properties that include the levee would severely restrict any future maintenance of the levee. Deed restrictions are placed on the purchased property to basically limit the future uses of the property which would exclude repairing, replacing or providing long-term maintenance of the levee system. This provides a dire situation for future flooding in this area if the levee cannot be repaired due to removal of damaged structures through this type of funding. 8.4. Additional Flood Impacted and Distressed Areas As discussed in Section 6.2.4, East Branch DuPage River stakeholders identified a variety of flooding areas throughout the watershed. Many of these problems were identified as a direct result of the April 2013 flood event while other problems have been known issues for the community for an extended period of time. Detailed descriptions of these problems and their associated unmet needs are provided in Section 7 or Appendix B.

Although many of these problems are considered to be local issues on a block or neighborhood scale, these issues can have a regional and national impact to the entire watershed and downstream communities along the East Branch DuPage River to the DuPage River to the Illinois River and ultimately to the Gulf of Mexico via the Mississippi River.

A significant number of these problem areas have been studied and analyzed to develop recommended solutions to provide a reduction in the risk of flooding for the community. 160 

8. Watershed Needs and Issues

Significant historical flooding within the East Branch DuPage River has occurred at several locations that have been well documented by DuPage County and municipalities. Major flooding in the watershed has generally been a result of overbank flooding, high groundwater levels during flood events, local drainage backups behind levees, high flood waters overtopping existing levees, levee failure, flood storage overtopping, sanitary backups, depressional areas and inadequate stormwater conveyance systems.

For many of the other areas impacted by flooding, there are a variety of recommendations for reducing the risk and increasing the resiliency of these distressed areas. Implementation of the recommendations will require wide ranging involvement from residents and business owners to municipalities to County and State and Federal officials. 8.5. Critical Areas of Environmental Degradation This section will be completed as part of the development of this plan as a means of obtaining IEPA approval as a “watershed-based” plan.

161 

9. Recommended Action Plan 9.1. Watershed-wide Programmatic Plans The ultimate objective of this Watershed Plan is to put in place systemic actions and programs that support East Branch Watershed Goals: the resilient watershed goals outlined in Section 3 of Goal #1: A resilient watershed. this report – and that become self-sustaining over time. As DuPage County, the Watershed’s Goal #2: A watershed with municipalities, and all of the stakeholders begin to enhanced environmental quality orient their actions and investments towards these and minimal degradation, where beneficial uses are fully attained. watershed goals, watershed resilience, environmental enhancement and community cohesion can be built Goal #3: Greater Community through many different kinds of actions – in short, the Cohesion. goal is for resilience-oriented actions to become standard practice in the watershed, rather than being seen as only supporting water quality, flood prevention or community education.

While the goal is for resilience actions to be integrated and seamless, identifying specific steps in programmatic areas allows DuPage County, its municipalities, and watershed stakeholders to begin planning for implementation and to identify the funding, staff, and other types of resources required. This Section describes the implementation actions recommended in five core areas:

Infrastructure: Investments in the physical infrastructure of the watershed that will provide flood warning, protect infrastructure and property, allow greater mobility during floods and other adverse events, and prevent water quality impacts from sanitary and storm sewers.

Housing: Actions that will reduce the potential for damage and disruption to homes, residents, emergency services, and the municipal tax base through land use planning, floodproofing, acquisition, and improved access to financial resources.

Environmental Health & Water Quality: Projects and programs that will reduce stress on the ecological systems in the East Branch watershed, particularly the River itself, particularly through stream or wetland restoration, and non-point source pollutant reduction projects.

Policy, Finance & Regulatory: Developing and putting in place the policies, legal tools, financial methods and incentives that will support a robust, healthy watershed, where infrastructure maintenance, new development standards, and other regulatory programs work efficiently in service of community goals.

Community Cohesion: Engaging more and different interests in building resilience, both through more regular and active education, and by convening parties that are not currently involved in watershed or resilience-related discussions but could have important roles in promoting resilience (such as social service agencies, professional organizations, and downtown and merchant associations). 162 

9. Recommended Action Plan

Leveraging: Actively coordinating with existing programs whose actions affect watershed health and community cohesion, such as open space conservation, parks and recreation, transportation, economic development, and social services, and bringing the associated funding sources and expertise to bear on implementation in the East Branch watershed.

9.1.1. Infrastructure 9.1.1.1 Early Flood Warning System While other watersheds in DuPage County have some components of early flood warning systems in place, there is no such capability in the East Branch DuPage River. DuPage County wishes to develop a flood forecasting system to improve the resiliency of communities along the East Branch DuPage River. One significant goal of this system will be to assist all watershed stakeholders through technology and education to utilize their resources proactively in advance of a storm event. This proactive response will help to minimize damages and ensure public health and safety. This emerging technology has the potential to create new opportunities for stakeholder behavior within the EBDR watershed. Forward-looking strategies like the proposed flood forecasting implementation, when coupled with stakeholder education, will result in reduced flood damages, reduced trauma of households most prone to be affected by flood losses, maintenance of economic vibrancy, and policy shifts from reactive to proactive planning. These are all necessary elements that create more resilient individuals, businesses and communities.

Flood Forecasting for Resiliency is based on community or watershed level application of predictive weather data information. This predictive weather data is currently provided within the public domain by the USGS, NOAA or other federal agencies. The flood forecasting initiative takes advantage of the predictive weather data through an automated watershed level hydrologic forecasting system providing inputs to an alert system which delivers advance warning of potentially damaging storm events. Using this system, the forward look at potentially damaging stream elevations prior to a storm event could be as much as 60 hours in advance of the event. This system would allow DuPage County to engage watershed stakeholders through social media and alert systems well before storm event arrival. The result is resiliency. Resiliency provides the ability to protect property and public infrastructure assets with a focus on improving the low to mod-income household recovery experience by either eliminating the need for recovery or minimizing losses due to flood damage.

Automated watershed level forecasting integrates predictive and real-time rainfall data; current stream gage conditions and applies hydrologic and hydraulic modeling parameters to estimate potential flood risk levels within the East Branch DuPage River watershed. DuPage County will utilize their HSPF hydrologic and FEQ hydraulic modeling software to predict water surface elevations and corresponding inundation levels throughout the watershed. The following table shows aspects of current conditions specific to a watershed level analysis and forecasting and mapping opportunities for the East Branch DuPage River watershed.

163 

9. Recommended Action Plan

Table 9-1 Watershed Level Characteristics and Predictive Opportunities

Current Conditions Forecasting and Mapping • Real-time rainfall • Rain forecasting (NOAA) • Real-time site flood stage • Snow melt forecasting (NOAA) • Regional USGS river gage elevations • Predicted river crest elevation • Rainfall hyetographs • Predicted inundation mapping • Antecedent conditions & snow pack

Resiliency depends to a large degree on the flood forecasting alert system which would be developed to give adequate warning to the East Branch DuPage River watershed stakeholders. Timely and adequate alerts are critical for proactive response in the watershed. Alerts would be prioritized by DuPage County according to the emergency action plan established in conjunction with stakeholders and based on a pre-determined risk assessment for predicted crest elevations and inundation map coverage. The following table shows considerations for alert distribution and sensitivity.

Table 9-2 Watershed Level Alert Distribution and Sensitivity

The Alerts would incorporate Forecasting and Mapping • Automatic alerts to DuPage County staff via • Setting alert sensitivity based on achievable forecast multiple communication portals – email, SMS, reliability phone • Confirming alerts based on actual real-time rainfall • Tracking of alert messages and acknowledgement and stream gage data receipts • Establishing an adequate advance warning time for • Automatic posting to social media to facilitate broad DuPage County effective response communication of warnings (which prompts • Minimize unnecessary warnings appropriate safety measures and response within • Minimize circumstances where a warning is local communities) rescinded only to be re-issued

Finally, the flood forecasting model and alerts will improve resiliency by continuously adapting to the effects of climate change on the rainfall amounts and intensity which occur within the East Branch DuPage River. Calibration of the flood forecasting system occurs by incorporating a feedback process comparing flood level predictions and alert levels to observed flood elevations for significant storms. The watershed forecasting and alert system can then be refined to more closely match actual weather patterns and resulting flood events. This calibration allows for a continuously improved and updated flood forecasting system that does not become outdated as climate change occurs.

The proposed flood forecasting model implementation will provide information to community officials, decision makers and residents regarding flood related concerns including: peak stream elevations and peak timing, inundation areas, road closures, potential levee overtopping/failures and residential/commercial building evacuations. In addition, the flood forecast information will help to educate stakeholders, including low to mod-income households, and influence future policy decisions and watershed ordinances that may be considered for the East Branch DuPage River watershed. Accumulation of forecast and real-time watershed data will provide a living assessment of the cause and effect of ongoing improvements, educational efforts and 164 

9. Recommended Action Plan

policy decisions. This accumulated data will be used to inform future necessary public and stakeholder response and to adequately address climate change within the watershed.

DuPage County desires to implement the leading-edge technology of Flood Forecasting for Resiliency of local communities in the face of potential flood hazards. Such a system of forecasting and alert warnings improves stakeholder response prior to and during a storm event, leading specifically to the improved economic vibrancy, health and well-being of low to mod- income households within the East Branch DuPage River watershed.

It is recommended that DuPage County install a flood monitoring and warning system within the East Branch DuPage River Watershed which includes, but is not limited to the following:

• Develop a flood warning task force to coordinate these efforts • Install additional rain gages throughout the watershed • Install additional stream gages (flow and stage) throughout the watershed and its tributaries • Investigate additional coordination opportunities with other neighboring counties (Will, Cook, Lake, McHenry, Kane) and agencies such as USGS, ISWS, USACE, FEMA, IEMA • Investigate funding opportunities for the installation and operations of new monitoring equipment • Establish, refine and improve upon a flood warning protocol system with OEM to coordinate outreach before, during and after flood events • Set up a variable method notification system to provide warnings. This can include Reverse 911-style activities, emails, text messages, website and social media updates. However, care must be taken to provide opportunities for notifications for areas of low to moderate income, areas with elderly populations and areas with non-English speaking populations. Examples of other warning activities can include tornado siren style warnings, partnering with local businesses to access their variable display messaging board in order to provide warnings, and door-to-door efforts in these areas. • Develop a robust flood forecasting effort that can provide graphical and textual understanding of flood risks associated with impending storm events • Establish relationship with College of DuPage to coordinate their flood forecasting efforts with the County’s

9.1.1.2 Stormwater Infrastructure Stormwater infrastructure is critical for handling stormwater runoff during storm events. Collection, conveyance and storage facilities can redirect runoff volume to minimize the risk of flood damages to property and other infrastructure systems. As noted in Section 8.2.2, there are significant unmet needs related to infrastructure improvements to alleviate flooding and associated damages.

The following actions are recommended related to stormwater infrastructure

• Develop a regional/watershed planning committee to look for opportunities to coordinate local stormwater projects

165 

9. Recommended Action Plan

• Incorporate multiple benefits and amenities for proposed stormwater projects. Examples can include creating new park or open space in a compensatory storage facility, incorporating recreational trail systems in facilities and along river/pipe corridors, providing naturalized planting zones, and other amenities. • Develop a prioritization program to consolidate proposed projects and address those that have the greatest benefits to cost ratios. Benefit to cost ratio should expand beyond just focusing on flood damages to show how a project can be resilient and beneficial to the community. • Investigate additional funding or teaming opportunities. • Provide opportunities for collaboration on developing additional watershed / flooding plans and studies. This is important for smaller tributaries with mapped floodplain on regulatory maps. Additional mapping and studies can help better understand risk and prepare for future developments related to housing and infrastructure.

9.1.1.3 Transportation Providing a resilient transportation system that can retain its effective capacity during flood events or other disasters can improve the quality of life of residents and businesses while providing greater ability for emergency and public works response before, during and after an event.

It is recommended that the following transportation related improvements and actions be made throughout the watershed:

• DuPage DOT should continue its conversion of traffic lights from incandescent bulbs to energy efficient LED modules. In conjunction with this conversion, DuPage DOT should install uninterruptable power supply (UPS) units in the traffic signal cabinets. The UPS units combined with the LED modules will allow the traffic signal to remain in full operation (rather than blinking red stop light only) in the event of a power outage. • Municipalities should plan for conversion of traffic lights to LED modules with UPS units with a priority on key transportation routes related to residential, business and emergency services traffic patterns. • DuPage County should work closely with IDOT for assistance with necessary land acquisitions and transfers to expedite the ultimate construction of the improved Illinois Route 53 between Butterfield Road (Route 56) and Park Boulevard. This project will significantly reduce the risk of extended Route 53 closures during flood events. • DuPage County, Lisle and IDOT should establish a working group to evaluate options to reduce the risk of Illinois Route 53 flooding near Ogden Avenue. This work group could be directly related to the Levee Task Force discussed in Section 9.2. • Lisle should establish a working group to evaluate the feasibility of expanding the capacity of an alternate north-south roadway corridor to provide a more resilient transportation system during flood events which causes Illinois Route 53 near Ogden Avenue to close. Widening College Road and Yackley Avenue could provide additional capacity for vehicles during disaster events.

166 

9. Recommended Action Plan

• DuPage DOT, DuPage Stormwater, IDOT, Townships, and Municipalities should develop a database of hydraulic structures (bridges, culverts, etc.) that are subject to overtopping or other flooding during storm events. It is recommended that these entities coordinate improvements to these structures on a regional scale to coincide with other flood reduction projects and actions in order to reduce the risk of overtopping and flooding of the roadway.

9.1.1.4 Green Infrastructure Programs The East Branch DuPage River watershed is home to one of the first regionally well-known large scale green infrastructure installations. A large permeable pavement parking lot and bioswales were installed at the Morton Arboretum over 15 years ago. These green infrastructure systems, located adjacent to the floodplain of the East Brach DuPage River, serve to reduce and cleanse runoff prior to its discharge to the river. This highly visible and heavily trafficked site has served to encourage other would-be green infrastructure implementers ever since. Support for green infrastructure in DuPage County continues to grow.

Within the last several years, DuPage County has significantly enhanced the requirements for new development and redevelopment to implement best management practices that provide volume control and pollutant control. In 2014, DuPage County cohosted a Green Infrastructure Symposium to help local contractors make business decisions regarding pursuing green infrastructure. Green infrastructure implementation will continue to grow as various programs continue to reach effective target audiences. This includes making owners and governing bodies aware of opportunities on existing sites (public or private). Providing technical assistance and timely advice can encourage owners of large properties to consider implementing naturalized stormwater management features into their site revitalization plans. Future efforts should also include continued outreach and support to municipalities to implement green infrastructure improvements as part of municipal projects. Finally, DuPage County will continue to reach out to the contracting community to continue to build capacity and knowledge of how to implement effective systems.

9.1.1.5 Sanitary Sewers Sanitary sewer systems are critical components of the area’s infrastructure system. When these systems are inadequate or fail, damages to structures as well as the degradation of the health and well-being of residents will occur. Sanitary sewer systems can be subject to infiltration and interception of stormwater due to system leaks, illicit connections and other issues. In addition sanitary sewer systems may become surcharged during storm events and cause sanitary sewage to backup into people’s homes and businesses causing extensive damage and the potential for long term issues related to health including mold and bacteria growth following a sewage backup.

In many areas in the watershed, there are residential neighborhoods that currently utilize septic systems in their yards for treatment of sanitary discharge. Many of these areas are beyond the limits of the existing municipal or County sanitary sewer systems. Flooding issues impact these systems by filling them with stormwater or high groundwater saturations which can potentially cause backups and the lack of ability to utilize the sewage system.

167 

9. Recommended Action Plan

In the East Branch DuPage River watershed, there is a combined sewer system in Lombard the collects both stormwater runoff and sanitary flow. If this sewer system is overwhelmed during a storm event, there is the possibility that untreated waste and stormwater can discharge to the river through a combined sewer overflow (CSO). In addition, many residents have basement flooding issues due to this sewer system backing up and causing extensive flooding during large storm events. Both of these impacts of a combined sewer system can cause damage and environmental distress to the river and to homes.

It is recommended that an improved sanitary program be implemented by the County and municipalities including:

• Improve outreach and marketing efforts for the existing sanitary sewer programs to help residents install overhead sanitary sewer systems or approved flood control methods to prevent and reduce the risk of future sanitary sewage backups. • If a municipality does not have an existing sanitary sewer program, investigate the potential need to address sewage backups and to potentially provide assistance. • Conduct smoke testing to identify potential infiltration and interception (I/I) sources in the sanitary system. • Conduct sanitary sewer televising to identify sections of sewers that need repair, rehabilitation or replacement and prioritize these sections in the near-term budget allocations • Establish a program to educate and assist homeowners for disconnection of sump pump systems from sanitary sewer systems. • Establish an action plan to minimize the risk of combined sewer overflows.

9.1.1.6 Landscape Resilience Examples of potential green infrastructure programs show how ideas to implement green infrastructure can be pursued and implemented along multiple fronts. As the critical mass of green infrastructure continues to build, more and more projects will be implemented, and the landscape of green infrastructure will be figuratively and literally transformed from a few demonstration projects to a distributed network of functioning stormwater management systems. While this will take time, it will enhance the resilience of the landscape. There will also be ancillary benefits to an ever increasing, but distributed stormwater management system.

Much attention has been focused on areas that have the worst damages and highest unmet needs. These are in fact, the areas that are most impacted by flooding. But it is shortsighted to ignore widespread commonality of individual homes or small groups of properties that experience flood damage. Most often, these are homes that have been unfortunately constructed in a depressional area with an obstructed overland flow path, now only drained by sewer. One only has to look at a community’s map of the reported flood damages and stormwater problems to see that while there will be hotspots of problems, the remainder of the landscape is frequently interrupted by smaller scale complaints. The pursuit of a distributed stormwater management system, through various programs, will continue to pay off, not only in the hotspots, but for the rest of the community as well.

168 

9. Recommended Action Plan

9.1.2. Housing 9.1.2.1 Property Acquisition, Voluntary Buyouts and Easements In many flood prone areas, there is no permanent infrastructure solution to flooding and an acquisition (buy-out) is the best solution to provide long term recovery. There are several methods of determining property acquisition related to a flood event in DuPage County. Voluntary buyouts in DuPage County can occur when:

• Structures are not protected by capital improvement projects in approved watershed plans • Structures are subject to flooding depths of one foot above the low entry elevation for any one historic event • Structures are subject to flooding depth of one-half foot for any two historic events • FEMA repetitive loss structure • Other data subject to grant application rules

There are also a variety of sources that could provide funding or funding matches to assist with acquisitions including FEMA grants, Hazard Mitigation Grant Programs, Disaster Recovery Grant programs, HUD programs, and others. Programs might have different rules and regulations regarding the acquisition and subsequent use of the property.

HMGP funding limits the use of the property following the buy-out and demolition of the structure. Any property purchased with these funds must be dedicated and maintained in perpetuity as open space for the conservation of natural floodplain functions. Uses include park, wetlands, open space, buffer zones, and other similar unimproved open space areas. While these restrictions are important for providing open space areas while not introducing new structures that can be damaged, it can severely limit the ability of an entity to maintain, repair and improve infrastructure systems originally on this property. This is very applicable to the levee system in Lisle adjacent to the East Branch DuPage River and St. Josephs Creek where the levee is mostly situated on private property.

It is recommended that DuPage County and other stakeholders do the following regarding property acquisition:

• Engage municipalities and unincorporated areas with flood-prone neighborhoods with respect to affordable housing, aging-in-place, and neighborhood land use planning in the context of flooding and flood damages • Complete repairs, remediation, rehabilitation and acquisitions in areas affected by the April 2013 flood. • Identify and recommended property acquisitions to remove properties from the floodplain in accordance with the voluntary buyout program(s) and other regulatory requirements. • Identify and recommend property acquisition to transfer publicly-related infrastructure (i.e. levees) to the appropriate and designated owner for future repair, maintenance and improvements. • Identify property / easement needs for future stormwater infrastructure projects to reduce the risk of flood damages.

169 

9. Recommended Action Plan

• Identify appropriate funding sources that do not limit the future repair, maintenance and improvements to the infrastructure systems. • Provide active coordination and education of property owners and stakeholders as to the needs to provide resilience to future flood events

9.1.2.2 Floodproofing Floodproofing can provide property owners with the ability to reduce the risk of damages caused by flooding through a variety of methods. FEMA has extensive documentation on floodproofing methods and measures that can provide property owners with guidance on how to plan, design, and implement these features. In many areas, minor flooding adjacent to structures can cause significant damages. However, implementing floodproofing measures can prevent this flooding from impacting the structure and its contents or reduce the damages to the structure and its contents. Actual methods would have to be coordinated with current regulations to determine if the method is acceptable under the National Flood Insurance Program.

It is recommended that DuPage County and municipalities do the following regarding floodproofing:

• Establish and improve available resources (online, print, seminars, etc.) for home and business owners • Investigate grant and other funding opportunities to provide assistance for floodproofing • Investigate development of a municipal or county financial match for floodproofing

9.1.3. Environmental Health The East Branch DuPage River should have the ability to support its beneficial uses including aquatic life, contact recreation and fish consumption. The health of the watershed can be compromised by flood related pollution, non-point source pollution, hydrologic modification, lack of tree canopy, lack of streambank buffers, degraded in-stream habitat and other instream constrictions and issues. Improved environmental health of the watershed and river can improve the ability of the residents and stakeholders to access and utilize the East Branch DuPage River as a recreational asset while reducing the risk of hazards resulting from polluted waters.

In order to improve the environmental health of the East Branch DuPage River, the following actions are recommended:

• Continue and expand Section 319 grant-funded water quality improvement projects. • Improve the restoration of the tree canopy in the river corridors. • Improve and expand non-point source pollution education and outreach. • Conduct and combine strategic land conservation efforts throughout the watershed with the variety of stakeholders who are conducting their own analyses and efforts. • Perform strategic stream restoration projects. • Invasive species removal. • Evaluate and implement dam or other in-stream structures removal. • Watershed-wide adoption of sensible salting policies by public agencies.

170 

9. Recommended Action Plan

Additional information regarding non-point source actions can be found in Section 9.3.

9.1.4. Policy, Finance and Regulatory Tools DuPage County and municipalities lack sufficient authority to gain access to certain key flood infrastructure components. In addition, the County, Townships, and municipalities need to have a greater understanding of current and future operation and maintenance needs in order to appropriately finance these efforts.

9.1.4.1 Local Codes and Plans To promote a greater and broader resilience throughout the watershed, it is imperative to coordinate, improve and update local codes, zoning and plans to encourage the development of resilient-based actions.

• Develop a regional or County work group to facilitate the development of improved and coordinated code, zoning and planning guidelines. • Improve local codes encouraging green infrastructure and other resilient and forward looking improvements to properties. • Incorporate planners, engineers, architects, policy makers, etc. into creating long term sustainable community plans.

9.1.4.2 Easement Requirements Easements can provide the opportunity for property access to facilitate maintenance, repairs, or improvements. It is imperative that there is a responsible entity for the maintenance, repair and improvement of infrastructure designed to provide protection during disasters (such as a levee during a flood event). Equally important is making sure that this responsible entity has access to the infrastructure facility/component before, during and after a disaster.

In addition, many detention facilities constructed under the DCCSFPO for property developments are located on private property. These facilities provide a degree of risk reduction during flood events by storing water and reducing the peak discharge of stormwater runoff from the site which can impact downstream areas. Many of these facilities are in varying states of disrepair including siltation and sedimentation, eroding slopes, broken or failing outlet control structure or unmaintained emergency overflow routes. Since these facilities were constructed to mitigate downstream risk of increased peak flows, it is imperative that they should be in a state of good condition similar to what was originally permitted.

The following actions are recommended regarding easements:

• Identify public or critical infrastructure situated on private property. • Document existing easements, records, titles or other information pertaining to each infrastructure component on private property. • Create a working group to develop a strategy for securing necessary easements. • Establish inventory of flood control facilities (i.e. detention ponds, retention ponds, underground storage vaults, compensatory storage, etc.) throughout the watershed and create a database to track ownership, facility characteristics, and the facility’s status.

171 

9. Recommended Action Plan

• Create an inspection and enforcement team to track flood control facilities and develop a maintenance / repair enforcement system.

9.1.4.3 Incentive Programs DuPage County and other municipalities should work together to develop incentive programs that tie into improved regulations and ordinances. Developments should have some type of encouragement to promote resilient properties.

9.1.4.4 Work Groups It is recommended that the stakeholders create a cooperative work group comprised of Bar Association, Tax, Title, and Insurance entities to address existing inadequacies and create better opportunities for resilient communities.

9.1.4.5 Funding Funding is a key concern amongst all levels of government. It is important to balance immediate and future funding needs for a wide variety of opportunities. It is critical that stormwater infrastructure and resilient infrastructure and developments are able to be funded for not only design and construction but also for future maintenance. The stakeholders should develop a framework for future funding needs that can provide multiple watershed-wide benefits.

9.1.5. Community Cohesion It is important to have the social infrastructure to support disaster preparedness, response and recovery. By improving the stakeholder understanding of their community, there can be an improved ability to coordinate efforts to build future resiliency.

9.1.5.1 Education and Outreach It is also important to promote a greater understanding of a watershed (specifically the East Branch DuPage River) and how the actions and activities of communities and stakeholders can have a wide ranging impact on the rest of the watershed. Understanding where water in the riverine system is coming from and where it is going can provide a critical link between the communities and stakeholders.

It is recommended that DuPage County and other stakeholders develop an educational outreach program that includes:

• Comprehensive understanding stormwater infrastructure systems including site field trips for stakeholders, public officials and other decision makers to show drainage and stormwater infrastructure • Work with IDNR and USACE to develop a Flood Fighting School program for the watershed including how to prepare and react to floods • Provide and promote sand bag and bladder distribution systems at the municipal and countywide level to assist residents with preparation and response • Develop a watershed signage program for denoting watershed (and subwatershed) boundaries, record flood signs, evacuation and emergency routes, etc.

172 

9. Recommended Action Plan

• Develop and provide training sessions for an Emergency Action Plan for flood prone areas • Provide training and information on early flood warning systems and how to be informed and aware before, during and after disaster events

9.1.5.2 Emergency Services The current Public Works Mutual Aid (PWMA) network provides the ability with municipalities to coordinate and assist each other when their resources are fully tied up during a disaster or emergency situation. This mutual coordination provides an excellent resilience measure for the region to prepare, react and recover from a disaster. In addition, the PWMA can utilize the Illinois Public Works Mutual Aid Network (IPWMAN) in the event that the region’s resources are fully occupied. It is recommended that DuPage County continue to coordinate these efforts while also investigating opportunities to expand the education and outreach of these services to continue to provide beneficial services to the area.

9.1.5.3 Community Services Engagement with other community members such as foundations, social services providers, faith communities and other organizations can help the entire community become more proactive with respect to flood or disaster preparedness, reaction and recovery. Many of these community service institutions assist by providing shelter, food, medical treatment, counseling and much more.

It is recommended that governmental entities increase the outreach and coordination efforts with these community service providers to help foster a broader sense of resiliency related to disasters.

9.1.6. Leveraging Leveraging funds to create better opportunities to expand project scope and also combine forces among different stakeholders can greatly increase the potential to complete projects and promote sustainable and resilient solutions.

9.1.6.1 County Maintenance Program Maintenance of infrastructure is critical for being able to prepare, react and respond to disasters. DuPage County can work with municipalities and other stakeholders to develop a long term framework for maintenance needs and to maximize the efficiency of various entities with overlapping jurisdictions and actions.

9.1.6.2 Water Quality Grant Program DuPage County should continue and expand current water quality grant program to promote resilient infrastructure throughout the watershed. In addition, municipalities should also investigate incorporating a similar program locally which will increase the leverage of projects.

9.1.6.3 Planning Studies DuPage County can work with other agencies to leverage funding and provide greater opportunities to conduct planning for the East Branch DuPage River watershed. It is

173 

9. Recommended Action Plan

recommended that DuPage County work with the USACE on a DuPage River study to continue developing large scale watershed planning activities.

In addition, the stakeholders should prepare a prioritization plan to document and organize subwatersheds that are either unstudied or have an out-of-date study in order to combine efforts to conduct an up-to-date planning study to understand flood risks and develop resilient solutions to reduce the flood risk.

9.1.6.4 Transportation Many roadway improvement projects ultimately require additional right-of-way or easements for construction and maintenance. It would be beneficial for government entities to coordinate potential acquisitions of property and easement to facilitate the transportation improvement project. One example of this would be to continue to have DuPage County continue to partner with IDOT to facilitate the Route 53 improvements between Route 56 (Butterfield Road) and Park Boulevard. Currently the County owns many properties along this area acquired through a previous buy-out program. If the County can continue to partner with IDOT and also assist with acquisitions through other buy-out programs, it might prioritize the timeline for construction.

In addition, transportation entities and departments throughout the watershed should create an improved coordination effort in order to better leverage and prioritize funding sources. Combining projects from multiple entities can improve leverage opportunities from sources such as Federal matching funds. One example is that DuDOT, IDOT, the Tollway, and other municipalities have previously partnered to construct larger scale transportation projects along the Tollway corridors. This type of partnership can also be beneficial on smaller scales to maximize the project scale for a more efficient use of funds.

9.1.6.5 Open Space Opportunities It is recommended that the stakeholders continue to work with the Morton Arboretum, Forest Preserve, Chicago Wilderness, etc. to coordinate open space restoration and plans. 9.2. Site Specific Flood Risk Reduction Plans This section discusses recommendations for specific risk areas throughout the watershed. Information was collected analyzed to develop this section. In addition, Appendix D provides a list of recommended projects including those completed through addendums following the initial publication of this Plan.

9.2.1. Most Impacted / Most Distressed – River Dumoulin Area 9.2.1.1 Levee Task Force It is recommended that DuPage County in conjunction with the Village of Lisle create a collaborative group of stakeholders for the River-Dumoulin area to investigate, recommend and pursue the necessary easements and acquisition of property to transfer ownership of the physical limits of the levee corridor to DuPage County Stormwater for permanent ownership to facilitate future maintenance and improvements to the levee and the interior drainage system. Currently the levee system is mostly on privately held land with little to no access available through property or easements for maintenance. 174 

9. Recommended Action Plan

Any future resiliency to flood events in this area is directly linked to the ability to repair, improve and maintain the current levee system. As it stands, the levee system cannot be fully accessed to provide these actions.

A key function of this group is also to educate the residents and business protected by the levee on how the levee functions, why it is important to continuously maintain and improve it, and how the levee system and associated river corridor could provide multiple benefits for the stakeholders. Additional benefits of the levee system could include the following to provide multiple benefits and resiliency of the levee system:

• Access road on top of levee for emergency, evacuation and maintenance • Multi-Use Trail and Recreational Corridor • Open space areas • Community gardens and parks • Educational and informational signage • Land swaps • Improved pedestrian and recreational circulation • Improved local drainage systems behind levee and on acquired properties to convey stormwater runoff to the recently constructed pump stations

It is recommended that the Levee Task Force complete the following tasks:

• Stakeholder Identification and Outreach for the River-Dumoulin Levee System • Conduct outreach meetings to educate the public and stakeholders about the importance of the levee system and the need to have a dedicated operations and maintenance plan • Identify repair and replacement needs • Identify property and easement needs • Identify multiple benefits associated with the levee system and coordinate with stakeholders • Recommend levee improvements and associated property and easement needs • Identify funding mechanisms • Provide implementation schedule

9.2.1.2 Property Acquisitions and Easements In this area, approximately 180 structures were damaged during the April 2013 flood event with 35 of them declared substantially damaged.

In the River-Dumoulin area of Lisle, funding has been allocated for acquisition of approximately 20 with additional potential funding for another five to ten homes. However, there is still an unmet need of at least five homes that meet buy out criteria. Some of this funding is associated with the HMGP which limits the use of the property following the buy-out and demolition of the structure. Any property purchased with these funds must be dedicated and maintained in perpetuity as open space for the conservation of natural floodplain functions. Uses include park, wetlands, open space, buffer zones, and other similar unimproved open space areas. While these restrictions are important for providing open space areas while not introducing new structures that can be damaged, it severely limits the ability of an entity to maintain, repair and

175 

9. Recommended Action Plan

improve a levee that is located on the property. For the River-Dumoulin area, the levee could not be repaired to provide the protection it was originally designed for if the private properties with the levee on them were purchased using these funds.

Due to these limitations, it is critical that additional funding sources are identified and secured that provide the ability for the new owner of levee properties to be able to repair and maintain the existing levee system.

It is also important to be able to acquire the appropriate property and access rights for the levee system in order to meet the goals of the Levee Task Force described in Section 9.2.1.1.

It is recommended that DuPage County, Lisle and other stakeholders do the following regarding property acquisition:

• Identify and recommended property acquisitions to remove properties from the floodplain in accordance with the voluntary buyout program(s) and other regulatory requirements • Identify and recommend property acquisition to transfer the levee to the appropriate and designated owner for future repair, maintenance and improvements • Identify appropriate funding sources that do not limit the future repair, maintenance and improvements to the levee system • Provide active coordination and education of property owners and stakeholders as to the needs for the area to provide resilience to future flood events

9.2.1.3 Floodproofing After the April 2013 flood event, six property owners chose to elevate their homes through the Lisle HMGP and an additional three property owners have elevated their homes independently. The remaining homes and businesses in the area could benefit from a variety of floodproofing methods. Elevation is the preferred option; however, options such as flood walls, waterproof membranes, flood shields, overhead sewers and basement wall reinforcement should be considered on a property by property basis. Coordination with the Village of Lisle and property owners would be required.

It is recommended that DuPage County and Lisle do the following regarding floodproofing:

• Establish and improve available resources (online, print, seminars, etc.) for home and business owners • Investigate grant and other funding opportunities to provide assistance for floodproofing • Investigate development of a municipal or countywide financial match for floodproofing

9.2.1.4 Education and Outreach The existing levee system is in need of repair, maintenance and improvements to match the original design elevations and intent. However, the levee was originally only designed to provide protection for up to a 50-year flood event. Even after levee repairs, the area would still potentially be subject to flooding during larger events. It is crucial to provide meaningful education to those protected by the levees in order to be able to anticipate, react to and recover

176 

9. Recommended Action Plan

from future large flood events. Educational opportunities can provide the opportunity to minimize the effects of the disaster.

In addition to recommended actions in Section 9.1, it is recommended that DuPage County and other stakeholders develop an educational outreach program that includes:

• Comprehensive understanding of the levee system and flooding including site field trips to show drainage and stormwater infrastructure • Develop and provide training sessions for an Emergency Action Plan for this area

9.2.2. Local Projects A current list of local flood risk reduction projects scheduled to be completed within the next five years is in Table 9-3.

Table 9-3 Planned Local Flood Risk Reduction Projects

Funding Entity / Project Name Subwatershed Cost Plan Westlake Concrete Drainage Channel Village of Bloomingdale EBEB $115,000 Repair FY2014/2015 Budget Westlake Clearbrook Drive Culvert Village of Bloomingdale EBEB $350,000 Replacement CIP FY2016-2018 The Crossings Subdivision Storm sewer Village of Bloomingdale EBEB $25,000 Improvements FY2015/2016 Budget Village of Bloomingdale Schick Road Relief Storm Sewer EBEB $75,000 FY2015/2016 Budget Indian Lakes Open Space – Drainage Village of Bloomingdale Various $4,351,500 and Water Quality Improvements CIP FY2016-FY2018 Willowbrook Drive Culvert Village of Bloomingdale EBE2 $150,000 Replacement CIP FY2016-FY2018 Lake Management Sedimentation Village of Bloomingdale $2,000,000- EBEB Removal Projects CIP FY2016-FY2020 $4,000,000 Downers Grove Streambank Stabilization, St Joseph CIP FY2015-FY2019 EBSJ $8,000 Creek, North Branch

Downers Grove Streambank Improvements, St Joseph CIP FY2015-FY2019 EBSJ $825,000 Creek, South Branch

Downers Grove Streambank Improvements, St Joseph CIP FY2015-FY2019 EBSJ $300,000 Creek, Main Branch

Downers Grove Drainage Improvements - Cumnor Rd CIP FY2015-FY2019 EBSJ $50,000 between Sheldon and Chicago

Downers Grove Valley View Pond Improvements CIP FY2015-FY2019 EBPR $60,000

Downers Grove Existing Drain Tile Investigation Various $50,000 CIP FY2015-FY2019 Downers Grove Prentiss Creek (Sub E), Kensington CIP FY2015-FY2019 EBPR $20,000 Place Online Storage

177 

9. Recommended Action Plan

Funding Entity / Project Name Subwatershed Cost Plan Downers Grove Watershed Improvements, Lacey Creek, CIP FY2015-FY2019 EBLA $1,486,000 Sub G

Downers Grove PW Parking Lot Reconstruction CIP FY2015-FY2019 EBSJ $50,000

Downers Grove Watershed Improvements, St Joseph CIP FY2015-FY2019 EBSJ $250,000 Creek, North Branch Sub E

Downers Grove Neighborhood Drainage Improvements CIP FY2015-FY2019 Various $250,000 Cost-Share Program

Downers Grove Drainage Improvements, Clyde Estates CIP FY2015-FY2019 EBSJ $550,000

Downers Grove Headwall Replacement, Gilbert and CIP FY2015-FY2019 EBSJ $60,000 Brookbank

Downers Grove Drainage Improvements at Fire Station CIP FY2015-FY2019 EBLA $2,000 #3

Downers Grove Lacey Creek (Sub G) - 35th St. between CIP FY2015-FY2019 EBLA $10,000 Saratoga and Venard

Downers Grove Green Streets/Sustainable Storm Water CIP FY2015-FY2019 Various $325,000 Program

Downers Grove Storm Sewer Replacement, Annual CIP FY2015-FY2019 Various $2,500,000 Element

Downers Grove Downtown Business District Water CIP FY2015-FY2019 EBSJ $250,000 Quality Enhancements

Downers Grove Headwall Replacement, Grand at 55th CIP FY2015-FY2019 EBSJ $115,000 St.

Downers Grove Identified Future Drainage and CIP FY2015-FY2019 Various $8,450,000 Floodplain Improvements

Downers Grove Storm Water Related Land Acquisitions Various $1,265,000 CIP FY2015-FY2019 Sanitary Sewer Lining – Location to be Lisle Various $625,000 determined annually Budget FY 2014/2015 Lisle Sewer Point Repairs Various $125,000 Budget FY 2014/2015 Lisle Storm Sewer Lining – Various locations Various $25,000 Budget FY 2014/2015 Levee Improvements – East Branch Lisle EBEB $100,000 DuPage River Budget FY 2014/2015 FEMA Grant Program for Lisle Various $1,000,000 acquisition/elevation of flood properties Budget FY 2014/2015

178 

9. Recommended Action Plan

Funding Entity / Project Name Subwatershed Cost Plan Lisle Future Stormwater Related Projects Various $2,000,000 Budget FY 2014/2015 Lombard Backyard Flooding Prevention Program Capital Improvement Plan Various $200,000 2014-2023 Lombard Overhead Sewer Grant Program Capital Improvement Plan Various $450,000 2014-2023 Lombard Sewer Maintenance and Improvements Capital Improvement Plan Various $1,800,000 2014-2023 Lombard Sanitary Sewer Lining Program Capital Improvement Plan Various $675,000 2014-2023 Lombard Sewer Stub Lining Program Capital Improvement Plan Various $475,000 2014-2023 Lombard Clear Water Disconnect Grant Program Capital Improvement Plan Various $675,000 2014-2023 Lombard Backyard Sewer Lining Program Capital Improvement Plan EBEB $100,000 2014-2023 Lombard Finley Road Sewer Lining Capital Improvement Plan EBEB $467,000 2014-2023 Lombard Route 53 Stormwater Pump Station Capital Improvement Plan EBEB $5,340,900 2014-2023 Lombard EBEB and International Village Sewer Lining Capital Improvement Plan $416,000 EBE3 2014-2023 Lombard N. Broadway Interim Pump Station & Capital Improvement Plan EBEB $2,089,750 Force Main 2014-2023 Lombard Terrace View Pond - South East Outfall Capital Improvement Plan EBEB $42,500 Repair 2014-2023 Lombard Route 53 Underground Improvements Capital Improvement Plan EBEB $2,223,600 2014-2023 Village of Glen Ellyn Lake Ellyn Outlet and Downstream Annual Budget 2015 EBEB $455,000 Improvements Capital Program Village of Glen Ellyn Village Green Storm Sewer Annual Budget 2015 EBGL $75,000 Replacement Capital Program Village of Glen Ellyn Reno Center Access Improvements Annual Budget 2015 EBGL $50,000 Capital Program

179 

9. Recommended Action Plan

Funding Entity / Project Name Subwatershed Cost Plan Village of Glen Ellyn Miscellaneous Storm Sewer Annual Budget 2015 Various $50,000 Improvements Capital Program Village of Glen Ellyn Stormwater Improvements Annual Budget 2015 Various $1,500,000 Capital Program Wheaton Replace Basin #4 Flowmeters Five Year Financial EBGL $250,000 Forecast Wheaton Replace all Lift Station Standby Five Year Financial Various $125,000 Generators Forecast Wheaton Lift Station Mechanical Appurtenances Five Year Financial Various $89,000 Forecast Wheaton Lift Station Submersible Pumps Five Year Financial Various $89,000 Forecast Wheaton Supplemental Sanitary Sewer - Five Year Financial Various $625,000 Rehabilitation Lining Forecast Wheaton Supplemental Storm Sewer - Five Year Financial Various $625,000 Rehabilitation Lining Forecast Wheaton Sanitary Sewer Capacity Assurance Five Year Financial Various $12,100,000 Program Forecast Village of Westmont Cumnor Rd Design-GREEN Additional Annual Budget FY 2014- EBSJ $737,000 Cost 2015 Village of Westmont 60th St. Streambank Stabilization Annual Budget FY 2014- EBSJ $15,000 Eng/Insp 2015 Village of Westmont Deer Creek Detention Basin Repairs Annual Budget FY 2014- EBSJ $25,000 2015 Village of Westmont 61st & Cumnor Pond Beautification Annual Budget FY 2014- EBSJ $13,000 Project 2015 Village of Westmont Land Acquisition Annual Budget FY 2014- Various $800,000 2015 Village of Woodridge Crabtree Creek Erosion Control Capital Projects 5 Year EBCR $265,000 Plan Village of Woodridge Lining Corrugated Metal Pipe and Capital Projects 5 Year Various $250,000 Repairs Plan Village of Woodridge Prentiss Creek Erosion Control Capital Projects 5 Year EBPR $150,000 Plan

180 

9. Recommended Action Plan

Funding Entity / Project Name Subwatershed Cost Plan Village of Woodridge Streambank Stabilization Capital Projects 5 Year Various $150,000 Plan Village of Woodridge Lining of Sanitary Sewers Capital Projects 5 Year Various $300,000 Plan Village of Woodridge 63rd Street Storm Sewer Inlets Capital Projects 5 Year EBPR $45,000 Plan

9.2.3. East Branch DuPage River through Unincorporated Valley View Area The Valley View subdivision and adjacent areas near Illinois Route 53 between Illinois Route 56 (Butterfield Road) and Park Boulevard have been a subject of significant overbank flooding and high groundwater issues causing damages to homes and extended road closures. It is recommended that this area be subject to a future watershed planning and resiliency study to reinvestigate existing issues, document at-risk structures and properties, develop updated and multiple benefit solutions and costs and provide an action plan for future improvements. In addition, the voluntary buy-out program should contact property owners that originally declined to be part of the original acquisition program to investigate if they would be willing to volunteer for the program. Coordination should include DuPage County (i.e. Stormwater Management, Public Works – Drainage Division, etc.), IDOT and adjacent stakeholders (i.e. Morton Arboretum, Lisle, Glen Ellyn, etc.) to develop an appropriate flood resilience strategy for this area.

9.2.4. Reserved This section is currently reserved for future use. 9.3. Prioritized Non-Point Source Reduction Action Plan A preliminary Prioritized Non-Point Source Reduction Action Plan has been developed for the East Branch DuPage River Watershed to provide stakeholders guidance on action items for watershed improvement practices. The Prioritized Action Plan serves as a “roadmap” for the implementation of the watershed-based plan and includes recommended watershed-wide and site specific best management practices (BMPs), a prioritized schedule for the implementation of the BMPs, recommendations on agencies and organizations responsible for plan implementation, and estimated BMPs costs.

As discussed in previous sections, additional work and stakeholder input will be required prior to the submittal of this plan to the IEPA for approval as a watershed-based plan. It is a recommendation of this Plan that the preliminary Prioritized Non-Point Source Reduction Action Plan be modified as this work is conducted to include any additional knowledge obtained through the completion of the additional work.

The Prioritized Non-Point Source Reduction Action Plan is divided into three subsections:

181 

9. Recommended Action Plan

• Programmatic Action Plan • Site Specific Action Plan • Education and Outreach Plan

The Non-Point Source Pollution Reduction Programmatic Action Plan (Section 9.3.1) is focused on watershed-wide action items that are not site specific while the Site Specific Action Plan (Section 9.3.2) identifies specific and actual locations where water quality, hydrological modification, and/or flood reduction/prevention projects can be implemented. For each Watershed-wide and Site Specific recommendation a priority ranking was assigned. Additionally, estimated costs and responsible entities for project implementation are also provided.

Section 9.3.2.6 includes the Education and Outreach Plan. The Education and Outreach Plan highlights recommended actions that will need additional outreach and education in order to be implemented.

The six most important recommendations are summarized as follows:

1. Remediate existing flood problems and prevent future flooding by reducing stormwater runoff and restoring areas for surface water storage and absorption such as floodplains, depressional storage areas, and wetlands, which also provide water quality improvement benefits.

2. Restore and manage stream corridors by restoring native riparian buffers, removing excessive debris, and improving the streambed and streambanks with practices that also enhance habitat.

3. Use better stormwater management and low impact development practices for new and existing development that slow, filter, infiltrate, cool, and cleanse stormwater runoff.

4. Modify and use planning and development standards, policies, and capital improvement plans and budgets to protect and enhance water quality.

5. Provide public education and outreach to enhance understanding and appreciation of watershed resources and problems and to provide opportunities for people to get involved in watershed improvement activities.

6. Monitor and evaluate watershed plan implementation and physical watershed conditions to gauge progress towards watershed goals.

9.3.1. Non-Point Source Reduction Programmatic Action Plan The preliminary Non-Point Source Reduction Programmatic Action Plan includes recommended BMPs that are applicable watershed-wide and has been divided into two sections. The first section is focused on recommendations that are applicable across the East Branch watershed to meet the overall goals identified in this Plan. The second section provides a review

182 

9. Recommended Action Plan of the existing ordinances applicable in the watershed and provides recommendations for changes aimed at improving water quality, stream health and the reduction of flooding in the watershed.

As noted, additional work and stakeholder input will be required prior to the submittal of this plan to the IEPA for approval as a watershed-based plan. It is a recommendation of this Plan that the preliminary Non-Point Source Reduction Programmatic Action Plan be modified as this work is conducted to include any additional knowledge obtained through the completion of the additional work.

The Programmatic Plan is focused on five non-point source reduction and water quality improvement strategies for the East Branch DuPage River watershed:

A. Protect and enhance overall surface and groundwater quality in the East Branch DuPage River Watershed.

B. Reduce flood damages in the watershed and prevent flooding from worsening with climate change.

C. Improve aquatic and wildlife habitat in the East Branch DuPage River watershed.

D. Protect additional open space in the East Branch watershed that can provide multiple benefits including flood storage, and recreational and educational opportunities.

E. Increase coordination between decision makers and other stakeholders in the watershed.

F. Raise stakeholder awareness (residents, public officials, etc.) about the importance of best management practices and watershed stewardship.

The Programmatic Action Plan is presented in table format (Table 9-4). The Programmatic Action Plan table has been broken down into the recommended action item/BMP, priority, cost, responsible lead agencies or organization with greatest potential to implement the recommendation, and support agencies or agencies who could assist with technical, financial, or regulatory assistance or whose programs may be impacted by the recommendations. Each recommendation is given a unique ID number (ID#).

Cost estimates are only provided for best management practices that involve construction or engineering costs such as streambank stabilization, native plantings, and feasibility studies. Costs are not included for preventative measures such as outreach and educational programs or regulatory actions. The cost estimates are included for advisory purposes only. The cost estimates are concept level costs and are most useful to compare the relative costs of the recommended BMPs. More detailed costs should be developed when site constraints are more fully investigated and preliminary engineering is conducted.

183 

9. Recommended Action Plan

Each of the BMPs was assigned a priority status and classified as high (H), medium (M), or low (L). Priority status was assigned based on need, cost, potential funding opportunities, and technical needs. High priority action items should be considered short-term goals (1-5 years) while medium and low priority action items are considered long-term goals (greater than 5 years).

Summary of Programmatic Plan’s non-point source reduction and water quality improvement strategies and tactics

Strategy A: Protect and enhance overall surface and groundwater quality in the East Branch DuPage River Watershed.

Tactics

1. Implement stormwater best management practices (BMPs) throughout the watershed to improve water quality by reducing nonpoint source pollution.

2. Restore riparian buffers along the East Branch DuPage River and its tributaries where possible within the context of existing development. The buy-out areas may offer strategic opportunities to restore riparian buffers.

3. Protect additional green open space focused on multiple benefits and increased watershed resiliency. Areas identified as priority in the DuPage County Open Space and Natural Areas Plan can be assessed in conjunction with where natural ecosystem services including runoff storage and infiltration are most needed.

Protection and improving water quality through the use of stormwater BMPs, and the preservation and restoration of the natural drainage system (overland flow paths, streams, and floodplain) should be required in all new development and re-development. Drainage and detention in existing developed areas should be retrofitted or repaired to better control runoff rates and volume as well as to improve water quality. Older facilities tend to be designed only for detention, and not for water quality and volume control. Natural and existing drainageways should also be preserved and/or restored to the extent practicable as part of the green infrastructure network and to reduce the impacts of hydrologic modification within the watershed.

All landowners and stakeholders within the watershed have the ability to improve water quality by managing land and property to prevent or remove pollutants in runoff before they are washed into the stream. The implementation of stormwater BMPs is the responsibility of all landowners (for existing development) and developers and builders (for new development). However, municipalities must require or encourage these practices to be installed. Preservation of remaining natural drainage and storage features of the landscape is the responsibility of the private and public land owners.

Strategy B: Reduce flood damages in the watershed and prevent flooding from worsening with climate change.

184 

9. Recommended Action Plan

Tactics

1. Mitigate for existing flood damage by identifying those parcels suitable for flood mitigation projects and those qualifying for buy-outs, as unmet needs.

2. Reconnect channelized stream segments to the floodplain where feasible.

3. Implement stormwater best management practices (BMPs) throughout the watershed designed to reduce runoff and encourage infiltration.

4. Protect undeveloped floodplain from development.

5. Address levee integrity insufficiencies.

6. Address drainage in adequacies in areas behind the levee.

Flooding and risk of flooding occurs throughout the East Branch DuPage River watershed. The flooding and increased flood risk is primarily a result of historical development within the floodplain and increased runoff from urban development. The changes in land use, particularly prior to the DCCFPO, lead to modifications to the floodplain and wetland areas, increased impervious surfaces, and increased rate and volume of stormwater runoff.

Strategy C: Improve aquatic and wildlife habitat in the East Branch DuPage River watershed.

Tactics

1. Realize opportunities for improving habitat along and in degraded stream channels using a natural channel design with a focus on substrate, riffle and pool sequence, and sinuosity.

2. Identify opportunities for wetland restoration, creation and preservation within the watershed based on the DuPage County Open Space and Natural Areas Plan.

3. Restore riparian buffers along the East Branch DuPage River and its tributaries.

4. Encourage local residents to utilize native species in their landscapes.

5. Identify opportunities for habitat improvements at parks and natural areas.

6. Protect through various mechanisms additional strategically location open space based on the DuPage County Open Space and Natural Areas Plan. These areas should expand existing core habitat areas and provide corridor connections between them for greater connectivity and adaptation to climate change.

Streambank erosion is threatening property, damaging infrastructure, and degrading water quality and riparian habitat. Stabilization, restoration and management of the stream channel, streambank and riparian corridor are needed throughout the watershed to improve water quality, maintain floodplain functions, and improve aquatic and wildlife habitat both within and

185 

9. Recommended Action Plan near the streams. Practices that are needed include restoring in-stream habitat such as pools and riffles, removing excessive debris from the stream channel, establishing naturalized streambanks with native plants, and managing stream corridors by restoring native riparian buffers where possibly in the highly urbanized landscape of this watershed.

Through easement agreements or ownership, most private landowners are responsible for maintaining the stream and riparian zone as it crosses their property or flows along a property line. This includes all aspects of management and maintenance including debris removal, stabilization of streambanks, and management of private stormwater outfall pipes such as sump pumps and downspouts. Exceptions to the private landowner responsibility exist where the stream flows through publically owned lands such as parks and within right-of-way easements. As problems within the stream and riparian corridor are directly related to land use and other activities upstream in the watershed, it is important that all landowners living within the watershed (not just those living adjacent to the creek) work together on implementing the watershed-based plan.

Strategy D: Protect additional open space in the East Branch watershed that can provide multiple benefits including flood storage, and recreational and educational opportunities.

Tactics

1. Based on the DuPage County Open Space and Natural Areas Plan, identify and protect open space along the East Branch and its tributaries that would provide opportunities to restore natural floodplain storage and riparian functions.

2. Identify and protect open space aimed at protecting and preserving natural resources.

3. Identify and protect areas that can be used for multiple uses (trails, passive recreation).

4. Encourage private landowners to install filter strips or riparian buffers along stream corridors.

There are approximately 10,040 acres (21.6% of the watershed) of open space, parks, and forest preserves in the watershed. Open space and natural areas such as stream and riparian corridors, wetlands, and parks that remain undeveloped provide storm and flood water protection, serve as natural buffers for streams, and serve as passive and active recreational spaces for residents and visitors to the watershed. As such it is important for the watershed- based plan to identify ways of restoring/creating naturalized open space and improving access to creeks for recreational activities.

Green infrastructure includes all the interconnected natural systems in a landscape, such as intact forests, woodlands, wetlands, parks and rivers, or agricultural soils that provide clean water, air quality, wildlife habitat and food. By considering these natural systems as part of the ‘infrastructure,’ we can begin to assign appropriate values to them. They are important to our

186 

9. Recommended Action Plan

lives and livelihoods, and the resiliency of the watershed. They provide stormwater treatment, energy savings, aesthetic values, improved community health and a sustainable local economy. Green infrastructure also includes man-made, best management practices that are designed to mimic and complement the characteristics of natural systems. Combined, the existing natural ecosystems and BMPs constitute the green infrastructure network. A connected green infrastructure network across the watershed will greatly improve resiliency.

Strategy E: Increase coordination between decision makers and other stakeholders in the watershed.

Tactics

1. Encourage communities to adopt the this Plan.

2. Encourage the adoption and/or revision of comprehensive plans and ordinances that support the watershed plan’s goals and objectives.

3. Encourage communities to continue to be active members of the working groups and committees established by DuPage County for the East Branch watershed.

Activities in one area of the watershed can impact water resources in another part of the watershed even when those areas seem distant and unconnected. And subsequently, the actions of all those living within the watershed have impacts, whether negative or positive, on the health of East Branch and its tributaries. As such, the participation and coordination of all watershed stakeholders is necessary for water quality and habitat improvements and flood damage reduction in the watershed. No single person, municipality or entity can effectively implement the watershed-based plan alone.

Many of the recommendations in the plan require technical expertise and require significant funding to implement. As such, coordination across property and jurisdictional lines is vital for the successful implementation of the plan. By working together, stakeholders can share expertise and equipment making projects that one entity could not do alone feasible. Additionally, available monies can be combined and leveraged for maximum benefits.

Strategy F: Raise stakeholder awareness (residents, public officials, etc.) about the importance of best management practices and watershed stewardship.

Tactics

1. Provide watershed stakeholders with an outreach plan that gives them the knowledge needed to help implement the watershed plan.

2. Develop an urban outreach program for communities that will focus on stormwater management. This may include rain gardens, bioswales, and rainwater capturing.

187 

9. Recommended Action Plan

3. Promote conservation programs for corporate campuses, office complexes, and other large landowners including providing meetings and tours to showcase BMPs.

4. Promote the “health of the watershed” concept to all watershed stakeholders.

5. Encourage the acceptance of buy-outs and flood proofing for eligible landowners within the watershed.

Even the best plan for managing watersheds, controlling nonpoint source pollution, and reducing flooding cannot succeed without community participation and cooperation. An aggressive public outreach and education program, therefore, is essential and must be nurtured. Because many water quality problems result from individual actions and the solutions are often voluntary practices, effective public involvement and participation to promote the adoption of management practices is necessary. The needed public buy-in and support is impossible unless stakeholders understand their role in watershed protection and restoration and are willing to make changes in their behavior that will help achieve overall watershed goals. A well designed and implemented education and outreach plan is necessary to facilitate changes in stakeholders’ opinions and actions.

Table 9-4 Watershed-wide Non-Point Source Reduction Programmatic Action Plan for the East Branch DuPage River watershed

ID Project Location Recommendation / BMP Status

# Lead Cost Agency Agency Priority Strategy Timeframe Supporting Continue to support the ongoing water quality monitoring programs aimed at assessing the current Watershed- condition of the East Branch 1 A H DRSCW S n/a wide DuPage River watershed and to assess changes in water quality associated with the implementation of this watershed-based plan. Develop a Riparian Landowner Handbook to Watershed- A, B. $5,000- 2 educate riparian landowners L L wide C $20,000 on their responsibilities and easement requirements. Implement a waterside-wide $20 per Watershed- stream maintenance A, B, 3 M M linear wide program to remove debris C foot and blockages routinely.

188 

9. Recommended Action Plan

ID Project Location Recommendation / BMP Status

# Lead Cost Agency Agency Priority Strategy Timeframe Supporting Inventory, then repair or retrofit problematic or undersized hydraulic Watershed- 4 structures with priority in A, B H S wide the most affected/most distressed portions of the watershed. Complete detailed inventory of all detention and retention basins in the Watershed- watershed to document $5,000- 5 A, B H S wide storage capacity, vegetation, $7,000 maintenance needs, etc. to identify potential retrofit opportunities. Develop a maintenance plan for all detention and retention basins in the watershed to ensure effective operation and Watershed- provide maximum 6 A, B M M n/a wide detention, water quality benefit, and habitat. The plan should identify who is responsible, a maintenance schedule, budget and funding source. Utilize naturalized detention basins in new development and retrofit existing single function dry bottom detention basins to provide Watershed- multiple benefits including A, B, 7 M M varies wide reducing pollutant loads and C improving habitat. Upgrade and maintain existing basins to provide water quality benefits and slower release rates. Stabilize eroding detention Watershed- pond shorelines and replace 8 A, C wide riprap, concrete, and turf with native vegetation.

189 

9. Recommended Action Plan

ID Project Location Recommendation / BMP Status

# Lead Cost Agency Agency Priority Strategy Timeframe Supporting Develop stream restoration guidelines to provide guidance to riparian Watershed- landowners on methods of $5,000- 9 A, C M M wide streambank stabilization, $20,000 riparian buffer restoration, and other bioengineering techniques. Encourage enrollment in the Conservation @ Home Watershed- A, C, 10 program, especially in M S n/a wide D riparian and floodplain areas of the watershed. Promote stormwater BMPs for handling residential stormwater including Watershed- downspouts and sump 11 A, B H S varies wide pumps. Flow should be directed onto a lawn or areas landscaped with native vegetation. Develop consistent education and outreach Watershed- materials for use across the 12 A, B M M n/a wide watershed emphasizing BMPs, green infrastructure, and resiliency. When replacing pavement use pervious or porous $2 to $6 Watershed- pavement or permeable per 13 A, B M M wide pavers where appropriate to square increase infiltration and foot reduce runoff volumes. Retrofit roadways and $40-$60 parking lots to allow Watershed- per 14 stormwater to enter A, B L L wide square infiltration BMPs (rain yard gardens, swales, etc.). Where feasible, convert $40-$60 existing swales and open Watershed- A, B, per 15 drainageways to infiltration M M wide C square BMPs with native yard landscaping.

190 

9. Recommended Action Plan

ID Project Location Recommendation / BMP Status

# Lead Cost Agency Agency Priority Strategy Timeframe Supporting Encourage the implementation of stormwater BMPs in new Watershed- 16 developments and in A, B H S varies wide redevelopment projects above the minimum requirements. Watershed- Provide ordinance language wide pertaining to the storage of 17 rock salt to all jurisdictions A H S varies in the watershed

Watershed- Promote the calibration of wide equipment, use of temperature sensors and 18 pre-wetting of chloride A H S varies compounds by all snow fighting agencies in watershed

Encourage the implementation of stormwater BMPs in new Watershed- 19 developments and in B H S varies wide redevelopment projects above minimum amount required. Identify flood mitigation opportunities in the Watershed- watershed for creating 20 B L L varies wide additional storage and/or improving the local drainage. $10,000 Create/restore wetlands and Watershed- to 21 depressional areas within B M M wide $60,000 the watershed. per acre Identify locations where the Watershed- incised stream channel can 22 B L L varies wide be reconnected to the floodplain appropriately. Mitigate flood damages by floodproofing at-risk Watershed- 23 structures, encouraging buy- B H varies wide out acceptance for eligible structures.

191 

9. Recommended Action Plan

ID Project Location Recommendation / BMP Status

# Lead Cost Agency Agency Priority Strategy Timeframe Supporting Restore instream and riparian habitat in Watershed- 24 conjunction with road and C M M Varies wide bridge improvement projects. Provide information to Watershed- residents and business 25 C H S n/a wide owners on the benefits of native landscaping. Where feasible, daylight and re-meander streams that $575 per Watershed- have been contained in 26 C L L linear wide ditches or moved foot underground into culverts and pipes. For severely eroded stream Watershed- reaches, develop a stream 27 C M M varies wide restoration plan and cost estimate. Establish native riparian buffers along unbuffered or $12-$25 Watershed- 28 inadequately buffered C, D H S per linear wide stream reaches where foot possible. Based on the DuPage County Open Space and Natural Areas Plan, identify and protect open space Watershed- parcels along the East $5,000- 29 D M M wide Branch and its tributaries $20,000 that would provide opportunities to restore natural floodplain storage and riparian functions. Identify and protect open Watershed- space aimed at protecting 30 D M M varies wide and preserving the natural resources of the watershed. Identify and protect areas that can provide multiple functions (ecosystem services) such as infiltration, Watershed- 31 water quality improvements, D H S n/a wide wildlife habitats, natural flood storage, and recreation/education opportunities.

192 

9. Recommended Action Plan

ID Project Location Recommendation / BMP Status

# Lead Cost Agency Agency Priority Strategy Timeframe Supporting Identify opportunities for municipalities to encourage Watershed- the use of green 32 D H S n/a wide infrastructure and open space preservation in new developments. Encourage the adoption of Watershed- the Watershed-Based Plan 33 E H S n/a wide by all jurisdictions located in the watershed. Continue to meet as the Watershed Steering Watershed- Committee in order to 34 E H S n/a wide facilitate plan implementation and conduct progress evaluations. Work collaboratively to obtain HUD NDRC and 319 Watershed- 35 funding to implement E H S n/a wide actions in this watershed plan. Incorporate the watershed- based plan’s goals, Watershed- objectives, and 36 E H S n/a wide recommendations in to municipal codes, regulations and comprehensive plans. Provide training and educational outreach to municipal officials and Watershed- engineers on the goals, 37 E H S n/a wide objectives, recommendations, and implementation of the watershed-based plan. Provide training and educational outreach to municipal officials and Watershed- engineers on the goals, 38 F H S n/a wide objectives, recommendations, and implementation of the watershed-based plan. Promote Conservation @ Watershed- Home with homeowners on 39 F M M n/a wide native landscaping and other stormwater BMPs.

193 

9. Recommended Action Plan

ID Project Location Recommendation / BMP Status

# Lead Cost Agency Agency Priority Strategy Timeframe Supporting Maintain an East Branch watershed planning website Watershed- 40 to keep the public informed F H S n/a wide on plan implementation activities. Hold watershed workshops Watershed- 41 in parks and other open F M M n/a wide spaces. Educate riparian property owners on ways to improve Watershed- 40 riparian conditions for flood F H S n/a wide storage, water quality and habitat. Educate homeowners associations, developers, and municipalities about the Watershed- importance of protecting 42 F H S n/a wide open space, incorporating stormwater BMPs, and maintenance strategies for existing BMPs.

9.3.1.1 Regulatory Review and Recommendation The review of regulatory ordinances related to water quality and stormwater management is a recommended action to be conducted as part of the preparation of this plan as means of obtaining IEPA approval as a “watershed-based” plan.

9.3.2. Non-Point Source Reduction Site Specific Plans In addition to the programmatic recommendations, which generally apply watershed wide, site- specific action items and recommendations are tied to a particular location in the watershed. As with the programmatic actions, these site specific recommendations were developed to address watershed problems, to improve watershed resources, and to achieve the watershed strategies and objectives.

As noted, additional work and stakeholder input will be required prior to the submittal of this plan to the IEPA for approval as a watershed-based plan. It is a recommendation of this Plan that the preliminary Prioritized Non-Point Source Reduction Site Specific Action Plan be modified as this work is conducted to include any additional knowledge obtained through the completion of the additional work.

The preliminary Site Specific Plan includes a multitude of projects including streambank stabilization and restoration, detention pond retrofits, green infrastructure, open space restoration and preservation, and other projects. The Site Specific Plan is summarized in table

194 

9. Recommended Action Plan

format by type of project (Table 9-6 to Table 9-9). The provided cost estimates are included for advisory purposes only. The cost estimates should be interpreted only as concept costs and are best used to compare the relative costs of the recommended BMPs. More detailed costs can be developed once site constraints and additional conceptual or preliminary engineering activities are conducted. Funding for these projects will likely come from state and federal grants and local sources.

9.3.2.1 Streambank Stabilization and Stream Restoration Projects Streambank stabilization involves using vegetation or materials such as riprap or woody debris to stabilize stream, river or ditch banks in order to protect them from erosion or sloughing.

Stream stabilization has numerous benefits including:

• Stabilizes banks and shores, preventing further erosion and degradation; • Improves water quality by reducing sediment loads in surface waters; • Helps maintain the capacity of waterways to handle floodwaters, preventing flood damage to utilities, roads, buildings and other facilities; • Reduces expenses for dredging accumulated sediment from lakes and drainage ditches; • Enhances habitat for fish and other aquatic species by improving water quality and moderating water temperature; and • Creates riparian habitat for terrestrial wildlife.

Stream restoration projects have also been identified within the East Branch DuPage River watershed. As discussed in Section 4.11.3, the habitat of the watershed is significantly impacted. Stream restoration projects focus on improving channel sinuosity, installing natural features such as riffles and pools, and replacing mud substrates with cobbles Water quality benefits of stream restoration projects include reducing streambank erosion, trapping suspended sediment, and re-oxygenating the water column. In-channel restoration also provide habitat that supports the propagation of fish and macroinvertebrates.

Preliminary Streambank Stabilization and Stream Restoration projects recommended for the East Branch DuPage River watershed are listed in Table 9-6. Highlights on select projects are detailed below. As noted, additional work and stakeholder input will be required prior to the submittal of this plan to the IEPA for approval as a watershed-based plan. It is a recommendation of this Plan that the Streambank Stabilization and Stream Restoration Projects be amended as this work is conducted to include any additional projects identified through the additional work.

Lower East Branch Channel Improvement Project (DRSCW)

The Lower East Branch Channel Improvement Project is located between River Mile 4.5 and River Mile 8.5 along the East Branch main stem. In this location there is a slump in the biological integrity of the river with Fish IBI scores falling from 30 to 20. This fall in IBI scores also corresponds to a decline the Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI) score for the 195 

9. Recommended Action Plan

reach (moving from 63 to 45). The Lower East Branch Channel Improvement Project would aim to improve QHEI Scores from an existing 59-70 to higher than 77 for the whole project area. The Project would focus on improving channel sinuosity, flow heterogeneity, and bank and steam bed conditions. Currently entrenched channel would be reconnected to the flood plain. This would involve replacing mud substrates with cobble, placement of riffles in cobble areas, the creation of meanders and an improvement in channel cross sectional geometry. Restoration of the floodplain will also be included the project’s design.

Valley Road River Restoration Project (DRSCW)

The Valley Road River Restoration Project is located between River Mile 14 and River Miles 15 along the East Branch DuPage River near its confluence with Glen Crest Creek and 22nd Street Tributary. The Valley View River Restoration Project would replace mud substrates with cobble, increase channel sinuosity and increase buffer quality and depth.

Churchill Woods Dam Removal Phase 2 (DRSCW)

This Project is located along the East Branch DuPage River mainstem at the Churchill Woods Forest Preserve (River Mile 18.2). As previously discussed in 2011, the 50-foot long and 3.5 feet high concrete gravity dam was removed. However, the river at this location is still somewhat impounded at the site, with the new impoundment elevation set by three box culverts under Crescent Boulevard. The Churchill Woods Dam Removal Phase 2 Project would replace the Crescent Boulevard box culverts with a span bridge. The removal of the culverts would eliminate the impoundment at river mile 18 and fully implement phase 1 of the DRSCW’s 2008 dissolved oxygen improvement study.

East Branch Forest Preserve Stream Restoration Project (DRSCW)

East Branch Forest Preserve Stream Restoration Project is located within the East Branch Forest Preserve (River Miles 21-23). The Project includes improvement of substrates, moving sections from muck substrates to cobble and channel sinuosity.

Crabtree Creek Stabilization – Downstream Project Area (Village of Woodridge)

The Village of Woodridge’s Crabtree Creek Stabilization-Downstream Project Area would to provide streambank stabilization along 780 linear feet of eroded streambank. Bioengineering techniques include rock vane grade control, rock toe, bank reshaping, and installation of native plantings will be utilized in the project.

Crabtree Creek at Boundary Hill Park (Woodridge Park District)

The Crabtree Creek Stabilization Project Site at Boundary Hill Park is located along the lower reaches of Crabtree Creek within the Village of Woodridge, DuPage County, Illinois. Due in part to extensive watershed development and site characteristics, Crabtree Creek has a flashy streamflow, with rapid increases in streamflow and stage, and draining of the stream channel after the flow event has passed. The Crabtree Creek at Boundary Hill Project Site is located along a stream reach that is 546 linear feet in length. Over 400 linear feet of gully erosion also occurs 196 

9. Recommended Action Plan

at the site. Most of the project site contains severe streambank erosion. The erosion is causing extensive sediment delivery and sediment deposition to Prentiss Creek and the East Branch DuPage River. The proposed Crabtree Creek Stabilization Project Site at Boundary Hill Park includes the following stream corridor restoration improvements:

• 1,092 LF of bioengineering and biotechnical streambank stabilization with Rock Toe, Rock Points, Tree Rootball Revetments, Re-Shaped Slopes, erosion blanket, and native plantings (along a 546-ft long stream reach) • 400 LF of gully stabilization • 4 riffle grade control structures to stabilize the stream channel corridor. • 1.8 acres of riparian habitat enhancement. • Debris Jam removal

Streambank stabilization will include replacement of non-native and invasive native species with desirable herbaceous species in the 1.8-acre riparian corridor. Bank stabilization will provide improve channel stability and will allow native vegetation to become more well- established along the creek banks. Re-shaping of banks will also provide more gradual slopes, which will expand the area of wetland habitat and the diversity of wetland plant species.

Establishment of the riparian corridor will filter road runoff from adjacent single family residences and reduce BOD loading into Crabtree Creek and the downstream East Branch DuPage River. The riparian buffer primarily consists of invasive trees (box elder), invasive shrubs and unvegetated eroding banks. Degraded areas along streambanks will be restored with native plantings. The replacement of undesirable vegetation with native species will prevent loss of bank soils and promote bank stability. This will reduce non-point source pollutant loadings to the downstream East Branch DuPage River. Replacement of invasive species with native grasses and forbs will also promote filtration and assimilation of nutrients as well as contaminated runoff that can be discharged from surrounding upland areas. Aquatic habitat along the Crabtree Creek riparian corridor will be enhanced and diversified.

Crabtree Creek at Jonquil (Woodridge Park District)

The Crabtree Creek Stabilization Project Site at Jonquil Lane is located along the upper reaches of Crabtree Creek within the Village of Woodridge, DuPage County, Illinois. The upstream watershed is comprised of single family residential areas. Due in part to extensive watershed development and site characteristics, Crabtree Creek has a flashy streamflow, with rapid increases in streamflow and stage, and draining of the stream channel after the flow event has passed. The Crabtree Creek Stabilization Project Site at Jonquil Lane is located along a stream reach that is 450 linear feet in length.

The project reach is experiencing a variety of problems resulting from the urban development of the upstream watershed, including a "flashy" hydrology and impaired water quality, loss of watershed wetlands, and floodplain encroachment. The most apparent effects are the continued lateral migration, cross-sectional expansion, or vertical incision of the stream channel. There are several trees with exposed and eroded roots along the streambanks that are leaning into the

197 

9. Recommended Action Plan

channel. The Project Site contains moderate to severe stream bank erosion at several locations. The erosion is causing extensive sediment delivery and sediment deposition to downstream areas. The proposed Crabtree Creek Stabilization Project Site at Jonquil Lane includes:

• 523 LF of bioengineering and biotechnical streambank stabilization with Rock Toe, Re- Shaped Slopes, erosion blanket, and native plantings (along a 450-ft long stream reach) • 0.18 acres of riparian habitat enhancement, • 3 riffle grade control structures to stabilize the stream channel corridor.

Streambank stabilization will include replacement of non-native and invasive native species with desirable herbaceous species in the 0.18-acre riparian corridor. Bank stabilization will provide improve channel stability and will allow native vegetation to become more well- established along the creek banks. Re-shaping of banks will also provide more gradual slopes, which will expand the area of wetland habitat and the diversity of wetland plant species.

Establishment of the riparian corridor will filter road runoff from Jonquil Lane and Crabtree Avenue, and from adjacent single family residences and reduce BOD loading into Crabtree Creek and the downstream East Branch DuPage River. The riparian buffer primarily consists of mowed turf grass, invasive trees (box elder), invasive shrubs and unvegetated eroding banks. Degraded areas along streambanks will be restored with native plantings. The replacement of undesirable vegetation with native species will prevent loss of bank soils and promote bank stability. This will reduce non-point source pollutant loadings to the downstream East Branch DuPage River. Replacement of invasive species with native grasses and forbs will also promote filtration and assimilation of nutrients as well as contaminated runoff that can be discharged from surrounding upland areas. Aquatic habitat along the Crabtree Creek riparian corridor will be enhanced and diversified.

Prentiss Creek Stabilization Project at Summerhill Park and 63rd Street (Woodridge Park District)

The Prentiss Creek Stabilization Project Site is located along Prentiss Creek within the Village of Woodridge, DuPage County, Illinois. The upstream watershed contains a variety of land uses including residential, institutional, highway, open space, and other areas. Most of the watershed area was developed in the 1960s and 1970s, prior to stormwater detention ordinances. Prentiss Creek has a flashy streamflow, with rapid increases in streamflows and stage, and rapid draining of the stream channel after the flow event has passed. Prentiss Creek was also highly channelized through most of the project area.

The project reach is experiencing channel erosion due to development of the upstream watershed, extensive channelization, encroachment in the floodplain area, past modification of wetlands, and other impacts. The erosion is contributing to sediment delivery and deposition to downstream areas of the watershed. The upstream end of the project reach contains a dam approximately 4 feet in height. The dam is constructed of steel sheet piling. Consideration should be given to removing this dam, installing grade control structures in place of the existing dam, and restoring the stream to a free-flowing condition. Gabions have been installed in some

198 

9. Recommended Action Plan areas. However, the gabions deflect erosive flows into other bank areas, contributing to adjacent moderate or severe erosion. The proposed Project includes the following components:

• Dam Removal (replacement of existing sheet pile dam on Prentiss Creek with environmentally sound grade control structures) • 4,300 LF of bioengineering and biotechnical streambank stabilization with Rock Toe, Re- Shaped Slopes, erosion blanket, native plantings, and/or native seeding (along a 2,400 LF stream reach) • 3.0 acres of riparian corridor restoration • 10 riffle grade control structures to stabilize the stream channel corridor.

Streambank stabilization will include replacement of non-native and invasive native species with desirable herbaceous species in the 3.0-acre riparian corridor. Bank stabilization will provide improve channel stability and allow native vegetation to become more well-established along the creek banks. Re-shaping of banks will also provide more gradual slopes, which will expand the area of wetland habitat and the diversity of wetland plant species. Establishment of the riparian corridor will filter turf grass runoff from adjacent park areas, from upstream, and reduce TSS, TP, TN and BOD loading into Prentiss Creek and the downstream East Branch DuPage River. The riparian buffer primarily consists of mowed turf grass, invasive trees (box elder), invasive shrubs and unvegetated eroding banks. Degraded areas along streambanks will be restored with native plantings. The replacement of undesirable vegetation with native species will prevent loss of bank soils and promote bank stability. This will reduce non-point source pollutant loadings to the downstream East Branch DuPage River. Replacement of invasive species with native grasses and forbs will also promote filtration and assimilation of nutrients as well as contaminated runoff that can be discharged from surrounding upland areas. Aquatic habitat along the Prentiss Creek riparian corridor will be enhanced and diversified.

Prentiss Creek South Tributary Restoration Project at Triangle Park (Woodridge Park District)

The Triangle Park Restoration Project Site is located along a South Tributary of Prentiss Creek within the Village of Woodridge, DuPage County, Illinois. Triangle Park is strategically located along a South Tributary of Prentiss Creek that flows north across 63rd Street alongside several homes that have been impacted by flooding by the April, 2013 event, before discharging into Prentiss Creek. According to available information, four residences have experienced structural impacts as a result of local flooding including but not limited to April, 2013, and seven residences have experiences property inundation impacts.

The project reach is experiencing a variety of problems resulting from the development of the upstream watershed, including a "flashy" hydrology and impaired water quality; modification or elimination of open stream channels; loss of watershed wetlands; and floodplain encroachment. The most apparent effects are the continued lateral migration, cross-sectional expansion, or vertical incision of the stream channel. This erosion is causing erosion and sedimentation, threatening storm sewers, underground utilities, and causing extensive sediment delivery and deposition to downstream areas. 199 

9. Recommended Action Plan

The proposed Prentiss Creek South Tributary would help to address a wide variety of problems including 63rd Street residential flood impacts, water quality impairments, streambank erosion, reduced debris obstructions (such as along the 48-inch culvert between Triangle Park and 63rd Street), and other benefits. The proposed Stabilization Project includes the following components:

• 1,200 LF of streambank stabilization (includes both sides of 600-ft long reach) • Up to 6 acre-feet of flood storage to reduce flood impacts along 63rd Street and the residences along overflow corridor between Triangle Park and 63rd Street • Up to 650 LF of creek re-meandering of South Tributary within Triangle Park. • Up to 0.75 acres of wetland / riparian habitat enhancement, • Installation of riffle grade control structures to stabilize the stream channel. • Up to 2 acres of native plant seeding. • Installation of native plant materials and a bioswale along the overland flow path between Triangle Park and 63rd Street to aid in water quality improvement and the infiltration of runoff during flood events. • Improvements to the grate and inlet area of the 48-inch culvert which conveys flood flows between Triangle Park and 63rd Street. The existing grate structure is substantially prone to clogging which aggravates flood impacts and reduces site safety.

Benefits of the project would include additional flood and runoff storage, enhanced wetland riparian habitat, and an attractive local amenity. The lowering of the overbanks adjacent to the stream channel would allow more gently sloped streambanks to be created, and would allow flood flows to better access the new floodplain terrace, reducing the erosion potential within the stream channel. The lowered floodplain terrace would also allow for the remeandering of the existing stream channel to a more natural configuration, moving the channel away from the current critical areas, and reducing the amount of expensive streambank stabilization practices that would have to be installed. Proposed native vegetation would aid in site stabilization, improve infiltration of runoff, and improve the quality of polluted runoff flowing into Triangle Park. Routing creek flow through a more broadly graded, vegetated stream corridor would improve sediment trapping, reduce debris maintenance requirements, and increase nutrient uptake.

Lower St Joseph’s Creek Restoration Project (DRSCW)

The Lower St. Joseph’s Creek Restoration Project is located on the lower 2.5 miles of St. Josephs Creek. Area surveys of the area show a channel that lacks sinuosity, is heavily embedded and lacks buffer in several areas. The Lower St Joseph’s Creek Restoration Project would link intact habitat areas between the confluence with East Branch main stem and the Downers Grove Downtown area. The Projects will include instream and riparian enhancement in the 1000 feet upstream of confluence with some re-meandering where space allows. Additionally, the Project includes the building of meanders in area where the tributary intersects with public open space, and the placement of buffers. In the next 12,000 feet restorative actions would focus on re- meandering where possible, and enhancement of both in-channel and riparian habitat where 200 

9. Recommended Action Plan planform remains relatively intact. Floodplain connectivity, particularly in the section near the Downers Grove STP will also be evaluated for potential inclusion in the Project.

9.3.2.2 Detention Basin Retrofits. Traditional detention basins with turf grass side slopes are designed to reduce flooding by storing stormwater and slowly releasing the stored water into streams or storm sewers. Naturalized detention basins and wetland detention basins are designed not only to provide flood storage but also to treat stormwater and create wildlife habitat.

The greatest benefit of naturalized and wetland detention basins over traditional detention basins is the wetland bottom detention basin’s ability to reduce the amount of pollutants in stormwater runoff leaving the basin. Suspended sediments and attached pollutants such as phosphorus and metals are settled out of the stormwater and captured in the basin. Dissolved pollutants such as nitrogen and organic matter is filtered out and/or transformed by the vegetation and as the runoff infiltrates into the underlying soils. A wetland detention basin provides opportunity for physical, chemical, and biological processes to act upon pollutants. The use of deep-rooted native plants on the side slopes also reduces shoreline erosion that is typically observed on turf grass basins. Wetland detention areas provide the most effective water quality benefits when they are at least 3-5 percent as large as the watershed they serve.

Naturalized detention basins typically have an open water basin with native grasses along the side slopes. In naturalized detention basin retrofits, the storage capacity of the basin remains unchanged but the side slopes are replanted with native grasses, shrubs and wildflowers. This stabilizes the side slopes, and provides some filtration and infiltration of overland flow entering the basin.

Wetland detention basins are designed to mimic the stormwater benefits and aesthetics of natural wetland systems by utilizing wet-tolerant native plants on the side slopes and bottom of the basin. The basins are designed to hold water at all times, whether it be standing water above the ground surface or water saturated just below the soil’s surface. Prior to the conversion of a traditional detention basin to a wetland detention basin, a hydrologic and hydraulic analysis should conducted to determine the profile changes necessary in the basin to support wetland vegetation while maintaining its stormwater management function.

As part of the preliminary assessment, no detention basin retrofit projects were identified in the for the East Branch DuPage River watershed. As noted, additional work and stakeholder input will be required prior to the submittal of this plan to the IEPA for approval as a watershed-based plan. It is a recommendation of this Plan that the Detention Basin Retrofit Projects be amended as this work is conducted to include any additional projects identified through the additional work.

9.3.2.3 Green Infrastructure Proposed infiltration-based projects such as rain gardens, bioswales, bioinfiltration basins and permeable pavers are proposed for the East Branch DuPage River Watershed. The main functions of the infiltration-based BMPs are to reduce the velocity of storm water flow and

201 

9. Recommended Action Plan

runoff, to provide a water quality filtration device, and to allow infiltration into the soil and possibly the groundwater. Infiltration-based BMPs can also create an aesthetically pleasing green space for nearby residents and recreational users.

Implementation of rain gardens, bioswales, and bioinfiltration basins consist of removing existing vegetation along with grading the project area to the proper size and slope. An appropriate native seed mix is then spread on the area and perennial vegetation can also be planted. If desired, wetland vegetation can be used on the bottom of the BMP if standing water is expected. Directing water to the infiltration-based BMP is accomplished by grading the surrounding area so that it slopes to the BMP, or incorporating curb cuts into the adjacent street or parking lot so water flows into the BMP rather than into curb inlets. If installed correctly and maintained over time, infiltration-based BMPs can be an effective best management practices to manage stormwater.

Permeable pavements refer to paving materials that promote the infiltration of rainfall and snowmelt into the ground. With traditional pavement, the asphalt or concrete is sloped so that rain and snow melt runs off and is directed quickly into storm drains and off of the paved surfaces and into the storm sewer system or on-site detention basin, and eventually the river. However, a permeable pavement system is typically constructed with an underdrain and infiltration trench comprised of gravel underneath the paver, porous concrete, or porous asphalt. Rain that falls on the permeable pavement infiltrates into the gravel and then into the soil and/or groundwater below. Once the storage capacity of the infiltration layer or trench has been reached, the underdrain will convey the water into the storm sewer system or on-site detention basin. By infiltrating the majority of the stormwater that falls onto the permeable pavement, the amount of water and pollution flowing into storm sewers and eventually into streams is reduced. Thus, permeable pavement helps maintain a more stable baseflow to streams, reduces flood peaks, and reduces streambank erosion. Permeable pavement also has the ability to improve water quality. Suspended solids are removed through filtration of water through the gravel layer and dissolved pollutants such as nutrients and metals are removed and/or transformed as runoff infiltrates into the soil. The Morton Arboretum’s visitor parking lot is a large permeable pavement facility done in part as a pilot or example project to be emulated in the watershed.

Green infrastructure projects recommended for the East Branch DuPage River watershed are listed in Table 9-7. Highlights on select projects are detailed below. As noted, additional work and stakeholder input will be required prior to the submittal of this plan to the IEPA for approval as a watershed-based plan. It is a recommendation of this Plan that the Green Infrastructure Projects be amended as this work is conducted to include any additional projects identified through the additional work.

2015 Green Campus Initiatives – Goodrich Elementary (Woodridge School District 68) Woodridge School District 68’s 2015 Green Campus Initiatives- Goodrich Elementary Project would retrofit the existing pavement parking lot with a permeable paver lot. A reading garden and rain garden will also be constructed as part of the project.

202 

9. Recommended Action Plan

9.3.2.4 Wetland Restoration Wetland restoration reestablishes or repairs the hydrology, plants and/or soils of a former or degraded wetland that has been drained, farmed or otherwise modified by human activity. The goal of wetland creation is to closely approximate the original wetland's natural condition which results in multiple water quality and stream habitat benefits.

Restoring wetland hydrology typically involves breaking drainage tile lines, building a dike or embankment to retain water and/or installing adjustable outlets to regulate water levels. Once hydrology is restored, wetland plants usually include a mix of native water-loving grasses, sedges, rushes and forbs (broad-leaved flowering plants) in the restored wetland and a mix of native grasses and forbs in upland buffers around the wetland.

Wetland restoration has numerous benefits including:

• Improves surface and ground water quality by collecting and filtering sediment, nutrients, pesticides and bacteria in runoff; • Reduces soil erosion and downstream flooding by slowing overland flow and storing runoff water; • Wetland plants and ponded conditions utilize trapped nutrients, restore soil organic matter and promote carbon sequestration; • Provides food, shelter and habitat for many species and enables the recovery of rare or threatened plant communities; • Restored wetlands provide breeding grounds for migratory waterfowl whose habitat is threatened; and • Connects fragmented habitat when part of a larger complex of wetlands.

Wetland projects recommended for the East Branch DuPage River watershed are listed in Table 9-8. Highlights on select projects are detailed below. As noted, additional work and stakeholder input will be required prior to the submittal of this plan to the IEPA for approval as a watershed- based plan. It is a recommendation of this Plan that the Wetland Restoration Projects be amended as this work is conducted to include any additional projects identified through the additional work.

Arboretum Woods Park (Lisle Park District) The Lisle Park District’s Arboretum Woods Park project will stabilize the pond shorelines and improve riparian areas by using a variety of bioengineering techniques. The project would also include bank reshaping, use of fiber rolls, and extensive native planning, including creation of wetland areas.

9.3.2.5 Open Space Preservation and Restoration Protection of open space within the watershed preserves area that will not become impervious surface. It allows those areas to retain their natural infiltration and runoff characteristics. The water quality of a river is directly related to the proportion of the watershed that is impervious versus open space. The Forest Preserve District of DuPage County currently owns approximately 5,000 acres within the East Branch Watershed, mainly within the corridor of the

203 

9. Recommended Action Plan

East Branch of the DuPage River. This acreage accounts for almost 10% of the entire watershed area, which has been preserved indefinitely as open space and making the FPDDC the largest landowner within the watershed.

Because much of the remainder of the watershed is built-out with moderate density residential, commercial, and other developments, the opportunities for protecting additional open space are very limited. The DuPage County Open Space and Natural Areas Plan can serve as a guide. This plan was put together by The Conservation Foundation with significant input from many stakeholders including municipalities within the East Branch watershed. It should be noted that green corridors were noted on the plan along the East Branch within the River-Dumoulin area, however, much of this area is developed as parks, residential neighborhoods and other man-made landscapes. Therefore, other non-traditional tools such as Conservation @ Home may be needed.

Open space preservation and restoration projects recommended for the East Branch DuPage River watershed are listed in Table 9-9. Highlights on select projects are detailed below. As noted, additional work and stakeholder input will be required prior to the submittal of this plan to the IEPA for approval as a watershed-based plan. It is a recommendation of this Plan that the open space preservations and restoration projects be amended as this work is conducted to include any additional projects identified through the additional work.

Arboretum Woods Park (Lisle Park District) The Lisle Park District’s Arboretum Woods Park project will stabilize the pond shorelines and improve riparian areas by using a variety of bioengineering techniques. The project would also include bank reshaping, use of fiber rolls, and extensive native planning, including creation of wetland areas.

East Branch DuPage River Trail Development (FPDDC) The development of a 31-mile regional trail along the East Branch of the DuPage River would link Bloomingdale to the north all the way south to Woodridge where it crosses into Will County. There, the trail will connect to the main stem of the DuPage River Trail that travels south to Channahon. The East Branch DuPage River Trail (EBDRT) will also connect to several other regional trails, including the North Central DuPage Regional Trail, the Prairie Path, The Great Western Trail, and the Southern DuPage Regional Trail. The trail will serve as a means for alternative transportation and will encourage healthy lifestyles by linking over 420,000 residents to 18 schools, 2 universities, 29 parks, 10 forest preserves and other major attractions like the Morton Arboretum.

9.3.2.6 Additional Projects Mochel Drive Vertical Water Quality Feature (Village of Downers Grove) The Village of Downers Grove’s Mochel Drive Vertical Water Quality Feature project would install a low-flow diverter pipe connected to the main storm sewer (headwaters of St. Joseph Creek), as well as vortex separator, pump system, green wall with filter media and native plants, and return line. The system seeks to treat the first flush from ¾” rain events.

204 

9. Recommended Action Plan

Chloride Reduction Strategy (DRSCW) As discussed in Section 4, elevated chlorides are prevalent in the East Branch DuPage River and its tributaries. In order to reduce chloride loadings from winter deicing operations practices, the DRSCW had developed a chloride reduction strategy to reduce chloride loading in the watershed. Table 9-5 summarizes the actions adopted under this plan. It is a recommendation of this Plan that all public agencies with transportation responsibilities adopt these practices. Experience in DuPage County suggests that adoption of the BMPs listed below can reduce application rates by 25-40%.

Table 9-5 Chloride Reduction Actions

BMP Type Description Driver training Educational Driver training on speed, focus on plowing, focus on efficiency Salt spreader and liquid sprayer Educational Annual calibration of all application equipment calibration

Develop appropriate application Operational Agency policy development of application rates for rates different road types, weather conditions and product

Pre-wet de-icer Equipment and Develop training and obtain equipment to pre- wet education chloride compounds at public works yard or onboard vehicle Equipment updates (speed servo Equipment and Adoption of fleet tracking upgrades and sensors to allow controls, on-board pre-wet, educational onboard tracking or real time pavement temperatures computer controls, on board temperature sensors)

Coordinate salt application Operational Coordination of plow trucks (tandem ploughing) , or during plowing plow and salting operations

Control salt spread width Operational Agency policy development for application units on various road types. Prioritize road system Operational Agency policy development for prioritizing resources based on road type and use Develop Anti-Ice program Equipment and Obtain equipment to allow for pre storm application of operational liquids to road surfaces

9.3.2.7 Water Quality Project Tables The identification of additional projects is a recommended action to be completed as part of the development of this plan as a means of obtaining IEPA approval as a “watershed-based” plan.

Table 9-6 Streambank Stabilization and Restoration Projects in the East Branch DuPage River Watershed

BMP Location Approx. Recommend./ Priority Lead Supporting Time- Approx. Status ID# Size BMP Agency Agency frame Cost East Branch DuPage River Mainstem

205 

9. Recommended Action Plan

BMP Location Approx. Recommend./ Priority Lead Supporting Time- Approx. Status ID# Size BMP Agency Agency frame Cost Lower East -4 mile Conduct a physical DRSCW $5-7 M Branch length of restoration of the DuPage channel East Branch DuPage River, River River. Mile 4.5 to River Mile 8.5 Churchill -0.2 miles Removal of the L DRSCW DOT L $2 M Dam Crescent Road (not Removal, culvert and including Phase 2, construction of a bridge) River Mile 18 span bridge. The East Branch mainstem will also be restored. East Branch -2 mile Conduct a physical DRSCW $2 M Forest length of restoration of the Preserve, channel East Branch DuPage River Mile River. 21-23 Tributary Watersheds Crabtree -780 LF od Stabilize the H Woodridge $32,000 Creek, streambank streambank and Woodridge stabilization restore the stream using various bioengineering measures. Crabtree - 1,092 LF Stabilize the Woodridge $242,000 Creek, of streambank and Park District Boundary streambank restore the stream Hill Park, stabilization using various Woodridge - 1.8 acres bioengineering of riparian measures. corridor restoration -400 LF of gully stabilization -Debris jam removal Crabtree - 523 LF of Stabilize the Woodridge $108,000 Creek, streambank streambank and Park District Jonquil Lake, stabilization restore the stream Woodridge - 0.18 acres using various of riparian bioengineering corridor measures. restoration

206 

9. Recommended Action Plan

BMP Location Approx. Recommend./ Priority Lead Supporting Time- Approx. Status ID# Size BMP Agency Agency frame Cost Prentiss - 4,300 LF Stabilize the High Woodridge S $595,000 Creek, of streambank and Park District Summerhill streambank restore the stream Park, stabilization using various Woodridge - 3 acres of bioengineering riparian measures. corridor restoration - Dam removal -Stream restoration Prentiss - 1,200 LF Stabilize the High Woodridge S $865,000 Creek South of stream streambank and Park District Tributary, bank restore the stream Triangle stabilization using various Park, - 650 LF of bioengineering Woodridge creek re- measures. meandering -0.75 acre of wetland/rip arian enhanceme nt St. Joseph’s 2.5 miles Conduct a physical DRSCW Downers $2 M Creek, restoration of the Grove Downers creek. Grove

Table 9-7 Green Infrastructure Projects in the East Branch DuPage River Watershed

BMP Location Approx. Recommend./ Priority Lead Supporting Time- Approx. Status ID# Size BMP Agency Agency frame Cost East Branch DuPage River Mainstem Goodrich Retrofit existing H Woodridge S $158,00 Elementary, parking lot with School 0 Woodridge permeable pavers. District 68 Construct a rain garden.

Tributary Watersheds

Table 9-8 Wetland Restoration Projects in the East Branch DuPage River Watershed

BMP Location Approx. Recommend./ Priority Lead Supporting Time- Approx. Status ID# Size BMP Agency Agency frame Cost East Branch DuPage River Mainstem Arboretum Stabilize the pond H Lisle Park S $434,00 Woods Park shorelines and District 0 improve riparian areas by using a 207 

9. Recommended Action Plan

BMP Location Approx. Recommend./ Priority Lead Supporting Time- Approx. Status ID# Size BMP Agency Agency frame Cost variety of bioengineering techniques. Creation of wetland areas.

Tributary Watersheds

Table 9-9 Open Space Preservation and Restoration Projects in the East Branch DuPage River Watershed

BMP Location Approx. Recommend./ Priority Lead Supporting Time- Approx. Status ID# Size BMP Agency Agency frame Cost East Branch DuPage River Mainstem

Arboretum Stabilize the pond H Lisle Park S $434,00 Woods Park shorelines and District 0 improve riparian areas by using a variety of bioengineering techniques. Creation of wetland areas. East Branch 31 miles Construct the East L FPDDC L DuPage Branch DuPage River Trail River Trail.

Tributary Watersheds

9.3.3. Non-Point Source Reduction Education and Outreach Plan The cumulative actions of thousands of individuals can either improve water quality, flooding, and natural resources or further degrade them. As such a watershed-based plan must include a strategy to educate and inform watershed stakeholders about watershed issues and encourage them to take an active role in implementing the watershed-based plan. Because many watershed problems are caused by individual actions and their solutions are often voluntary practices, effective public involvement and participated are necessary for the successful implementation of the plan. Furthermore, the general public is often unaware of the environmental impact their day to day activities have on the watershed’s resources. With an understanding of watershed issues, watershed stakeholders can play a critical role in protecting and restoring water quality.

The section presents the preliminary Education and Outreach Plan for the East Branch DuPage River watershed. As discussed in previous sections, additional work and stakeholder input will be required prior to the submittal of this plan to the IEPA for approval as a watershed-based

208 

9. Recommended Action Plan

plan. It is a recommendation of this Plan that the Education and Outreach Plan be modified as this work is conducted to include any additional knowledge gained through the completion of the additional work.

The Non-Point Source Reduction Education and Outreach Plan includes:

• Primary strategies addressed by each action; • Targeted audiences and partner organizations; • Best package (vehicle) for the action message for delivery to the targeted audience; • Lead and supporting organizations; and • Potential outcomes

The East Branch DuPage River Steering Committee will lead the efforts to build and implement the education and outreach campaign. The preliminary Education and

9.3.3.1 Education and Outreach Strategy for the East Branch DuPage River watershed Development of an effective Education and Outreach (E&O) Plan begins by defining E&O goals and objectives. Watershed Steering Committee specifically addressed watershed information and education issues by developing an education goal. The education strategy for the plan reads:

F. Raise stakeholder awareness (residents, public officials, etc.) about the importance of best management practices of watershed stewardship

The E&O Plan includes program needs related to each of the watershed strategies outlined in the introduction to Section 9. Table 9-10 includes the E&O Plan for the East Branch DuPage River watershed.

9.3.3.2 Target Audience The primary target audiences for the Education and Outreach Plan are 1) residents and other landowners, 2) Land and resource managers and organizations, 3) Government officials and agencies, and 4) Developers and contractors. Each of these targeted audiences can be broken down into more specific sub-groups as detailed below:

1. Residents, other landowners, and visitors a. Riparian landowners and residents (RR) b. Non-riparian landowners and residents (NR) c. Homeowner Associations (HOA) d. Garden Clubs (GC) e. Farmer’s Markets (FM) f. Youth (Y) g. General public and visitors (GP) h. Businesses and industrial properties (BI) 2. Land and resource managers and organizations a. Land and resource managers including golf courses (LM)

209 

9. Recommended Action Plan

b. Organizations, committees, and special interest groups involved in water resource management (OG) 3. Government officials and agencies a. Local governments including municipalities, townships, park districts, health departments, transportation departments, and other departments that manage land within the watershed (LG) b. Schools (S) including administrators, teachers, and students c. Libraries (L) 4. Developers and contractors a. Developers and home builders (DH) b. Consultants and contractors including civil engineers, planners, and landscapers (CC)

The abbreviations are keyed to the Education and Outreach Plan in Table 9-10.

To determine programming needs for each audience, Watershed Steering Committee, led by DuPage County, should reach out and speak with representatives from each group to determine their level of understanding of watershed issues. The intent of this plan is to include both existing partners, as well as stakeholders that have previously not been participants in the watershed planning process. It is critical that the E&O Plan address the needs of both groups.

9.3.3.3 Partner Organizations Organizations that can assist with the implementation of the Education and Outreach Plan are the same as those charged with implementing the Programmatic and Site Specific Action Plans. These same organizations may also serve as targeted audiences for programs. These organizations are listed identified as stakeholder in Section 2.

9.3.3.4 Evaluating the Education and Outreach Plan Actual reduction in water quality and habitat degradation in the watershed is perhaps the best indication that the Education and Outreach Plan is successful. Although it is extremely difficult to attribute water quality and habitat improvement to a specific action item in the Education and Outreach Plan, there is little doubt that increased knowledge and understanding of watershed issues and solutions is essential to improving water quality and stream health and reducing flooding in the watershed. As such, it is extremely important to regularly evaluate the E&O plan to ensure the programs are being effective. Evaluation conducted early in the process will help determine which programs are meeting their goals and which are not. This will allow for timely refinements to the E&O program to maximize efforts and facilitate plan implementation. Section 10 contains example “Report Cards” with milestone related to watershed education that can be used to access the E&O efforts.

210 

9. Recommended Action Plan

Table 9-10 Non-Point Source Reduction Education and Outreach Action Plan

Education Primary Target Package (vehicle) Lead and Outcomes/Behavior Action Strategy Audience Supporting Changes Organizations Educate the All GP Signs at stream crossings DuPage General public public about strategies and watershed boundaries. County, participate in watershed general Messages in community SCARCE, The events and activities. watershed issues. newsletters. Conservation General public requests Post watershed maps in Foundation additional information public buildings. on watershed activities. Watershed tours. Display the “Enviroscapes Model” at public events. Educate the All GP Website. DuPage General public requests public that a strategies Public interest message on County, additional information watershed-based radio. SCARCE, The on watershed-based plan. plan has been Articles in newspaper. Conservation Majority of watershed developed for the Community meetings. Foundation residents have a working watershed to Local knowledge of watershed gain interest for Municipalities conditions and know implementing how to get involved in Action Items. plan implementation. Public begins to make small changes in day to day behaviors aimed at improving water quality and habitat in the watershed. Create and All All Maintain the website to DuPage Increase in the number maintain a strategies stakeholders keep the public informed County of visitors to the website. watershed on plan implementation Website users have planning website activities. information related to the watershed including potential and ongoing projects, watershed problems, and a calendar of upcoming events. Provide training All LG, CC Meet with elected boards DuPage All elected officials are and educational strategies to promote the Watershed- County, The familiar with the outreach to Based Plan. Conservation Watershed-Based Plan. municipal Presentation at County, Foundation Local governments adopt officials and City and Village Board the Watershed-Based engineers on the Meetings. Plan. Strategies, Meet with consulting Local governments objectives, engineers to promote the update stormwater recommendation Watershed-Based Plan. ordinances to reflect plan s, and recommendations. implementation of the watershed- based plan.

211 

9. Recommended Action Plan

Education Primary Target Package (vehicle) Lead and Outcomes/Behavior Action Strategy Audience Supporting Changes Organizations Educate riparian A & C RR Hold riparian owner DuPage Number of reported landowners on training workshops. County, The debris blocks decrease. their Develop and distribute an Conservation Problems are reported to responsibilities information Foundation the proper authorities. and easement booklet/pamphlet. requirements. Host stream cleanups. Educate A RR, NR Distribute educational DuPage Owners act quickly to homeowners on letters to all residents with County, mitigate and repair how to best septic systems. SCARCE problems with their maintain septic septic system. systems Owners understand the impact poorly maintained and broken septic systems have on water quality. Elimination of “straight- pipes”. Educate the A GP Hold education workshops DuPage Attendees gain a better general public on to educate the general County, understanding of the importance public on groundwater SCARCE, The groundwater related of groundwater related issues. Conservation issues. quality and Hold field trips to educate Foundation Attendees inform their quantity. the general public on the Local neighbors of information importance of groundwater Municipalities they learned at the recharge. workshops and field Display the Groundwater trips. Flow Model at public events. Educate A GP Encourage the use of SCARCE Decrease the quantity of residents on the medication disposal sites. medications that are importance of Distribute education improperly disposed of the proper materials at community into the municipal disposal of events and public facilities. sanitary sewer system. unused Increase in the number medications. of disposal sites available within the watershed. Educate A GP, BI Develop and distribute an SCARCE Decrease the quantity of residents and information cooking oil that is small business booklet/pamphlet. improperly disposed of owners on the Meet with small business into the municipal storm proper disposal owners to develop sewer system. of used cooking alternative disposal Increase in the number oil. strategies. of disposal sites Encourage the disposal of available within the cooking at oil at collection watershed. sites.

212 

9. Recommended Action Plan

Education Primary Target Package (vehicle) Lead and Outcomes/Behavior Action Strategy Audience Supporting Changes Organizations Educate A GP Develop and distribute an SCARCE Increase in the number residents on the information of homeowners that are importance of booklet/pamphlet. in compliance with the and Meet with landowners to 200 ft well protection implementation discuss the requirements. setback. of the wellhead Homeowners inform protection their neighbors of the requirements. wellhead protection requirements. Educate A RR, NR, GC, Develop and distribute an SCARCE Increase the number of residents on the FM information home gardens using water quality booklet/pamphlet. compost. benefits of Meet with Garden Clubs to Increase the awareness composting. increase awareness on the of the water quality use of compost in home benefits of using gardens. compost. Distribute education materials at public events. Educate A & B HOA, BI, Meet on a case-by-case DuPage Municipalities, owners/develope DH, CC, LG basis to develop strategies County, The businesses, and HOAs rs of existing and and incentives for reducing Conservation realize the potential that new impervious areas. Foundation, naturalized detention developments on Distribute fliers to existing Local basins have to improve ways to reduce HOAs and businesses that Municipalities water quality and reduce volume and rate highlight the benefits and flooding. of stormwater funding sources for Municipalities, runoff. retrofitting existing businesses, and HOAs stormwater management implement maintenance facilities. programs for all existing Hold training seminars on stormwater management stormwater BMPs. facilities. Install stormwater BMP demonstration projects. Educate A, B, C, RR, HOA, Meet with landowners, DuPage Number of retrofit municipalities, & D BI, LG municipalities, and others County, The projects increase. HOAs, and who manage these Conservation Detention basins are businesses on facilities. Foundation, monitored, maintained, importance of Develop and distribute an SCARCE and repaired on a regular and how to information basis. maintain booklet/pamphlet. naturalized Hold technical workshops detention basins. that provide information on detention basin retrofits and stress maintenance needs for existing facilities.

213 

9. Recommended Action Plan

Education Primary Target Package (vehicle) Lead and Outcomes/Behavior Action Strategy Audience Supporting Changes Organizations Educate HOA, A, C & D DH, CC, Meet on a case-by-case DuPage Voluntary preservation developers, and HOA, LG basis to develop strategies County, The and restoration of open municipalities and incentives for Conservation space. about the developing and preserving Foundation Linear feet of trail in the importance of open space. watershed increases. protecting open Municipalities use zoning Number of government space. to protect open space and officials and board natural areas. members reached at HOAs and developers community meetings. allocate funding to the protection and restoration of open space. Distribute copies of the Chicago Wilderness Green Infrastructure Vision. Presentations on open space at community and board meetings. Educate A & B RR, HOA, Meet with landowners, DuPage Number of reported municipalities LG municipalities, and others County debris blocks decrease. and landowners who manage these Number of reported on stream facilities. culvert issues decrease. maintenance Hold training seminars on Infrastructure problems strategies aimed stormwater infrastructure are reported to the proper at removing management. authorities. debris and repairing problem hydraulic structures. Provide A & B RR Develop and distribute an DuPage Number of flood prone information to information County, Local properties owners residents living booklet/pamphlet. Municipalities reached increase. within and along Provide contacts for flood Number of structures the 100-year assistance on the website. insured, flood proofed, floodplain on the Hold workshops for or removed from the benefits of a landowners on flood flood prone areas functional proofing and flood increase. floodplain. awareness. Educate A GP, LG Develop and distribute an DuPage Decrease in the number landowners and information County, of Public Works and municipal Public booklet/pamphlet. SCARCE, homeowners utilizing Works about the Use media (radio, Local phosphorus-based use of newspapers, website, etc.) Municipalities fertilizers environmentally- to communicate the friendly negative impacts of using a (phosphorus- phosphorus-based free) fertilizer. fertilizer.

214 

9. Recommended Action Plan

Education Primary Target Package (vehicle) Lead and Outcomes/Behavior Action Strategy Audience Supporting Changes Organizations Provide A & C RR, NR, Offer free workshops that DuPage Stakeholders can identify information to HOA, GC, help individuals choose the County, native plants. residents and FM, BI, CC appropriate native plants SCARCE, The Number of native business owners and trees for their yards, Conservation plantings in residential on the benefits of planting beds, etc. Foundation, yards and near native Host native plant and seed Local businesses increase. landscaping. sales and exchanges. Municipalities Number of home entered Display the “Root Boxes” into the Conservation at at community events. Home and Conservation at Work programs increase. Stakeholders recognize the benefits of native plants on water quality and habitat. Educate riparian A, B & C RR, HOA, Conduct technical DuPage Riparian landowners property owners BI, CC workshops for riparian County, The recognize the benefits of on ways on property owners that Conservation bioengineering streambank recommend bioengineering Foundation, techniques for stabilization options, funding sources, Local streambank stabilization. methods that and certified contractors Municipalities Bioengineering promote water for stabilizing eroded techniques are utilized to quality and streambanks. stabilize streambanks stream habitat. Install streambank over hardscape stabilization demonstration armoring. projects. Participation in volunteer Provide stream opportunities. stabilization and Requests for technical restoration stewardship assistance with projects. volunteer opportunities. Number of stakeholders Develop and distribute an attending technical information workshops. booklet/pamphlet Number of stream Provide a list of funding restoration and and technical assistance stabilization projects sources. increase. Educate riparian A, B & C RR, HOA, Hold riparian landowner DuPage Participation in volunteer property owners BI, CC training workshops on County, The opportunities. on ways to riparian zone management. Conservation Number of stakeholders improve riparian Publish articles in Foundation, attending workshops. buffer conditions newsletters and Local Requests for assistance for water quality newspapers. Municipalities for riparian buffer and habitat. Provide stream restoration projects. management volunteer Riparian landowners opportunities. plant native buffers. Riparian landowners stop dumping yard waste and other trash in the stream.

215 

9. Recommended Action Plan

Education Primary Target Package (vehicle) Lead and Outcomes/Behavior Action Strategy Audience Supporting Changes Organizations Educate A & B RR, HOA, Hold technical sessions on DuPage Landowners voluntarily landowners on BI, CC the use and construction of County, act to reduce the rate and lot level BMPs rain gardens, rain barrels, SCARCE, The volume of stormwater aimed at and other lot level BMPs. Conservation runoff from their lot. improving water Provide detailed Foundation, Number of rain gardens quality and instructions on the Local constructed increases. reducing construction of rain Municipalities Number of rain barrels in stormwater gardens and the use of rain the watershed increase. barrels on the website. Distribute stormwater management how-to materials for rain gardens and rain barrels. Educate school F All Provide stewardship DuPage Number of people in the children, adults, stakeholders volunteer opportunities. County, watershed aware of how corporate and Host activities such as SCARCE their daily activities political entities stream cleanups, storm affect water quality and on how to drain painting, and natural stream health increases. provide area maintenance. Individuals make stewardship in Encourage the behavior changes to the watershed. implementation of the protect and improve Water Quality Flag water quality and stream program at schools. health. Incorporate the Increase in the number Groundwater Flow Model of schools who receive a and Enviroscapes Model in Water Quality Flag. student curriculum. Increase in the number Provide watershed bus of schools that include tours for teachers to the Groundwater Flow encourage the inclusion of Model and Enviroscapes water quality and land use Model in student planning in student curriculum. curriculum. Educate students A, B, C, S Provide technical DuPage Collection of additional on the methods & D assistance to the water County, water quality and habitat of water quality quality and watershed SCARCE data in the watershed. and habitat planning coursework at Number of students assessment and local elementary, middle studying environmental watershed and high schools and other science and engineering planning partners as appropriate. increases.

216 

9. Recommended Action Plan

Education Primary Target Package (vehicle) Lead and Outcomes/Behavior Action Strategy Audience Supporting Changes Organizations Host sustainable All S Encourage students to SCARCE The number of students design challenges strategies participate in the Annual and teachers for students High School Sustainable participating in the High Design Challenge. School Sustainable Provide technical support Design Challenge to students and teachers increases. participating in High The number of students School Sustainable Design with knowledge of the Challenge. concepts of sustainability Recognize winners of the increases. High School Sustainable Number of students Design Challenge in local studying environmental and regional media. science and engineering increases.

217 

10. Plan Implementation & Evaluation This section identifies a strategy for moving from planning to implementation of the action plan recommendations. How frequently this plan is used and implemented by watershed stakeholders is one indicator of its success. Improvement in water quality and watershed resources, the reduction of nonpoint source pollution, and the reduction of flooding is also an important indicator. Successful plan implementation will require significant cooperation and coordination among watershed stakeholders to secure project funding and to efficiently and effectively move the action plan from paper to the watershed.

This section also relates some more technical details about the expected results of putting action recommendations in place. It presents a plan for monitoring and evaluating plan implementation as a way to determine progress towards meeting the watershed goals and objectives. 10.1. Implementation Process DuPage County is planning on approving this Plan through its standard Stormwater Committee and County Board approval processes. Further implementation of this plan will be spearheaded by Stormwater Management.

Once additional work has been completed as part of obtaining IEPA approval as a “watershed- based” plan, this section can further be revised to account for projects and other implementation actions.

The ultimate goal is for stakeholders to use this plan for future use for planning and design of projects in conjunction with obtaining funding through appropriate mechanisms and grants. 10.2. Stakeholder Engagement DuPage County is planning on continuing stakeholder engagement and outreach through a variety of methods including public meetings, steering committee meetings, stakeholder meetings, website updates, social media updates, and other methods.

DuPage County will continue to engage stakeholders within the East Branch DuPage River Watershed in long-term resiliency planning, development and implementation. The DuPage County Steering Committee will remain intact to lead outreach efforts, which will consist of:

1. Regular Steering Committee Meetings to lead coordinated outreach efforts to community members and vet potential projects in the watershed.

2. Public Meetings and Workshops for residents, business owners and landowners to identify resiliency-enhancing projects and initiatives throughout the watershed. Examples of this ongoing outreach include resiliency focus groups and a green infrastructure symposium.

218 

10. Plan Implementation & Evaluation

3. Technical Trainings for land resource managers, governmental entities, developers and contractors. Examples of these trainings include biannual technical seminars, a best management practices workshop and webinars. 10.3. Implementation Roles & Responsibilities Successful plan implementation is dependent on watershed stakeholders forming partnerships as a means of maximizing efforts to complete watershed projects. Key stakeholders that have potential to form watershed partnerships for the implementation of the watershed plan are listed in Section 2. These and other stakeholders are encouraged to:

• Acquire funding through grants and other means; • Implement educational programs; • Sponsor and participate in water quality sampling; • Provide technical and regulatory guidance; • Maintain and monitor water quality improvement projects; and • Update and amend the watershed plan as changes occur.

10.3.1. Conservation Strategies The identification of additional conservation strategies is a recommended action to be completed as part of the development of this plan as a means of obtaining IEPA approval as a “watershed-based” plan.

10.3.2. Jurisdictional Strategies The identification of additional jurisdictional strategies is a recommended action to be completed as part of the development of this plan as a means of obtaining IEPA approval as a “watershed-based” plan.

10.3.3. Other Stakeholder Strategies The identification of additional other stakeholder strategies is a recommended action to be completed as part of the development of this plan as a means of obtaining IEPA approval as a “watershed-based” plan. 10.4. Non-point Source Pollution Loads and Targets In order to meet the requirements for an IEPA-approved Watershed-Based Plan, the plan must pay particular attention to water quality pollutants and impairments and measures for reducing the impairment. The high priority water quality pollutants for the East Branch DuPage River watershed include low dissolved oxygen and elevated levels of sediment, nutrients and chlorides. Additional impairments addressed by the plan include degraded watershed aquatic habitat, impacted or lack of stream buffers and riparian zones, and flood flows and damages. See Sections 5 and 6 for additional details on the causes and sources of water quality impairments.

For each of these impairments, the intent of the action plan recommendations is to reduce the impairment to an acceptable level. The ‘acceptable level’ for some pollutants is set by the Illinois Pollution Control Board and Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.

219 

10. Plan Implementation & Evaluation

Setting impairment reduction targets and estimating the improvement expected by implementing plan recommendations are important for assessing the effectiveness of watershed plan recommendations for determining whether watershed impairments are being addressed. Targets and reduction estimates also satisfy one of the nine required watershed-based plan elements established by the US Environmental Protection Agency.

Targets and reduction estimates can be based on water quality criteria, data analysis, reference conditions, literature values, and/or expert examination of water quality conditions that support “Designated Uses” and biological integrity. Progress towards meeting the targets and reduction estimates indicated whether implemented BMPs are effective at achieving the watershed plan’s goals. If the implemented BMPs are determined to not be making progress towards obtaining the goals, the Non-Point Source Pollution Reduction Action Plan should be altered. As noted, additional work and stakeholder input will be required prior to the submittal of this plan to the IEPA for approval as a watershed-based plan. It is a recommendation of this Plan that the targets and reduction estimates be developed upon completion this additional work.

10.4.1. Estimating Pollutant Load Reductions Reducing pollutant loading in the watershed can be accomplished by reducing the percent of impervious surfaces within the watershed, construction of new BMPs, improvements to existing pollutant control practices, and or a combination of the methods. The pollutant loading strategies identified for the East Branch DuPage River watershed are included in Prioritized Non-Point Source Pollution Reduction Action Plan in Section 9.3. As additional work is needed to identify additional projects and action items, it is the recommendation of this Plan that pollutant load reductions be calculated upon completion of this additional work.

10.5. Implementation Schedule Watershed planning is an ongoing process that does not end with the completion of this plan. The implementation schedule acts as a guide for these future efforts by directing the priority given to the various Action Plan recommendations selected for the watershed. Higher priority or less expensive BMPs are often scheduled for implementation prior to very expensive or highly technical projects. The schedule also provides a framework for implementation by spreading out project implementation over time and allowing for reasonable timeframe for securing funding.

The Implementation Schedule for the East Branch DuPage River watershed-based plan is included in the Non-Point Source Pollution Reduction Action Plan tables (Section 9.3). The Prioritized Non-point Source Reduction Action Plan tables include a column with a recommended implementation schedule based on short term (1-5 years), medium term (5-10 years) and long term (greater than 10 years) objectives. The tables also include a column denoting priority (low, medium, or high) of the implementation of the Action Item. In many cases implementation schedule and priority reflect higher priority items being implemented on a short term schedule and lower priority items being implemented on a long term scheduled. However, it should be noted that some high priority goals have been included as a long term 220 

10. Plan Implementation & Evaluation

goal due to the cost and technical resources required for the implementation of the project. Table 10-1 presents a summary of the plan implementation schedule. The number of short, medium, and long term actions is shown to give watershed plan implementers an idea of how many actions are recommended to be implemented in each of these time frames.

Table 10-1 Plan Implementation Summary Schedule

Implementation Term Number of Action Items Short (1-5 years) Medium (5-10 years) Long (greater than 10 years)

10.6. Funding Sources Plan implementation is largely based on the availability of funding and technical assistance available in the watershed for the implementation of watershed wide and site specific action items. It is no secret that securing funding is one of the biggest challenges that watershed stakeholders will face during plan implementation.

A list of potential funding sources that may be used to move forward with plan implementation is included in Table 10-2.

Table 10-2 Potential Funding Sources

Program Funding Type Funding Eligibility Activities Website/ Agency Amount Funded Contact Water Quality Water Quality DuPage County Matching grant No set limit Local Projects http://www.dupa Improvement (25% funded) on awards. governments, providing a geco.org/EDP/St Program businesses, regional water ormwater_Mana individuals, quality benefit. gement/Water_Q citizen and uality/1312/ environmental groups Water Quality USEPA Grant (no $30,000- State agencies, Research, http://water.epa. Cooperative match required $400,000 not-for profits, investigations, gov/grants_fundi Agreement but 5% match organizations, experiments, ng/cwf/waterqua is encouraged) and individuals training, lity.cfm environmental technology demonstrations, surveys, and studies related to the causes, effects, extent, and prevention of pollution.

221 

10. Plan Implementation & Evaluation

Program Funding Type Funding Eligibility Activities Website/ Agency Amount Funded Contact Capitalization USEPA/Office Loan revolving No limit on Local Wastewater www.epa.gov/o Grants for of Wastewater fund wastewater governments, treatment; NPS wm/cwfinance/i

Clean Water Management funds. individuals, pollution control; ndex.htm State Drinking citizen groups, watershed Revolving water up to not-for-profit management; Funds 25% of groups restoration available &protection of funds. groundwater; wetland/riparian zones; and habitat Non-point IEPA Matching grant No set limit Local Controlling or www.epa.state.il Source (up to 60% on awards. governments, eliminating NPS; .us/water/financi Management funded) businesses, streambank al- Program individuals, restoration; assistance/non-

(Section 319) citizen and BMPs; and point.html environmental watershed groups planning Illinois Green IEPA Matching Up to CSO Local Green www.epa.state.il Infrastructure Grant $3M or 85% governments, infrastructure .us/water/financi Grant (minimum of project individuals, BMPs for al- Program for local match for costs; citizen groups, stormwater assistance/igig.ht

Stormwater CSO projects - retention not-for-profit management to ml Management 15%, retention and groups protect or and infiltration infiltration: improve water projects and $750,000 or quality green 75% of infrastructure project small projects- costs; green 25%) infrastructur e small projects: $75,000 or 75% of project costs Water IEPA Loan revolving $25M for Local Construction of http://www.epa.s Revolving fund water governments wastewater or tate.il.us/water/fi Loan Fund: pollution community nancial- Wastewater control loan water supply assistance/state- and Drinking program facilities revolving- Water and $15M fund.htm l for public water supply load program Illinois Clean IEPA Matching grant No set limit Landowners, Lake http://www.epa.s Lakes Program (minimum on awards. citizen groups, Management tate.il.us/water/c local match of and lake owners Plans (Phase I) onservation/iclp. 40% for Phase and project html I and 50% for implementation Phase II) (Phase II)

222 

10. Plan Implementation & Evaluation

Program Funding Type Funding Eligibility Activities Website/ Agency Amount Funded Contact Lake IEPA Grant $500 Educational Lake and lake http://www.epa.s Education institutions and watershed tate.il.us/water/c Assistance not-for-profit educational onservation/leap. Program groups programs html including field trips and seminars Streambank IEPA Grant Up to Citizen groups, Implementation http://www.epa.s Cleanup and $3,500 and not-for of a streambank tate.il.us/water/w Lakeshore profit groups or lakeshore atershed/scale.ht Enhancement cleanup event ml Sustainable Illinois Matching grant Local Practices aimed www.agr.state.il. Agriculture Department of (up to 60% governments, at maintaining us/C2000/index.

Grant Agriculture funded) educational producers' html Program (IDOA) institutions, not- profitability for-profit while conserving groups, soil, protecting individuals, water resources organizations and controlling pests through means that are not harmful to natural systems, farmers, or consumers Private Waters IDNR Technical Local Field inspections http://www.dnr.s Program Assistance governments, and technical tate.il.us/orep/pf educational advice on fish c/incentives.htm institutions, not- habitat, fish #PWP for-profit population groups, management, individuals, water quality, organizations vegetation control, streambank stabilization, and habitat development. Streambank IDOA Matching grant Landowners, Naturalized www.agr.state.il. Stabilization citizen groups, streambank us/C2000/index. and and not-for stabilization in html Restoration profit groups rural and urban Program communities with SWCD Conservation NRCS Matching grant Up to Landowners, Projects www.il.nrcs.usd Innovation (up to 50% $75,000 organizations targeting a.gov/program/ci

Grants funded) innovative on- g the ground conservation including pilot projects and field demonstrations 223 

10. Plan Implementation & Evaluation

Program Funding Type Funding Eligibility Activities Website/ Agency Amount Funded Contact US EPA Green USEPA Grant $400,000 Local Technical http://water.epa. Infrastructure total funds governments assistance gov/infrastructur Technical available. projects focused e/greeninfrastruc Assistance Grants on green ture/gi_support.c Program typically infrastructure fm $60,000 implementation. These technical assistance projects are intended to address significant technical, regulatory, and institutional barriers to green infrastructure, and to build community capacity by sharing lessons learned. Habitat Continuing USACE Cost-share up to $5M Local Feasibility http://www.mvr. Authorities (35% non- governments studies, usace.army.mil/ Program federal funds planning, (Section 206 required) engineering, Water construction, Resources administration, Development and supervision Act) Project USACE Cost-share up to $5M Local Feasibility http://www.mvr. Modifications (25% non- governments studies, usace.army.mil/ for federal funds planning, Improvement required) engineering, of the construction and Environment supervision (Section 1135) Partners for US Fish and Cost-share Up to Landowners Restoration of www.fws.gov/po

Fish and Wildlife (50% funded) $25,000 native habitats licy/640fw1.html Wildlife Service for fish and Habitat wildlife, Restoration restoration of Program former wetlands, native prairie streams, and riparian areas

224 

10. Plan Implementation & Evaluation

Program Funding Type Funding Eligibility Activities Website/ Agency Amount Funded Contact

Flexible Funds US FWS Grant, Landowners Projects on www.fws.gov Matching grant private lands (at least 50% aimed at funded is restoring and/or preferred) protecting wildlife habitat. Wildlife US DOA Grant, Landowners Establishment www.nrcs.usda.g Habitat Matching grant and not-for- and ov/programs/whi

Incentives (at least 75% profit groups improvement of p Program funded) fish and wildlife habitat on private land Conservation IDNR Matching grant Partnerships of Provides funding http://dnr.state.il. 2000- governments, for partnership us/orep/pfc / Ecosystem not-for-profits, projects that Program citizen groups, maintain and and private enhance landowners ecological and economic conditions. Projects include resource economics, habitat, outreach, or capital.

Bring Back the National Fish Matching grant $50,000- Local Restoration of www.nfwf.org Natives Grant and Wildlife (33% funded) $75,000 governments, damaged and Program Foundation educational degraded institutions and riverine habitat not-for-profit and native groups aquatic species through watershed restoration and land management

Native Plant National Fish Matching grant $10,000- Local On-the-ground www.nfwf.org Conservation and Wildlife (50% funded) $50,000 governments, projects that Initiative Foundation conservation involve local districts, communities and educational citizen institutions and volunteers in the not-for-profit restoration of groups native plant communities

Matching Aid Ducks Matching grant Local Restore and www.ducks.org to Restore Unlimited (50% funded) governments, enhance wetland State Habitats individuals, habitat for (MARSH) citizen groups, waterfowl Program not-for-profit conservation groups

225 

10. Plan Implementation & Evaluation

Program Funding Type Funding Eligibility Activities Website/ Agency Amount Funded Contact Watershed River Network Grant $4,000- Local Community- http://www.river Assistance $30,000 governments, based network.org/reso Grants individuals, partnerships that urce- Program citizen groups, conserve or library/watershe not-for-profit restore d-assistance- groups watershed grant-program- now-open Wildlife

Waterfowl US FWS Grant Local Acquisition of www.fws.gov Production governments, 100-acre or Areas citizen groups, larger existing or not-for-profit restorable groups wetlands open to hunting, fishing, and trapping.

Private US FWS Matching grant Landowners Provides for the www.fws.gov Stewardship (90% funded) implementation Grants of conservation Program practices on private land that benefit federally listed, proposed, or candidate species. Division of IDNR Cost-share Local Habitat http://www.dnr.s Wildlife preferred but governments, improvement or tate.il.us/grants/s Resources not required individuals, land acquisition pecial_funds/wil Special Funds citizen groups, funded by the dgrant.htm Application not-for-profit Habitat Fund, (Habitat, groups Furbearer Fund, Furbearer, and and Pheasant Pheasant Fund. Projects Funds) must preserve, protect, acquire, or manage wildlife for future generations. Illinois IDNR Cost-share Local Provides for the http://www.dnr.s Migratory preferred but governments, acquisition of tate.il.us/grants/s Waterfowl not required individuals, public lands pecial_funds/wil Stamp Fund citizen groups, and/or the dgrant.htm not-for-profit development of groups habitat to attract and support waterfowl

226 

10. Plan Implementation & Evaluation

Program Funding Type Funding Eligibility Activities Website/ Agency Amount Funded Contact Illinois Wildlife IDNR Cost-share $2,000 Local Management, http://www.dnr.s Preservation preferred but governments, site inventories tate.il.us/grants/s Fund not required individuals, and educational pecial_funds/wil citizen groups, programs dgrant.htm not-for-profit designed to groups preserve, protect, and enhance non-game wildlife and native plant species. Illinois Acres IDNR Technical Private Provides http://dnr.state.il. for Wildlife Assistance and Landowners technical us/orc/Wildlifere Materials assistance and sources/AFW/ materials (tree seed or seedling) for protection of 1 acre of land for a minimum of 1 year for wildlife. Private Land IDNR Technical Landowners Technical http://www.dnr.s Wildlife Assistance (0.25 acres in assistance tate.il.us/orep/pf Habitat urban areas and program that c/incentives.htm Management 1 acre in rural provides Fund areas) landowners plans, field equipment, plant materials, and labor to develop, implement, and maintain wildlife habitat management practices Trees, Shrubs, IDNR Materials Landowners Provides http://www.dnr.s and Seedlings with IDNR seedlings at no tate.il.us/orep/pf at No Cost approved cost as a means c/incentives.htm Program management of increasing plan wildlife habitat and erosion control by reforesting land.

227 

10. Plan Implementation & Evaluation

Program Funding Type Funding Eligibility Activities Website/ Agency Amount Funded Contact

Challenge National Fish Matching grant Partnerships of Natural resource www.nfwf.org Grants and Wildlife (50% funded) governments, conservation Foundation not-for-profits, projects citizen groups, including and private wetland landowners conservation, conservation education, fisheries, migratory bird conservation, conservation policy, and wildlife habitat

Wildlife Links National Fish Grant $25,000 Golf courses Funds cutting www.nfwf.org and Wildlife edge research, Foundation management and educational projects to help golf courses become a part of the conservation landscape. Wetlands Wetland USDA NRCS Direct No set limit Individuals, Wetland www.nrcs.usda.g Reserve contracts with on awards. citizen groups, restoration or ov/programs/wrp

Program landowner; and not-for- protection /states/il.html Easement profits through (100%); Cost- easement and share and 30- restoration year easement agreement (75%) Wetlands US EPA Matching grant No set limit Local Development of www.epa.gov/o Program (75% funded) on awards. governments, a comprehensive wow/wetlands/gr

Development not-for-profit monitoring and antguidelines Grants groups assessment program; refining the protection of vulnerable wetlands and aquatic resources North US FWS Matching grant $50,000 Partnerships of Projects http://www.fws. American (50% funded) governments, including gov/birdhabitat/ Wetland not-for-profits, acquisition, Grants/NAWCA Conservation citizen groups, restoration, /index.shtm Act and private creation and/or landowners enhancement of wetlands and wetland- associated uplands 228 

10. Plan Implementation & Evaluation

Program Funding Type Funding Eligibility Activities Website/ Agency Amount Funded Contact Small Grants North American Matching grant Up to Partnerships of Long-term www.fws.gov/bi Program Wetlands $75,000 governments, acquisition, rdhabitat.grants/ Conservation not-for-profits, restoration, and NAWCA/index.s

Council citizen groups, enhancement of htm and private natural wetlands landowners

Five Star National Fish Matching grant $10,000- Any entity that www.nfwf.org Restoration and Wildlife (50% funded) $25,000 can receive Program Foundation (one year grants projects); $10,000- Seeks to develop $40,000 a community (two year capacity to projects) sustain local resources for future generations by providing financial assistance to diverse partnerships for wetland and riparian habitat restoration Education Environmental US EPA Matching grant Local Environmental http://www2.epa Education (75% funded) governments, educational .gov/education/e Grants educational activities such as nvironmental- institutions and curricula education-ee- not-for-profit development, grants groups designing or demonstrating educational field methods, and training educators Urban and IDNR Matching grant Local To create or http://www.dnr.s Community (50% funded) governments or enhance a local tate.il.us/orc/urb Forestry Grant partnership forestry program anforestry/financ Program between a local in communities ialasst.html government and with a local a not-for-profit forestry group ordinance Flood Control

229 

10. Plan Implementation & Evaluation

Program Funding Type Funding Eligibility Activities Website/ Agency Amount Funded Contact Office of IDNR Grant up to Smaller urban To reduce http://www.dnr.i Water $75,000 and rural stormwater llinois.gov/Wate Resources communities related damage rResources/Page Small Project by alleviating s/Programs.aspx Fund local significant drainage and flood problems. Hazard IEMA/FEMA Matching grant State and local Provides funds http://www.state. Mitigation (75% funded) governments for long-term il.us/iema/planni Grant and not-for- hazard ng/MitigationPro Program profits in mitigation grams.asp communities in measures after a good standing major disaster with the declaration. National Flood Traditionally has Insurance funded Program acquisition or elevation of flood damaged buildings. Flood IEMA/FEMA Matching grant Communities in Provides funds http://www.state. Mitigation (75% funded) good standing for cost-effective il.us/iema/planni Assistance with the measures to ng/MitigationPro Program National Flood reduce flood grams.asp Insurance damage to Program and structures with have an flood insurance. approved flood mitigation plan Pre-Disaster IEMA/FEMA Matching grant Communities in Funds the http://www.state. Mitigation (75% funded) good standing development of il.us/iema/planni Plan with the an all-hazards ng/MitigationPro National Flood mitigation plan grams.asp Insurance or for a cost- Program and effective have an mitigation approved flood project. mitigation plan

230 

10. Plan Implementation & Evaluation

Program Funding Type Funding Eligibility Activities Website/ Agency Amount Funded Contact Severe IEMA/FEMA Matching grant Owners of http://www.state. Repetitive Loss (90% funded) residential il.us/iema/planni Program properties ng/MitigationPro covered under Funds the grams.asp NFIP insurance acquisition and and is relocation of at considered to be risk structures "SRL" and the conversion of the land to open space. It may also fund minor localized flood reduction projects. Open Space Preservation/Management Acquisition Vital Illinois Grand Victoria Matching grant Not-for-profit Funds to ensure http://www.gran Lands Foundation (30% funded) groups the permanent dvictoriafdn.org/ protection and grant- long-term programs/guideli stewardship of nes/vital-lands- Illinois' most illinois vital lands and build support for projects and conservation among public, private, and nonprofit organizations, other potential donors, and the broader public. Forestry IDNR Cost-share Landowners Provides funding http://www.dnr.i Development (75% funded) with 5 for tree planting, llinois.gov/Grant Program contiguous site preparation, s/Pages/default.a acres. Forest vegetation spx must be 100 ft control, fire wide break, fencing, and thinning and pruning. Land must have a Forest Management Plan.

231 

10. Plan Implementation & Evaluation

Program Funding Type Funding Eligibility Activities Website/ Agency Amount Funded Contact Land and IDNR Matching grant $750,000 Local Provides funding http://www.dnr.s Water (50% funded) for land governments for the tate.il.us/ocd/ne Conservation acquisition acquisition and woslad1.htm Fund (LWCF) and development of $400,000 public parks and for open space. developmen t/renovation project Open Space IDNR Matching grant $750,000 Local Provides funding http://www.dnr.s Acquisition (50% funded) for land governments for the tate.il.us/ocd/ne and acquisition acquisition and woslad1.htm Development and development of Program $400,000 public parks and (OSLAD) for open space. developmen t/renovation project Open Land IDNR Program not Local Funds land http://www.dnr.s Trust Grant funded since governments acquisition for tate.il.us/ocd/ne 2003 open space and wolt2.htm resource based outdoor recreation. Urban and US FS Technical Local Provides http://www.fs.fe Community Assistance governments technical d.us/ucf/ Forestry and private assistance to sector improve natural resource management of forested lands and open spaces in urban settings. Recreation Illinois Bicycle IDNR Matching grant Local Funds http://www.dnr.s Grant (50% funded) governments acquisition, tate.il.us/ocd/ne Program construction and wbike2.htm rehabilitation of bicycle paths. Illinois Trails IDNR Matching grant Funds http://www.dnr.s Grant (50% funded) acquisition, tate.il.us/ocd/ne Program construction and wtrail2.htm maintenance of public recreation paths.

232 

10. Plan Implementation & Evaluation

Program Funding Type Funding Eligibility Activities Website/ Agency Amount Funded Contact Recreation Federal Matching grant Federal, state, Funds http://www.dnr.s Trails Program Government (80% funded and local acquisition, tate.il.us/ocd/ne (non-federal governments construction, wrtp2.htm funds) and not-for- rehabilitation profits and maintenance of public motorized and non-motorized recreational trails Snowmobile IDNR Matching grant Funds http://dnr.state.il. Grants (50% for acquisition, us/ocd/newsnow construction, development and 2.htm 90% for rehabilitation of acquisition) public snowmobile areas, trails, and facilities. Off Highway IDNR Up to 100% Funds http://www.dnr.s Vehicle funding acquisition, tate.il.us/ocd/ne Recreation construction, wohv2.htm Trails rehabilitation, and design of OHV trails. Also provides funding for rider education and safety programs and facility security. Rivers, Trails, National Park Local Provides http://www.nps. and Service governments technical gov/ncrc/progra Conservation assistance to help ms/rtca/index.ht Assistance communities m Program achieve conservation objectives. TEA-21 IDOT Matching grant Transportation Provides funding http://www.dot.s Enhancement (80% for agencies for projects that tate.il.us/opp/ove Program construction, support rview.html 50% for alternative acquisition) modes of transportation, preservation of visual and cultural resources, and landscape beautification. Agriculture

233 

10. Plan Implementation & Evaluation

Program Funding Type Funding Eligibility Activities Website/ Agency Amount Funded Contact Sustainable IDOA Matching grant Local Provides funding http://www.agr.s Agriculture governments, for the tate.il.us/C2000/i (C2000) corporations, implementation ndex.html not-for-profits, of sustainable and private agricultural landowners practices. Conservation USDA FSA Rent payment Private Farmers enrolled http://www.fsa.u

Reserve Landowners in the program sda.gov/FSA/il Program agree to remove (CRP) environmentally sensitive land from agricultural production and plant species that will improve environmental health and quality. Air Quality Congestion FHWA Grant Transportation Support surface http://www.fhwa Mitigation and agencies in transportation .dot.gov/environ Air Quality areas in projects and ment/air_quality/ Improvement nonattainment other related cmaq/ (CMAQ) or maintenance efforts that Program for ozone, contribute air carbon quality monoxide, improvements and/or and provide particulate congestion relief matter. with an emphasis on diesel engine retrofits and other efforts that underscore the priority on reducing fine particle pollution.

10.7. Watershed-Based Plan Monitoring and Evaluation 10.7.1. Monitoring Plan Implementation Continued monitoring is essential for providing feedback on the progress of the implementation of this watershed-based plan. The implementation and effectiveness of the plan and its recommendations, and an assessment of whether the plan goals are being achieved its measured through this monitoring. Simply, monitoring is observing and tracking watershed conditions for both positive and negative changes that are a result of the implementation of the plan. These conditions can then be compared to water quality monitoring data to determine whether there is a correlation between them. If no correlation between water quality improvement and 234 

10. Plan Implementation & Evaluation recommendation implementation can be determined and/or is progress is not being made towards reaching the goals of the plan, the DCWSC, as the implementation team, should consider whether the recommended strategies are having the desired effect or if the plan should be updated and modified.

Recommendations that are physical or structural in nature such as streambank stabilization, stream restoration, the construction of infiltration BMPs, detention basin retrofits, and restoring/creating wetlands, can be assessed in terms of the reduction of pollutant loads discharged into the watershed, improved biological and habitat health, and the degree of change in stormwater runoff volume and flow. The effectiveness of non-structural recommendations such as the implementation of education/outreach programs, stream maintenance programs, and changes to policies and regulations are much more difficult to monitor. Changes in behavior following the implementation of non-structural recommendations can be assessed by gathering feedback through meetings with watershed stakeholders and tools such as surveys and focus groups.

Evaluation is a critical part of watershed planning. It will tell you whether or not your efforts are successful and provide a feedback loop for improving project implementation. A well-planned milestone and evaluation process will provide a way to measure the effectiveness of the watershed-based plan. As projects are implementation and results are demonstrated, additional support from the community will be gained and the likelihood of project sustainability will be greatly increased.

The goal of the East Branch DuPage River Watershed-Based Plan’s evaluation process is to not turn evaluation and monitoring into an academic process. This monitoring strategy is intended to help track and measure the implementation of recommendations made in this plan using a variety of indicators that are monitored regularly, typically on an annual basis or every three years. Progress on overall plan implementation should be reviewed using the milestones and indicators every 5 years and the plan should be updated as needed. As a means of facilitating plan evaluation, “Report Cards” are recommended to be developed for each watershed strategy (Section 9.3) once the nutrient loading, project identification and nutrient load reduction calculation work is complete. The report cards are intended to provide a brief description of current conditions, suggest performance indicators that should be evaluated and monitored, milestone to be met, and remedial actions if milestones are not being met. An Example of a “Report Card” for Strategy A (Protect and enhance overall surface and groundwater quality in the East Branch DuPage River watershed) is provided in Appendix E: Report Card. It is a recommendation of this Plan that “Report Cards” be generated for each strategy as a means of obtaining IEPA-approval as a watershed-based plan.

As water quality is one of the primary goals of this plan, stream and lake water quality impairments should be monitored by regularly collecting and testing water samples, either manually or using constant monitoring equipment.

235 

10. Plan Implementation & Evaluation

Watershed issues, opportunities, and conditions will change over time. This watershed-based plan should be evaluated and updated every five years to account for these changes. At each evaluation and update, completed projects can be removed from the plan and new projects should be added. In addition to this 5-year update, plan implementation should be monitored annually by the DCWSC. 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 the Report Cards and the tables in Section 9.3 which track the implementation of actions against the watershed plan goals and objectives as a means of monitoring watershed plan implementation.

10.8. Hydrologic and Hydraulic Monitoring The identification of additional hydrologic and hydraulic monitoring components is a recommended action to be completed as part of the development of this plan as a means of obtaining IEPA approval as a “watershed-based” plan. 10.9. Data Collection & Analysis Continued monitoring - observing and tracking watershed conditions for both positive and negative changes that are a result of the implementation of the plan - is essential for providing feedback on the progress of the implementation of this watershed-based plan. If no correlation between water quality improvement and flood damage reduction, and implementation of this Plan can be determined and/or progress is not being made towards reaching the goals of the plan, DCWSC, as the implementation leader, should consider whether the recommended strategies are having the desired effect or if the plan should be updated and modified.

Recommendations that are physical or structural in nature such as streambank stabilization, the construction of infiltration BMPs, and restoring riparian buffers, can be assessed in terms of the reduction of pollutant loads discharged into the watershed, improved biological and habitat health, and the degree of change in stormwater runoff volume and flow. The effectiveness of non-structural recommendations such as the implementation of education/outreach programs, stream maintenance programs, and changes to policies and regulations are much more difficult to monitor. Changes in behavior following the implementation of non-structural recommendations can be assessed by gathering feedback through meetings with watershed stakeholders and tools such as surveys and focus groups.

The monitoring strategy recommended for the East Branch watershed is intended to help track and measure the implementation of recommendations made in this plan using a variety of indicators that are monitored regularly, typically on an annual basis or every three years. Progress on overall plan implementation should be reviewed using the milestones and indicators every 5 years and the plan should be updated as needed.

Since watershed issues, opportunities, and regulatory context will change over time, this watershed-based plan should be evaluated and updated every five years so that completed projects can be removed from the plan and new projects added based on conditions and

236 

10. Plan Implementation & Evaluation priorities. In addition to this 5-year update, plan implementation should be monitored annually by the DuPage Watershed Steering Committee. 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. 10.10. Flood Forecasting & Watershed Resilience DuPage County plans to implement a flood forecasting system in the East Branch DuPage River watershed. This system will be used to notify and alert municipalities who serve the highest risk populations. This gauging system will also serve to evaluate risk over time. If no action is taken, flood risk is expected to increase over time. Without gauging to measure the response of the watershed, it will be impossible to fully understand this dynamic risk. In particular, the forecasting system will help to define how watershed management projects are managing risk in the watershed. With a successful implementation plan, the forecasting system should show that despite more frequent severe precipitation events, the overall flood risk in the watershed is reduced over time.

237 

11. References References

05540160 East Branch DuPage River Near Downers Grove, IL. (2013). U.S. Geological Survey. Available from http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/inventory/?site_no=05540160&agency_cd=USGS

05540195 St. Joseph Creek at Route 34 at Lisle, IL. (2013). U.S. Geological Survey. Available from http://waterdata.usgs.gov/il/nwis/inventory/?site_no=05540195&agency_cd=USGS

05540250 East Branch DuPage River at Bolingbrook, IL. (2013). U.S. Geological Survey. Available from http://waterdata.usgs.gov/il/nwis/inventory/?site_no=05540250&agency_cd=USGS

2009-2013 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. (2013). U.S. Census Bureau. Available from http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t

2015 National Disaster Resilience Competition Questionnaire (2015). DuPage County Stormwater Management

Action Plan for CDBG Disaster Recovery Funds. (March 4, 2014). DuPage County, Illinois.

Angel, Jim. Did you know? Illinois Weather and Climate Statistics and Trends. Illinois State Water Survey Prairie Research Institute. Available from http://www.isws.illinois.edu/hilites/wx/didyouknow08.asp

Angel, Jim. Statewide Records and Normals for Illinois. Illinois State Water Survey Prairie Research Institute. Available from http://www.isws.illinois.edu/atmos/statecli/General/averages.htm#records

Biological and Water Quality Study of the East and West Branch DuPage Rivers and Salt Creek Watersheds (Bioassessment report) (2007). DuPage River Salt Creek Work Group.

Biological and Water Quality Study of the East and West Branch DuPage Rivers and Salt Creek Watersheds (Bioassessment report) (2011). DuPage River Salt Creek Work Group.

Chloride Usage Education and Reduction Program Study. (August 16, 2007). DuPage River Salt Creek Workgroup. Available from http://www.drscw.org/chlorides/ChlorideRecomendations.Final_Report.pdf

DuPage County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan. (November 2012). DuPage County Natural Hazard Mitigation Workgroup.

DuPage County Weather. Available from http://www.usa.com/dupage-county-il-weather.htm

238 

11. References

Soil Survey of DuPage County, Illinois (2001). Natural Resource Conservation Service.

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters, EPA 841-B-08- 002. (March 2008).

Facts about Mold and Dampness. (June 2014). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Available from http://www.cdc.gov/mold/dampness_facts.htm

Flood Insurance Study, A Report of Flood Hazards in: DuPage County, Illinois and Incorporated Areas. (March 2007). Federal Emergency Management Agency in Cooperation with DuPage County, Illinois.

Priority Rankings based on Estimated Restorability for Stream Segments in the DuPage-Salt Creek Watersheds (November 8, 2010). Midwest Biodiversity Institute.

Rainfall Trends in Northeast Illinois. Illinois State Water Survey Prairie Research Institute. Available from http://www.sws.uiuc.edu/atmos/statecli/climate-change/NE-IL- trends/rainfall.htm

Sierra Club Graphical Summary of Data. Available from http://www.sierraclub.org/illinois/river-prairie/graphical-summary-data

SOD Measurement Survey East Branch DuPage River & Salt Creek (2007).

SOD Measurement Survey East Branch DuPage River & Salt Creek (2011).

SOD Measurement Survey East Branch DuPage River & Salt Creek (2014).

Stream Dissolved Oxygen Improvement Feasibility Study for the East Branch of the DuPage River. (December 2008). DuPage River Salt Creek Work Group.

Sources Reviewed

American Planning Association

The Planning for Post-Disaster Recovery: Next Generation Briefing Papers

01 Public Engagement Recovery Planning (2014)

02 Measuring Success in Recovery (2014)

03 Planning Resilient Infrastructure (2014)

04 Affordable Housing (2014)

05 Economic Recovery for Manufacturing (2014)

Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT) 239 

11. References

Rain Ready. Available from http://www.cnt.org/2015/01/28/building-a-rainready- america/

Chicago Wilderness

Green Infrastructure Vision map and email

Chicago Metropolitan Association of Planning (CMAP)

Lake Street Corridor Planning Study

Roosevelt Road Corridor Planning Study

Regional Approach

US Climate Resilience Toolkit. Available from http://toolkit.climate.gov/

Climate Change Adaption Guidebook for Municipalities in the Chicago Region. Available from http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/livability/sustainability-climate-change/climate- adaptation-toolkit

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 5th Assessment. Available from http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/

National Climate Assessment (Midwest). Available from http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/regions/midwest

Grant proposal outline v2

Choose DuPage

Manufacturing lists in DuPage

Downers Grove Grade School District #58

Map of schools

DuPage Community Foundation

Memo noting they have no information

DuPage County

http://www.resilientamerica.org/resources-for-local-government/

Sustainability Guide. Available from http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/programs-and- resources/lta/dupage-sustainability

Energy and Emission Reports for Bloomington, Downers Grove, Glendale Heights, Lisle, Lombard, Woodridge 240 

11. References

2012 Energy and Emissions Profile

Climate Change Criterion

Climate Change Champion Memo

Conceptual Design Memo for Washington Blvd

Road Closures for April 2013

Road Closure Tally Form for April 2013

IDOT January Letting 2015

Free/Reduced Lunch Data http://choosedupage.com/2014-year-review/

Master Plans for Churchill Woods, Danada, E Br, Glen Oakes, Green Meadows, Greene Valley, Herrick Lake, Hickory Grove, Hidden Lake, Hitchcock Woods, Lyman Woods, Maple Grove Swift Prairie and Willowbrook

CMAP Go To 2040

Chicago Wilderness Green Infrastructure Vision Final Report

East Branch DuPage River Trail Executive Summary Brochure

List of Recommended Projects

Strategic Plan

Regional Bikeway Plan

East Branch DuPage River Trail Map

East Branch DuPage River Trail Map (for posting)

TCF Open Space and Natural Areas Plan

Chicago Wilderness Green Infrastructure Vision (2 page document)

Chicago Wilderness GI Vision Map

Upper DuPage River Watershed Plan (2007)

Damage point file from April 2013 storm

Various GIS files related to flooding and facilities

Unincorporated DuPage County Land Use Plan 241 

11. References

River – Dumoulin Flood Control Project Phase I – Pump Statins

Watershed Plan East Branch DuPage River Tributary No. 2

DuPage County CDC

Draft 5-year Consolidated Plan for CDBG, HOME and ESG Programs

DuPage County DOT

Road Closures for April 2013

Manufacturing Community Partnership Information

DOT Projects (Traffic Signal UPS, Scour/Siltation, GIS Traffic)

Manufacturing Community Partnership Table and Map

List of major road closures for evaluation and map

Summary of Roads

Summary of Buildings

More Manufacturing information

April 2013 Road Closures narrative and daily traffic effects

Summary of EBDR Road Closure Modeling

Email Summary of DuPage DOT / OEM Response

Project Ideas

Road closures GIS

DuPage County EDP

GIS files for 2010 Census

1990 Land Use Plan

Lake Street Corridor Plan

Roosevelt Road Corridor Plan

Low to Moderate Income Data for municipalities (maps)

GIS files for Municipal Boundaries

DuPage County Forest Preserve District 242 

11. References

Data of floodplain area, subbasins, stream miles (data and maps)

East Branch Watershed Open Space (map)

DuPage County Health Department

Summary of Damages to Westmont Public Health Facility following April 2013 storm

Summary of April 2013 Flood Data related to Health

DuPage County OHSEM

911 Data

Damage Assessment Reports including initial damage assessments, disaster impact forms, and road closures

Power Outage Data including Emergency Operation Center Data

Situational Reports

Additional 911 Data

DuPage County Public Works

Sewer Relining Project Details

DuPage County Overhead Sewer Project

List of upcoming capital budget projects

WGV Electrical Feed Replacement Project Details

WGV Electrical Transformer Project Details

WGV Raw Pump Replacement Project Details

Unincorporated sanitary issues for April 2013

Summary of Stormwater Ordinance and ideas for improving resiliency

DuPage County Stormwater Commission

Action Plan for CDBG Disaster Recovery Funds

Amendment Number 1 to Action Plan to Receive Second Allocation of CDBG Disaster Recover Funds

DuPage County Currents, April 2013

East Branch DuPage River Levee Study Middleton Ave to Maple Ave (July 3, 2012). 243 

11. References

List of damaged properties outside floodplain map

Storm magnitude map - April 18

Notice of NDRC threshold acceptance

List of Unmitigated damaged homes in Lisle

Program Assessment Survey Results - Services

Request for response to "most impacted and distressed" and "unmet" needs" thresholds

Draft Stormwater Management Program Assessment 11/12/2014

Results of 2014 Survey on Water Quality (social)

E Branch DuPage River Flood Plain Mapping Report and Documentation 7/2013

Spring Brook #1 Watershed Based Plan

East Branch DuPage River Hydrologic and Hydraulic Modeling Techniques and Assumptions Statistical Analysis for Valley View Feasibility Study with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Report on Groundwater Impact Assessment for Valley View Subdivision Glen Ellyn, Illinois

Hydraulic Report IL 53 Valley View Area

East Branch DuPage River Route 53 North Flood Control Plan (1998)

East Branch DuPage River Route 53 North Flood Control Plan (2003)

East Branch DuPage River River-Dumoulin Flood Control Plan

River-Dumoulin Flood Control Project Phase I - Pump Stations Bid No. 07-002

Actions and Ideas for urban flood resiliency from permitting dept.

Stormwater GIS Data

Capital projects summary

Historical wetland numbers from DuPage

Summary of historical wetlands for County

Summary of historical wetlands for County

Lisle Damages and Cost Estimates from April 2013 Flood

244 

11. References

Water Quality Improvement Grant Recipients Construction Projects

WQIP Projects 2015

2015 National Disaster Resilience Survey Results

FEMA Mapping Update

County CRS Members

Flood Forecasting memo

Countywide Stormwater & Flood Plain Ordinance DuPage County

Willoway Brook Basin Study (E. Brach DuPage River Tributary #5)

DuPage River Salt Creek Work Group

Adaptive Watershed Management to Achieve the Designated Use for Aquatic Life: Proposed Local Funding Initiative Draft (January 2013)

Priority Rankings based on Estimated Restorability for Stream Segments in the DuPage- Salt Creek Watersheds (November 8, 2010). Midwest Biodiversity Institute

Chloride Usage Education and Reduction Program – 2012 Deicing Program Survey (February 2013). DuPage River Salt Creek Workgroup

Project Prioritization

Biological and Water Quality Assessment DuPage River and Salt Creek Watersheds Water and Sediment Chemistry Analysis Parameters

Biological and Water Quality Study of the East and West Branches of the DuPage River and the Salt Creek Watersheds (December 31, 2008). Technical Report MBI/2008-12-3. Submitted by Center for Applied Bioassessment and Biocriteria Midwest Biodiversity Institute

Biological and Water Quality Study of the E. Branch DuPage River Watershed, 2011 (September 30, 2014). Technical Report MBI/2011-12-8. Submitted by Center for Applied Bioassessment and Biocriteria Midwest Biodiversity Institute

SOD Survey Locations (2006).

Stream Dissolved Oxygen Improvement Feasibility Study for Salt Creek and East Branch of the DuPage River Draft Existing Conditions Document (December 23, 2005).

Stream Dissolved Oxygen Improvement Feasibility Study for the East Branch of the DuPage River Final Report (December 2008).

245 

11. References

Total Maximum Daily Loads for the East Branch of the DuPage River, Illinois (October 2004).

Yoder, Chris. Bioassessment Plan for the DuPage and Salt Creek Watersheds (March 20, 2006). Technical Report/03-06-1. Submitted by Center for Applied Bioassessment and Biocriteria Midwest Biodiversity Institute

Yoder, Chris. Report on Biological Monitoring in the West & East Branch DuPage and Salt Creek Watersheds: 2006-7 (Presented on June 25, 2008). Center for Applied Bioassessment and Biocriteria Midwest Biodiversity Institute

Yoder, Chris. Report on Biological & Water Quality Monitoring in the East Branch DuPage Watershed: 2011 (Presented on August 28, 2013). Center for Applied Bioassessment and Biocriteria Midwest Biodiversity Institute

Federal Emergency Management Agency

FEMA Model Deed Restriction

Flood Insurance Study, A Report of Flood Hazards in: DuPage County, Illinois and Incorporated Areas

Federal Highway Administration

FHWA Issues Climate Change and Extreme Weather Resilience Order

Forest Preserve District of DuPage County

East Branch Resiliency Plan Preliminary Analyses

East Branch DuPage River Greenway Trail Plan

Forest Preserve Master Plans

Water Control Structure Trimming Inspection Form

Flood Inspection Form - Meacham Grove

Public Open Space Ownership

Flood Inspection Form - Waterfall Glen

Swift Prairie (Conceptual Acquisition Plan)

Strategic plan 2014

IDOT

Summary of status of IL 53 between IL 56 and Park Blvd

246 

11. References

IL 53 at Valley View Est Costs

FY 2015 – 2020 Multi-Modal Transportation Plan

Morton Arboretum

Chicago Region Trees Initiative Executive Summary. Available from http://www.mortonarb.org/science-conservation/regional-trees-initiative

Urban trees and forests of the Chicago region. Available from http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/44566

USACE Restoration Project

Flood Summary

Collections Master Plan

Sedimentation Survey of the Morton Arboretum Lakes

Diagnostic Feasibility Study for TMA Lakes

Stormwater Management Plan for the TMA Master Plan

Willoway Brook Streambank Stabilization Report

Rockefeller Foundation

Draft agenda for NDRC Academy

Washington DC Summit Materials

Resiliency Framework

NDRC Midwest Resilience Academy Presentations

SCARCE

Review of Rain Garden and Native Grass Ordinances

Municipal Contacts for Rain Gardens and Native Grass

Review of Rain Garden and Native Grass Ordinances (update)

The Conservation Foundation

Water Quality Projects

The Conservation Foundation/Salt Creek DuPage River Work Group

Chemistry Parameters List 247 

11. References

Biological and Water Quality Study of the East Branch DuPage River Watershed, 2011

GIS files

303(d) list

Project Prioritization Map

FIBI before and after Removal of the Churchill Woods dam in 2010.

U.S. Department of Commerce – United States Census Bureau

Census Data

Maps showing 2010 US Census Block Groups at or above 35.83% Low-Moderate Income (LMI) Concentration

USGS

Precipitation and Stream Gauge Data

Village of Addison

Comprehensive Plan

Village of Bloomingdale

Bloomingdale, Illinois Village Code

Capital Improvement Plan For the Period FY15 through FY19

2010 Comprehensive Land Use Plan

Indian Lakes Open Space Drainage Project

Indian Lake Open Space Preliminary Opinion of Probably Cost – Concept Plans dated 4.1.2014 (Rev. 1)

Indian Lakes Site Analysis

Summary of planned and future stormwater projects

2010 Comprehensive Land Use Map

Village of Downers Grove

Green Streets Sustainable Stormwater Projects

Downtown Business District Water Quality Improvements Report

Resiliency Ideas 248 

11. References

Residential Bioswale Retrofit Program

Downers Grove Municipal Code

Village of Downers Grove Comprehensive Plan

Sustainability Best Practices Annual Report 2009

2010 Sustainability Best Practices and 2011 Action Plan

Community Investment Program (CIP) (for FY2015 – FY2019)

Village of Downers Grove 2014 Stormwater Project Analysis

Stormwater Utility - http://www.downers.us/res/stormwater-management/stormwater- utility

Watershed Infrastructure Improvement Plan

Memo Re: April 17-18, 2013 Storm Event & Village Response

Village of Glen Ellyn

2015 Capital Budget

Comprehensive Plan Village of Glen Ellyn, Illinois

Downtown Plan Strategic Plan

Repetitive Loss Property Narratives (Confidential)

Village of Glen Ellyn Amendments to the Stormwater and Floodplain Ordinance

Village of Lisle

1999 Downtown Master Plan

2009 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan

2010 Ogden Avenue Corridor Plan

Village of Lisle Budget FY2014/2015

Comprehensive Land Use Plan 2004

Flood Ready

Lisle, Illinois Village Code (Title 5- Zoning Regulations, Title 6 – Subdivision Regulations)

Model Pre-Recovery Ordinance 249 

11. References

Navistar TIF District

UTI TIF District

April 2013 Flood Response Survey

Prairie Walk Pond Buyouts

River Dumoulin Flood Control Plan Executive Summary

Maps and memos regarding buyouts (Confidential)

Resiliency Ideas

CDBG Unmet Needs Request Letter

Substantial damage home tracking spreadsheet (Confidential)

Water Matters Storm Water and Water Quality Report

Village of Lombard

2015 Budget

Capital Improvement Plan 2014 – 2023 Village of Lombard

Lombard, Illinois – Code of Ordinances

Village of Lombard Comprehensive Plan

Combined Sewer Location Map

Lombard April 2013 Incident Map

Lombard Sewer infrastructure GIS

Specifications Manual

Village of Oak Brook

Comprehensive Plan

Village of Westmont

Annual Budget Fiscal Year 2014-2015

Village of Westmont Comprehensive Plan

Flood Damage Assessment Forms

Stormwater Master Plans 250 

11. References

Park Development Master Plan

TIF Maps

Depressional Areas and subbasins

Westmont, Illinois – Code of Ordinances

City of Wheaton

Annual Budget Fiscal Year 2014 – 2015

Five Year Financial Forecast

Inundation mapping for Briarcliffe Study Area

Comprehensive Plan Update (December 1999)

Wheaton City Code

Wheaton Zoning Ordinance

Village of Woodridge

Annual Budget Eight Months Ending December 31, 2014 and Calendar Year 2015

Village of Woodridge Comprehensive Plan

Woodridge Town Center Master Plan

Updated municipal boundary

List of properties damaged in flood and damage assessment

Comprehensive Plan

Phase I Stream Inventory Report

Prentiss Creek Trib Restoration at Triangle Park

Capital projects summary

Road Closures for April 2013

Woodridge Park District

Crabtree Creek Stabilization Plans

Preliminary Design Report Prentiss Creek Trib at Triangle Park

Prentiss Creek Trib Restoration at Triangle Park 251 

11. References

Crabtree Creek Stabilization Project - Jonquil Lane

Crabtree Creek Stabilization Project - Boundary Hill Park

Prentiss Creek 63rd St Park Dam Removal

United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

NDRC press release (web)

NRDC Fact Sheet - 9/2014

252 

12. Exhibits Exhibit 1 Overview of Watershed

Exhibit 2 Jurisdictions

Exhibit 3 Transportation Network

Exhibit 4 East Branch DuPage River Subwatersheds

Exhibit 5 Topography

Exhibit 6 Dominant Soil Series

Exhibit 7 Coverage of Hydric Soils

Exhibit 8 Highly Erodible Soils

Exhibit 9 Hydrologic Soil Groups

Exhibit 10 Historic Places/Districts

Exhibit 11 Forest Preserves and Recreational Trails

Exhibit 12 Wetlands

Exhibit 13 100-year Floodplain

Exhibit 14 NPDES Point Source Discharges

Exhibit 15 Sampling Sites

Exhibit 16 Existing Land Use in the East Branch DuPage River Watershed

Exhibit 17 Future Land Use in the East Branch DuPage River Watershed

Exhibit 18 Low to Moderate Income Census Tracts

Exhibit 19 Critical Facilities

Exhibit 20 Heat Map of Damages from April 2013 Flood Event

Exhibit 21 Road Construction Projects (2015-2020)

Exhibit 22 Identified Flood Problem Areas

Exhibit 23 Committed Flood Control Project Locations



Prepared by: Hey and Associates, Inc. Engineering, Ecology and Landscape Architecture

B

l

o

o

m

i

n

g

d

a

d Miles l

e

R

R

t

f

i d 010.5

w BLOOMINGDALEBLOOMINGDALE S ¬ Army Trail Rd ¨¦§355 This map is provided for general locational information only.

ADDISONADDISON Map features have been derived GLENDALEGLENDALE from various HEIGHTSHEIGHTS CAROLCAROL sources, each STREAMSTREAM of which has its own scale and accuracy. The locations of all fea‐ 64 RQ t

S tures are approximate.

n

i

a d Data Sources: DuPage

M R

t f i County, CMAP, ESRI

w

S

Crescent Blvd Upper Fox

LOMBARDLOMBARD

Kane

t S Av

ill n

H i a GLEN ELLYN M DuPage GLEN ELLYN F Des Plaines i Cook

n

l e EAST BRANCH

y

DUPAGE RIVER R Lower Fox

d 38

d RQ

R Chicago

t

r

e

b

m

a

d

L

v

l

B

k

r

a 22nd St 22nd St P Will Upper Illinois RQ53

WHEATONWHEATON 56 RQ H

i

g

h

l a OAKOAK WARRENVILLEWARRENVILLE n Legend 355 d BROOK ¨¦§ BROOK L A e

v a s k Rivers & Streams L n

NAPERVILLENAPERVILLE Lakes & Ponds

Warrenville Rd

v A

¤£34

w EBDR Watershed e

88 i § v

¨¦ r i

DOWNERSDOWNERS GROVEGROVE a F Municipal Boundaries

County Boundary W

d W

R

t EE v

LISLE n A LISLE St 5th o 5 S y Av S 88 Interstate/Tollway aple m ¨¦§

M e l l

e T k T

c B a M Y M OO ¤£34 U.S. Highway NN d T R T

e g e «¬53 l St State Highway l 63rd o

C

v

A

s s

a Major Road C

t D

S D

n i AA d a n R so M R Hob R II EE WOODRIDGE WOODRIDGE NN

75th St v

G

A

r d

e

r v

e

a A

n

w

e s

d e

R o

n o

d

a

J W

83rd St BOLINGBROOKBOLINGBROOK DUPAGE COUNTY East Branch DuPage WILL COUNTY River Watershed

DuPage County, Illinois

Exhibit 1 Overview of Watershed Prepared by: Hey and Associates, Inc. Engineering, Ecology and Landscape Architecture

d Miles

R

t

f i 010.5 BLOOMINGDALEBLOOMINGDALE w S ¬ Army Trail Rd

d This map is provided for general locational

R

e

l 355

a ¨¦§ information only. Map features have been

d

g

n

i derived from various sources, each of which

m

o has its own scale and accuracy. The locations

o l ADDISON

B ADDISON of all features are approximate. GLENDALEGLENDALE HEIGHTSHEIGHTS CAROLCAROL Data Sources: DuPage County, CMAP, STREAMSTREAM ESRI, FEMA

Legend 64 RQ t

S Rivers & Streams

n

i

a d

M R

t f i

w Lakes & Ponds S

EBDR Watershed

Crescent Blvd County Boundary LOMBARDLOMBARD

¨¦§88 Interstate/Tollway

t S Av

ill n H i a 34 M ¤£ U.S. Highway GLENGLEN ELLYNELLYN

F

i

n

l

e

y

R «¬53 State Highway

d 38

d RQ

R

t

r Major Road

e

b

m

a

d

L

v

l

B

k

r

a 22nd St 22nd St P

RQ53

WHEATONWHEATON 56 RQ H

i

g

h

l OAK a OAK WARRENVILLEWARRENVILLE n 355 d BROOK ¨¦§ BROOK L A e

v a s k

L n

NAPERVILLENAPERVILLE Warrenville Rd ¤£34 ¨¦§88

DOWNERSDOWNERS GROVEGROVE

v A W

w W

d

e

i R

v E

r E

t i

v

n a A St 5th LISLE o 5 S LISLE F S y Av

Maple m e l l

e T k T

c B a M Y M OO NN d

R TT e g e l St l 63rd o

C

v

A

s

s

a C

t D

S D

n i A d a A n R so M Hob RR II EE WOODRIDGE

WOODRIDGE 75th St NN v

G

A

r d

e

r v

e

a A

n

w

e s

d e

R o

n o

d

a

J W

83rd St

BOLINGBROOKBOLINGBROOK DUPAGE COUNTY East Branch DuPage WILL COUNTY River Watershed

DuPage County, Illinois

Exhibit 2 Jurisdictions Prepared by: Hey and Associates, Inc. Engineering, Ecology and Landscape Architecture

B

l

o

o

m

i

n

g

d Miles

d

R

a

t l

f e i 010.5

R

w

d S ¬ Arm y Trail R d This map is provided for general locational ¨¦§355 information only. Map features have been derived from various sources, each of which has its own scale and accuracy. The locations of all features are approximate.

n Av Fullerto Data Sources: DuPage County, CMAP, ESRI, FEMA

Legend RQ64 I2 Metra Station

d

R

t f i

w Railroad

S

Trails

Crescent Blvd

t Rivers & Streams

S

e

c

a r

G Lakes & Ponds

t S Av

ill n H i

a EBDR Watershed

t

M

S

n i

F a

i

n M

l e County Boundary

y

R

d 38 88 Interstate/Tollway d RQ ¨¦§

R

t

r

e

b

m

a 34 d ¤£ U.S. Highway

L

v

l

B

k

r

a 22nd St 22nd St P «¬53 State Highway

RQ53 Major Road

Local Road 56 RQ H

i

g

d h

l R a

e n

l d l 355 i ¨¦§ v L A r e e v a p s a k N L n

Warrenville Rd

v A

¤£34

w e

88 i § v

¨¦ r

i

a

F

d

R

t

v n A 5th St

5 o y Av

Maple m e l

l e k

c B

a

Y

d

R

e g e l St l 63rd o

C

v

A

s

s

a

C

t

S

n i

d a n R so M Hob

J

a

n

e

s

A

v 75th St v

G

A

r d

e

r v

e

a A

n

w

e s

d e

R o

n o

d

a

J W

83rd St

DUPAGE COUNTY East Branch DuPage WILL COUNTY River Watershed

DuPage County, Illinois

Exhibit 3 Transporation Network Prepared by: Hey and Associates, Inc. Engineering, Ecology and Landscape Architecture Swift

B

l

o Meadows

o

m

i Tributary

n

g Miles

d

a

l e 010.5

R d ¬ Army Trail Rd Army Trail This map is provided for general locational ¨¦§355 information only. Map features have been

d Road Tributary

R

derived from various sources, each of which

t

f

i

w has its own scale and accuracy. The locations

S of all features are approximate.

n Av Fullerto Data Sources: DuPage County, CMAP, Armitage EBDR ESRI, FEMA Creek Tributary #1 Legend EBDR RQ64 Tributary Rivers & Streams

#2 d R

t f i w Lakes & Ponds S Subwatershed

Crescent Blvd Boundary

t

S

e

c EBDR Watershed

a r

EBDR G Mainstem

t County Boundary S Av

ill n

H i

a

t

M

S

n 88 Interstate/Tollway i

F ¨¦§ a

i

n M

l

e

y

R d Tributary #3 ¤£34 U.S. Highway 38

d RQ

R (Schwartz Creek)

t

r

e Glen b «¬53 State Highway

m

a Crest

L 22nd Creek Street Major Road 22nd St Tributary

Glen Park RQ53 Willoway Tributary Brook

56 H Q i R g

h

EBDR l d a

R n

d e Mainstem l l 355 A i ¨¦§ v L v r e e Rott Creek a p s a k N L n Lacey Creek

Warrenville Rd

v A

¤£34

w e

88 i § v

¨¦ r

i

a F

St. Joseph Creek

d

R

t

v n A 5th St

5 o y Av

Maple m e l

l

t e

k S

c B

a n i

Y a

Tributary #6 EBDR M Mainstem (St. Procopius d

R

Creek) e g e l St l 63rd o

C

v

A

s

Prentiss s a Creek C

Rd son EBDR Hob

J

a

Tributary n

e

s

#7 A

v 75th St v

G

A

r d

e r

e

Crabtree a

n w

e d

R Creek o o

d W

83rd St EBDR Mainstem DUPAGE COUNTY East Branch DuPage WILL COUNTY RQ53 River Watershed

DuPage County, Illinois

Exhibit 4 Subwatersheds Prepared by: Hey and Associates, Inc. Engineering, Ecology and Landscape Architecture

B

l

o

o

m

i

n

g

d Miles

d

R

a

t l

f e i 010.5

R

w

d S ¬ Arm y Trail R d This map is provided for general locational ¨¦§355 information only. Map features have been derived from various sources, each of which has its own scale and accuracy. The locations of all features are approximate.

n Av Fullerto Data Sources: DuPage County, CMAP, ESRI, FEMA

Legend RQ64

0# High Point

d

R

t 0 f # i

w S Low Point Digital Elevation Model

Crescent Blvd Low (638.24) to

t S

High (878.614)

e

c

a r

G Rivers & Streams

t S Av

ill n H i

a Lakes & Ponds

t

M

S

n i

F a

i

n M

l e EBDR Watershed

y

R

d 38

d RQ County Boundary

R

t

r

e

b

m 88 Interstate/Tollway

a ¨¦§ d

L

v

l

B

k

r

a 22nd St 22nd St P ¤£34 U.S. Highway

«¬53 State Highway RQ53 Major Road 56 RQ H

i

g

d h

l R a

e n

l d l 355 i ¨¦§ v L A r e e v a p s a k N L n

Warrenville Rd

v A

¤£34

w e

88 i § v

¨¦ r

i

a

F

d

R

t

v n A 5th St

5 o y Av

Maple m e l

l e k

c B

a

Y

d

R

e g e l St l 63rd o

C

v

A

s

s

a

C

t

S

n i

d a n R so M Hob

J

a

n

e

s

A

v 75th St v

G

A

r d

e

r v

e

a A

n

w

e s

d e

R o

n o

d

a

J W

83rd St

DUPAGE COUNTY East Branch DuPage WILL COUNTY RQ53 River Watershed

DuPage County, Illinois

Exhibit 5 Topography Prepared by: Hey and Associates, Inc. Engineering, Ecology and Landscape Architecture

B

l

o

o

m

i

n

g

d Miles

d

R

a

t l

f e i 010.5

R

w

d S ¬ Arm y Trail R d This map is provided for general locational ¨¦§355 information only. Map features have been derived from various sources, each of which has its own scale and accuracy. The locations of all features are approximate.

n Av Fullerto Data Sources: DuPage County, CMAP, ESRI, FEMA

Legend RQ64 EBDR Watershed

d

R

t f i

w Rivers & Streams S

Lakes & Ponds

Crescent Blvd t

S County Boundary

e

c

a r

G ¨¦§88 Interstate/Tollway

t S Av

ill n

H i a

t £34 U.S. Highway

M ¤

S

n i

F a

i

n M

l

e

y

«¬53 R State Highway

d 38

d RQ

R

t

r Major Road

e

b

m

a

d

L

v Dominant Soil Series

l

B

k

r

a 22nd St 22nd St P 69 - Milford

146 - Elliott RQ53 189 - Martinton

56 RQ H 223 - Varna i

g

d h

l R a

e n

l d l 355 i ¨¦§ v L A 232 - Ashkum r e e v a p s a k N L n 298 - Beecher

Warrenville Rd 327 - Fox

v A

¤£34

w e

88 i § v

¨¦ r 330 - Peotone

i

a F 369 - Waupecan

d 526 - Grundelein

R

t

v n A 5th St

5 o y Av

Maple m e l

l e k 530 - Ozuakee

c B

a

Y 531 - Markham

d

R

e g e 792 - Bowes l St l 63rd o

C

v

A

s

s 802 - Orthents, loamy

a

C

t

S

n 805 - Orthents, clayey i

d a n R so M Hob

J 854 - Markham, a

n

e

s Ashkum, Beecher

A

v 75th St complex v

G

A

r d

e r

v 903 - Muskego &

e

a A

n

w

e s

d e Houghton mucks

R o

n o

d

a

J W 3107 - Sawmill 83rd St

DUPAGE COUNTY East Branch DuPage WILL COUNTY River Watershed

DuPage County, Illinois

Exhibit 6 Dominant Soil Series Prepared by: Hey and Associates, Inc. Engineering, Ecology and Landscape Architecture

B

l

o

o

m

i

n

g

d Miles

d

R

a

t l

f e i 010.5

R

w

d S ¬ Arm y Trail R d This map is provided for general locational ¨¦§355 information only. Map features have been derived from various sources, each of which has its own scale and accuracy. The locations of all features are approximate.

n Av Fullerto Data Sources: DuPage County, CMAP, ESRI, FEMA

Legend RQ64 Hydric Soils

d

R

t f i

w Rivers & Streams S

Lakes & Ponds

Crescent Blvd t

S EBDR Watershed

e

c

a r

G County Boundary

t S Av ill n H i 88 a § Interstate/Tollway

t ¨¦

M

S

n i

F a

i

n M

l e 34 y ¤£ U.S. Highway

R

d 38

d RQ

R «¬53 State Highway

t

r

e

b

m

a

d

L

v l Major Road

B

k

r

a 22nd St 22nd St P

RQ53

56 RQ H

i

g

d h

l R a

e n

l d l 355 i ¨¦§ v L A r e e v a p s a k N L n

Warrenville Rd

v A

¤£34

w e

88 i § v

¨¦ r

i

a

F

d

R

t

v n A 5th St

5 o y Av

Maple m e l

l e k

c B

a

Y

d

R

e g e l St l 63rd o

C

v

A

s

s

a

C

t

S

n i

d a n R so M Hob

J

a

n

e

s

A

v 75th St v

G

A

r d

e

r v

e

a A

n

w

e s

d e

R o

n o

d

a

J W

83rd St

DUPAGE COUNTY East Branch DuPage WILL COUNTY River Watershed

DuPage County, Illinois

Exhibit 7 Coverage of Hydric Soils Prepared by: Hey and Associates, Inc. Engineering, Ecology and Landscape Architecture

B

l

o

o

m

i

n

g

d Miles

d

R

a

t l

f e i 010.5

R

w

d S ¬ Arm y Trail R d This map is provided for general locational ¨¦§355 information only. Map features have been derived from various sources, each of which has its own scale and accuracy. The locations of all features are approximate.

n Av Fullerto Data Sources: DuPage County, CMAP, ESRI, FEMA

Legend RQ64 Highly Erodable Soils

d

R

t f i

w Rivers & Streams S

Lakes & Ponds

Crescent Blvd t

S EBDR Watershed

e

c

a r

G County Boundary

t S Av ill n H i 88 a § Interstate/Tollway

t ¨¦

M

S

n i

F a

i

n M

l e 34 y ¤£ U.S. Highway

R

d 38

d RQ

R «¬53 State Highway

t

r

e

b

m

a

d

L

v l Major Road

B

k

r

a 22nd St 22nd St P

RQ53

56 RQ H

i

g

d h

l R a

e n

l d l 355 i ¨¦§ v L A r e e v a p s a k N L n

Warrenville Rd

v A

¤£34

w e

88 i § v

¨¦ r

i

a

F

d

R

t

v n A 5th St

5 o y Av

Maple m e l

l e k

c B

a

Y

d

R

e g e l St l 63rd o

C

v

A

s

s

a

C

t

S

n i

d a n R so M Hob

J

a

n

e

s

A

v 75th St v

G

A

r d

e

r v

e

a A

n

w

e s

d e

R o

n o

d

a

J W

83rd St

DUPAGE COUNTY East Branch DuPage WILL COUNTY River Watershed

DuPage County, Illinois

Exhibit 8 Highly Erodible Soils Prepared by: Hey and Associates, Inc. Engineering, Ecology and Landscape Architecture

B

l

o

o

m

i

n

g

d Miles

d

R

a

t l

f e i 010.5

R

w

d S ¬ Arm y Trail R d This map is provided for general locational ¨¦§355 information only. Map features have been derived from various sources, each of which has its own scale and accuracy. The locations of all features are approximate.

n Av Fullerto Data Sources: DuPage County, CMAP, ESRI, FEMA

Legend RQ64 A - High Infiltration

d Potential R

t f i

w S B - Moderate Infiltration Potential

Crescent Blvd B - Drained/D - t

S Undrained

e

c

a r

G C - Low Infiltration

t Potential S Av

ill n

H i

a t

M C - Drained/D -

S

n i

F a

i Undrained

n M

l

e

y

R

d D - Very Low 38

d RQ Infiltration Potential

R

t

r

e

b

m Not Rated

a

d

L

v

l

B

k

r

a 22nd St Rivers & Streams 22nd St P Lakes & Ponds RQ53 EBDR Watershed

56 County Boundary RQ H

i

g

d h

l R a

e n

l d l 355 i 88 Interstate/Tollway ¨¦§ § A ¨¦ v L r e e v a p s a k N L n ¤£34 U.S. Highway

Warrenville Rd «¬53 State Highway

v A

¤£34

w e

88 i § v

¨¦ r i

a Major Road

F

d

R

t

v n A 5th St

5 o y Av

Maple m e l

l e k

c B

a

Y

d

R

e g e l St l 63rd o

C

v

A

s

s

a

C

t

S

n i

d a n R so M Hob

J

a

n

e

s

A

v 75th St v

G

A

r d

e

r v

e

a A

n

w

e s

d e

R o

n o

d

a

J W

83rd St

DUPAGE COUNTY East Branch DuPage WILL COUNTY River Watershed

DuPage County, Illinois

Exhibit 9 Hydrologic Soil Groups Prepared by: Hey and Associates, Inc. Bloomingdale Randecker's Engineering, Ecology and Landscape Architecture School - Hardware Store

B

l

o

o

Village Hall m

i

n

g

d Miles

d

R

a

t l

f e i 010.5

R

w

d S ¬ Arm y Trail R d This map is provided for general locational ¨¦§355 information only. Map features have been derived from various sources, each of which has its own scale and accuracy. The locations of all features are approximate.

n Av Fullerto Data Sources: DuPage County, CMAP, ESRI, FEMA

Legend RQ64 e[ Historical Properties

Stacy's Tavern d

R

t f i

w Rivers & Streams S

Alfred A. Schiller House Lakes & Ponds First Church Crescent B Glen Ellyn Main Street Historic District lvd of Lombard

t EBDR Watershed

S

e

c

a r

Glen Ellyn Downtown G County Boundary

North Historic District ill Av t

H S

n i

a 88 Interstate/Tollway

t ¨¦§

M

S

n i

F a

i

Glen Ellyn Downtown n M

l

e

y ¤£34 U.S. Highway

South Historic District R

d 38

d RQ

R 53 «¬ State Highway

t

r

e

b

m

a

d

L

v l Major Road

B

k

r

a 22nd St 22nd St P George Baker RQ53 House

56 RQ H

i

g

d h

l R a

e n

l d l 355 i ¨¦§ v L A r e e v a p s a k N L n

Warrenville Rd

v A

¤£34

w e

88 i § v

¨¦ r

Avery i a Coonley F

School

d

R

t

v n A 5th St

5 o y Av

Maple m e l

l e k

c B

a

Y

d

R

e g e l St l 63rd o

C

v

A

s

s

a

C

t

S

n i

d a n R so M Hob

J

a

n

e

s

A

v 75th St v

G

A

r d

e

r v

e

a A

n

w

e s

d e

R o

n o

d

a

J W

83rd St

DUPAGE COUNTY East Branch DuPage WILL COUNTY RQ53 River Watershed

DuPage County, Illinois

Exhibit 10 Historic Places/Districts Prepared by: Hey and Associates, Inc. Engineering, Ecology and Landscape Architecture

B

l

o

o

m

i

n

g Miles

d

a

l e 010.5 SWIFT R d PRAIRIE ¬ Arm y Trail R d This map is provided for general locational ¨¦§355 information only. Map features have been

d

R

derived from various sources, each of which

t

f

i

EAST w has its own scale and accuracy. The locations

S BRANCH of all features are approximate.

n Av Fullerto Data Sources: DuPage County, CMAP, ESRI, FEMA, Chicago Wilderness

BROADVIEW SLOUGH Legend RQ64 Recreational Trails

d

R

t f i

w Forest Preserve

S

Rivers & Streams CHURCHILL WOODS

t Lakes & Ponds

S

e

c

a r

G EBDR Watershed t

GLEN S Av ill n H OAK i

a County Boundary

t

M

S

n i

F a

i

n M

l

e

y

R ¨¦§88 Interstate/Tollway d 38

d RQ

R

t r ¤£34 U.S. Highway

e

b

m

a

d

L

v

l

B «¬53 State Highway

k

r

a 22nd St 22nd St P Major Road WILLOWBROOK RQ53

56 LY MAN RQ H WOODS i

g

h

HIDDEN l

a

n

DANADA LAKE 355 d ¨¦§ L A e

v HERRICK a s k LAKE L n

Warrenville Rd

v A

¤£34

w e

88 i § v

¨¦ r

i

a

F

d R

MAPLE t

v n A GROVE 5th St

5 o y Av Maple m HITCHCOCK e l

l e k

c WOODS B

a

Y

d HICKORY

R GROVE e g e l St l 63rd o

C

v

A

s

s

a

C

t

S

n i

d a n R so M Hob GREEN

J MEADOWS EGERMANN a n

e

WOODS s

A

v 75th St v

G

A

r d

e

r v

e

a A

n

w

e s

d e

R o

n o

d

a

J W

83rd St GREENE VALLEY DUPAGE COUNTY East Branch DuPage WILL COUNTY River Watershed

DuPage County, Illinois

Exhibit 11 Forest Preserves and Recreational Trails Prepared by: Hey and Associates, Inc. Engineering, Ecology and Landscape Architecture

B

l

o

o

m

i

n

g Miles

d

a

d

l

e

R

010.5

t

R

f

i

d

w S ¬ Arm y Trail R d This map is provided for general locational ¨¦§355 information only. Map features have been derived from various sources, each of which has its own scale and accuracy. The locations of all features are approximate.

n Av Fullerto Data Sources: DuPage County, CMAP, ESRI, FEMA

Legend RQ64 Wetlands (NWI &

d County Updates) R

t f i

w S Rivers & Streams

Lakes & Ponds

t

S

e EBDR Watershed

c

a

r G

County Boundary

t S Av

ill n

H i

a

t

M S 88 Interstate/Tollway

n § i ¨¦

F a

i

n M

l

e

y

R

d ¤£34 U.S. Highway RQ38 «¬53 State Highway

d

v

l

B

k r Major Road a 22nd St 22nd St P

RQ53

d ¨¦§355 R

e L ll e i v a r s e k p L a n

N

v A

¤£34

w e

88 i

§ v

¨¦ r

i

a

F

d

R

t

v n A 5th St

5 o y Av

Maple m e l

l e k t

c B

S

a n

Y i

a M

63rd St

v

A

s

s

a C

75th St

v v

G

A A

r

s d

e

r e

e

a n

n

w a

e

J d

R o o

d W

83rd St

DUPAGE COUNTY East Branch DuPage WILL COUNTY River Watershed

DuPage County, Illinois

Exhibit 12 Wetlands Prepared by: Hey and Associates, Inc. Engineering, Ecology and Landscape Architecture WEST LAKE DAM

B

l

o

o

m

i

n d Miles

g

R

d

t

f

a i 010.5

l

e

w

S R ) d ¬ This map is provided for general locational ¨¦§355 information only. Map features have been derived from various sources, each of which has its own scale and accuracy. The locations of all features are approximate.

v Fullerton A Data Sources: DuPage County, CMAP, ESRI, FEMA

Legend RQ64 ) Dams d

R

t CHURCHILL WOODS DAM f i w EBDR Watershed S (REMOVED 2/2011)

100-Year Floodplain t

S Rivers & Streams

)

e

c

a r

G Lakes & Ponds

t S Av

ill n

H i a

t County Boundary

M

S

n i

F a

i

n M

l e 88 Interstate/Tollway y ¨¦§

R

d

Q38 d R v l ¤£34 U.S. Highway B

k MARYKNOLL r

a ) P GABION WEIR «¬53 State Highway

22nd St d St 22n Major Road

RQ53

d R

e l l 355 i ¨¦§ v r e p a N

Warrenville Rd

v A

¤£34

w e

88 i § v

¨¦ r

i

a F

v

A 55th St

y Maple Av e l

k

c

a

Y

d t R

S

e n

g i

e a l l

M rd St o 63

C

v

A

s

s

a C

PRENTISS CREEK FLOW-THROUGH DAM

J ) a n

e

s

A

v 75th St v

G

A

r d

e r

e a

n

w

e v d

A

R o

o s

d

e

W

n

a J 83rd St

DUPAGE COUNTY East Branch DuPage WILL COUNTY RQ53 River Watershed

DuPage County, Illinois

Exhibit 13 100-Year Floodplain Prepared by: Hey and Associates, Inc. Engineering, Ecology and Landscape Architecture

B

l

o

o

m

i

n

g Miles d BLOOMINGDALE- a

l e 010.5

R REEVES WRF d ¬ Arm y Trail R d This map is provided for general locational ¨¦§355 information only. Map features have been

d

R

derived from various sources, each of which

t

f

i

w has its own scale and accuracy. The locations

S of all features are approximate.

n Av Fullerto GLENDALE HTS Data Sources: DuPage County, CMAP, ESRI, FEMA

Legend RQ64 Wg POTW Discharges

d

R

t f i

w EBDR Watershed

S

GLENBARD WW Rivers & Streams AUTH-LOMBARD

t Lakes & Ponds

S

e

c

a r

G County Boundary

t S Av

ill n H i

a 88 Interstate/Tollway

t ¨¦§

M

S

n i

F a

i

n M

l

e

y ¤£34 U.S. Highway

R

d 38

d RQ

R

«¬53 State Highway

t

r GLENBARD WW

e

b

m AUTH-GLENBARD

a

d

L

v l Major Road B

k

r a 22nd St 22nd St P

RQ53

56 RQ H

i

g

d h

l R a

e n

l d l 355 i ¨¦§ v L A r e e v a p s a k N L n

Warrenville Rd

v A

¤£34

w e

88 i § v

¨¦ r

i

a

F

d

R

t

n 55th St Av o

Maple m l

e B DOWNERS GROVE SD WTC

d

R

e g e l rd St l 63 o

C

v

A

s

s

a

C

t

S

n i

d a n R so M Hob

J

a

n

e

s

A

v 75th St

v

A

d

r

v

a

A

w

s

d

e o

DUPAGE COUNTY- n

o

a J WOODRIDGE STP W 83rd St

d R

e n e DUPAGE BOLINGBROOK STP #1 e r COUNTY G East Branch DuPage BOLINGBROOK STP #2 WILL COUNTY River Watershed

DuPage County, Illinois

Exhibit 14 NPDES Point Source Discharges Prepared by: Hey and Associates, Inc. Engineering, Ecology and Landscape Architecture

B

l

o

o

m

d

i

n

R

g

t Miles

f d

i

a

w

l

e S 010.5

R EB29 d Î"i EB28 ¬ EB25 Î" Army i Trail Rd Î"i Î"i Î"i EB27 This map is provided for general locational 355 EBAT Î"iEB24 ¨¦§ information only. Map features have been derived from various sources, each of which has its own scale and accuracy. The locations of all features are approximate.

n Av Fullerto Î"i EB23 Data Sources: DuPage County, CMAP,

ESRI, FEMA

d R

EB22

t

f i

Î"i w S EB26 Î"i Legend RQ64 Î"i 2012 Sampling EB21Î"i Î"i 2011 Bioassessments 001 EB20 Î"iÎ"iEB36 EB42 Sediment Oxygen Î"i" Î"i Demand (SOD) Î"i ÎiÎ"i 15

002 t Sampling

S

EBCW e

c

a r

G EBDR Watershed

EB19 t S Av ill n

H Î" i Rivers & Streams

i a

t

M

S

n i

F a

i

n M

l Lakes & Ponds

e

y

EB18 000 R Î"i d 38 Î"i County Boundary

d RQ

R

t

r

e b 011 88 m ¨¦§ Interstate/Tollway a Î" d i

L

v

l

B

k

r EB15 a EB30 EB17 £34 U.S. Highway P ¤ 22nd St Î"i Î"i Î"i Î"i EB16 RQ53 «¬53 State Highway 012 013 Î"i Major Road Îi EBBR 56 RQ H

i

g

EB13 h d Î"i " l Îi a R

e n

l d l 355 i EBHL ¨¦§ v L A r e EB14 e v a p s a k Î"i N L n Î"i EB12 Î"i EB11

Warrenville Rd

v A

¤£34

w e

88 i § v

¨¦ r

i

a F Î"i EB07 EB31 EB08

Î"i EB06 Î"i Î"i

d

R

t

v n A 5th St

5 o y Av

Maple m e l

l e k Î"i EB10

c B

a

Y EB09 Î"i

d

R

e g e l St l 63rd o EB37

C Î" EB03 v Î" i A

i EB04

s s

Î"i a

EB05 C

Î"i t

S

n

i a

003 M Î"i EB32 J

a EBHR n e

s

A

v 75th St v

G

A

r d

e

EB40 r v

e

a A

n

w

e s

Î" d

i EB02 e

R o

" n Îi o

d

a

J W EB33 Î"i 83rd St

DUPAGE COUNTY East Branch DuPage WILL COUNTY EB01 Î"i River Watershed Î"i EB35 EB38 Î"i EB39 EB41 " EB34 Î"i Îi Î"i DuPage County, Illinois

Exhibit 15 Sampling Sites Prepared by: Hey and Associates, Inc. Engineering, Ecology and Landscape Architecture

B

l

o

o

m

i

n

g

d Miles

d

R

a

t l

f e i 010.5

R

w

d S ¬ Arm y Trail R d This map is provided for general locational ¨¦§355 information only. Map features have been derived from various sources, each of which has its own scale and accuracy. The locations of all features are approximate.

n Av Fullerto Data Sources: DuPage County, CMAP, ESRI, FEMA

Legend RQ64 Agriculture

d

R

t f i Conservation/ w S Openspace

Industrial

Crescent Blvd

t

S

e Infrastructure

c

a

r G

Institutional

t S Av

ill n

H i

a

t M

S Mixed Use

n i

F a

i

n M

l

e

y

Office

R

d 38

d RQ

R Retail/Commercial

t

r

e

b

m

a Single Family d

L

v

l

B Residential

k

r

a 22nd St 22nd St P Multi-Family Residential RQ53 Rivers & Streams

56 Lakes & Rivers RQ H

i

g

d h

l R a

e n

l d l 355 EBDR Watershed i ¨¦§ v L A r e e v a p s a k N L n County Boundary

¨¦§88 Interstate/Tollway

Warrenville Rd

v A

¤£34

w e 88 i £34 U.S. Highway § v ¤

¨¦ r

i

a F

«¬53 State Highway

d R

Major Road t

v n A 5th St

5 o y Av

Maple m e l

l e k

c B

a

Y

d

R

e g e l St l 63rd o

C

v

A

s

s

a

C

t

S

n i

d a n R so M Hob

J

a

n

e

s

A

v 75th St v

G

A

r d

e

r v

e

a A

n

w

e s

d e

R o

n o

d

a

J W

83rd St

DUPAGE COUNTY East Branch DuPage WILL COUNTY River Watershed

DuPage County, Illinois

Exhibit 16 Existing Land Use Prepared by: Hey and Associates, Inc. Engineering, Ecology and Landscape Architecture

B

l

o

o

m

i

n

g

d Miles

d

R

a

t l

f e i 010.5

R

w

d S ¬ Arm y Trail R d This map is provided for general locational ¨¦§355 information only. Map features have been derived from various sources, each of which has its own scale and accuracy. The locations of all features are approximate.

n Av Fullerto Data Sources: DuPage County, CMAP, ESRI, FEMA

Legend RQ64 Conservation/

d OpenSpace R

t f i

w S Industrial

Infrastructure

Crescent Blvd

t

S

e Institutional

c

a

r G

Mixed Use

t S Av

ill n

H i

a

t M

S Office

n i

F a

i

n M

l

e

y

Retail/Commercial

R

d 38 d RQ Single Family

R

t

r

e Residential

b

m

a

d

L

v l Multi-Family

B

k

r

a 22nd St Residential 22nd St P Rivers & Streams RQ53 Lakes & Ponds

56 EBDR Watershed RQ H

i

g

d h

l R a

e n

l d l 355 County Boundary i ¨¦§ v L A r e e v a p s a k N L 88 n ¨¦§ Interstate/Tollway

¤£34 U.S. Highway

Warrenville Rd

v A

¤£34

w e

88 i § v

¨¦ r

i «¬53 State Highway

a F

Major Road

d

R

t v

n Local Road A 5th St

5 o y Av

Maple m e l

l e k

c B

a

Y

d

R

e g e l St l 63rd o

C

v

A

s

s

a

C

t

S

n i

d a n R so M Hob

J

a

n

e

s

A

v 75th St v

G

A

r d

e

r v

e

a A

n

w

e s

d e

R o

n o

d

a

J W

83rd St

DUPAGE COUNTY East Branch DuPage WILL COUNTY River Watershed

DuPage County, Illinois

Exhibit 17 Future Land Use Prepared by: Hey and Associates, Inc. Engineering, Ecology and Landscape Architecture

B

l

o

o

m

i

n

g

d Miles

d

R

a

t l

f e i 010.5

R

w

d S ¬ Arm y Trail R d This map is provided for general locational ¨¦§355 information only. Map features have been derived from various sources, each of which has its own scale and accuracy. The locations of all features are approximate.

n Av Fullerto Data Sources: DuPage County, CMAP, ESRI, FEMA

Legend 64 RQ Low/Moderate

d Income Percentages R

t f i per Census Block w

S 38-67%

Crescent Blvd 67-83%

t

S

e

c

a r

G 83-100%

t S Av

ill n Rivers & Streams

H i

a

t

M

S

n i

F a

i

n Lakes & Ponds M

l

e

y

R

d 38 EBDR Watershed

d RQ

R

t

r

e

b County Boundary

m

a

d

L

v

l

B

k r 88 Interstate/Tollway

a ¨¦§ 22nd St 22nd St P

¤£34 U.S. Highway RQ53 «¬53 State Highway

56 RQ H

i g Major Road d h

l R a

e n

l d l 355 i ¨¦§ v L A r e e v a p s a k N L n

Warrenville Rd

v A

¤£34

w e

88 i § v

¨¦ r

i

a

F

d

R

t

v n A 5th St

5 o y Av

Maple m e l

l e k

c B

a

Y

d

R

e g e l St l 63rd o

C

v

A

s

s

a

C

t

S

n i

d a n R so M Hob

J

a

n

e

s

A

v 75th St v

G

A

r d

e

r v

e

a A

n

w

e s

d e

R o

n o

d

a

J W

83rd St

DUPAGE COUNTY East Branch DuPage WILL COUNTY RQ53 River Watershed

DuPage County, Illinois

Exhibit 18 Low to Moderate Income Census Tracts Prepared by: Hey and Associates, Inc. Engineering, Ecology and Landscape Architecture

Miles 010.5 ¬ This map is provided for general locational information only. Map features have been derived from various sources, each of which has its own scale and accuracy. The locations of all features are approximate.

Data Sources: DuPage County, CMAP, ESRI, FEMA

Legend

! Public Health

!k Public Work Garages

d Siren Locations ca Police Station "& Logistical Staging Areas

"' Hospitals

k Dialysis Locations

!¬ 911 Dispatch Center

nm Education

- Fire Stations ñ Government Buildings

! Group Quarter

J_ Heliports

®s Special Needs

! Assisted Living Facility

"&E Health Dept Blds

²³ COOP Relocation Sites

! TierII

Bridges

Outside of Siren Reach

Rivers & Streams

Lakes & Ponds

EBDR Watershed

County Boundary

¨¦§88 Interstate/Tollway

¤£34 U.S. Highway

«¬53 State Highway

Major Road

DUPAGE COUNTY East Branch DuPage WILL COUNTY River Watershed

DuPage County, Illinois

Exhibit 19 Critical Facilities Prepared by: Hey and Associates, Inc. Engineering, Ecology and Landscape Architecture

B

l

o

o

m

i

n

g

d Miles

d

R

a

t l

f e i 010.5

R

w

d S ¬ Arm y Trail R d This map is provided for general locational ¨¦§355 information only. Map features have been derived from various sources, each of which has its own scale and accuracy. The locations of all features are approximate.

n Av Fullerto Data Sources: DuPage County, CMAP, ESRI, FEMA

Legend RQ64 Damage Magnitude (Low to High) d

R

t f i

w

S County Boundary

Rivers & Streams

Crescent Blvd t

S Lakes & Ponds

e

c

a r

G EBDR Watershed

t S Av

ill n

H i a t §88 Interstate/Tollway

M ¨¦

S

n i

F a

i

n M

l

e

y 34 £ U.S. Highway

R ¤

d 38

d RQ

R

t «¬53 State Highway

r

e

b

m

a

d

L

v

l

B Major Road

k

r

a 22nd St 22nd St P

RQ53

56 RQ H

i

g

d h

l R a

e n

l d l 355 i ¨¦§ v L A r e e v a p s a k N L n

Warrenville Rd

v A

¤£34

w e

88 i § v

¨¦ r

i

a

F

d

R

t

v n A 5th St

5 o y Av

Maple m e l

l e k

c B

a

Y

d

R

e g e l St l 63rd o

C

v

A

s

s

a

C

t

S

n i

d a n R so M Hob

J

a

n

e

s

A

v 75th St v

G

A

r d

e

r v

e

a A

n

w

e s

d e

R o

n o

d

a

J W

83rd St

DUPAGE COUNTY East Branch DuPage WILL COUNTY River Watershed

DuPage County, Illinois

Exhibit 20 Heat Map of Damages April 2013 Flood Event Prepared by: Hey and Associates, Inc. Engineering, Ecology and Landscape Architecture

B

l

o

o

m

i

n

g

d Miles

d

R

a

t l

f e i 010.5

R

w

d S ¬ Arm y Trail R d This map is provided for general locational ¨¦§355 information only. Map features have been derived from various sources, each of which has its own scale and accuracy. The locations of all features are approximate.

n Av Fullerto Data Sources: DuPage County, CMAP, ESRI, IDOT

Legend RQ64 Road Construction,

d Repairs, or R

t f i Reconfigurations w

S Rivers & Streams

Crescent Blvd

t Lakes & Ponds

S

e

c

a r

G EBDR Watershed

t S Av ill n

H i County Boundary

a

t

M

S

n i

F a

i

n M l 88 e ¨¦§ Interstate/Tollway

y

R

d 38 d RQ ¤£34 U.S. Highway

R

t

r

e

b

m

a d 53 L «¬ State Highway v

l

B

k

r

a 22nd St 22nd St P Major Road

RQ53 Local Road

56 RQ H

i

g

d h

l R a

e n

l d l 355 i ¨¦§ v L A r e e v a p s a k N L n

Warrenville Rd

v A

¤£34

w e

88 i § v

¨¦ r

i

a

F

d

R

t

v n A 5th St

5 o y Av

Maple m e l

l e k

c B

a

Y

d

R Four Lakes Ave

e g e l St l 63rd o

C

v

A

s

s

a

C

t

S

n i

d a n R so M Hob

J

a

n

e

s

A

v 75th St v

G

A

r d

e

r v

e

a A

n

w

e s

d e

R o

n o

d

a

J W

83rd St

DUPAGE COUNTY East Branch DuPage WILL COUNTY River Watershed

DuPage County, Illinois

Exhibit 21 Road Construction Projects (2015-2020) Prepared by: Hey and Associates, Inc. Engineering, Ecology and Landscape Architecture

d Miles

R

t

f i 010.5 BLOOMINGDALEBLOOMINGDALE w S ¬ This map is provided for general locational ¨¦§355 information only. Map features have been derived from various sources, each of which has its own scale and accuracy. The locations ADDISON ADDISON of all features are approximate. GLENDALEGLENDALE HEIGHTSHEIGHTS Data Sources: DuPage County, CMAP, CAROLCAROL STREAMSTREAM ESRI, FEMA

Legend RQ64 Flood Problem Areas

d

R

t f i

w 100 Year Floodplain S

t Rivers & Streams

S

n i

a M Lakes & Rivers

LOMBARDLOMBARD

EBDR Watershed

t S Av

ill n H i

a County Boundary GLENGLEN ELLYNELLYN M

F

i

n

l e ¨¦§88 Interstate/Tollway y

R

d

Q38 d R v l ¤£34 U.S. Highway

B

k

r

a

P «¬53 State Highway

22nd St 22nd St Major Road

RQ53

WHEATONWHEATON

OAKOAK WARRENVILLEWARRENVILLE 355 ¨¦§ BROOKBROOK

NAPERVILLENAPERVILLE Warrenville Rd ¤£34 ¨¦§88 DOWNERSDOWNERS GROVEGROVE

WW

v EE A LISLELISLE 55th St y Maple Av S e S l

k c TT a Y MM OO

d t NN R

S

e T n T g i

e a l l

M rd St o 63

C

v

A

s

s

a C

DD AA RR II EE WOODRIDGEWOODRIDGE

75th St NN v

G

A

r d

e r

e a

n

w

e v d

A

R o

o s

d

e

W

n

a J 83rd St

BOLINGBROOKBOLINGBROOK DUPAGE COUNTY East Branch DuPage WILL COUNTY RQ53 River Watershed

DuPage County, Illinois

Exhibit 22 Identified Flood Problem Areas Prepared by: Hey and Associates, Inc. 115 116 Engineering, Ecology and Landscape Architecture

d

R

e

l d Miles

a

R

d

114 t

g f i 010.5

n

i 33 w

m S

34 o

o l ¬ B Arm y Trail R d This map is provided for general locational

information only. Map features have been

d R

derived from various sources, each of which

n

y

l

l

E has its own scale and accuracy. The locations

n e

l of all features are approximate. G erton Av Full Data Sources: DuPage County, CMAP, ESRI, FEMA

Legend RQ64 Committed Flood

d 75 Control Projects R

t f i 77 w S Rivers & Streams 71

74 Lakes & Ponds

t

S

n EBDR Watershed

78 i a 70 M County Boundary Hill Av

84 t

S 88 Interstate/Tollway

¨¦§

n

i a

M 68 81 105 ¤£34 U.S. Highway RQ38

73 F i n «¬53 State Highway

d l

e

v

l 80 y

B

R

k

d

r a Major Road P 22nd St 22nd St Fawell Blvd 106 RQ53 112

56 111 Hi RQ 49 g

h

d l

a R n

e 104 d l

l 355

i A L ¨¦§ v r e v e a p s a k 48 N L n

42

Warrenville Rd v A

¤£34

w e 88 i

§ v ¨¦ r

i 38 a 47 44 F 35 59 37 52 91

v

A 53 t 55th S

y

e

Av t l Maple

k S c 43 95 a n i 36

Y

a M

d 113 R 46

e 100 g 41 93 e l 63rd St l

o

C v

A

s

96 s

a C 39 Rd son Hob

J

a

n

e

s

A

98 v 75th St v

G

A

r d

e

r v

e

a

A

n

w s

e

d e

R

o

n o

d

a

J W

83rd St

DUPAGE COUNTY East Branch DuPage WILL COUNTY RQ53 River Watershed

DuPage County, Illinois

Exhibit 23 Committed Flood Control Project Locations

13. Appendices Appendix A Stakeholder Questionnaires

Appendix B Other East Branch DuPage River Studies

Appendix C Watershed Jurisdictions

Appendix D Flood Risk Reduction Projects Identified by Stakeholders

Appendix E Report Card

Appendix F Water Quality Modeling



Appendices

13.1. Appendix A: Stakeholder Questionnaires



MUNCIPALITY: BLOOMINGDALE Please complete the below table to the best of your ability. If you have any questions, please contact Deanna Doohaluk at 773-693-9200 ext. 13 or [email protected] If an URLis not available, please note who could be contacted to obtain the requested information or provide a copy via email to [email protected] If a question is not applicable to your community, please note as such.

Municipal Codes and Master Plans URL to current Master Plan (including subdivision http://sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook Are any significant updates or Please provide details on and zoning ordinance): /index.php?book_id=943&chapter_id= amendments in progress? Yes update/amendments: 74838

http://www.villageofbloomingdale.org No /209/Codes-Construction-Standards http://www.villageofbloomingdale.org Are any significant updates or Yes Please provide details on URL to municipal comprehensive plan: /DocumentCenter/Home/View/857 amendments in progress? No update/amendments: URL to green infrastructure plans: Are any significant updates or Yes Please provide details on None amendments in progress? No update/amendments: Are any significant updates or Yes Please provide details on URL to open space plan: See Note amendments in progress? No update/amendments: URL to corridor plans: http://www.villageofbloomingdale.org Are any significant updates or Yes Please provide details on /701/Economic-Development amendments in progress? No update/amendments: Are GIS files available for the following items: Comprehensive Plan Yes No If so please email file to [email protected] or Green Infrastructure Plan Yes No provide name of contact to coordinate file/data transfer: Open/Green Space Plan Yes No Corridor Plan Yes No TIF Districts Yes No Stormwater Management and Flooding

URL to current Stormwater Management http://sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook Are any significant updates or Yes Please provide details on DuPage Ordinance: /index.php?book_id=943§ion_id= amendments in progress? update/amendments: 819028 No URL or references for Stormwater Master Plans: Are any stormwater master plans Yes Provide additional details on proposed See - DuPage County Watershed Plans proposed for 2015/2016? No stormwater master plans: URL or summary of current municipal capital Is there a stormwater utility or special Yes Provide additional details on the stormwater program and budget: funding source (budget line item, No utility and/or special funding source: grants, etc. for stormwater, flooding or environmental enhancements?

Summary of existing stormwater, green infrastructure and flood control projects (including Spent $5 million in 2008 to purchased 35 acres of Indian Lakes Resort Golf Course to preserve the land as open space, prevent future development and related impacts, buyouts): and mitigate existing flooding in the neighboring subdivision. Proposed stormwater, green infrastructure and flood control projects (including buyouts): Concept planning and preliminary design currently in process to create open space and flooding mitiagtion project on the 35 acres. See information attached. Record and details of 911 calls and/or emergency response efforts during the 2013 floods: Flooding of areas in Indian Lakes Subdivision dates back to orignal development in 1960's

Are GIS/GPS files available for the following items: Existing and/or future buyouts Yes No If so please email file to [email protected] or Existing and/or future green Yes No provide name of contact to coordinate file/data transfer: infrastructure projects Existing and/or future flood control Yes No projects 911 calls and/or emergency response to Yes No the 2013 flood Environment, Water Quality, and Sustainability URL to any sustainability or environmental initiatives: URL to any environmental or sustainability committees: Has the municipality participated in the Yes No If so, provide a URL for the final pr draft Founding member and active particpant in DuPage Municpal Engineers Group and Dupage development of any watershed-based plans? watershed-based plan(s): River Salt Creek Work Group Summary of stream restoration/stabilization projects: 1998 +/- East Branch Streambank Naturalization Section 319 Grant - Join venture County, Village and Park District Summary of habitat improvement projects (including instream, wetland and prairie): See above Does the municipality collect water quality Yes No URL to any water quality reports samples (stream, river, stormwater, etc.)? and/or sampling results: Are GIS/GPS files available for the following items: Stream Restoration/Stabilization Yes No If so please email file to [email protected] or Projects provide name of contact to coordinate file/data transfer: Habitat Improvement Projects Yes No (including instream, wetland and prairie) Water quality sampling sites Yes No Public Outreach Describe any recent MS4 or other public engagement issues focused on water quality, flooding, or environmental issues: Public Meetings and Citizen Advisory Committee Meetings for Indian Lakes Open Space Project Note any local groups active or interested in flooding, land use, water quality or other environmental issues: Bloomingdale Park District, Citizens Open Space Advisory Committee Has the municipality conducted any surveys Yes No If so, provide a URL to survey results: focused on flooding, land use, water quality or other environmental issues: See Benes Flood Study COMPLETED BY KAREN DAULTON MUNCIPALITY: DOWNERS GROVE LANGE, PE, CFM, VILLAGE ENGINEER [email protected] COMPLETED 12/23/14 Please complete the below table to the best of your ability. If you have any questions, please contact Deanna Doohaluk at 773-693-9200 ext. 13 or [email protected] If an URLis not available, please note who could be contacted to obtain the requested information or provide a copy via email to [email protected] If a question is not applicable to your community, please note as such.

Municipal Codes and Master Plans URL to current Master Plan (including subdivision Are any significant updates or Please provide details on Stormwater: lowering threshold and zoning ordinance): amendments in progress? In 2014 Yes update/amendments: were PCBMPs required to 700 SF completed new Zoning Code and (County is 2,500 SF) updates to Sudbivision, Stormwaer, http://www.downers.us/govt/municipal- Streets, etc. Zoning in effect, others No code effective Jan. 1, 2015 URL to municipal comprehensive plan: Are any significant updates or Please provide details on Updated 2011 Yes http://www.downers.us/public/docs/de amendments in progress? update/amendments: http://www.downers.us/top- stories/2011/11/17/comprehensive- partments/com_dvlpment/CompPlan20 No 11.pdf plan URL to green infrastructure plans: Are any significant updates or Yes Please provide details on we continue to seek sustainable amendments in progress? No update/amendments: options in PW projects, including http://www.downers.us/govt/village- applying for grants managers-office/sustainability URL to open space plan: Are any significant updates or Yes Please provide details on Page 30 of Comp Plan amendments in progress? No update/amendments: URL to corridor plans: If you mean open space corridors - Are any significant updates or Yes Please provide details on none. If you mean planning corridors - amendments in progress? update/amendments: in Comp Plan. No Are GIS files available for the following items: Comprehensive Plan Yes No If so please email file to [email protected] or Karen Daulton Lange Green Infrastructure Plan Yes No provide name of contact to coordinate file/data transfer: n/a Open/Green Space Plan Yes No Not sure what you are looking for with GIS files for Comp n/a Corridor Plan Yes No Plan? Zoning? n/a TIF Districts Yes No Karen Daulton Lange Stormwater Management and Flooding URL to current Stormwater Management Are any significant updates or Yes Please provide details on http://www.downers.us/public/docs Ordinance: http://www.downers.us/public/docs/co amendments in progress? update/amendments: /agendas/2014/12-09-14/ORD00- de/Chapter26.pdf No 05758SW.pdf URL or references for Stormwater Masters Plans: Are any stormwater master plans Provide additional details on proposed Prior to the 2014 Stormwater Project Yes http://www.downers.us/top- proposed for 2015/2016? stormwater master plans: Analysis, stories/2014/06/20/stormwater-project- No report-available-for-review URL or summary of current municipal capital Is there a stormwater utility or special Yes Provide additional details on the stormwater Our Stormwater Utility funds program and budget: http://www.downers.us/public/docs/vlg funding source (budget line item, No utility and/or special funding source: everything stormwater related. _budget/2013%20Proposed/Section_6_ grants, etc. for stormwater, flooding or Overview: FY13CIP.pdf and environmental enhancements? http://www.downers.us/res/stormw http://www.downers.us/public/docs/vlg ater-management/stormwater-utility _budget/2015/CIP%202015%20comb.p df Summary of existing stormwater, green infrastructure and flood control projects (including 2015 Projects in CIP. Buyouts since 2013 Flood include 5 homes on Lee Av., south of Ogden; 1 home on Sterling Av., north of 40th; 2 vacant parcels on Grand, north of 55th, and buyouts): one vacant parcel on 55th, east of Grand. 4 Homes are proposed to be purchased using HMGP funds but process is not completed. Proposed stormwater, green infrastructure and flood control projects (including buyouts): http://www.downers.us/public/docs/Stormwater_%20Management/Final%20Report%20only%20(6-19-2014).pdf

Record and details of 911 calls and/or emergency Over 700 calls to Village Hall and Public Works Over 1,200 people filled out the Individual Assistance Damage Assessment (the flood damage survey required prior to FEMA response efforts during the 2013 floods: determining countywide eligibility for FEMA funding); not sure about 911 calls, if you need submit a FOIA Request (http://www.downers.us/govt/forms-publications/freedom-of- information-act-foia) Are GIS/GPS files available for the following items: Existing and/or future buyouts Yes No If so please email file to [email protected] or Existing and/or future green Yes No provide name of contact to coordinate file/data transfer: infrastructure projects Existing and/or future flood control Yes No projects 911 calls and/or emergency response to Karen Daulton Lange Yes No the 2013 flood Environment, Water Quality, and Sustainability URL to any sustainability or environmental initiatives: http://www.downers.us/govt/village-managers-office/sustainability URL to any environmental or sustainability committees: http://www.downers.us/govt/village-managers-office/sustainability Has the municipality participated in the Yes No If so, provide a URL for the final pr draft development of any watershed-based plans? watershed-based plan(s): http://www.downers.us/govt/village-budget/watershed-infrastructure-improvement-plan-wiip Summary of stream restoration/stabilization projects: http://www.downers.us/public/docs/vlg_budget/2013%20Proposed/Section_6_FY13CIP.pdf Summary of habitat improvement projects (including instream, wetland and prairie): http://www.downers.us/public/docs/vlg_budget/2013%20Proposed/Section_6_FY13CIP.pdf Does the municipality collect water quality Yes No URL to any water quality reports and/or samples (stream, river, stormwater, etc.)? sampling results: Are GIS/GPS files available for the following items: Stream Restoration/Stabilization Yes No If so please email file to [email protected] or Projects provide name of contact to coordinate file/data transfer: Yes No Habitat Improvement Projects (including instream, wetland and prairie) Water quality sampling sites Yes No Public Outreach Describe any recent MS4 or other public After the 2013 flood, the Village held many types of outreach, including twitter FB, website, and open houses. This also has link to flood report: http://www.downers.us/top- engagement issues focused on water quality, stories/2013/04/26/flood-recovery-update We followed this up with the 2014 Stormwater Project Analysis to determine how to prioritize the projects: flooding, or environmental issues: http://www.downers.us/top-stories/2014/06/20/stormwater-project-report-available-for-review Note any local groups active or interested in flooding, land use, water quality or other environmental issues: SCARCE, The Conservation Foundation, Downers Grove Environmental Commission, Has the municipality conducted any surveys Yes No If so, provide a URL to survey results: focused on flooding, land use, water quality or We did an internal survey of our sustainability practices: http://www.downers.us/govt/village- other environmental issues: managers-office/sustainability MUNCIPALITY: GLEN ELLYN Please complete the below table to the best of your ability. If you have any questions, please contact Deanna Doohaluk at 773-693-9200 ext. 13 or [email protected] If an URLis not available, please note who could be contacted to obtain the requested information or provide a copy via email to [email protected] If a question is not applicable to your community, please note as such.

Municipal Codes and Master Plans URL to current Master Plan (including subdivision http://www.glenellyn.org/Planning/Pla Are any significant updates or Yes Please provide details on and zoning ordinance): nningPlansAndStudies.html amendments in progress? No update/amendments: URL to municipal comprehensive plan: http://www.glenellyn.org/Planning/Pla Are any significant updates or Yes Please provide details on nningPlansAndStudies.html amendments in progress? No update/amendments: URL to green infrastructure plans: Are any significant updates or Yes Please provide details on n/a; refer to Park District amendments in progress? No update/amendments: URL to open space plan: Are any significant updates or Yes Please provide details on n/a; refer to Park District amendments in progress? No update/amendments: URL to corridor plans: http://www.glenellyn.org/Planning/Pla Are any significant updates or Yes Please provide details on nningPlansAndStudies.html amendments in progress? No update/amendments: Are GIS files available for the following items: Comprehensive Plan Yes No If so please email file to [email protected] or Green Infrastructure Plan Yes No provide name of contact to coordinate file/data transfer: Open/Green Space Plan Yes No Dan Millen | MGP, Inc. | [email protected] | (847) Corridor Plan Yes No 656-5698 x712 OFF | (877) 579-4699 FAX | TIF Districts Yes No www.mgpinc.com Stormwater Management and Flooding URL to current Stormwater Management http://www.glenellyn.org/Planning/Pla Are any significant updates or Yes Please provide details on See Building Code 4-7 Ordinance: nningCodes.html amendments in progress? No update/amendments: URL or references for Stormwater Masters Plans: Are any stormwater master plans Yes Provide additional details on proposed n/a proposed for 2015/2016? No stormwater master plans: URL or summary of current municipal capital Is there a stormwater utility or special Yes Provide additional details on the stormwater program and budget: funding source (budget line item, No utility and/or special funding source: grants, etc. for stormwater, flooding or http://www.glenellyn.org/Finance/Fina environmental enhancements? nceBudget.html Summary of existing stormwater, green infrastructure and flood control projects (including buyouts): Lake Ellyn Outfall Modification-Phase I; Glenbard Wastewater Authority Valley View Lift Station Replacement Proposed stormwater, green infrastructure and flood control projects (including buyouts): Lake Ellyn Outfall Pipe Modification; Overland flow path improvements; potential property/land acquisitions; culvert extension at Geneva Rd & overland flow path improvements Record and details of 911 calls and/or emergency response efforts during the 2013 floods: Yes-See attached file (Excel) Are GIS/GPS files available for the following items: Existing and/or future buyouts Yes No If so please email file to [email protected] or Existing and/or future green Yes No provide name of contact to coordinate file/data transfer: infrastructure projects Dan Millen | MGP, Inc. | [email protected] | (847) Existing and/or future flood control 656-5698 x712 OFF | (877) 579-4699 FAX | Yes No projects www.mgpinc.com 911 calls and/or emergency response to Yes No the 2013 flood Environment, Water Quality, and Sustainability URL to any sustainability or environmental initiatives: n/a; refer to Park District URL to any environmental or sustainability committees: http://www.glenellyn.org/Boards_Commissions/Environmental%20Commission.html Has the municipality participated in the Yes No If so, provide a URL for the final pr development of any watershed-based plans? draft watershed-based plan(s):

Summary of stream restoration/stabilization projects: Perry's Pond Stream Bank Stabilization Summary of habitat improvement projects (including instream, wetland and prairie): Reforestation of Manor Woods; Village Links Golf Course is a fully certified Wildlife Sanctuary by the Audobon Society. Does the municipality collect water quality Yes No URL to any water quality reports samples (stream, river, stormwater, etc.)? and/or sampling results: Are GIS/GPS files available for the following items: Stream Restoration/Stabilization Yes No If so please email file to [email protected] or Projects provide name of contact to coordinate file/data transfer: Habitat Improvement Projects Yes No (including instream, wetland and prairie) Water quality sampling sites Yes No Public Outreach Describe any recent MS4 or other public engagement issues focused on water quality, flooding, or environmental issues: May 2014: Village of Glen Ellyn and Glen Ellyn Park District Joint Meeting to discuss Stormwater Management/Mitigation at Lake Ellyn Note any local groups active or interested in flooding, land use, water quality or other environmental issues:

Has the municipality conducted any surveys Yes No If so, provide a URL to survey results: focused on flooding, land use, water quality or other environmental issues: 12/30/2014 MUNCIPALITY: LISLE Please complete the below table to the best of your ability. If you have any questions, please contact Deanna Doohaluk at 773-693-9200 ext. 13 or [email protected] If an URLis not available, please note who could be contacted to obtain the requested information or provide a copy via email to [email protected] If a question is not applicable to your community, please note as such.

Municipal Codes and Master Plans URL to current Master Plan (including subdivision Zoning: Title 5 Are any significant updates or Yes Please provide details on and zoning ordinance): Subdivision: Title 6 amendments in progress? update/amendments: http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/index.php?book_id=339 No URL to municipal comprehensive plan: Are any significant updates or Please provide details on amendments in progress? Yes update/amendments: 2004 Comprehensive Land Use Plan: http://www.villageoflisle.org/DocumentCenter/View/82 1999 Downtown Master Plan: http://www.villageoflisle.org/DocumentCenter/View/82 No 2009 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan: http://www.villageoflisle.org/DocumentCenter/View/85 URL to green infrastructure plans: Are any significant updates or Yes Please provide details on n/a amendments in progress? No update/amendments: URL to open space plan: Included in the 2004 Comprehensive Land Use Plan: Are any significant updates or Yes Please provide details on http://www.villageoflisle.org/DocumentCenter/View/82 amendments in progress? No update/amendments: URL to corridor plans: 2010 Ogden Avenue Corridor Plan: Are any significant updates or Yes Please provide details on http://www.villageoflisle.org/147/Comprehensive-Plans-Maps amendments in progress? No update/amendments: Are GIS files available for the following items: Comprehensive Plan Yes No If so please email file to [email protected] or Green Infrastructure Plan Yes No provide name of contact to coordinate file/data transfer: Open/Green Space Plan Yes No Corridor Plan Yes No TIF Districts - No GIS files, PDF's provided via e-mail Yes No Stormwater Management and Flooding URL to current Stormwater Management Are any significant updates or Please provide details on FEMA 10-01 implementation Ordinance: amendments in progress? Yes update/amendments: outside of floodplain and used state model definition for substantial damage andsubstatial Village Code link - go to Title 5 Chapter 16 Stormwater and Floodplain No improvement with 10 year rolling http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/index.php?book_id=339 period. URL or references for Stormwater Masters Plans: Are any stormwater master plans Yes Provide additional details on proposed proposed for 2015/2016? No stormwater master plans: URL or summary of current municipal capital Is there a stormwater utility or special Yes Provide additional details on the stormwater program and budget: funding source (budget line item, No utility and/or special funding source: grants, etc. for stormwater, flooding or environmental enhancements? OUTSTANDING Summary of existing stormwater, green infrastructure and flood control projects The Village constructed PrairieWalk Pond in 2008. The pond was constructed within the flood fringe of the East Branch of the Dupage River. Twenty four parcels were acquired as part of the pond's planning. The following link will (including buyouts): take you a more recent report on the levees. The link to the reportis located atthe bottom right corner ofthe webpage under Quick Links. http://www.villageoflisle.org/417/Levees Proposed stormwater, green infrastructure and flood control projects (including buyouts): None Record and details of 911 calls and/or emergency response efforts during the 2013 floods: See e-mailed word document, post flood summary report for Lisle Are GIS/GPS files available for the following items: Existing and/or future buyouts - See e-mailed spreadsheet for PrairieWalk Pond Yes No If so please email file to [email protected] or Existing and/or future green infrastructure Yesprojects No provide name of contact to coordinate file/data transfer:

Existing and/or future flood control projectsYes No 911 calls and/or emergency response to the 2013 flood Yes No Environment, Water Quality, and Sustainability URL to any sustainability or environmental initiatives: URL to any environmental or sustainability committees: Has the municipality participated in the Yes No If so, provide a URL for the final pr development of any watershed-based plans? draft watershed-based plan(s): 2004 East Branch Rover Dumoulin Flood Control Plan prepared by Dupage County. The plan is not on the County website. Please see if County can provide Summary of stream restoration/stabilization projects: In the early 2000's Lisle Public Works two streambank stabilization projects. Unfortunately the sites have not been maintained as permanent easements were not secured. Summary of habitat improvement projects (including instream, wetland and prairie): Does the municipality collect water quality Yes No URL to any water quality reports samples (stream, river, stormwater, etc.)? and/or sampling results: Are GIS/GPS files available for the following items: Stream Restoration/Stabilization Projects Yes No If so please email file to [email protected] or Habitat Improvement Projects (including instream, wetland and prairie) Yes No provide name of contact to coordinate file/data transfer: Water quality sampling sites Yes No Public Outreach Describe any recent MS4 or other public engagement issues focused on water quality, flooding, or environmental issues: In 2014, the Village issues two publications addressing stormwater, flooding and water quality. I will e-mail copies of both documents, titled Water Matters and Flood Ready. Note any local groups active or interested in flooding, land use, water quality or other environmental issues: Some of the Lisle's residents in the floodplain have formed a new, loose knit group called Lisle Flood Survivors, spokesperson is Mary Ann Johnson, [email protected] Has the municipality conducted any surveys Yes No If so, provide a URL to survey results: focused on flooding, land use, water quality or other environmental issues: MUNCIPALITY: LOMBARD Please complete the below table to the best of your ability. If you have any questions, please contact Deanna Doohaluk at 773-693-9200 ext. 13 or [email protected] If an URLis not available, please note who could be contacted to obtain the requested information or provide a copy via email to [email protected] If a question is not applicable to your community, please note as such.

Municipal Codes and Master Plans URL to current Master Plan (including subdivision https://www.municode.com/library/il/l Are any significant updates or Yes Please provide details on and zoning ordinance): ombard/code_of_ordinances amendments in progress? No update/amendments: URL to municipal comprehensive plan: http://www.villageoflombard.org/3180 Are any significant updates or Yes Please provide details on /Comprehensive-Planning amendments in progress? No update/amendments: URL to green infrastructure plans: Are any significant updates or Yes Please provide details on n/a amendments in progress? No update/amendments: URL to open space plan: Are any significant updates or Yes Please provide details on n/a amendments in progress? No update/amendments: URL to corridor plans: http://www.villageoflombard.org/3180 Are any significant updates or Yes Please provide details on /Comprehensive-Planning amendments in progress? No update/amendments: Are GIS files available for the following items: Comprehensive Plan Yes No If so please email file to [email protected] or Green Infrastructure Plan Yes No provide name of contact to coordinate file/data transfer: Open/Green Space Plan Yes No Dan Price, [email protected], (630)620-3088 Corridor Plan Yes No TIF Districts Yes No Stormwater Management and Flooding URL to current Stormwater Management http://www.villageoflombard.org/79/E Are any significant updates or Yes Please provide details on Ordinance: ngineering amendments in progress? No update/amendments: URL or references for Stormwater Masters Plans: Are any stormwater master plans Yes Provide additional details on proposed n/a proposed for 2015/2016? No stormwater master plans: URL or summary of current municipal capital Is there a stormwater utility or special Yes Provide additional details on the stormwater program and budget: funding source (budget line item, No utility and/or special funding source: grants, etc. for stormwater, flooding or http://www.villageoflombard.org/84/B environmental enhancements? udget-Information Summary of existing stormwater, green infrastructure and flood control projects (including buyouts): Existing Stormwater Projects: none at this time; Green Infrastructure projects: permeable paver parking lot at public works; Flood control: Vista Pond expansion Proposed stormwater, green infrastructure and flood control projects (including buyouts): Proposed Stormwater Projects: Route 53 pump station relocation; Green Infrastructure projects: permeable paver commuter parking lot expansion; Flood control: none at this time

Record and details of 911 calls and/or emergency Yes response efforts during the 2013 floods: No Are GIS/GPS files available for the following items: Existing and/or future buyouts Yes No If so please email file to [email protected] or Existing and/or future green Yes No provide name of contact to coordinate file/data transfer: infrastructure projects Dan Price, [email protected], (630)620-3088 Existing and/or future flood control Yes No projects

911 calls and/or emergency response to Yes No the 2013 flood Environment, Water Quality, and Sustainability URL to any sustainability or environmental initiatives: http://www.villageoflombard.org/331/Environmental-Information URL to any environmental or sustainability committees: http://www.villageoflombard.org/478/Boards-Committees-and-Commissions Has the municipality participated in the Yes No If so, provide a URL for the final pr draft development of any watershed-based plans? watershed-based plan(s):

Summary of stream restoration/stabilization projects: n/a Summary of habitat improvement projects (including instream, wetland and prairie): annual stream cleanup Does the municipality collect water quality Yes No URL to any water quality reports samples (stream, river, stormwater, etc.)? and/or sampling results: contact DuPage River Salt Creek Workgroup, they collect many samples (David Gorman, drscw.org/ge.html President of group is our Assistant Director of Public Works) Are GIS/GPS files available for the following items: Stream Restoration/Stabilization Yes No If so please email file to [email protected] or Projects provide name of contact to coordinate file/data transfer: Habitat Improvement Projects Yes No (including instream, wetland and prairie) Water quality sampling sites Yes No Public Outreach Describe any recent MS4 or other public engagement issues focused on water quality, utilize/share DuPage County resources mainly, publish helpful information in the Village's newsletter, information on http://www.villageoflombard.org/313/Residential- flooding, or environmental issues: Flooding Note any local groups active or interested in flooding, land use, water quality or other environmental issues: We have had a number of neighborhoods interested, generally based on past flooding issues in the area (generally related to urban flooding) Has the municipality conducted any surveys Yes No If so, provide a URL to survey results: focused on flooding, land use, water quality or other environmental issues: MUNCIPALITY: WESTMONT Please complete the below table to the best of your ability. If you have any questions, please contact Deanna Doohaluk at 773-693-9200 ext. 13 or [email protected] If an URLis not available, please note who could be contacted to obtain the requested information or provide a copy via email to [email protected] If a question is not applicable to your community, please note as such.

Municipal Codes and Master Plans URL to current Master Plan (including subdivision Are any significant updates or Yes Please provide details on and zoning ordinance): https://www.municode.com/library/il/ amendments in progress? update/amendments: westmont/codes/code_of_ordinances No URL to municipal comprehensive plan: Are any significant updates or Please provide details on [email protected] amendments in progress? Yes update/amendments: The Village of Westmont Comprehensive plan was prepared

http://www.westmont.illinois.gov/Docu No by Housleal Lavigne. Please contact Devon mentCenter/View/556 Lavigne at 312-372-1008 for any questions. URL to green infrastructure plans: Are any significant updates or Yes Please provide details on [email protected] amendments in progress? No update/amendments: Conservation Design [email protected] Forum (CDF) is currently in the preliminary stages of developing green infrastructure plans for the Village in several portions of the town. Please contact Jeff Guerrerro and/or Tom Price of CDF for further information at 630-559- 2015 URL to open space plan: Are any significant updates or Yes Please provide details on [email protected] A PDF of the Westmont Park District amendments in progress? No update/amendments: Please contact Bob [email protected] Park Development Master Plan will be Fleck, Westmont Park District, at 630-969- emailed. 8080 for open space plans. URL to corridor plans: The Village of Westmont does not have Are any significant updates or Yes Please provide details on any corridor plans. amendments in progress? No update/amendments: Are GIS files available for the following items: Comprehensive Plan Yes No If so please email file to [email protected] or [email protected] Green Infrastructure Plan Yes No provide name of contact to coordinate file/data transfer: [email protected] Open/Green Space Plan Yes No Please use the contact information to the right to [email protected] Corridor Plan Yes No determine if there are GIS files for each of the different TIF Districts Yes No plans. [email protected] Stormwater Management and Flooding

URL to current Stormwater Management Are any significant updates or Please provide details on Ordinance: amendments in progress? Yes update/amendments: The Village of Westmont primarily follows the DuPage County Stormwater Ordinance. The more https://www.municode.com/library/il/ No restrictive Village Ordinances may be found westmont/codes/code_of_ordinances using the provided URL. URL or references for Stormwater Masters Plans: Are any stormwater master plans Provide additional details on proposed [email protected] proposed for 2015/2016? Yes stormwater master plans: The Village of Westmont Stormwater Master plan was prepared by Christopher Burke & Associates. Please contact Gerald Robinson at (847) 823- A PDF of the Stormwater Master plan No 0500 with any questions. without exhibits is attached.

URL or summary of current municipal capital Is there a stormwater utility or special Yes Provide additional details on the stormwater program and budget: funding source (budget line item, No utility and/or special funding source: The grants, etc. for stormwater, flooding or Village Board will be voting shortly as to environmental enhancements? whether they will place a referendum on the spring ballot for a stormwater utility fee or a sales tax which would be applied specifically to http://www.westmont.illinois.gov/Docu stormwater related issues. mentCenter/View/647 Summary of existing stormwater, green 1. Purchase of 415 and 417 N Warwick Avenue for future detention. infrastructure and flood control projects (including 2. Existing Detention facilities shown in green on the Village of Westmont Low Depressional Area map. These detention basins are primarily privately-owned basins for buyouts): subdivisions or commercial properties. 3. Village-owned detention basins include those located at the 100 South block, 6000 South block, and 6200 South block of Richmond Avenue, and Muddy Waters Park. Proposed stormwater, green infrastructure and 1. Pending FEMA HMGP grant for acquisition of 6 60th St, 10 60th St, 4012 N Cass Ave, 339 S Park St, and 200 W Chicago Avenue. flood control projects (including buyouts): 2. Proposed Christopher Burke Stormwater Master Plan flood control projects west of Cass Avenue include the Richmond-Grant project and the Roslyn-Burlington project. 3. Proposed Westmont Stormwater Ad Hoc Committee flood control projects west of Cass Avenue include the Twin Lake Woods project (305 W 55th St), Deer Creek Subdivision detention modification project, 60th St-Fairview Ave project, Chicago-Washington project, 500 block of N Grant project, 500 N Park St project, and Morning Glory Circle project. 4. Proposed Christopher Burke Stormwater Master Plan flood control projects east of Cass Avenue include the 400 block of N Warwick project and Quincy-Oak project. 5. Proposed Westmont Stormwater Ad Hoc Committee flood control projects west of Cass Avenue include Norfolk-Linden project. 6. Proposed Green Infrastructure plans west of Cass Avenue - a. King Arthur Court area: permeable paving in Park, Hudson, and Washington, north of Des Moines St., as well as alleyways between these streets. Another potential location (which will not be looked at as part of this project) is permeable paving in Park, Lindley, and Washington, south of Des Moines. In addition to permeable paving in these areas, backyard bioretention and/or swales may be an appropriate approach to reduce runoff to/from alleyways. b. Burlington, just west of Cass: permeable paving street and/or diagonal parking. This would include bioretention bumpouts to serve as protected parking and to capture, cleanse, and cool runoff. Sidewalk planters may also be an appropriate measure in this location. c. Richmond/Grant intersection and vicinity: permeable paving at the intersection, and extending to the next block in each direction. It could also include permeable paving along Dallas and Adams, and potentially the alleyways. The park area could also be considered as a naturalized detention area in a future study/project. d. Grant/Traube intersection: this intersection may just barely be in the watershed. Possible projects include permeable paving at the intersection and north along Grant, and east and west along Traube. There is also a potential for conversion of nearby open spaces to naturalized detention areas.

Record and details of 911 calls and/or emergency This information will be sent in a subsequent email. response efforts during the 2013 floods:

Are GIS/GPS files available for the following items: Existing and/or future buyouts Yes No If so please email file to [email protected] or Existing and/or future green Yes No provide name of contact to coordinate file/data transfer: infrastructure projects Existing and/or future flood control Yes No projects 911 calls and/or emergency response to Yes No the 2013 flood Environment, Water Quality, and Sustainability URL to any sustainability or environmental http://westmont.illinois.gov/index.aspx?nid=443 initiatives: URL to any environmental or sustainability committees: http://westmont.illinois.gov/index.aspx?nid=444 Has the municipality participated in the Yes No If so, provide a URL for the final pr draft development of any watershed-based plans? watershed-based plan(s):

Summary of stream restoration/stabilization projects: 61st Street Culvert Replacement project; Eagle Creek Streambank stabilization project Summary of habitat improvement projects (including instream, wetland and prairie): Muddy Waters Park wetland development.

Does the municipality collect water quality Yes No URL to any water quality reports and/or Per the intergovernmental agreement with DuPage County, DuPage County collects this samples (stream, river, stormwater, etc.)? sampling results: information. Are GIS/GPS files available for the following items: Stream Restoration/Stabilization Yes No If so please email file to [email protected] or Projects provide name of contact to coordinate file/data transfer: Yes No Habitat Improvement Projects (including instream, wetland and prairie) Water quality sampling sites Yes No Public Outreach Flooding - Village of Westmont Stormwater Ad Hoc Committee met biweekly from April 2013 to November 2013 to discuss solutions to local flooding issues; AMEC led public meetings to discuss potential for forming a Stormwater Utility Fee from January 2013 to July 2013; Public Meetings regarding adoption of Stormwater Utility Fee or 0.5% Sales Tax in December 2013; Public Meetings to provide facts regarding Spring Referendum for 0.5% Sales Tax dedicated to Stormwater Uses Environmental Improvement Commission Describe any recent MS4 or other public The environment is an important topic in the Village of Westmont. On January 23, 2014, the Village Board approved the appointment of nine volunteers to the newly re- engagement issues focused on water quality, established Environmental Improvement Commission. The commission will meet approximately six times a year to discuss environmental concerns and how we can implement flooding, or environmental issues: "green" initiatives in our community. Commission members are volunteers and are elected for 3 year terms. Note any local groups active or interested in Flooding - Village of Westmont Stormwater Ad Hoc Committee flooding, land use, water quality or other Environmental Issues - Environmental Improvement Commission environmental issues: Has the municipality conducted any surveys Yes No If so, provide a URL to survey results: Survey will be sent by separate email. focused on flooding, land use, water quality or other environmental issues: MUNCIPALITY: WHEATON Please complete the below table to the best of your ability. If you have any questions, please contact Deanna Doohaluk at 773-693-9200 ext. 13 or [email protected] If an URLis not available, please note who could be contacted to obtain the requested information or provide a copy via email to [email protected] If a question is not applicable to your community, please note as such.

Municipal Codes and Master Plans URL to current Master Plan (including subdivision Are any significant updates or Yes Please provide details on and zoning ordinance): amendments in progress? No update/amendments: URL to municipal comprehensive plan: http://www.wheaton.il.us/departments Are any significant updates or Yes Please provide details on /planning/default.aspx?id=168 amendments in progress? No update/amendments: URL to green infrastructure plans: Are any significant updates or Yes Please provide details on amendments in progress? No update/amendments: URL to open space plan: Are any significant updates or Yes Please provide details on amendments in progress? No update/amendments: URL to corridor plans: Are any significant updates or Yes Please provide details on amendments in progress? No update/amendments: Are GIS files available for the following items: Comprehensive Plan Yes No If so please email file to [email protected] or Green Infrastructure Plan Yes No provide name of contact to coordinate file/data transfer: Open/Green Space Plan Yes No Corridor Plan Yes No TIF Districts Yes No Stormwater Management and Flooding URL to current Stormwater Management http://www.wheaton.il.us/government/ Are any significant updates or Yes Please provide details on Ordinance: detail.aspx?id=332 amendments in progress? No update/amendments: URL or references for Stormwater Masters Plans: Are any stormwater master plans Yes Provide additional details on proposed proposed for 2015/2016? No stormwater master plans: URL or summary of current municipal capital The City of Wheaton does not have Is there a stormwater utility or special Yes Provide additional details on the stormwater program and budget: capitol improvement program for funding source (budget line item, No utility and/or special funding source: stormwater management or flooding, grants, etc. for stormwater, flooding or but has been working on implementing environmental enhancements? one. Summary of existing stormwater, green infrastructure and flood control projects (including buyouts): Proposed stormwater, green infrastructure and The City has performed two hydraulic studies in the tributary area of the East Branch. The first is the Williston Basin Tributary Area Flood study which defined HWL only. The flood control projects (including buyouts): second is the Briarcliffe Lake System Flood Strudy which defined HWL, proposed alternative analysis, and happens to provide direct relief to a Low-Mod area. Either or both studies can be provided. The Briarcliffe Study is not completed as of yet, but should be done in literally a day or two. Record and details of 911 calls and/or emergency response efforts during the 2013 floods:

Are GIS/GPS files available for the following items: Existing and/or future buyouts Yes No If so please email file to [email protected] or Existing and/or future green Yes No provide name of contact to coordinate file/data transfer: infrastructure projects Existing and/or future flood control Yes No projects 911 calls and/or emergency response to Yes No the 2013 flood Environment, Water Quality, and Sustainability URL to any sustainability or environmental initiatives: URL to any environmental or sustainability committees: http://www.wheaton.il.us/government/commissions/eic/default.aspx?id=1036 Has the municipality participated in the Yes No If so, provide a URL for the final pr draft development of any watershed-based plans? watershed-based plan(s):

Summary of stream restoration/stabilization projects: Summary of habitat improvement projects (including instream, wetland and prairie): Does the municipality collect water quality Yes No URL to any water quality reports and/or samples (stream, river, stormwater, etc.)? sampling results: Are GIS/GPS files available for the following items: Stream Restoration/Stabilization Yes No If so please email file to [email protected] or Projects provide name of contact to coordinate file/data transfer: Yes No Habitat Improvement Projects (including instream, wetland and prairie) Water quality sampling sites Yes No Public Outreach Describe any recent MS4 or other public engagement issues focused on water quality, flooding, or environmental issues: Note any local groups active or interested in flooding, land use, water quality or other environmental issues: Has the municipality conducted any surveys Yes No If so, provide a URL to survey results: focused on flooding, land use, water quality or other environmental issues: The results to a flood questionnaire in known problem areas have not been posted online. ORGANIZATION: Forest Preserve District of DuPage County Please complete the below table to the best of your ability. If you have any questions, please contact Deanna Doohaluk at 773-693-9200 ext. 13 or [email protected] If an URLis not available, please note who could be contacted to obtain the requested information or provide a copy via email to [email protected] If a question is not applicable to your organization, please note as such.

Master Plans NoYes URL to comprehensive plan: Are any significant updates or Yes Please provide details on amendments in progress? No update/amendments: URL to green infrastructure plans: Are any significant updates or Yes Please provide details on See Meta data attachment. amendments in progress? No update/amendments: East Branch DuPage Contact the Office of Natural River Watershed Analysis in progress Resources (Steve Capps at: includes GIS data toward answering these [email protected]) for eight questions: GIV 2.2 GIS data and analysis. 1) What is total length of the main stem within the East Branch DuPage River sub- watershed. 2) What is total 100year event floodplain acreage of the main stem within the East Branch DuPage River sub-watershed. 3) Map each basin drainage (acreage, footprint, any land-use data, tributary length and 100 year event floodplain acreage) within the sub-watershed. 4) Total floodplain within sub-Watershed minus what is publically owned equals ______ac. 5) Total Floodplain acres X $22,500 per acre acquisition equals $______. 6) Total Floodplain acres X $6,000 per acre restoration costs (climate ready strategies) CW/CMAP Green Infrastructure Vision equals $______. (GIV) 2.0 (Steve Capps at: 7) Total Miles of main stem EBDRiver X [email protected]) has $1,750,0000 per mile Restoration equals downloaded these files and is in the $______. processes of some analysis). 8) Total Miles of basin tributary to the URL to open space plan: Are any significant updates or Yes Please provide details on Contact Offcie of Land amendments in progress? No update/amendments: Preservation (Jennifer Meyer at: GIS of Public Openspace Ownership [email protected]) for within EBDRiver Watershed (Jennifer GIS data, analysis and metadata. Meyer at: [email protected]) has developed these data analysis. URL to corridor plans: Are any significant updates or Please provide details on To review Open Space Plan: Swift amendments in progress? update/amendments: Prairie Preserve (confidential Yes acquisition concept) Contact Office of Natural Resources (Ole Oldenburg at:

No [email protected]) Swift Prairie (Conceptual Acquisition Plan) Are GIS files available for the following items: Comprehensive Plan Yes No If so please email file to [email protected] or Green Infrastructure Plan Yes No provide name of contact to coordinate file/data transfer: Open/Green Space Plan Yes No Corridor Plan Yes No Stormwater Management and Flooding URL or references for any data, reports, or projects related to disaster recovery, response, and/or future resiliency/mitigation:

NoYes URL or references for Stormwater Masters Plans: Are any stormwater master plans Yes Provide additional details on proposed proposed for 2015/2016? No stormwater master plans: URL or summary of budget for stormwater, green infrastructure, and flood control projects:

Summary of existing stormwater, green Rice Lake (1990): 39-acre lake and dam, 2.9 sq.mi. watershed, 345 acre feet of storage, within Willoway Brook watershed. East Branch Lake (1989): 36-acre wetland and infrastructure and flood control projects lake, 6 sq.mi. watershed, 146 acre feet of storage, along East Branch DuPage River. Glen Oak Wetlands (1989): 54 acre wetland complex, 19 sq.mi. watershed, 149 acre feet (including buyouts): of storage, along East Branch DuPage River. Proposed stormwater, green infrastructure and flood control projects (including buyouts):

Are GIS/GPS files available for the following items: Existing and/or future buyouts Yes No If so please email file to [email protected] or Existing and/or future green Yes No provide name of contact to coordinate file/data transfer: infrastructure projects

Existing and/or future flood control Yes No

projects Yes No Environment, Water Quality, and Sustainability URL to any sustainability or environmental initiatives: URL to any environmental or sustainability committees: Has the organization participated in the Yes No If so, provide a URL for the final pr development of any watershed-based plans? draft watershed-based plan(s): See County docs Summary of stream restoration/stabilization projects: Lyman Woods stream stabilization and restoration (2001-2007). Churchill Woods Dam Removal (see County docs) Summary of habitat improvement projects East Branch Lake (1989): 36-acre wetland and lake, 6 sq.mi. watershed, 146 acre feet of storage, along East Branch DuPage River. Glen Oak Wetlands (1989): 54 acre (including instream, wetland and prairie): wetland complex, 19 sq.mi. watershed, 149 acre feet of storage, along East Branch DuPage River. Does the organization collect water quality Yes No URL to any water quality reports samples (stream, river, stormwater, etc.)? and/or sampling results: Are GIS/GPS files available for the following items: Yes No If so please email file to [email protected] or Churchill Woods Preserve - Dam provide name of contact to coordinate file/data transfer: Removal and EBDRiver channel The Forest Preserve District of DuPage County has and wetland improvement Stream Restoration/Stabilization ecosystem data for each forest preserve within the project (Sarah Hunn - DuPage Projects EBDRiver Watershed. Ecosystem data includesshape files County Yes No and initial inventory of all terrestrial flora & fauna assessments and follow-up monitoring assessments per determined periodicity. Access to such data sets can be arranged through the Office of Natural Resources (contact Rachel Reklau at: [email protected]). Swift Prairie Preserve - Habitat Ecosystems are classified (i.e. rivers, streams, tributaries, Improvement Project - FPDDC wetlands, marshes, wet prairie, mesic prairie, second (Erik Neidy/Herman Jensen) & growth floodplain forest, graminoid fen, calcarous seep, FPD & USFWS Federal Listed etc). River and tributary sections including floodplain, Species Recovery Project wetlands and marshes are found along the EBDRiver (Confidential). Greene Valley corridor within preserve boundaries for which the District Preserve - Habitat Improvement has management authority and responsibility. Project - Shrubland Bird Community (Scott Meister); Greene Valley, Hidden Lake,East Branch Riverway and East Branch Forest Preseerves have wetland mitigation projects for previous adverse impacts of the I- Habitat Improvement Projects 355 Tollway. These have become (including instream, wetland and halophytic marshes due to salt prairie) loading from Tollway runoff. Yes No

DuPage River Salt Creek Workgroup (DRSCW) - Conducts Biological assessments and water quality data on ceratin East Branch River and tributary sites. Has developed specific targets for river/stream habitat restoration that are prioritized for removing Water quality sampling sites EPA 303d impairments. Public Outreach Describe any recent public engagement issues focused on water quality, flooding, or environmental issues: Removal of Churchill Dam public engagement meetings with Village of Glen Ellyn and concerned residents Note any local groups active or interested in flooding, land use, water quality or other environmental issues: DuPage River Salt Creek Workgroup (DRSCW), Forest Preserve District DuPage County Has the organization conducted any surveys Yes No If so, provide a URL to survey results: focused on flooding, land use, water quality or other environmental issues: Does the organization offer any grant or funding Yes No If so, provide a URL to grant opportunities for green infrastructure, flood application: control, stormwater, water quality or restoration projects: DRSCW Permit with USEPA/IEPA ORGANIZATION: The DuPage River Salt Creek Workgroup Please complete the below table to the best of your ability. If you have any questions, please contact Deanna Doohaluk at 773-693-9200 ext. 13 or [email protected] If an URLis not available, please note who could be contacted to obtain the requested information or provide a copy via email to [email protected] If a question is not applicable to your organization, please note as such.

Master Plans NoYes URL to comprehensive plan: Are any significant updates or Yes Please provide details on amendments in progress? No update/amendments: URL to green infrastructure plans: Are any significant updates or Yes Please provide details on amendments in progress? No update/amendments: URL to open space plan: Are any significant updates or Yes Please provide details on amendments in progress? No update/amendments: URL to corridor plans: Are any significant updates or Yes Please provide details on amendments in progress? No update/amendments: Are GIS files available for the following items: Comprehensive Plan Yes No If so please email file to [email protected] or Green Infrastructure Plan Yes No provide name of contact to coordinate file/data transfer: Open/Green Space Plan Yes No Corridor Plan Yes No Stormwater Management and Flooding URL or references for any data, reports, or projects related to disaster recovery, response, and/or future resiliency/mitigation:

NoYes URL or references for Stormwater Masters Plans: Are any stormwater master plans Yes Provide additional details on proposed proposed for 2015/2016? No stormwater master plans: URL or summary of budget for stormwater, green infrastructure, and flood control projects:

Summary of existing stormwater, green infrastructure and flood control projects (including buyouts): Proposed stormwater, green infrastructure and flood control projects (including buyouts):

Are GIS/GPS files available for the following items: Existing and/or future buyouts Yes No If so please email file to [email protected] or Existing and/or future green Yes No provide name of contact to coordinate file/data transfer: infrastructure projects Existing and/or future flood control Yes No

projects Yes No Environment, Water Quality, and Sustainability URL to any sustainability or environmental initiatives: URL to any environmental or sustainability committees: http://www.drscw.org Has the organization participated in the Yes No If so, provide a URL for the final pr draft development of any watershed-based plans? watershed-based plan(s): http://www.drscw.org/projectID.html (IPS Tool) http://www.drscw.org/projectID.html (IPS Tool) Summary of stream restoration/stabilization Churchill Woods Dam Removal and Stream improvement. Partila removal of dam at RM 18.7 And placement of 2 riffles - fIBI improved by 11.5 points at site, QHEI improved by projects: 7 points Summary of habitat improvement projects (including instream, wetland and prairie): See cellule above http://www.drscw.org/bioassessment/eastbranch.pdf: http://www.drscw.org/bioassessment.html:http://www.drscw.org/dissolvedoxygen.html:http://www.drscw.org/data.html Does the organization collect water quality Yes No URL to any water quality reports http://www.drscw.org/bioassessment/eastbranch.pdf: samples (stream, river, stormwater, etc.)? and/or sampling results: http://www.drscw.org/bioassessment.html:http://www.drscw.org/dissolvedoxygen.html:htt p://www.drscw.org/data.html Are GIS/GPS files available for the following items: Stream Restoration/Stabilization Yes No If so please email file to [email protected] or Projects provide name of contact to coordinate file/data transfer: to follow Habitat Improvement Projects Yes No (including instream, wetland and prairie) Water quality sampling sites Yes No to follow Public Outreach Describe any recent public engagement issues focused on water quality, flooding, or environmental issues: Workshops on winter use of chlorides Note any local groups active or interested in flooding, land use, water quality or other environmental issues: Has the organization conducted any surveys Yes No If so, provide a URL to survey results: focused on flooding, land use, water quality or other environmental issues: Attached (winter deicing practices in the public sector ) Does the organization offer any grant or funding Yes No If so, provide a URL to grant opportunities for green infrastructure, flood application: control, stormwater, water quality or restoration Funding dedicated to implementing the IPS Tool. Will fund projects in descending order of projects: priority. ORGANIZATION: SCARCE Please complete the below table to the best of your ability. If you have any questions, please contact Deanna Doohaluk at 773-693-9200 ext. 13 or [email protected] If an URLis not available, please note who could be contacted to obtain the requested information or provide a copy via email to [email protected] If a question is not applicable to your organization, please note as such.

Master Plans NoYes URL to comprehensive plan: Are any significant updates or Yes Please provide details on amendments in progress? No update/amendments: URL to green infrastructure plans: Are any significant updates or Yes Please provide details on amendments in progress? No update/amendments: URL to open space plan: Are any significant updates or Yes Please provide details on amendments in progress? No update/amendments: URL to corridor plans: Are any significant updates or Yes Please provide details on amendments in progress? No update/amendments: Are GIS files available for the following items: Comprehensive Plan Yes No If so please email file to [email protected] or Green Infrastructure Plan Yes No provide name of contact to coordinate file/data transfer: Open/Green Space Plan Yes No Corridor Plan Yes No Stormwater Management and Flooding URL or references for any data, reports, or projects related to disaster recovery, response, and/or future resiliency/mitigation:

NoYes URL or references for Stormwater Masters Plans: Are any stormwater master plans Yes Provide additional details on proposed proposed for 2015/2016? No stormwater master plans: URL or summary of budget for stormwater, green infrastructure, and flood control projects:

Summary of existing stormwater, green infrastructure and flood control projects (including buyouts): Proposed stormwater, green infrastructure and flood control projects (including buyouts):

Are GIS/GPS files available for the following items: Existing and/or future buyouts Yes No If so please email file to [email protected] or Existing and/or future green Yes No provide name of contact to coordinate file/data transfer: infrastructure projects Existing and/or future flood control Yes No projects Yes No Environment, Water Quality, and Sustainability URL to any sustainability or environmental initiatives: URL to any environmental or sustainability committees: Has the organization participated in the Yes No If so, provide a URL for the final pr draft development of any watershed-based plans? watershed-based plan(s):

Summary of stream restoration/stabilization projects: Summary of habitat improvement projects (including instream, wetland and prairie): Does the organization collect water quality Yes No URL to any water quality reports and/or samples (stream, river, stormwater, etc.)? sampling results: Are GIS/GPS files available for the following items: Stream Restoration/Stabilization Yes No If so please email file to [email protected] or Projects provide name of contact to coordinate file/data transfer: Yes No Habitat Improvement Projects (including instream, wetland and prairie) Water quality sampling sites Yes No Public Outreach Describe any recent public engagement issues SCARCE educates teachers, community groups, residents, government agencies, churches, businesses as well as students and youth groups about water quality, water quantity, focused on water quality, flooding, or native plants, reducing chemicals on lawns and driveways, safer car washing, rain barrels, We hold workshops with our watershed models and groundwater flow models. We environmental issues: hold a Get Your Garden Growin' Green event - everything from composting to lead free hoses. We implement cooking oil collection sites and events as well as educate residents Note any local groups active or interested in flooding, land use, water quality or other environmental issues: Has the organization conducted any surveys Yes No If so, provide a URL to survey results: focused on flooding, land use, water quality or other environmental issues: Does the organization offer any grant or funding Yes No If so, provide a URL to grant application: opportunities for green infrastructure, flood control, stormwater, water quality or restoration We give schools, churches and others starting community gardens & rain gardens lead free projects: garden hoses to decrease lead in our water, stormwater and soil. ORGANIZATION: The Conservation Foundation Please complete the below table to the best of your ability. If you have any questions, please contact Deanna Doohaluk at 773-693-9200 ext. 13 or [email protected] If an URLis not available, please note who could be contacted to obtain the requested information or provide a copy via email to [email protected] If a question is not applicable to your organization, please note as such.

Master Plans NoYes URL to comprehensive plan: Are any significant updates or Yes Please provide details on amendments in progress? No update/amendments: URL to green infrastructure plans: Are any significant updates or Yes Please provide details on amendments in progress? No update/amendments: URL to open space plan: Are any significant updates or Yes Please provide details on amendments in progress? No update/amendments: URL to corridor plans: Are any significant updates or Yes Please provide details on amendments in progress? No update/amendments: Are GIS files available for the following items: Comprehensive Plan Yes No If so please email file to [email protected] or Green Infrastructure Plan Yes No provide name of contact to coordinate file/data transfer: Yes No I have to get permission because the information is confidential Open/Green Space Plan Corridor Plan Yes No Stormwater Management and Flooding URL or references for any data, reports, or projects related to disaster recovery, response, and/or future resiliency/mitigation: N/A NoYes URL or references for Stormwater Masters Plans: Are any stormwater master plans Yes Provide additional details on proposed N/A proposed for 2015/2016? No stormwater master plans: URL or summary of budget for stormwater, green infrastructure, and flood control projects: N/A Summary of existing stormwater, green infrastructure and flood control projects (including buyouts): N/A Proposed stormwater, green infrastructure and flood control projects (including buyouts): N/A Are GIS/GPS files available for the following items: Existing and/or future buyouts Yes No If so please email file to [email protected] or Existing and/or future green Yes No provide name of contact to coordinate file/data transfer: infrastructure projects Existing and/or future flood control Yes No projects Yes No Environment, Water Quality, and Sustainability URL to any sustainability or environmental initiatives: N/A URL to any environmental or sustainability committees: N/A Has the organization participated in the Yes No If so, provide a URL for the final pr draft development of any watershed-based plans? watershed-based plan(s): Summary of stream restoration/stabilization projects: N/A Summary of habitat improvement projects (including instream, wetland and prairie): N/A Does the organization collect water quality Yes No URL to any water quality reports and/or samples (stream, river, stormwater, etc.)? sampling results: Are GIS/GPS files available for the following items: Stream Restoration/Stabilization Yes No If so please email file to [email protected] or Projects provide name of contact to coordinate file/data transfer: Yes No Habitat Improvement Projects (including instream, wetland and prairie) Water quality sampling sites Yes No Public Outreach Describe any recent public engagement issues focused on water quality, flooding, or environmental issues: We are conducting a green team meeting with DuPage County Stormwater on Feb. 5. to discuss the draft plan. Note any local groups active or interested in flooding, land use, water quality or other environmental issues: Has the organization conducted any surveys Yes No If so, provide a URL to survey results: focused on flooding, land use, water quality or other environmental issues: Does the organization offer any grant or funding Yes No If so, provide a URL to grant application: opportunities for green infrastructure, flood control, stormwater, water quality or restoration projects: Appendices

13.2. Appendix B: Other East Branch DuPage River Studies Organization Title Date Downers Grove Downtown Business District Water September 28, 2012 Quality Improvements Report Downers Grove Village of Downers Grove August 2007 Watershed Infrastructure Improvement Plan (includes watershed studies for Lacey Creek, North St. Joseph Creek, South St. Joseph Creek, and Prentiss Creek) DuPage River Coalition Upper DuPage River Watershed December 2007 Plan DuPage County Stormwater Floodplain Mapping Report and July 2013 Documentation for East Branch of the DuPage River Watershed DuPage County Stormwater East Branch DuPage River 1992 Hydrologic and Hydraulic Modeling Techniques and Assumptions Statistical Analysis for Valley View Feasibility Study with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers DuPage County Stormwater Report on Groundwater Impact 2003 Assessment for Valley View Subdivision Glen Ellyn, Illinois DuPage County Stormwater Hydraulic Report IL 53 Valley View June 2005 Area DuPage County Stormwater East Branch DuPage River Route 53 1998 North Flood Control Plan DuPage County Stormwater East Branch DuPage River Route 53 2003 North Flood Control Plan DuPage County Stormwater East Branch DuPage River Levee July 3, 2012 Study Middleton Ave to Maple Ave DuPage County Stormwater East Branch River-Dumoulin Flood April 2004 Control Plan DuPage County Stormwater Valley View report prepared by 2005 DuPage County for IDOT DuPage County Stormwater Valley View Flood Control Plan 1996 DuPage County Stormwater Watershed Plan East Branch DuPage May 1996 River Tributary No. 2 DuPage County Stormwater Willoway Brook Basin Study (E. November 1985 Brach DuPage River Tributary #5) DuPage River Salt Creek Work Biological and Water Quality Study 2008 Group of the East and West Branches of the DuPage River and Salt Creek Watersheds (Bioassessment report) DuPage River Salt Creek Work Biological and Water Quality Study 2014 Group of the E. Branch DuPage River Watershed, 2011 DuPage River Salt Creek Work Stream Dissolved Oxygen December 2008 Group Improvement Feasibility Study for the East Branch of the DuPage River DuPage River Salt Creek Work SOD Measurement Survey East 2006 Group Branch DuPage River & Salt Creek



Appendices

Organization Title Date DuPage River Salt Creek Work Total Maximum Daily Loads for the October 2004 Group East Branch of the DuPage River, Illinois FEMA Flood Insurance Study, A Report of March 2007 Flood Hazards in: DuPage County, Illinois and Incorporated Areas Morton Arboretum Collections Master Plan Available as hard copy at Morton Arboretum Morton Arboretum Sedimentation Survey of the Morton Available as hard copy at Morton Arboretum Lakes Arboretum Morton Arboretum Diagnostic Feasibility Study for Available as hard copy at Morton TMA Lakes Arboretum Morton Arboretum Stormwater Management Plan for Available as hard copy at Morton the TMA Master Plan Arboretum Morton Arboretum Willoway Brook Streambank Available as hard copy at Morton Stabilization Report Arboretum Natural Resource Conservation Soil Survey of DuPage County, 2001 Service Illinois Sierra Club As The River Flows River Prairie June 2012 Group’s 2012 Status Report on the Health of the Salt Creek-DuPage River Watershed Sierra Club Troubled Waters in DuPage County: 2001 Salt Creek and the East Branch of the DuPage River Westmont Westmont Stormwater Master Plan January 2011 Woodridge Phase I: Stream Inventory Report June 2008



Appendices

13.3. Appendix C: Watershed Jurisdictions

Two counties, sixteen municipalities and seven townships comprise the East Branch DuPage River watershed (Table 13-1). Additional entities with jurisdiction in the watershed include:

• Kane/DuPage County Soil and Water Conservation District • Will County Soil and Water Conservation District • DuPage County Board Districts (District 1, 2,3,4,5, and 6) • Illinois State Representative District (Districts 41, 42, 45, 46, 47, 58, 81, and 85) • Illinois State Senatorial District (Districts 21, 23, 24, 41, and 43) • US Congressional District (Districts 6, 8, and 11)

Table 13-1 County, municipal, and township jurisdictions in the East Branch of the DuPage River watershed

Jurisdiction Square Miles in Watershed Percent of Watershed Counties DuPage 75.2 92.5% Will 6.0 7.5% Municipalities (DuPage County portion) Addison 1.37 1.83% Bloomingdale 2.22 2.96% Boilingbrook 0.20 0.27% Carol Stream 0.03 0.04% Darien 0.48 0.63% Downers Grove 14.49 19.27% Glen Ellyn 6.30 8.38% Glendale Heights 3.68 4.89% Lisle 6.54 8.69% Lombard 6.25 8.32% Naperville 1.31 1.74% Oakbrook 0.11 0.15% Warrenville 0.00 0.00% Westmont 2.28 3.03% Wheaton 3.49 4.64% Woodridge 5.79 7.70% Townships Addison 0.13 0.18% Bloomingdale 9.41 12.51% Downers Grove North 13.04 17.35% Lisle 23.32 31.01% Milton 20.94 27.85% Naperville 0.00 0.00% Winfield 0.18 0.24% Soil/Water Conservation Districts Kane/DuPage 75.2 92.5% Will 6.0 7.5% DuPage County Board Districts 1 4.10 5.45% 

Appendices

2 24.03 31.96% 3 16.43 21.84% 4 24.82 33.02% 5 2.58 3.43% 6 3.23 4.30% Illinois General Assembly Districts 41 0.18 0.24% 42 10.82 14.39% 45 1.20 1.59% 46 11.13 14.80% 47 2.93 3.90% 48 23.85 31.72% 81 22.23 29.57% 85 2.86 3.80% Illinois Senate Districts 21 11.00 14.63% 23 12.32 16.39% 24 26.78 35.62% 41 22.23 29.57% 43 2.86 3.80% US House of Representatives Districts 6 45.18 60.09% 8 13.11 17.43% 11 16.9 22.48%



Appendices

13.4. Appendix D: Flood Risk Reduction Projects Identified by Stakeholders

Problem ID Cost Project Location Description Addressed (Year of Cost Est.) Main St and Glenrise culvert East Branch replacement Tributary No. 2 Uninc. EBE2-01 $752,000 Compensatory Storage Watershed Plan DuPage EBE2-02 (1996) Buyout Alternative 3 Floodproofing Levee Maintenance 4 – Stormwater Pump Stations EBEB-01 and associated stormwater EBEB-02 River-Dumoulin improvements EBEB-03 $11,578,000 Flood Control Plan Lisle Buyouts EBEB-04 (2004) Alternative A2 Floodproofing EBEB-05 (Note: 4 pump stations EBSJ-01 constructed in 2008) EBEB-01 $7,000,000 Levee Maintenance / East Branch EBEB-02 to $20,000,000 Replacement DuPage River Levee EBEB-03 (range of options does Lisle Streambank Stabilization Study EBEB-04 not include Easements Operations Plan EBEB-05 or Property Easements EBSJ-01 Acquisitions) TBD. Note many voluntary buyouts completed. However, Valley View Flood Uninc. some owners chose not Buyouts and Acquisitions EBEB-09 Control Plan DuPage to be part of the process. Additional studies might be warranted. Relocate and raise IL 53 above Illinois Route 53 flood elevations. $12,000,000 Uninc. IL 56 to Park Improved cross culverts under IL EBEB-08 Acquisition: DuPage Boulevard 53 $9,000,000 Compensatory Storage Illinois Route 53 Glen Ellyn North Flood Buyouts $598,000 Uninc. EBEB-10 Control Plan Floodproofing (2003) DuPage Alternative 1 Sump pumps (completed) Morton Arboretum Uninc. Floodproofing (completed) EBEB-11 TBD Building Protection DuPage Groundwater flow diversion

$245,000 Lake Ellyn Outlet Outlet control structure Glen Ellyn EBEB-13 (funding through Control Structure modification CDBG-DR Funds) $275,000 Perry’s Pond Storm sewer improvements and Glen Ellyn EBEB-14 (funding through Improvements modifications CDBG-DR Funds)



Appendices

Problem ID Cost Project Location Description Addressed (Year of Cost Est.) Storage facility $244,000 Downers Sewer improvements (2014) Black Oak Drive EBLA-01 Grove Berms Does not include Easements easements $393,800 Downers Dr / Sewer improvements To $664,000 Virginia St / Seeley Downers Online flood storage EBLA-02 (2014) Ave / Grove Easements/Property Does not include 40th St easements $429,000 Downers Sewer improvements (2014) Elm and Earlston EBLA-03 Grove Easements Does not include easements Storage facility $565,000 Hobson Triangle Downers Sewer improvements EBPR-01 (2014) Area Grove Acquisition Storage facility $875,000 Triangle Park Woodridge Streambank stabilization EBPR-02 (2014) Sewer improvements St. Joseph’s Creek Downers Culvert replacement $3,412,000 North Flood Plain EBSJ-02 Grove Compensatory storage facility (2014) Project No. 1 Overflow route $2,009,000 St. Joseph’s Creek Downers Berms (2014) South Flood Plain Grove Culvert improvements EBSJ-04 Does not include Project No. 3 Westmont Compensatory Storage easements Easements / Property St. Joseph’s Creek Overflow route $1,470,000 Downers South Flood Plain Storage facility EBSJ-05 (2014) Grove Project No. 4 Property Storage facility $1,233,000 Pershing between Downers Sewer improvements EBSJ-06 (2014) Ogden and Grant Grove Property $1,580,000 Washington south Storage facility Downers (2014) of Ogden/Highland Sewer improvements EBSJ-08 Grove Does not include Court Easements/Property easements $252,000 Storage facility Drendel Road South Downers (2014) Sewer improvements EBSJ-09 of Indianapolis Grove Does not include Easements/Property easements Property coordination $903,000 Chase Avenue Berms Downers (2014) between Haddow Storage Facility EBSJ-10 Grove Does not include and Warren Sewer Improvements easements Easements/Property Walbank north of Downers $13,000 Restrictors removal EBSJ-11 Warren Grove (2014) $784,000 South of Prairie Sewer improvements Downers (2014) between Forest and Storage Facility EBSJ-12 Grove Does not include Price Easements/Property easements 

Appendices

Problem ID Cost Project Location Description Addressed (Year of Cost Est.) Debolt / Linden / Downers Roadway improvements $241,000 EBSJ-13 Gierz Grove Sewer improvements (2014) $944,000 Hitchcock between Downers Sewer improvements (2014) Cornell and EBSJ-14 Grove Easements Does not include Glenview easements $694,000 Sewer improvements Middaugh and Downers (2014) Storage Facility EBSJ-15 Jefferson Grove Does not include Property easements $422,000 West side of Lyman Berm Downers (2014) between Kenyon Sewer improvements EBSJ-16 Grove Does not include and Blanchard Easements easements $66,000 Francisco Street at Downers Sewer improvements EBSJ-17 To $178,000 Burlington Grove (2014) Storage facility $1,000,000 Liberty Park Westmont Sewer improvements EBSJ-18 (funding through Improvement Property CDBG-DR Funds) Backflow preventers Richmond-Grant $35,000 Westmont Sewer improvements EBSJ-19 Project (2011) Monitoring wells Storage Facility Roslyn-Burlington $350,000 Westmont Sewer improvement EBSJ-20 Project (2011) Backflow preventers Pershing from President to Wheaton TBD. Study in review phase EBWI-02 TBD Prospect Brentwood and Wheaton TBD. Study in review phase EBWI-03 TBD Briarcliffe Streambank restoration $600,000 - $750,000 Triangle Park Woodridge EBPR-02 Storage Facility (2015) Westlake Concrete Village of FY2014/2015 Budget Drainage Channel Bloomingdale EBEB $115,000 Repair Westlake CIP FY2016-2018 Village of Clearbrook Drive Bloomingdale EBEB $350,000 Culvert

Replacement The Crossings FY2015/2016 Budget Village of Subdivision Storm Bloomingdale EBEB $25,000 sewer

Improvements Village of FY2015/2016 Budget Schick Road Relief Bloomingdale EBEB $75,000 Storm Sewer

Indian Lakes Open CIP FY2016-FY2018 Village of Space – Drainage Bloomingdale Various $4,351,500 and Water Quality

Improvements



Appendices

Problem ID Cost Project Location Description Addressed (Year of Cost Est.) Willowbrook Drive Village of CIP FY2016-FY2018 Culvert Bloomingdale EBE2 $150,000 Replacement Lake Management Village of CIP FY2016-FY2020 $2,000,000- Sedimentation Bloomingdale EBEB $4,000,000 Removal Projects Streambank CIP FY2015-FY2019 Downers Stabilization, St Grove EBSJ $8,000 Joseph Creek,

North Branch Streambank CIP FY2015-FY2019 Downers Improvements, St Grove EBSJ $825,000 Joseph Creek,

South Branch Streambank CIP FY2015-FY2019 Downers Improvements, St Grove EBSJ $300,000 Joseph Creek, Main

Branch Drainage CIP FY2015-FY2019 Improvements - Downers Cumnor Rd Grove EBSJ $50,000 between Sheldon and Chicago Downers CIP FY2015-FY2019 Valley View Pond Grove EBPR $60,000 Improvements

Downers CIP FY2015-FY2019 Existing Drain Tile Grove Various $50,000 Investigation

Prentiss Creek (Sub CIP FY2015-FY2019 Downers E), Kensington Grove EBPR $20,000 Place Online

Storage Watershed Downers CIP FY2015-FY2019 Improvements, Grove EBLA $1,486,000 Lacey Creek, Sub G Downers CIP FY2015-FY2019 PW Parking Lot Grove EBSJ $50,000 Reconstruction

Watershed CIP FY2015-FY2019 Improvements, St Downers Joseph Creek, Grove EBSJ $250,000 North Branch Sub E Neighborhood CIP FY2015-FY2019 Downers Drainage Grove Various $250,000 Improvements Cost-

Share Program Drainage Downers CIP FY2015-FY2019 Improvements, Grove EBSJ $550,000 Clyde Estates



Appendices

Problem ID Cost Project Location Description Addressed (Year of Cost Est.) Headwall CIP FY2015-FY2019 Downers Replacement, Grove EBSJ $60,000 Gilbert and

Brookbank Drainage Downers CIP FY2015-FY2019 Improvements at Grove EBLA $2,000 Fire Station #3 Lacey Creek (Sub CIP FY2015-FY2019 Downers G) - 35th St. Grove EBLA $10,000 between Saratoga

and Venard Green CIP FY2015-FY2019 Downers Streets/Sustainable Grove Various $325,000 Storm Water

Program Storm Sewer Downers CIP FY2015-FY2019 Replacement, Grove Various $2,500,000 Annual Element Downtown Business CIP FY2015-FY2019 Downers District Water Grove EBSJ $250,000 Quality

Enhancements Headwall Downers CIP FY2015-FY2019 Replacement, Grove EBSJ $115,000 Grand at 55th St. Identified Future CIP FY2015-FY2019 Downers Drainage and Grove Various $8,450,000 Floodplain

Improvements Storm Water Downers CIP FY2015-FY2019 Related Land Grove Various $1,265,000 Acquisitions Sanitary Sewer Budget FY 2014/2015 Lining – Location to Lisle Various $625,000 be determined annually Lisle Budget FY 2014/2015 Sewer Point Repairs Various $125,000

Storm Sewer Lining Lisle Budget FY 2014/2015 Various $25,000 – Various locations Levee Budget FY 2014/2015 Improvements – Lisle EBEB $100,000 East Branch DuPage River FEMA Grant Budget FY 2014/2015 Program for Lisle Various $1,000,000 acquisition/elevation of flood properties Future Stormwater Lisle Budget FY 2014/2015 Various $2,000,000 Related Projects Backyard Flooding Lombard Capital Improvement Plan 2014- Various $200,000 Prevention Program 2023 

Appendices

Problem ID Cost Project Location Description Addressed (Year of Cost Est.) Overhead Sewer Lombard Capital Improvement Plan 2014- Various $450,000 Grant Program 2023 Sewer Maintenance Lombard Capital Improvement Plan 2014- Various $1,800,000 and Improvements 2023 Sanitary Sewer Lombard Capital Improvement Plan 2014- Various $675,000 Lining Program 2023 Sewer Stub Lining Lombard Capital Improvement Plan 2014- Various $475,000 Program 2023 Clear Water Capital Improvement Plan 2014- Lombard Disconnect Grant 2023 Various $675,000

Program Backyard Sewer Lombard Capital Improvement Plan 2014- EBEB $100,000 Lining Program 2023 Finley Road Sewer Lombard Capital Improvement Plan 2014- EBEB $467,000 Lining 2023 Route 53 Capital Improvement Plan 2014- Lombard Stormwater Pump 2023 EBEB $5,340,900

Station International Capital Improvement Plan 2014- Lombard EBEB and Village Sewer 2023 $416,000 EBE3 Lining N. Broadway Capital Improvement Plan 2014- Interim Pump Lombard 2023 EBEB $2,089,750 Station & Force Main Terrace View Pond Capital Improvement Plan 2014- Lombard - South East Outfall 2023 EBEB $42,500

Repair Route 53 Capital Improvement Plan 2014- Lombard Underground 2023 EBEB $2,223,600

Improvements Lake Ellyn Outlet Annual Budget 2015 Capital Village of and Downstream Program EBEB $455,000 Glen Ellyn Improvements Village Green Annual Budget 2015 Capital Village of Storm Sewer Program EBGL $75,000 Glen Ellyn Replacement Reno Center Access Village of Annual Budget 2015 Capital EBGL $50,000 Improvements Glen Ellyn Program Miscellaneous Annual Budget 2015 Capital Village of Storm Sewer Program Various $50,000 Glen Ellyn Improvements Stormwater Village of Annual Budget 2015 Capital Various $1,500,000 Improvements Glen Ellyn Program Replace Basin #4 Wheaton Five Year Financial Forecast EBGL $250,000 Flowmeters Replace all Lift Five Year Financial Forecast Wheaton Station Standby Various $125,000

Generators Lift Station Five Year Financial Forecast Wheaton Mechanical Various $89,000

Appurtenances 

Appendices

Problem ID Cost Project Location Description Addressed (Year of Cost Est.) Lift Station Wheaton Five Year Financial Forecast Various $89,000 Submersible Pumps Supplemental Five Year Financial Forecast Sanitary Sewer - Wheaton Various $625,000 Rehabilitation Lining Supplemental Five Year Financial Forecast Storm Sewer - Wheaton Various $625,000 Rehabilitation Lining Sanitary Sewer Five Year Financial Forecast Wheaton Capacity Assurance Various $12,100,000

Program Cumnor Rd Design- Annual Budget FY 2014-2015 Village of GREEN Additional EBSJ $737,000 Westmont Cost 60th St. Annual Budget FY 2014-2015 Streambank Village of EBSJ $15,000 Stabilization Westmont Eng/Insp Deer Creek Annual Budget FY 2014-2015 Village of Detention Basin EBSJ $25,000 Westmont Repairs 61st & Cumnor Annual Budget FY 2014-2015 Village of Pond Beautification EBSJ $13,000 Westmont Project Village of Annual Budget FY 2014-2015 Land Acquisition Various $800,000 Westmont Crabtree Creek Village of Capital Projects 5 Year Plan EBCR $265,000 Erosion Control Woodridge Lining Corrugated Capital Projects 5 Year Plan Village of Metal Pipe and Various $250,000 Woodridge Repairs Prentiss Creek Village of Capital Projects 5 Year Plan EBPR $150,000 Erosion Control Woodridge Streambank Village of Capital Projects 5 Year Plan Various $150,000 Stabilization Woodridge Lining of Sanitary Village of Capital Projects 5 Year Plan Various $300,000 Sewers Woodridge 63rd Street Storm Village of Capital Projects 5 Year Plan EBPR $45,000 Sewer Inlets Woodridge



Appendices

13.5. Appendix E: Report Card Example of a Report Card:

Strategy:

Current Conditions and Problems:

Summarize the findings related to the Strategy. See Chapter 6.1. Indicators to Meet Objectives:

Include a summary of the Non-Point Pollution Targets (Chapter 10.4) related to the Strategy, Milestones: Grade

Using the projects identified in the Prioritized Non-Point Source Pollution Reduction Action Plan, set short, medium and long term milestones. Milestones can include the completion of a certain number of projects and behavioral changes from stakeholders.

1-5 Years:

5-10 Years

10+ Years

Monitoring Needs/Efforts:

Include a discussion on monitoring needs and efforts needed to evaluate the milestones. The monitoring needs and efforts can include measures such as site visits, tracking the number of projects implemented, and tracking behavioral changes.

Remedial Actions: Include a list of what actions will be taken if the implementation of the milestones is not resulting in the expected change/improvement. Remedial Actions could include re-evaluate BMP designs, modifying and repairing constructed BMPs, applying for grant monies, and conducting additional site visits and studies. Notes:

Grade Evaluation: A = Met or exceeded milestone(s) B = Milestone(s) 75% achieved C = Milestone(s) 50% achieved D = Milestone(s) 25% achieved F = Milestone(s) not achieved



Appendices

13.6. Appendix F: Water Quality Modeling The completion of water quality modeling is a recommended action to be completed as part of the development of this plan as a means of obtaining IEPA approval as a “watershed-based” plan.

