Appendix H- plan formulation screening

DRAFTCHICAGO DISTRICT

DUPAGE RIVER

ILLINOIS

Appendix H: Plan Formulation

July 2018

1.1 Site Screening The Project Delivery Team conducted a systematic and efficient evaluation of potential projects, using increasing level of detail as the number of potentially viable projects was reduced. A three‐phased screening process was used to narrow down the initial array of identified potential flood risk management measures to eventually identifying a tentatively selected plan. Each phase relied on increased level of detail in the analyses in order to “buy‐down” or better understand the amount of uncertainty associated with the various measures.

1. Preliminary screening – High level screening based on initial economic damages, engineering considerations, and environmental criteria. Initial cost estimates using parametric cost estimates were used to screen some types of measures. Basic hydraulic analysis was used where appropriate to provide preliminary screening. Measures which indicate any likelihood of positive net benefits based on this screening were retained for further consideration. More details about the steps used for this level of screening for each measure type and the results of this screening are included in the main report.

2. Secondary screening – The measures that were remaining after the initial round of screening were modeled in the hydraulic model and economic benefits were determined using the HEC-FDA economic model. Based on this more detailed level of H&H and economic analysis, more detailed cost estimates were developed only for alternatives which were considered to possibly result in positive net benefits.

3. Evaluation of final array – Measures estimated to have a likelihood of positive net benefits were combined into different alternative combination. Each alternative was modeled in the H&H model and economic benefits for each alternative were estimated with the HEC-FDA economic model. Based on the results of the economic analysis, alternatives were compared to maximize net benefits.

4. Identification of Tentatively Selected Plan – Alternatives in the final array which resulted in positive net benefits were combined to form the TSP. Additional detail about this evaluation process is included in the main report.

1.1.1 Preliminary and Secondary Screening Overview Initial screening was conducted using existing data if available or based on assumptions where data was not available. The plans and initial screening steps are outlined in Table 1. Additional detail about the screening will be included in the full Feasibility Report and is not included in this report summary.

Table 1. Screening Steps

Measures Screening Steps

Identified Sites

Initial Prelim.

Screening2nd

Screening

Levees/ Floodwalls

1. Check ability to tie-back line of protection in high damage areas 2. Establish a cost estimate for each retained levee based on

parametric costs established based on structure type (levee or floodwall), height, length, and number of closure structures required.

3. Use the HEC-FDA model to establish potential economic benefits for each retained levee option

4. Retain levees which indicate a possibility of positive net benefits for further evaluation

5. Check for nearby storage sites that could provide storage to address induced stages

40 31 4

New storage or

modifications to existing

storage

1. Review open spaces along waterways 2. Check for site conflicts 3. Perform hydraulic modeling using idealized storage assumptions

to determine potential impacts of storage areas. Compare location of water surface level reductions to identified damage area

4. Use hydraulic model outputs in the HEC-FDA model to establish potential economic benefits for each retained storage option

5. Retain storage areas which indicate a possibility of positive net benefits for further evaluation

94 94 5

Channel Improvements:

Bridge Modifications

1. Identify constrictions from FEMA profiles and areas of mitigation interest, public comments

2. Eliminate constrictions which are not associated with damage areas

3. Compare estimated average annual damages associated with areas upstream of identified constrictions

4. Retain potential modifications which are considered to have a possibility of positive net benefits based on reduction of constriction for further evaluation

51 33 1

Channel Improvement: Smoothing or Modification of Alignment

1. Sites identified in coordination with non-Federal sponsors and local municipalities.

2. Compare estimated average annual damages associated with areas upstream of identified constrictions

3. Retain potential modifications which are considered to have a possibility of positive net benefits based on reduction of constriction for further evaluation

1 1 0

Channel Improvement:

Dam Modifications

1. Identify dams for potential modification or removal 2. Perform preliminary hydraulic evaluation to determine potential

benefits and potential impacts of modification 3. Retain modifications which indicate a benefit in damage areas to

not result in induced damages downstream of diversion site for further evaluation

4 4 1

Measures Screening Steps

Identified Sites

Initial Prelim.

Screening2nd

Screening

Other Structural: Diversions

1. Sites identified in coordination with non-Federal sponsors and local municipalities.

2. Perform preliminary hydraulic evaluation to determine potential benefits and potential impacts of proposed diversions

3. Retain diversions which indicate a benefit in damage areas to not result in induced damages downstream of diversion site for further evaluation

3 3 1

Other Structural:

Below grade cut-off walls

1. Retain for further investigation in areas impacted by subsurface flows.

2 2 1

Non-structural physical measures

1. Identify and group areas of isolated damages 2. Retain all areas for further consideration using an economic

analysis

10 alternatives developed and retained for

evaluation Non-structural non-physical

measures

1. Consider individually based on input from sponsors, partner agencies, and public input.

n/a

Nature-Based Features

2. Consider integration measures at sites retained for the recommended plan.

Consider for all recommended projects

1.1.2 Levee/ Floodwall Screening Basic design assumptions were made for each levee location which was retained after the preliminary screening process. Approximate alignment was based on review of available topographic data, aerial photography and structure location data. Assessment of likely structure type (levee or floodwall) was based on the review of aerial photography. The levee height was approximated based on the1% ACE flood profile available from FEMA. Both length and height assumptions were initially based on rough estimates to support a screening level analysis.

Parametric cost estimates based on the length and height of the levee or floodwall and the number of closure structures required for the line of protection. Economic damages for the target damage reach (refer to main) were compared with the parametric cost estimates to perform the secondary screening. The majority of the levees alternatives evaluated were screened based on this comparison. As noted in Table 2, in most cases, the level of economic damages were significantly lower than the parametric level costs estimates, so the alternatives were screened from further consideration.

The four (4) levee reaches retained (LVEB07a, LVEB07b, LVEB07c, LVSJ01) are the 4 existing levees, collectively called the Lisle Levee System, or the River Dumoulin Levees, based on the name of the neighborhood they are located in.

Table 2. Levee Screening Table

Basin Alt. ID Jurisdiction Damage Reach

Length (ft)

Type Screening Screening Notes

Wes

t Bra

nch

LVWB01 DuPage County: Winfield, Winfield Township

WB01 6,350 Levee Eliminate Screened based on parametric cost estimate compared to damages.

LVWB02a DuPage County: Warrenville, Winfield Township


LVWB02bDuPage County: Warrenville


LVWB03 DuPage County: Warrenville

WB03 8,403 Eliminate DuPage County recently completed this project..

LVWB04a DuPage County: Naperville

WB04 2,140 Floodwall Eliminate Screened based on parametric cost estimate compared to damages.

LVWB04bDuPage County: Naperville

WB04 4,342 Levee/

Floodwall Eliminate

Screened based on parametric cost estimate compared to damages.

LVWB05 DuPage County: Naperville


Eas

t Bra

nch

LVEB02 DuPage County: Milton Township

EB02 2,915 Levee/

Floodwall Eliminate


LVEB03 DuPage County: Glen Ellyn

EB04 2,717 Levee Eliminate Screened based on parametric cost estimate compared to damages.

LVEB05 DuPage County: Glen Ellyn

EB05 5,778 Levee Eliminate Screened based on parametric cost estimate compared to damages.

LVEB06 DuPage County: Milton Township

EB06 6,245

Levee with

cutoff wall

Eliminate

Screened based on parametric cost estimate compared to damages. Alternative SSEB01 is evaluated separately to address subsurface flooding issues.

LVEB07a DuPage County: Lisle EB07 4,256 Levee/

Floodwall Retain Part of Lisle Levee System

LVEB07b DuPage County: Lisle EB07 4,133 Levee Retain Part of Lisle Levee System

LVEB07c DuPage County: Lisle EB07 3,982 Levee Retain Part of Lisle Levee System

LVEB09 DuPage County: Lisle, Lisle Township

EB09 4,868 Floodwall Eliminate Screened based on parametric cost estimate compared to damages.

LVEB10 Will County: Bolingbrook EB10 5,619 Levee Eliminate Screened based on parametric cost estimate compared to damages.

LVSJ01 DuPage County: Lisle SJ01 2,600 Floodwall Retain Part of Lisle Levee System

Table 2. Levee Screening Table

Basin Alt. ID Jurisdiction Damage Reach

Length (ft)

Type Screening Screening Notes

DuP

age

Mai

nste

m

LVMS01 Will County: Bolingbrook, Wheatland Township, Plainfield Township

DU01 8,474 Levee Eliminate Screened based on parametric cost estimate compared to damages.

LVMS02a Will County: Plainfield, Plainfield Township


LVMS02b Will County: Plainfield, Plainfield Township


LVMS03a Will County: Joliet, Plainfield Township


LVMS03b Will County: Joliet, Plainfield Township


LVMS03c Will County: Joliet, Plainfield Township


LVMS04a Will County: Joliet, Plainfield Township, Troy Township

DU04 5,313 Levee/

Floodwall Eliminate


LVMS04b Will County: Joliet, Plainfield Township


LVMS05a Will County: Shorewood DU05 621 Levee Eliminate Screened based on parametric cost estimate compared to damages.

LVMS05b Will County: Shorewood DU05 3,512 Levee Eliminate Screened based on parametric cost estimate compared to damages.

LVMS06 Will County: Troy Township


LVMS07 Will County: Channahon Township

DU07 6,133 Levee/

Floodwall Eliminate

Screened based on parametric cost estimate compared to damages. Alternative SSEB01 is evaluated separately to address subsurface flooding issues.

LVMS10 Will County: Channahon DU10 2,975 Levee Eliminate Screened based on parametric cost estimate compared to damages.

LVLC02 Will County: Joliet, Plainfield Township

LC02 4,943 Levee Eliminate Screened based on parametric cost estimate compared to damages.

1.1.3 Storage Screening For the secondary screening process, hydraulic modeling runs were performed using idealized storage assumptions to determine potential impacts of storage on the river profiles. To determine which storage locations would be modeled as part of the secondary screening, the economic model results from the without project conditions were used. Hydraulic parameters, such as storage weir heights, were optimized based on the percent damage by percent change exceedance. This allowed for the peak of the hydrograph to be captured in the storage location. For example, for reach DU03c, no significant damages began until approximately the 4%-2% annual chance exceedance event. Therefore weir heights and

storage volumes could be optimized for these events and greater knowing that for smaller events minimal benefits would be produced. This table was also used to narrow down where storage locations might be modeled. For example, for reach DU03a, since damages didn’t occur until the 0.5% annual chance exceedance event and the percent of total damage was relatively small, chances of storage reducing water surface elevations in this area would be small. Therefore, storage areas were focused on those areas where the total percent damage occurred at a smaller storm duration and the percent of total damages where relatively significant, such as Reach EB01. Table 3 was created to identify which storm events to target for further storage formulation. These targets were identified based on the percent of economic damages induced at each damage reach. The table identified at approximately which ACE event damages began and what percent of total damage of structures within the reach occurred at that ACE. Hydraulic model runs were completed to target benefits at the elevation that corresponded with hydraulic profile at the ACE event which caused the highest relative amount of economic damages for specific damage reaches.

Hydraulic parameters, such as storage weir heights, were optimized based on the percent damage by percent change exceedance. This allowed for the peak of the hydrograph to be captured in the storage location. For example, for reach DU03c, no significant damages began until approximately the 4%-2% annual chance exceedance event. Therefore weir heights and storage volumes could be optimized for these events and greater knowing that for smaller events minimal benefits would be produced. This table was also used to narrow down where storage locations might be modeled. For example, for reach DU03a, since damages didn’t occur until the 0.5% annual chance exceedance event and the percent of total damage was relatively small, chances of storage reducing water surface elevations in this area would be small. Therefore, storage areas were focused on those areas where the total percent damage occurred at a smaller storm duration and the percent of total damages where relatively significant, such as Reach EB01. Table 3. Percent of Total Damage by Percent Chance Exceedance

Stream Reach Downstream

Station Upstream

Station Percent of Total Damage by Percent Chance Exceedance

50% 20% 10% 4% 2% 1% .5% 0.2% WBWB WB01a 95,535 98,775 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 36% 100% WBWB WB01b 92,515 95,535 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 8% 21% 100% WBWB WB02a 99,105 71,155 0% 0% 0% 1% 5% 17% 30% 100% WBWB WB02b 67,395 69,105 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 5% 15% 100% WBWB WB02c 66,635 67,395 0% 0% 0% 1% 5% 11% 23% 100% WBWB WB03 54,105 62,535 0% 0% 0% 1% 4% 24% 54% 100% WBWB WB04a 30,705 32,035 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 28% 100% WBWB WB04b 26,345 30,705 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 17% 41% 100% WBWB WB05 16,065 17,505 2% 4% 4% 5% 5% 5% 9% 100% EBEB EB01 122,515 126,455 50% 80% 90% 96% 98% 99% 100% 100% EBEB EB02 108,055 110,155 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 100% EBEB EB03 102,785 104,815 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% EBEB EB04 97,835 99,555 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 27% 100% EBEB EB05 91,755 95,255 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% EBEB EB06 69,275 74,785 1% 2% 7% 40% 72% 87% 95% 100% EBEB EB07 60,025 63,065 0% 0% 6% 19% 33% 48% 69% 100% EBEB EB08 56,095 60,025 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 7% 27% 100% EBEB EB09 53,125 56,085 1% 1% 1% 4% 13% 32% 59% 100% EBEB EB10 29,645 33,415 0% 0% 1% 2% 5% 14% 30% 100% DUDU DU01 106,438 115,463 0% 0% 2% 7% 12% 23% 55% 100% DUDU DU02a 94,687 97,627 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 16% 44% 100% DUDU DU02b 90,608 94,687 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 16% 50% 100% DUDU DU03a 73,959 76,595 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 21% 100% DUDU DU03b 70,284 73,959 0% 0% 0% 2% 8% 14% 19% 100% DUDU DU03c 69,022 70,284 0% 2% 5% 15% 25% 37% 47% 100% DUDU DU04a 63,476 68,268 3% 4% 5% 11% 25% 43% 59% 100%

DUDU DU04b 66,272 67,598 8% 12% 14% 15% 22% 37% 48% 100% DUDU DU05aa 48,356 50,783 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 15% 39% 100% DUDU DU05b 46,543 48,356 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 18% 57% 100% DUDU DU06 26,427 27,314 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 12% 100% DUDU DU07 10,240 15,966 0% 1% 3% 9% 18% 38% 65% 100% DUDU DU08 2,293 6,415 0% 0% 0% 5% 10% 21% 40% 100% DULC LC01 26,595 39,539 0% 0% 1% 35% 69% 86% 95% 100% DULC LC02 7,408 12,249 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 12% 35% 100% DULC LC03 284 4,406 10% 15% 17% 18% 19% 20% 26% 100%

The hydraulic modeling results of the alternatives which resulted in reduction in river profiles in target damage reaches for the target ACE events were evaluated in the economic model to estimate the benefits of the proposed storage locations as compared to the without project condition.

Parametric cost estimates were based on storage volume, the length and height of the levee or floodwall, and the number of closure structures required for the line of protection. Economic benefits were compared with the parametric cost estimates to perform the secondary screening. As noted in Table 4 the majority of the storage alternatives were screened because they were not near (upstream of) an identified damage area or because the results of the H&H modeling indicated that they would not result in reduction of river profiles or the reduction of the profiles did not result in enough economic benefits to support further evaluation.

Five (5) storage areas were retained for further evaluation:

1. STEB 04 – Hidden Lake Storage

2. STEB 26 – Lacey Creek Restriction

3. STEB 27 – Warrenville Road Storage

4. STEB 28 – St. Joseph Creek Storage #1

5. STEB 29 – St. Joseph Creek Storage #2

Table 4. Storage Area Screening Table

Basin Alt. ID Jurisdiction Area

(Acre)Current Land

Use Screening Screening Notes

Wes

t Bra

nch

STWB01 DuPage County: Bartlett, Wayne Township, Hanover Park

743 Conservation Eliminate Not located near a damage area.

STWB02 DuPage County: Bartlett, Wayne Township

156 Conservation Eliminate Majority of site is wetland.

STWB03 DuPage County: Bartlett, Wayne Township


STWB04 DuPage County: Wayne Township

86 Agriculture Eliminate Not located near a damage area.


570 Conservation Eliminate DuPage County recently completed storage project at this site.






177 Conservation Eliminate Critical habitat for T&E species.





STWB11 DuPage County: Winfield, Winfield Township

348 Conservation Eliminate Modeled in H&H. Economic analysis did not support further evaluation.

STWB12 DuPage County: Winfield, Winfield Township

277 Conservation Eliminate Majority of site is wetland. Also, not located near a damage area.

STWB13 DuPage County: Winfield Township

111 Conservation Eliminate Majority of site is wetland. Also, not located near a damage area.







STWB17 DuPage County: Warrenville, Winfield Township



57 Conservation Eliminate Critical habitat for T&E species, Evaluated in 1982 Study.

STWB19 DuPage County: Warrenville 109 Conservation Eliminate Majority of site is wetland.

STWB20 DuPage County: Warrenville, Winfield Township


STWB21 DuPage County: Naperville Township


STWB22 DuPage County: Naperville 51 Conservation Eliminate Modeled in H&H. Economic analysis did not support further evaluation.

STWB23 DuPage County: Naperville 17 Recreation Eliminate Modeled in H&H. Economic analysis did not support further evaluation.

STWB24 DuPage County: Naperville Township

517 Conservation Eliminate High quality wetlands and USACE enhancement site.

STWB25 Will County: Naperville, Bolingbrook, DuPage Township

319 Conservation Eliminate Most of site is high ground, construction would require significant excavation.

STWB26 Will County: Naperville, Wheatland Township






(Acre)Current Land


Eas

t Bra

nch

STEB01 DuPage County: Bloomingdale Township, Glendale Heights, Addison

203 Conservation Eliminate Majority of site is wetland, evaluated in 1982 study.

STEB02 DuPage County: Milton Township, Lombard

207 Conservation Eliminate Recent enhancement project completed, evaluated in 1982 study, avoid T&E habitat.

STEB03 DuPage County: Milton Township, Glen Ellyn, Lombard

151 Golf Course Eliminate Modeled in H&H. Economic analysis did not support further evaluation.

STEB04 DuPage County: Downers Grove

117 Conservation Retain Retained - Hidden Lake Storage and Restriction.

STEB05 DuPage County: Milton Township


STEB06 DuPage County: Milton Township and Lisle Township

810 Conservation Eliminate Existing arboretum on site.

STEB07 DuPage County: Milton Township, Lisle Township, Lisle


STEB08 DuPage County: Lisle 15 Stormwater Eliminate Existing Storage - limited additional capacity.

STEB09 DuPage County: Lisle 89 Recreation Eliminate

Currently developed as recreational land. Fully located in floodplain. Downstream damages didn’t support further evaluation.

STEB10 DuPage County: Lisle 18 Golf Course Eliminate

Currently developed as recreational land. Fully located in floodplain. Downstream damages didn’t support further evaluation.

STEB11 DuPage County: Lisle and Lisle Township

46 Open Space for Residential Development

Eliminate Majority of site is wetland.

STEB12 DuPage County: Lisle 60 Golf Course Eliminate This site and 7 Bridges site has already been reviewed and optimized by DuPage County.

STEB13 DuPage County: Lisle Township


STEB14 DuPage County: Lisle Township, Woodridge

157 Recreation and Private Open Space

Eliminate Not located near a damage area.






897 Conservation Eliminate Landfill Site.

STEB18 Will County: Bolingbrook, DuPage Township

541 Quarry Eliminate This site was evaluated as part of the Bolingbrook Quarry Diversion Alternative (OSEB01).

STEB19 Will County: Bolingbrook 32 Conservation Eliminate Not located near a damage area.

STEB20 Will County: Bolingbrook 140 Conservation Eliminate This site was evaluated as part of the Bolingbrook Quarry Diversion Alternative (OSEB01).

STEB21 Will County: Naperville 67 Conservation Eliminate Not located near a damage area.

STEB22 Will County: Naperville, Bolingbrook

115 Conservation Eliminate

Not located near a damage area.

STEB23 Will County: Naperville, Bolingbrook

109 Conservation Eliminate




(Acre)Current Land


STEB24 Will County: Naperville, Bolingbrook, DuPage Township

74 Conservation, Recreation, Utility ROW

Eliminate Currently developed as recreational land. Fully located in floodplain. Downstream damages didn’t support further evaluation.

STEB25 DuPage County: Woodridge 72 Golf Course Eliminate Not located near a damage area.

STEB26 DuPage County: Lisle and Lisle Township

177 Conservation Retained Retained - Lacey Creek Restrictor.

STEB27 DuPage County: Lisle 17 Vacant Retained Retained - Warrenville Road Storage. STEB28 DuPage County: Lisle 9 Floodplain Retained Retained - St. Joseph Creek Storage #1. STEB29 DuPage County: Lisle 22 Floodplain Retained Retained - St. Joseph Creek Storage #2.

STEB30 DuPage County: Downers Grove

36 Floodplain Eliminate Modeled in H&H. Did not result in flood

profile reduction.

Mai

nste

m

STMS01 Will County: Wheatland Township

198 Quarry Eliminate



157 Golf Course Eliminate






45 Conservation

Eliminate Site used for stormwater management by High Meadow subdivision and planned for further development for stormwater management by City of Naperville to mitigate for capital improvement project.


81 Quarry Eliminate


STMS06 Will County: Wheatland Township, Plainfield

413 Agriculture

Eliminate Modeled in H&H (STDU07 used as proxy). Did not result in flood profile reduction. Portion is a planned subdivision.

STMS07 Will County: Wheatland Township, Plainfield

414 Agriculture Eliminate Modeled in H&H. Did not result in flood

profile reduction. Portion is a planned subdivision.

STMS08 Will County: Plainfield Township, Plainfield

118 Recreation, Agriculture

Eliminate Modeled in H&H. Did not result in flood profile reduction.

STMS09 Will County: Plainfield 67 Agriculture Eliminate Adjacent to STMS07 and STMS08,

which were evaluated and not justified. STMS10 Will County: Plainfield 39 Agriculture Eliminate Not located near a damage area. STMS11 Will County: Plainfield 124 Agriculture Eliminate Not located near a damage area.

STMS12 Will County: Plainfield 152 Agriculture Eliminate Modeled in H&H. Economic analysis

did not support further evaluation.

STMS13 Will County: Joliet 170 Golf Course Eliminate Actively used golf course. Economic

damages downstream did not support further evaluation.

STMS14 Will County: Joliet, Plainfield Township

35 Agriculture Eliminate Economic damages downstream did not

support further evaluation.

STMS15 Will County: Plainfield Township

64 Agriculture Eliminate Modeled in H&H. Economic analysis

did not support further evaluation.

STMS16 Will County: Joliet 149 Agriculture, Conservation

Eliminate Modeled in H&H. Did not result in flood profile reduction.

STMS17 Will County: Shorewood 300 Conservation Eliminate Modeled in H&H. Did not result in flood

profile reduction. STMS18 Will County: Troy Township 57 Agriculture Eliminate Included.

STMS19 Will County: Shorewood, Troy Township

383 Agriculture Eliminate Not located near a damage area.

STDU20 Will County: Troy Township 38 Agriculture Eliminate Not located near a damage area. STDU21 Will County: Troy Township 209 Agriculture Eliminate Not located near a damage area. STDU22 Will County: Troy Township 299 Agriculture Eliminate Not located near a damage area.



(Acre)Current Land


STDU23 Will County: Troy Township 76 Agriculture Eliminate Not located near a damage area.

STDU24 Will County: Channahon Township

134 Agriculture Eliminate Modeled in H&H. Did not result in

enough flood profile reduction to support further evaluation.

STDU25 Will County: Channahon, Channahon Township

148 Agriculture Eliminate Across the river from STMS24, which

was evaluated and not economically justified.

STDU26 Will County: Minooka 83 Agriculture Eliminate Modeled in H&H. Did not result in flood

profile reduction.

STDU27 Will County: Channahon Township

136 Agriculture, Other

Eliminate Located downstream of all damage areas.

STDU28 Will County: Channahon 71 Private Open Space

Eliminate Located downstream of all damage areas.

STDU29 Will County: Plainfield 72 Agriculture Eliminate Marked as platted subdivision by

Plainfield so storage was not possible.

STDU30 Will County: Shorewood 45 Vacant Residential


Lil

y C

ache

Cre

ek

STLC01 Will County: Bolingbrook 472 Agriculture Eliminate Not located near a damage area.

STLC02 Will County: Wheatland Township

170 Agriculture, Vacant


STLC03 Will County: Plainfield Township

343 Private Open Space

Eliminate Economic damages adjacent and downstream did not support further evaluation.


154 Agriculture Eliminate






153 Agriculture Eliminate


STLC07 Will County: Plainfield 153 Agriculture Eliminate Not located near a damage area.

1.1.4 Channel Improvement Screening Bridges which were initially identified as causing a constriction on the channel were further evaluated based on updated H&H modeling results and economic damage estimates to determine if any of the bridges could be modified to reduce flood risk. By reducing the constriction at these structures, flood profiles upstream of the bridges could be reduced to lower flood risk.

Due to the relatively low economic damage estimates and the high relative cost required to modify bridge structures, all but one bridge was screened from consideration. Table 5 includes a summary of the screening process.

Table 5. Bridge Modification Screening Table Basin Alt. ID Structure Description Jurisdiction Screening Screening Note

Mai

nste

m

BRHC01 Brookshore Drive Will County: Shorewood Eliminate Not located in a damage area.

BRHC02 Cottage Street (State Route 59)

Will County: Shorewood Eliminate Not located in a damage area.

BRHC03 Hammell Woods Will County: Shorewood Eliminate Not located in a damage area.

BRLC01 119th Street Will County: Bolingbrook Eliminate Insufficient economic damages to support further evaluation

BRLC02 127th Street/ Chapins Road

Will County: Bolingbrook Eliminate Not located in a damage area.

BRLC03 Pilcher Road Will County: Plainfield, Wheatland Township

Eliminate Insufficient economic damages to support further evaluation

BRLC04 State Route 126 Will County: Plainfield Eliminate Insufficient economic damages to support further evaluation

BRLC05 Industrial Railroad Spur

Plainfield Township Eliminate Insufficient economic damages to support further evaluation

BRLC06 Railroad Will County: Plainfield Township

Eliminate Not located in a damage area.

BRLC07 US Route 30 Will County: Plainfield Eliminate Insufficient economic damages to support further evaluation

BRMS01 Kings Road Will County: BolingbrookWheatland Township


BRMS02 111th Street Will County: Naperville, Wheatland Township

Eliminate Based on updated H&H analysis this bridge does not cause a significant constriction.

BRMS03 State Route 59 (Division Street)

Will County: Plainfield Eliminate Based on updated H&H analysis this bridge does not cause a significant constriction.

BRMS04 Hammel Woods Dam Will County: Shorewood Eliminate Evaluated removing Dam. Did not result in flood profile reduction.

BRMS05 Seil Road Will County: Shorewood, Troy Township


BRMS06 Mound Road Will County: Troy Township


BRMS07 Railroad Will County: Troy Township

Eliminate Bridge is not a significant constriction and due to it being a RR bridge, no modification is proposed.

BRMS08 US Route 6 (Eames Street)

Will County: Channahon, Channahon Township


BRMS09 Bridge Street Will County: Channahon Eliminate Not included in H&H model

BRND01 US Route 30 Will County: Plainfield Eliminate Based on updated H&H analysis this bridge does not cause a significant constriction.

BRND02 Railroads Will County: Plainfield Eliminate Based on updated H&H analysis this bridge does not cause a significant constriction.

BRND03 Van Dyke Road Will County: Plainfield Eliminate Based on updated H&H analysis this bridge does not cause a significant constriction.

BRND04 143rd Street Will County: Plainfield Eliminate Based on updated H&H analysis this bridge does not cause a significant constriction.

BRND05 State Route 59 (Division Street)

Will County: Plainfield Eliminate Based on updated H&H analysis this bridge does not cause a significant constriction.

BRWC01 State Route 59 Will County: Plainfield, Wheatland Township


BRWC02 Leona Drive Will County: Wheatland Township


BRWC03 Book Road Will County: Wheatland Township


Table 5. Bridge Modification Screening Table Basin Alt. ID Structure Description Jurisdiction Screening Screening Note

Eas

t Bra

nch

BREB01 Illinois Prarie Path DuPage County: Milton Township


BREB02 Illinois Route 38/ Roosevelt Road

DuPage County: Glen Ellyn


BREB03 Glenbard WWTP Access

DuPage County: LombardMilton Township


BREB04 Illinois Route 56/ Butterfield Road

DuPage County: DownersGrove, Milton Township

Retain Considered as part of East Branch project alternatives

BREB05 Park Blvd. DuPage County: Milton Township

Eliminate Based on updated H&H analysis this bridge does not cause a significant constriction

BREB06 Burlington Avenue DuPage County: Lisle Eliminate Insufficient economic damages to support further evaluation.

BREB07 Four Lakes Avenue DuPage County: Woodridge


BREB08 75th Street DuPage County: Lisle Township

Eliminate Open space upstream. No structures appear to be in FP upstream

BREB09 Royce Road (Barbers Corners Road)

Will County: Bolingbrook Eliminate

Based on updated H&H analysis this bridge does not cause a significant constriction. In additon, the bridge will be replaced with Quarry diversion channel is constructed (by others, date TBD)

BRPR01 Illinois Route 53/ Summerall Drive

DuPage County: Woodridge


BRSJ01 Main Street DuPage County: Lisle Eliminate Considered as part of St. Joseph storage Alternatives

BRSJ02 Illinois Route 53 DuPage County: Lisle Eliminate Considered as part of St. Joseph storage Alternatives

Wes

t Bra

nch

BRWB01 County Farm Road DuPage County: HannovePark


BRWB02 Railroad DuPage County: Wayne Township


BRWB03 IL Route 64 (North Ave)

DuPage County: West Chicago


BRWB04 Railroad (abandoned) DuPage County: Wayne Township


BRWB05 Railroad (abandoned) DuPage County: Wayne Township


BRWB06 Unnamed Road DuPage County: Wayne Township


BRWB07 Railroad DuPage County: Winfield Eliminate Insufficient economic damages to support further evaluation

BRWB08 Illinois Rt 56/ Butterfield Road

DuPage County: Warrenville


BRWB09 Low Flow Dam DuPage County: Warrenville

Eliminate Low head dam. Ice jams reported. Insufficient economic damages to support further evaluation.

BRWB10 Hillside Rd DuPage County: Naperville

Eliminate Insufficient economic damages to support further evaluation.

BRWB11 Hobson Road DuPage County: Naperville


BRWB12 Joliet Naperville Road (Washington Street)

Will County: Naperville Eliminate Bridge modification already planned. Not located in a damage areaa.

A summary of the screening process of the identified channel improvement and dam modification alternatives is included in Table 6. All of these alternatives were screened from further evaluation. Table 6. Channel Improvement and Dam Modification Screening Table

Project Type

Site ID Basin Jurisdiction Description Screening Screening Note

Cha

nnel

Im

prov

emen

t

ESWB04 WB DuPage County:

Warrenville

Warrenville Rd. Channel

Improvement

Eliminate Project previously completed by DuPage

County

ESEB02 EB DuPage County:

Lisle, Woodridge, Lisle Township

East Branch Restoration

Eliminate Insufficient economic damages to support

further evaluation

ESDU01 DU Will County:

Wheatland Township Clow Creek

Eliminate Outside of 800 cfs study area


Wheatland Township Pheasant Ridge



Plainfield Township Sunnyland Subdivision



Lockport Township El Dorado Drive


Dam

Mod

ific

atio

n


Carol Stream Wayne Oaks

Dam Eliminate Not located near a damage area. Recently

modified.


Naperville Township Fawell Dam

Eliminate Considered modifying operations plan, but the current plan is appropriate. Looked at

adding storage behind the dam, but this was not economically justified.

ESDU07 DU Will County: Shorewood

Hammel Woods Dam

Eliminate Modeled in H&H. Did not result in flood profile reduction. Forest Preserve

considering removal for ecosystem purposes

ESDU08 DU Will County: Channahon

I&M Canal State Park Dam

(Channahon Dam)

Eliminate Modeled in H&H. Benefits didn’t support further evaluation. IDNR has preliminary

design completed for this concept.

1.1.5 Other Structural Measures Screening A review of other structural measures identified was conducted based on the updated H&H and economic modeling results. Table 7 includes a summary of the screening process. A subsurface slurry wall to project a neighborhood in Channahon (SSMS02) was retained for further consideration. Table 7. Other Structural Measures Screening Table Alt. ID Type Jurisdiction Description Screening Screening Note

OSWB01 Diversion DuPage County: Winfield Winfield Diversion Eliminate

Insufficient economic damages to support further evaluation

OSWEB01 Diversion Will County: Plainfield Lily Cache Creek Diversion Eliminate


OSMS01 Diversion Will County: Bolingbrook Bolingbrook Quarry Diversion Retain Retained

SSEB01 Subsurface Cutoff Wall

DuPage County: Milton Township Valley View subdivision Eliminate


SSMS01 Subsurface Cutoff Wall

Will County: Channahon Indian Trail neighborhood Eliminate


SSMS02 Subsurface Cutoff Wall

Will County: Channahon Neighborhood in Channahon Retain Retained for evaluation

Date post:	22-Mar-2022
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Appendix H- plan formulation screening

Documents