IEPA Final Report for Muddy Waters Pond Restoration Project

              IEPA FINAL REPORT FOR
MUDDY WATERS POND RESTORATION PROJECT
AGREEMENT NUMBER 3190309
Prepared for:
Mr. Robert Fleck
Village of Westmont
31 W. Quincy
Westmont, Illinois 60559
Prepared by:
Conservation Design Forum
375 W. First Street
Elmhurst, Illinois 60126
For Submittal to:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021 N. Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
June 2006
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BACKGROUND..................................................................................................................................... 1
PRE-PROJECT CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................... 1
SHORELINE RESTORATION TECHNIQUES ................................................................................................... 1
Shoreline Stabilization Treatments.......................................................................................................... 2
Selection of Restoration and Stabilization Treatments ....................................................................... 4
Summary of Shoreline Restoration and Stabilization Treatments...................................................... 4
INSTALLED PLANT SPECIES................................................................................................................................ 4
ACTUAL COST ESTIMATE.................................................................................................................................. 4
APPENDICES
APPENDIX I BMP APPLICATION FORM & WORKSHEET
APPENDIX II PLANS AND CROSS SECTIONS
APPENDIX III PLANT LISTS
APPENDIX IV ACTUAL COST BMPS
APPENDIX V INTERPRETIVE SIGNAGE
PRE-PROJECT PHOTOGRAPHS
POST-PROJECT PHOTOGRAPHS
This report was prepared using U.S. Environmental Protection Funds under section 319 of the
Clean Water Act distributed through the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. The Findings
and Recommendations contained within this report are not necessarily those of the funding
agencies.
IEPA FINAL REPORT JUNE 2006
MUDDY WATERS POND RESTORATION
AGREEMENT NUMBER 3190309
CONSERVATION DESIGN FORUM (PROJECT NO. 03095.00) PAGE 1
BACKGROUND
The shoreline stabilization/rehabilitation project was partially funded by a U.S. EPA 319 Nonpoint
Source Pollution Grant through Illinois EPA and a grant from DuPage County Stormwater and
Environmental Concerns. The project goals were to rehabilitate the shoreline to reduce
nonpoint source pollution to St. Joseph’s Creek and to create/enhance aquatic habitat. The
goals were accomplished by re-grading and re-vegetating slumping turf slopes of a wet
detention basin, creating a naturalized wetland basin. This detention pond, which was built in
1980 as detention for Williams Cove subdivision, is considered “waters of the U.S.” due to its
connection (“on-line”) with St. Joseph’s Creek. St. Joseph’s Creek is a tributary to the East
Branch of the DuPage River. Because of the on-line status of this pond, not only does this project
benefit water quality and aquatic habitat for the pond, but for the overall ecological health of
the downstream waterway. This project provided shoreline stabilization and aquatic habitat
through regrading of the eroded banks and installation of native wetland and prairie
vegetation. Approximately 1250 linear feet of shoreline was stabilized through implementation
of this project.
PRE-PROJECT CONDITIONS
The project area was a typical detention pond with a maximum permanent pool depth of
approximately four feet that was characterized by slumping and undercut slopes surrounded by
turf grass within the upland area. The soils within the pond and immediate surrounding area,
prior to excavation, were mapped as Peotone and Ashkum silty clay loams, and Markham silt
loam, respectively. (Refer to EXHIBIT B – SOIL SURVEY MAP.) As previously discussed, no wetland
habitat was associated with the pond - the project area is referenced on the National Wetlands
Inventory Map as a palustrine, permanent open water system that has been excavated. (Refer
to EXHIBIT C – NWI MAP.) The 100-year flood plain extends to elevation 737.8 (8.1 feet above
normal water level). The pond is classified as Zone A on the Flood Insurance Rate Map. (Refer to
EXHIBIT D – FIRM MAP.) No FEMA base flood elevation has been determined for the project site but
provisional flood stages were provided by DuPage County and those elevations were used for
all floodway/floodplain storage calculations. The pre-existing condition of the land surrounding
the pond was turf grass with occasional shrubs and several trees.
Photographs that depict the pre-existing condition of the pond and eroding banks are provided
at the end of this report. As can be seen in the photographs, most of the banks were undercut
and had 1H:1V or steeper slopes.
Based on comparison the 1980 as-built drawings of the original shoreline to the pre-project
conditions, the bank had receded an average of approximately 11 feet over the past 24 years.
This recession rate equates to approximately 0.46 feet per year. With an average bank height of
3.75-feet and 1250 linear feet of shoreline, the Illinois EPA load reduction spreadsheet indicates
an annual yield of 86 tons/year of sediment, 86 lbs/year of phosphorous, and 173 lbs/year of
nitrogen. Refer to APPENDIX I for the BMP APPLICATION FORM and the BANK STABILIZATION WORKSHEET.
SHORELINE RESTORATION TECHNIQUES
The goals of the improvements were to control shoreline erosion, reduce nonpoint source
pollution, and create emergent and fringe wetland habitats. The shoreline was stabilized
through usage of the three techniques. First, a graded clay soil shelf with native wetland
vegetation was used around most of the pond where there was adequate room for re-grading.
IEPA FINAL REPORT JUNE 2006
MUDDY WATERS POND RESTORATION
AGREEMENT NUMBER 3190309
CONSERVATION DESIGN FORUM (PROJECT NO. 03095.00) PAGE 2
The second technique involved interplanted rock over geotextile where less room was available
for grading, this treatment was provided in one location. Stone fishing platforms were used as
the third technique and were selectively placed to protect existing trees. Construction work
began with installation of erosion control measures in late June 2005 and concluded with seed
and plug installation mid- to late August 2005.
Refer to Plan Sheets L1.01 for the pre-project grades and L3.01 for the proposed project grades.
The locations where each of the techniques (other than the clay soil shelf) were applied are
shown on Sheet L3.01 along with the original surveyed cross-sections shown on Sheets L3.02 and
L3.03. The landscape plan is presented on Sheet L4.01 and the plant list on Sheet L4.02. The
following is a discussion of each of the techniques, including methods of construction and
installation measures along with an evaluation of improvements in water quality and habitat
enhancement.
Shoreline Stabilization Treatments
Treatment 1: Clay Soil Shelf and Slope Regrading
Description: This treatment was used for the majority of the detention pond shoreline. The
method of construction involved draw down of the pond to allow for construction in the dry. The
re-grading of the shoreline was per plan documents. A 10H:1V slope from 6 inches below NWL
to 6 inches above NWL was graded and compacted clay used to create a littoral shelf that was
planted with native emergent vegetation. From 6 inches above to 18 inches above NWL, a
5H:1V slope was graded to support a wet mesic to mesic prairie landscape. The remaining slope
was graded to a 3H:1V slope to meet the existing upland grades; this area was seeded with
native mesic prairie vegetation. Immediately following seed installation, all disturbed areas had
erosion blanket installed per plan documents.
In one location, adjacent to the outflow pipe on the north end of the pond, an outcropping wall
was installed instead of the re-grade stabilization method. This structural technique was used as
the method of stabilization within this area due to the installation of a sidewalk by the Village of
Westmont. The sidewalk installation reduced the available area for regrading and created a
steeper slope than could be reliably stabilized by non-structural methods. A plan view and
cross-section of the outcropping wall are provided within APPENDIX II.
The total lineal footage of clay shelf treatment is approximately 1050 feet.
Refer to cross sections A-E and H-K for this technique.
Cost Considerations: This treatment method utilized on-site material from the “cut” portion of the
banks to create the shallow shoreline slopes. The costs for this technique included labor and
landscape materials. Due to the relatively large amount of earth moving and plant material, this
was the most costly of the proposed techniques.
Advantages and disadvantages: This method provides long-term stabilization and at the same
time creates wetland habitat. The primary disadvantage to this approach was that it required
the pond waters to be drawn down to allow compaction of the clay shoreline shelf.
Maintenance: To ensure long-term stabilization, the slope and emergent shelf should be
inspected periodically to evaluate potential soil loss as evidenced by increasingly greater
exposure of root systems. Maintenance of the native vegetation will consist of spot herbicide
IEPA FINAL REPORT JUNE 2006
MUDDY WATERS POND RESTORATION
AGREEMENT NUMBER 3190309
CONSERVATION DESIGN FORUM (PROJECT NO. 03095.00) PAGE 3
treatment, hand weeding, and mowing as necessary to maintain appropriate plantings within
the first couple years of plant establishment. The long-term maintenance regime will be annual
burn management.
Treatment 2: Interplanted Stone over Geotextile
Description: This technique was used to create a stable slope within a constricted setting at one
of the inlets to the detention pond. The technique utilized angular stone (3-4”) placed over
geotextile. Rock was placed approximately 0.5 feet below NWL to 3.5 feet above the NWL. A
stone depth of at least 8 inches was topped with planting soil to provide a planting medium for
native seed and plugs that were installed within the interstitial spaces of the rock. Interplanting
the stone provides a modest amount of additional stabilization, as well as improved habitat and
aesthetics. Additional minor rip rap armouring was used along the slopes at each of the inlet
pipes to address post-construction erosion rills.
Refer to cross sections F and G for this technique.
Cost Considerations: This was one of the least costly treatments since it involved little
earthmoving and utilized relatively inexpensive materials.
Advantages and disadvantages: This was the least costly method to implement and given the
ability to interplant and soften the appearance of the stone, this technique visually is similar to
the clay soil shelf technique. Because this method did not create an aquatic shelf, it provided
less aquatic habitat and less soil-water interface for water quality improvement. Also, this
method was less morphologically sound than the primary treatment method since the stone was
used to hold a steeper slope. However, due to the limited use of this technique and the addition
of established plant roots, the integrity of the slope should endure.
Maintenance: To ensure long-term stabilization, the shoreline should be inspected periodically to
ensure that the stone remains in place. Initially, inspections should occur each fall and spring
and after each major storm event with high water levels. After time, the inspection interval
should be re-evaluated to determine if adjustments are needed. Maintenance will include
periodic replacement of stone and weeding as necessary to maintain appropriate plantings.
Treatment 3: Stone Fishing Platforms
Description: This treatment was used to allow preservation of existing trees that otherwise would
have required removal to accommodate re-grading of the slopes. Outcropping stone was laid
on a 3” gravel bed to create an area of approximately 9’x 3’. The graded upslope was seeded
with turf grass. The stone also allowed creation of fishing platforms to improve public access.
This technique is shown on cross sections numbered 6 and 15.
Cost Considerations: Although the cost of the outcropping stone and their placement is
somewhat high, there is little cost associated with earth moving. This technique was the most
expensive shoreline treatment based on linear feet stabilization cost. However, this technique
was selected due to its limited use and its coinciding functions of shoreline stabilization and safe
access to the pond edge.
IEPA FINAL REPORT JUNE 2006
MUDDY WATERS POND RESTORATION
AGREEMENT NUMBER 3190309
CONSERVATION DESIGN FORUM (PROJECT NO. 03095.00) PAGE 4
Advantages and disadvantages: This treatment provided naturalistic fishing platforms and was
utilized in limited areas. The primary disadvantage was that this treatment did not provide any
native habitat opportunities and was more expensive than the other techniques.
Maintenance: Maintenance should include periodic inspections to evaluate potential settling of
gravel bed that may require the addition of gravel for stability and safety purposes.
Selection of Restoration and Stabilization Treatments
The goal for this project was to create stabilized slopes with a littoral shelf that provides
emergent and fringe wetland habitat in a morphologically sound manner. The back slope and
amount of erosion was characteristically uniform for the entire pond shoreline. Therefore, other
than the few identified areas where interplanted stone or fishing platforms were utilized as the
stabilization technique, the clay soil shelf with regraded slopes was the preferred technique for
this project. As previously discussed, the interplanted stone technique was used within an area
that had limited space and tighter slopes. The amount of earthwork that was necessary to
achieve the desired slopes and stability was not feasible for this area. Also, the incorporation of
fishing platforms within the design was a user-specific desire. Therefore, the treatment of
outcropping stone provided a dual function of stabilization as well as a safe shoreline access
point.
Summary of Shoreline Restoration and Stabilization Treatments
The general goals of the project were to create stabilized slopes thereby reducing nonpoint
source pollution from eroding, unvegetated slopes and creating a littoral shelf to provide
potential habitat via usage of native vegetation. With implementation of this project, the re-grading
and stabilization of the slopes has provided improved water quality for the pond by
reducing the amount of nonpoint source pollution, as discussed above. As the native
vegetation establishes, this will also provide water quality benefits by filtering ambient landscape
stormwater runoff as well as encourage settling of suspended solids, uptake of nutrients, and
determent of Canada geese, which indirectly reduces animal waste as a pollutant. In addition
to water quality benefits, the native vegetation will provide nesting, foraging, and shelter habitat
for various small animals and birds.
The limited use of the interplanted stone, outcropping wall, and outcropping stone for fishing
platform techniques allowed creation of emergent habitat over the majority of the shoreline.
Use of these alternative techniques within specific areas of the project site was necessitated by
limited space and tighter slopes, and to preserve existing trees and provide public access.
INSTALLED PLANT SPECIES
Refer to APPENDIX III for the PLANT LISTS that identify the species and quantities installed for this
project. All proposed seed material, species and quantities, and woody plant material were
installed as proposed.
ACTUAL COST BMPS
Refer to APPENDIX IV for the ACTUAL COSTS OF BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES for the installed treatments.
CONSERVATION DESIGN FORUM (PROJECT NO. 03095.00)
Appendix I
BMP Application Form and Worksheet
6/14/2006
Please fill in the gray areas below. If estimating for just one bank, put "0" in areas for Bank #2.
Once you have successfully estimated the sediment and nutrient load reductions,
please print a copy of this worksheet and attach it to the "BMP Application Form"
for submittal to the Illinois EPA.
If you have any questions, please contact the Illinois EPA's Nonpoint Source Unit
at 217/782-3362.
Example
3199802001
Please select a soil textural class:
FALSE Sands, loamy sands TRUE Silty clay loam, silty clay
FALSE Sandy loam FALSE Clay loam
FALSE Fine sandy loam FALSE Clay
FALSE Loams, sandy clay loams, sandy clay FALSE Organic
FALSE Silt loam
Parameter Bank #1 Bank #2 Example
Length (ft) 1250 0 500
Height (ft) 3.75 0 15
Lateral Recession Rate (ft/yr)* 0.46 0 0.5
Soil P Conc (lb/lb soil)** 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 **
Soil N Conc (lb/lb soil)** 0.001 0.001 0.001 **
*Lateral Recession Rate (LRR) is the rate at which bank deterioration has taken place and is measured
in feet per year. This rate may not be easily determined by direct measurement. Therefore best professional
judgement may be required to estimate the LRR. Please refer to the narrative descriptions in Table 1.
** indicates default values for P and N soil concentrations
LRR (ft/yr) Category Description
0.01 - 0.05 Slight
0.06 - 0.2 Moderate Bank is predominantly bare with some rills and vegetative overhang.
0.3 - 0.5 Severe Bank is bare with rills and severe vegetative overhang. Many exposed tree roots and
some fallen trees and slumps or slips. Some changes in cultural features such as
fence corners missing and realignment of roads or trails. Channel cross-section
becomes more U-shaped as opposed to V-shaped.
0.5+ Very Severe Bank is bare with gullies and severe vegetative overhang. Many fallen trees, drains
and culverts eroding out and changes in cultural features as above. Massive slips or
washouts common. Channel cross-section is U-shaped and streamcourse or gully
may be meandering.
Source: Steffen, L.J. 1982. Channel Erosion (personal communication), as printed in "Pollutants Controlled
Calculation and Documentation for Section 319 Watersheds Training Manual," June 1999 Revision;
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality - Surface Water Quality Division - Nonpoint Source
Unit. EQP 5841 (6/99).
Bank #1 Bank #2 Example
Sediment Load Reduction (ton/year) 86 1 150
Phosphorus Load Reduction (lb/year) 86 1 150
Nitrogen Load Reduction (lb/yr) 173 1 300
Estimated Load Reductions
Bank Stabilization
Table 1
Some bare bank but active erosion not readily apparent. Some rills but no vegetative overhang. No
exposed tree roots.
BMP Number:
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
DEFAULT
DEFAULT
CONSERVATION DESIGN FORUM (PROJECT NO. 03095.00)
Appendix II
Plans and Cross Sections
CONSERVATION DESIGN FORUM (PROJECT NO. 03095.00)
Refer to full size drawings for the Muddy Waters Pond Restoration plans and cross sections.
Plan Sheet L1.01 Existing Conditions
Plan Sheet L2.01 Demolition & Site Preparation
Plan Sheet L3.01 Shoreline Treatment Plan
Plan Sheet L3.02 Shoreline Treatment Sections
Plan Sheet L3.03 Shoreline Treatment Sections
Plan Sheet L4.01 Riparian Plan
Plan Sheet L4.02 Riparian Plan Lists & Details
CONSERVATION DESIGN FORUM (PROJECT NO. 03095.00)
Appendix III
Plant Lists
EMERGENT WETLAND ZONE
5,500 sf
PLUG SPECIES & QUANTITIES
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME ACTUAL
QUANTITY OF
PLUGS
Acorus calamus SWEET FLAG 564
Alisma subcordatum COMMON WATER PLANTAIN 122
Carex lacustris LAKE SEDGE 408
Iris virginica var. shrevei BLUE FLAG 284
Juncus effusus COMMON RUSH 164
Pontederia cordata PICKEREL WEED 367
Sagittaria latifolia COMMON ARROWHEAD 211
Scirpus validus var. creber GREAT BULRUSH 489
Sparganium eurycarpum COMMON BUR REED 122
TOTAL PLUGS BASED ON 1.5-FOOT O.C. SPACING 2731
0.05 122
APPROXIMATE ESTIMATED
% OF TOTAL QUANTITY OF
PLUGS/ACRE PLUGS
0.05 122
0.10 244
0.20 489
0.05 122
0.15 367
1.00 2444
0.05 122
0.20 489
0.15 367
Muddy Waters - Shoreline Rehabilitation Project
Conservation Design Forum (Project No. 03095.00)
WETLAND FRINGE ZONE
5,700 sf
PLUG SPECIES & QUANTITIES
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME APPROXIMATE ESTIMATED ACTUAL
% OF TOTAL QUANTITY OF QUANTITY OF
PLUGS/ACRE PLUGS PLUGS
GRAMINOIDS
Carex annectens LARGE YELLOW FOX SEDGE 0.04 36 36
Carex hystericina PORCUPINE SEDGE 0.04 36 36
Carex stipata COMMON FOX SEDGE 0.04 36 36
Carex stricta COMMON TUSSOCK SEDGE 0.04 36 167
Juncus effusus COMMON RUSH 0.1 91 91
Panicum virgatum SWITCH GRASS 0.1 91 255
Scirpus pungens CHAIRMAKER'S RUSH 0.04 36 167
Spartina pectinata PRAIRIE CORD GRASS 0.2 182 346
TOTAL GRAMINOID PLUGS BASED ON 2.5' O.C. SPACING 0.60 547 879
FORBS
Asclepias incarnata SWAMP MILKWEED 0.04 36 36
Aster novae-angliae NEW ENGLAND ASTER 0.03 27 27
Eupatorium perfoliatum COMMON BONESET 0.04 36 167
Helenium autumnale SNEEZEWEED 0.04 36 36
Iris virginica var. shrevei BLUE FLAG 0.05 46 46
Lythrum alatum WINGED LOOSESTRIFE 0.03 27 0
Mimulus ringens MONKEY FLOWER 0.03 27 0
Physostegia virginiana OBEDIENT PLANT 0.04 36 200
Pycnanthemum virginianum COMMON MOUNTAIN MINT 0.03 27 27
Vernonia fasciculata COMMON IRONWEED 0.03 27 27
Zizia aurea GOLDEN ALEXANDERS 0.04 36 36
TOTAL FORB PLUGS BASED ON 2.5' O.C. SPACING 0.40 365 602
912 1481
SEED SPECIES & QUANTITIES
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME ESTIMATED **
SEED WT/AC SEED
WEIGHT
COVER CROP
Agrostis alba REDTOP 10.00 lbs 1.309 lbs
Avena sativa SEED OATS 25.00 lbs 3.271 lbs
Lolium multiflorum ANNUAL RYE 15.00 lbs 1.963 lbs
TOTAL COVER CROP/AC 50.00 lbs 6.543 lbs
GRAMINOIDS
Carex cristatella CRESTED OVAL SEDGE 0.125 lbs 0.016 lbs
Carex stipata COMMON FOX SEDGE 0.125 lbs 0.016 lbs
Carex vulpinoidea BROWN FOX SEDGE 0.125 lbs 0.016 lbs
Eleocharis acicularis NEEDLE SPIKE RUSH 0.125 lbs 0.016 lbs
Eleocharis obtusa BLUNT SPIKE RUSH 0.125 lbs 0.016 lbs
Juncus torreyi TORREY'S RUSH 0.250 lbs 0.033 lbs
Leersia oryzoides RICE CUT GRASS 4.000 lbs 0.523 lbs
Panicum virgatum SWITCH GRASS 4.000 lbs 0.523 lbs
Scirpus atrovirens DARK GREEN SEDGE 0.250 lbs 0.033 lbs
TOTAL GRAMINOID MATRIX/AC 9.000 lbs 1.178 lbs
FORBS
Alisma subcordatum COMMON WATER PLANTAIN 3.00 oz 0.393 oz
Asclepias incarnata SWAMP MILKWEED 3.00 oz 0.393 oz
Aster novae-angliae NEW ENGLAND ASTER 3.00 oz 0.393 oz
Aster simplex PANICLED ASTER 2.00 oz 0.262 oz
Bidens cernua NODDING BUR MARIGOLD 3.00 oz 0.393 oz
Eupatorium perfoliatum COMMON BONESET 2.00 oz 0.262 oz
Helianthus grosseserratus SAWTOOTH SUNFLOWER 3.00 oz 0.393 oz
Lycopus americanus COMMON WATER HOREHOUND 2.00 oz 0.262 oz
Penthorum sedoides DITCH STONECROP 2.00 oz 0.262 oz
Rudbeckia subtomentosa SWEET BLACK-EYED SUSAN 3.00 oz 0.393 oz
Solidago graminifolia GRASS-LEAVED GOLDENROD 2.00 oz 0.262 oz
Verbena hastata BLUE VERVAIN 4.00 oz 0.523 oz
TOTAL FORB MATRIX/AC 29.00 oz 3.795 oz
TOTAL NATIVE SEED MATRIX/AC 10.81 lbs 1.415 lbs
TOTAL WET PRAIRIE PLUGS
Muddy Waters - Shoreline Rehabilitation Project
Conservation Design Forum (Project No. 03095.00)
Riparian Environment Plant Lists
MESIC PRAIRIE ZONE 15,200 sf
SEED SPECIES & QUANTITIES
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME
SEED WT/AC SEED
WEIGHT
COVER CROP
Agrostis alba REDTOP 2.0 lbs 0.70 lbs
Avena sativa SEED OATS 30.0 lbs 10.47 lbs
Lolium multiflorum ANNUAL RYE 15.0 lbs 5.23 lbs
TOTAL COVER CROP/AC 47.0 lbs 16.40 lbs
GRAMINOIDS
Andropogon gerardii BIG BLUESTEM GRASS 1.5 lbs 0.52 lbs
Andropogon scoparius LITTLE BLUESTEM GRASS 2.5 lbs 0.87 lbs
Bouteloua curtipendula SIDE-OATS GRAMA 2.5 lbs 0.87 lbs
Elymus canadensis CANADA WILD RYE 2.0 lbs 0.70 lbs
Panicum virgatum SWITCH GRASS 2.0 lbs 0.70 lbs
Sorghastrum nutans INDIAN GRASS 1.5 lbs 0.52 lbs
TOTAL GRAMINOID MATRIX/AC 12.0 lbs 4.19 lbs
FORBS
Aster novae-angliae NEW ENGLAND ASTER 2.0 oz 0.70 oz
Astragalus canadensis CANADA MILK VETCH 2.0 oz 0.70 oz
Baptisia leucantha WHITE WILD INDIGO 2.0 oz 0.70 oz
Coreopsis lanceolata SAND COREOPSIS 2.0 oz 0.70 oz
Desmodium canadense SHOWY TICK TREFOIL 2.0 oz 0.70 oz
Echinacea purpurea BROAD-LVD PURPLE CONEFLOWER 3.0 oz 1.05 oz
Eryngium yuccifolium RATTLESNAKE MASTER 1.0 oz 0.35 oz
Heliopsis helianthoides FALSE SUNFLOWER 3.0 oz 1.05 oz
Lespedeza capitata ROUND-HEADED BUSH CLOVER 2.0 oz 0.70 oz
Monarda fistulosa WILD BERGAMOT 4.0 oz 1.40 oz
Penstemon digitalis FOXGLOVE BEARD TONGUE 1.0 oz 0.35 oz
Petalostemum purpureum PURPLE PRAIRIE CLOVER 2.0 oz 0.70 oz
Physostegia virginiana OBEDIENT PLANT 1.0 oz 0.35 oz
Pycnanthemum virginianum COMMON MOUNTAIN MINT 1.0 oz 0.35 oz
Ratibida pinnata YELLOW CONEFLOWER 4.0 oz 1.40 oz
Rudbeckia hirta BLACK-EYED SUSAN 4.0 oz 1.40 oz
Silphium integrifolium ROSIN WEED 2.0 oz 0.70 oz
Silphium terebinthinaceum PRAIRIE DOCK 1.0 oz 0.35 oz
Solidago graminifolia GRASS-LEAVED GOLDENROD 2.0 oz 0.70 oz
Solidago rigida STIFF GOLDENROD 1.0 oz 0.00 oz
Veronicastrum virginicum CULVER'S ROOT 2.0 oz 0.70 oz
Zizia aurea GOLDEN ALEXANDERS 2.0 oz 0.70 oz
TOTAL FORB MATRIX/AC 46.0 oz 16.05 oz
TOTAL NATIVE SEED MATRIX/AC 14.875 lbs 5.19 lbs
ESTIMATED **
Muddy Waters - Shoreline Rehabilitation Project
Conservation Design Forum (Project No. 03095.00)
WOODY PLANT MATERIAL
GENERAL TREES
WOODY SPECIES QTY.
(CO) Celtis occidentalis HACKBERRY 1.5" 2
(QBi) Quercus bicolor SWAMP WHITE OAK 1.5" 2
(QMa) Quercus macrocarpa BUR OAK 1.5" 2
GENERAL SHRUBS - (Understory Shrub Replacement)
WOODY SPECIES SIZE PER SPECIES QTY.
(CA) Corylus americana AMERICAN HAZELNUT 5 gal. 4
(VR) Viburnum rafinesquianum DOWNY ARROW-WOOD 5 gal. 6
SIZE PER SPECIES
Muddy Waters - Shoreline Rehabilitation Project
Conservation Design Forum (Project No. 03095.00)
CONSERVATION DESIGN FORUM (PROJECT NO. 03095.00)
Appendix IV
Actual Cost BMPs
Page 1 of 2
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency P.O. Box 19276, 1021 N. Grand Avenue East
Bureau of Water Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE APPLICATION FORM
Project Title: Muddy Waters Pond Restoration Project___________________________________
Recipient Name: Village of Westmont___________________________________________________
Grant Number: 319______________________ Agreement Number: 3190309 ______________
File Number: _________________________ BMP Number: __________________________
Landowner Name: Village of Westmont & Westmont Park District ______________________________
Address: 31 W. Quincy _____________ __ ______________________________________
City, State, Zip: Westmont_________________ IL 60559______________________________
Telephone Number: 630.969.8080______________ Fax Number:630.969.7923____________________
Tract Number: _________________________ Farm Number: _____________________________
Receiving Waterbody: St. Joseph’s Creek _________ __ ______________________________________
Hydrologic Unit Code: 07120004 ________________ County: DuPage ____________________________
Waterbody ID: GBLB01 __________________ USGS Map Number: ________________________
Legal Description: NW ¼ Section 21 in Township 38North, Range 11East of the 3rd Meridian ________
Latitude: _________________________ Longitude:_________________________________
NRCS BMP Code: 995______________________ BMP Name: Vegetative Streambank Stabilization __
Proposed Start Date: March/April 2005 ____ Proposed Completion Date: June 2005 _______________
Attach the following support documentation (or indicate that it is on file in accordance with the provisions of the
Financial Assistance Agreement and with approval of the Illinois EPA):
1. A copy of that part of a 7.5 minute USGS topographic map with the site of the best management practice
(BMP) identified on it.
2. A brief description of the type, purpose, and function of the proposed BMP; the nonpoint source pollutants
to be controlled; and characteristics of the site.
3. Plans and specifications for the proposed BMP with sign off by NRCS or registered professional engineer.
4. Landowner Agreement.
As the landowner of the site for the BMP described in this form, I hereby authorize the release of this
information to the Illinois EPA and the public:
_____________________________________________________ _________________________
Landowner Signature Date
This Agency is authorized to require this information under 415 ILCS 5/4(l). Disclosure of this information is required. Failure to do so may prevent this form
from being processed and could result in your application being denied. This form has been approved by the Forms Management Center.
Page 2 of 2
ESTIMATED COSTS ACTUAL COSTS
Est. Average Est. Actual Actual Actual
BMP Expenses Units Cost/Unit Cost Units Cost/Unit Cost
1. Earthwork 1.00HR 28,000.00 28,000.00 1 27,800 27,800.00 __________
2. Outcropping Stone 30Tn 483.45 14,503.50 30 483.45 14,503.50 __________
3. Gravel 20Cy 131.97 2,639.39 20 131.97 2,639.39 ___________
4. Geofabric 60Sy 2.10 126.00 60 2.10 126.00 ____________
5. Angular Stone 18Cy 38.00 684.00 18 38.00 684.00 ____________
6. Seeding 1.5Ac 3099.00 4,648.50 1.5 3099.00 4,648.50 ___________
7. Native Plant Plugs 5,000Ea 4.79 23,962.50 5,000 4.79 23,962.50 __________
8. Wildlife Exclusion Structure 24.00Ea 246.28 5,910.75 24 246.28 5,910.74 ___________
9. Erosion Control Blanket 4500.00Sy 4.96 22,338.28 4500 4.96 22,320.00 __________
10. Stewardship/Maintenance 5.00Ac 1,140.00 5,700.00 5.00 1,140.00 5,700.00 ___________
11.
12. Interpretive Signage 1 3,000.00 3,000.00 1 1,402.00 1,402.00 ___________
13. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________
14. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________
15. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________
(Attached Additional sheets if necessary)
$ x % = $ $ x % =$
Estimated Cost Illinois EPA Share Estimated Payment Actual Cost Illinois EPA Share Payment
$ x % = $ $ x % = $
Estimated Cost Landowner Share Estimated Match Actual Cost Landowner Share Match
PRE-CONSTRUCTION APPROVALS POST-CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATION
_____________________________________________________
Recipient Date Actual Start Date: Completion Date
______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Date Recipient Date
Page 2 of 2
CONSERVATION DESIGN FORUM (PROJECT NO. 03095.00)
Appendix V
Interpretive Signage
This interpretive sign was a collaborative effort with the Westmont High School Art
Department. It creatively ties together the restoration of the pond with the Park’s name
sake, Muddy Waters, and his blues background.
CONSERVATION DESIGN FORUM (PROJECT NO. 03095.00)