Open House Photos August 19th & 20th (Troy & Hamel)
Upper Silver Creek Watershed Plan
Welcome! Thank you for coming this evening to the Open House for the Upper Silver Creek Watershed Plan. Tonight you will have the opportunity to learn more about the Upper Silver Creek Watershed Plan and provide input that will be used to help develop the plan. Elements of the Watershed Plan:
Goals and Objectives:
y Document Existing Conditions y Document existing conditions. in the Watershed: t Soil Types, Land Cover, Topography y Decrease flood damage. t Pollutant Loading (Sediment, Phosporous, y Improve water quality. Nitrogen) t Stream Conditions y Collaborate with multiple partners (landowners, t Areas of Frequent Flooding communities, agencies, etc) y Community Flood Survey for solutions and strategies. y Develop of Watershed Goals y Identify sources of funding. and Objectives y Educate about watershed y Watershed Based Plan: conditions. t Recommendations of best practices and strategies. y Establish partnerships for t Prioritize future actions and projects. implementation and future t Sources of potential funding to assist in actions. implementation.
Upper Silver Creek Watershed Plan
Where do You Live and Work ¬ «4 Eagarville Mount Clare Benld 138 ¬ «
Royal Lakes
Municipalities Bunker Hill 2 4
1
CR
CR, W FK
MONTGOMERY MADISON
SIL VER
CAHOKIA
h
.
Williamson Livingston
55 § ¨ ¦
rk Fo
Worden Litt le S
140
Hamel
140
ilve rC Old re ek Ripley
BOND MADISON
Su
¬ « 157
Cr ee k
CAH OK IA
¬ «4
CR
¬ «
rF
¬ « 159
Alhambra
ga
Wood River
ork
Bethalto
¬ «
Sorento
New Douglas
¬ «
Roxana
MONTGOMERY BOND
y Dr le
Sherry Cree k
dR
Staunton
t Lit
Rocky Bra nc
k E. F
oo .W
PADDOCK CR
MACOUPIN MADISON
Grov eB ran ch ork yF Dr
Miles
INDIA N CR
0
Walshville
Big Branch
Project Area
Fork Lake
Dorchester Wilsonville Sawyerville
Streams
MACOUPIN MONTGOMERY
Legend
143
¬ «
Grantfork
Sa
nd
143
¬ « 159
Edwardsville Marine
70 § ¨ ¦
¬ «
Pierron
143
Troy
162
Caseyville
Collinsville
nch
RC SILVE St. 40 £ [ Jacob
R, E
FK
BOND CLINTON
Highland
nch
Please show us where you live and work by using the colored stickers indicated below: Bra
157
Bra
160
ke r
¬ « Madison
Ca nt ee
55 § ¨ ¦
de ll
¬ «
Mill Creek
Pontoon Beach
70 § ¨ ¦
¬ «
nC
Maryville
W en
MADISON ST. CLAIR
an
255
270
k
§ ¦ ¨
§ ¦ ¨ ree
Unincorporated nch s Bra Judy
SUG AR C
R
Glen Carbon
MADISON M ADISSON CLINTON
Sp
¬ « 157
Live Work
Upper Silver Creek Watershed Plan
Schedule tŝŶƚĞƌ ϭϰΖ
^ƉƌŝŶŐ ϭϰΖ
Dec
March April
Jan
Feb
May
^ƵŵŵĞƌ ϭϰΖ
&Ăůů ϭϰΖ
June
Sept
July
Aug
Oct
Nov
tŝŶƚĞƌ ϭϱΖ
^ƉƌŝŶŐ ϭϱΖ
Dec
March April
Jan
Feb
May
^ƵŵŵĞƌ ϭϱΖ
&Ăůů ϭϱΖ
June
Sept
Project Kickoff Aerial Inventory of Streams Analysis of Aerial Footage Existing Condition Mapping and Analysis Stakeholder Interviews Community Flooding Survey Public Open Houses - Round 1 Draft Existing Conditions Report Final Existing Conditions Report Development of Priority Issues and Areas of Focus Development of Recommended Best Management practices (BMPs) Draft Watershed-Based Plan Follow-up Meetings with Stakeholders Public Open Houses - Round 2 Revise Watershed-Based Plan Final Watershed-Based Plan
We Are Here
Upper Silver Creek Watershed Plan
July
Aug
Oct
Nov
We Want Your Input! Please take our survey! Please take a moment tonight to fill out the community flooding survey for homes, businesses, and property owners in the Upper Silver Creek watershed. This will help in determining strategies and recommendations for addressing flooding problems in the watershed.
An online version of the survey is available at: www.surveymonkey.com/s/UpperSilverCreek The survey will be open until September 12th.
Thank you for your input and comments! Upper Silver Creek Watershed Plan
Madison County Stormwater Plan ¬ « 16
4
C
Big r a nch
W
MACOUPIN MONTGOMERY
55
F
1.666165
¬ «
Moo n C r ey eek
¬ «
rl r a ock nc h
162
use
Mi Creek ll
157
1.5
3
« ¬ «¬ ¬ «¬ « § ¦ ¨ 3
3
3
15
64
r
Buc key e
B r a n ch
C India re e
F ork Cr eek
E
Sugar Creek er
nk c pa ran B
k
S
re
S ilv e
H Cr a g e ee m k ann
ke nc a
h
Lit t le
MADISON CLINTON
La Br
Ogles Creek
rC
e
h
k
6 Miles
Little Cantee
ee Cr
C
ree er k
oenber C reek ge
MADISON ST. CLAIR
n
0 De
Sc h
Lak e For k Fo rk Cre ek
ST. CLAIR CLINTON
203
cus t For
40
ork h F ek Cre
¬ « ¬ «
Lo
BOND CLINTON
£ [
No M il rt l
h
Canteen Creek
Bla C re ck ek
ar ee k
C
160
k
¬ «
S
¬ «
n
¬ «
143
n Br d a ll ch e
Br anc
111
¬ «
B
We
C Ro hain ck s C of an al
270
Canteen Creek-Cahokia Sch Creek o ol h o
t as l oa Sh
70
§ ¦ ¨
255
k ek or Cre r
S
§ ¦ ¨ Co
§ ¦ ¨
Ea
ee k Cr
ek
157
Judy s h Branc nch Burdick Bra
India n n k
st ilve F
rC Silv e
tle e Lit y Cr e
3
East Fork Silver d San e k Creek Cre
4
on
159
¬ «
¬ «
ug
Mo
Cahokia Diversion Channel
Cree k
BOND MADISON
re ek
157
Su ga r C r eek
M re e o
¬ «
203
s Dorri e k Cre
Sil
r
Burro Br g hs an ch
¬ « oney k
C
t tle
140
159
143
Li
¬ «
Silver Creek
¬ «
Judys Branch-Mississippi River ¬ «
El m Br a n c
ork
ga r Su
143
u
as Gingr Creek
t
Yanke Cre e ek
D ry F ork
Indian Creek-Cahokia Creek
« ¬ « ¬
203
C
r
¬ «
¬ «
Headwaters Shoal Creek
§ ¦ ¨
ve
Wo Riv od er
140
3
Maline C reek
Dry Fork
MONTGOMERY MADISON
ho ki a Ca Cr eek
¬ «
111
t rca k e
ea re
West F ork Cahok ia C
C r eek Joulte rs Creek
W E oo as d tF R or ive k r
140
B
MONTGOMERY BOND
ek
¬ «
ch
e Cr
ields Sh nch Bra
Portage Des Sioux-Mississippi River
127
tle
111
Bran
eng k
ck te Ro hi reek C
¬ «
avel a nd W Cr e ek
G rove
Lit
y Ro ck h c Bra n
C
¬ «
er M ill C r eek
ork ek Cre
t Fla
iver
di
Lake Fork
Indi an C re e k
Lick Branc h
Ro Cr ck C Bran oal ee ch B lack r eek
100
s on nt De nch Bra
¬ «
k
iss iss ipp iR
In
Rock y For k
e
M
an
67
ck ek
E ast For k Sherr y
£ [
MACOUPIN MADISON
Wood River
Pad d Cr o e
ch
Cr e ek
We st F Wood Rive H onoe rk r y B cut an
S o uth Bran L ittle Piasa Cr ch eek
r
M il l Cre k
k ee East Sugar Ca m p C re ek
ree k
Pia s
k
Br a Br nch igg s
JERSEY MADISON
l C ek re
C r
Pi
tle Lit ree C a
185
lCre ek Shoa
w ke As anc h Br
Fork uth So r Creek e Ott
Piasa Creek
¬ «
G Cr ins ee
tle Lit Cre a as
Sherr y Cr eek
ek
JERSEY MACOUPIN
138
109
a ak st e
Sugar Creek
¬ « ¬ «
Lo B ra ng n ch
Midd Fork le er nth Pa C r ee k
h anc Br ork F
r
B reek ea
L
¬ « B
Otter Creek
op
Po h in
h
M i dd S h oa le F l
16
111
amsBr an Ad
ch
B
¬ «
¬ «
We st F o r Sho a k
Piasa Creek
k
E
e sC r e hil
o C nc ra Elm Cr e ek
P
267
g Sp rin k e Cre
¬ « nd y Sa ree k C
This map produced by HeartLands Conservancy (2014) w ith base data provided by USGS (2014), Madison County (2014), and H tL d C (2014) H tL d C 618 566 4451
Watersheds in Madison County Overview of Stormwater Plan The Madison County Stormwater Plan is the overall framework for stormwater management in the county which guides regulations, identifies flood and water quality problems, establishes best management practices, and prioritizes work to be done. The Upper Silver Creek watershed is one of ten watersheds that will be part of the overall Stormwater Plan. Direction and approval for the Stormwater Plan comes from the Madison County Stormwater Commission, whose members include County Board members and municipal representatives.
Upper Silver Creek Watershed Plan
Existing Conditions Land Cover, Slope, Soils ¬ «
Eagarville
Mount 4 Clare
Lake Ka-Ho
Benld
Mount Clare
¬ «
¬ «
Eagarville
4
Lake Ka-Ho
Benld
138
Dorchester
Sawyerville
¬ « 138
Dorchester
Wilsonville
Mount Olive
White City
Sawyerville Walshville
Mount Olive
White City
Wilsonville
¬ «
Walshville
159
Bunker Hill
Bunker Hill
Staunton
Staunton Sorento Williamson
Williamson New Douglas
Livingston
159
55
¬ « 140
Old Ripley
Alhambra
¬ «
¦ ¨ §
Worden
Holiday Shores
Hamel
New Douglas
Livingston
§ ¦ ¨
Worden
Holiday Shores
¬ «
55
Hamel
¬ « 140
4
Alhambra
¬ « 4
¬ « 157
¬ « 157
Grantfork
¬ «
Grantfork
159
« ¬ «¬ 159
157
Edwardsville
Edwardsville Marine
Marine
§ ¦ ¨ 70
Glen Carbon
Pierron
¬ «
Glen Carbon
143
¬ « 160
§ ¦ ¨ ¬ «
HighlandLegend
£ [
Troy 162
¬ « 160
270
Maryville
40
Legend
Highland
¬ « 162
Troy
Watershed Plan Project Area
St. Jacob
Pierron
143
70
¦ ¨ §
159
Maryville
¬ «
¦ ¨ §
¬ «
270
Watershed Plan Project Area
Streams
£ [
St. Jacob
Surface Water
Streams
40
Surface Water
Municipalities
Municipalities
Collinsville
Collinsville
Slope (degrees)
Elevation
0-5
Value High : 700 feet Mid : 570 feet Low : 440 feet
5 - 15 15 - 25 25 - 35
0 0.5 1
O'Fallon
2
Miles 4
3
0 0.450.9
4
¬ « 4
Project Area
Soil types Oconee silt loam
O KI A
Downsouth silt loam Beaucoup silty clay loam
C AH
Pierron silt loam Wakeland silt loam Birds silt loam
Legend Wilbur silt loam
Water
R
CR
Caseyville silt loam; 267B
Wood R. W. FK.
Barren
Winfield-Orthents-Urban land complex
CR, W FK
CR, W FK
Forest
Branc h
Weir silt loam Menfro-Orthents-Urban land complex
ranch ve B Gro
Rural Grassland
Elco silt loam
Big Branch
Urban Grassland
Coop
Elco silty clay loam
CAHOKIA
CAHOKIA
Agriculture (row crops)
ch ran eB ov
138
Gr
Big Branch
¬ «
a e s ed
Beaucoup silty clay loam
Branc h
Low/Medium Density Urban
Orion silt loam
Project Area
Dr y
Wetland
Edwardsville silt loam
ch
Honeycut Branch
Streams
OKIA C
16
Coop
High Density Urban
e Uppe S e C ee
Legend
C AH
¬ «
Land Cover Type
So s
¬ « ¬ «
Piasa Cr.
Streams
a e s ed MACOUPIN MONTGOMERY
Project Area
e C ee
16
May Branch
Legend
Miles 3.6
Topography
e Uppe S May Branch
a d Co e
2.7
MACOUPIN MONTGOMERY
Slope
1.8
Mascoutah silty clay loam
Bran
R
.
d
INDIA
Sherry Creek
Ruma silt loam
Virden silt loam
Marine silt loam
Bra
Bunkum silty clay loam
Ro c ky
MADISON BOND
55
nc h
Ruma silty clay loam
¦ ¨ §
MACOUPIN MADISON
Urban land Dumps
SILVE R CR
oo W
MONTGOMERY MADISON
Sherry Creek
. Fk
N CR
E.
PADDOCK CR
eyc ut
Ho n
SILVE R CR
N CR
INDIA
Piasa silt loam Winfield silty clay loam Winfield silt loam
PADDOCK CR
nch
Bra
Herrick silt loam
k or yF Dr le
ky
Wakenda silt loam
t Lit
Ro c
Streams
Aviston silt loam
Dry For k
MONTGOMERY MADISON
k
MACOUPIN MADISON
F or
Fk E.
d oo .W
R.
Tamalco silt loam Homen silt loam
Litt le S
¬ « 140
¬ « 111
¬ «
Menfro-Hickory silt loam
ilve r
Ruma-Hiclory silt loam
Cre
140
Pierron-Burksville silt loam Geff sitll loam
ek
Ridgway silt loam Menfro silt loam Menfro silty clay loam Orthents, silty
rk
Orthents, loamy
rk
Virden-Fosterburg silt loams Herrick-Biddle-Piasa silt loams
Cr ee k
Oconee-Darmstadt-Coulterville silt loams
Bunkum-Atlas sily clay loams
Sa
¬ «
Sug ar Fo
Coulterville-Darmstadt silt loams
nd
111
Hickory clay loam
159
nd
¬ «
¬ «
143
Sa
4
¬ «
Coulterville-Grantfork silty clay loams
Sug ar Fo
¬ «
¬ «
157
143
Cr ee k
¬ « 159
Hickory silt loam Atlas-Grantfork silty clay loams Bethalto silt loam 112A
R
143
¦ ¨ §
119C2
MADISON
¦ ¨ §
¬ «
70
SU GA RC
¬ « 157
127A 127B 16A 250D
790A
h
MADISON CLINTON
S
1
2
897D3 8D
4 Miles
8D2
ree k
tle Lit SIL V
8G 993A
En
Miscellaneous water
£ [
Water
50
2
3
Miles 4
Soils
Upper Silver Creek Watershed Plan
FK
nC
nte e MADISON ST. CLAIR
8F2
0 0.5 1
Land Cover
ch
897D2
0
CR , E
Fork ke La
897C2
DIT CH
tle
se
882B2
IN G
k
4 Miles
Lit
u lho oo Sch
882B
ST. CLAIR CLINTON
C re e
ch an Br st Ea
CAH
6C2
RD
50
6B2
h nc
HA
2
ra n c
gl e
Cr e e
k
CR DITCH ER
¦£ ¨ § [ 64
1
Br a
Fork ke La
an Br
Ca
657A
CR DITCH ER
161
OK IA C AN AL
5C2
g le
n ch s Bra
SILVER
583B
En
¬ «
Judy
515C2 581B
SIL V
0
441C2 470B2
MADISON ST. CLAIR
157
lB
438C2
40
Spa nke r
¬ «
Cant een Cr
nc h
AN AL IA C OK CAH
o o lh
£ [
160
Creek Mill
o Sch
255
a Br
3428A
h
¬ «
FK CR, E SILVER
l
k ee
Bra nc
de
162
Creek Mill
¦ ¨ §
e us
We n
3415A
We nd el l
¬ «
n ch s Bra J udy
re er C Silv
ek
L ch an Br st Ea
itt
le
MADISON CLINTON
S ST. CLAIR CLINTON
270
Water Quality Existing Impairments What is an impaired stream?
Legend Branch ove Gr
Impaired Streams (303d listed streams, 2014)
Big Branch
Streams
FK
CAHO KIA CR, W
R.
d
SILVER CR
MONTGOMERY MADISON
R
¦ ¨ § 55
Approximately 34,762 miles of streams in Illinois are assessed on a regular basis. This is out of a total of approximately 119,244 stream miles in Illinois. Out of the 34,472 miles of assessed streams, approximately 15,398 miles (44%) have been designated as “impaired”.(1)
k
ar Fork
CR
ee
Cr
Sa nd 270
ys Jud
Bra
ch ran ll B de
¦ ¨ § 70
n ch SILVE
R CR
,E
SUGAR CR
W en
¦ ¨ §
FK
40
se
B
ork eF
nt ee nC
re e
k
k
Lak
ou
h
Mill Cre e
Sc
o lh ho
Ca
0 0.75 1.5
MADISON ST. CLAIR 3
Miles
What is causing the impairment? For Silver Creek, the impairment is caused by dissolved oxygen, manganese, phosphorus, and sedimentation. For Troy Creek, the impairment is caused by phosphorus.(1)
£ [ nc ra
Streams in Illinois are regularly analyzed by the Illinois EPA for a variety of conditions including biological, physicochemical, physical habitat, and toxicity data. Streams are analyzed using categories including: aquatic life, fish consumption, public water supply, aesthetic quality, and primary contact. Each assessed stream segment is then rated as Fully Supporting (good), Not Supporting (fair), or Not Supporting (poor) for each applicable category. If a stream is rated at fair or poor, then the stream is categorized as “impaired” .
How many impaired streams are there in Illinois? Sug
CAH OK IA
Sherry C reek
Ro ck y
PADDOCK CR
Br an ch
I ND
I AN C
MACOUPIN MADISON
rk
E
oo W k. F .
D r y Fo
MACOUPIN MONTGOMERY
Project Area
tl Lit
ilv eS
ek Cre er MADISON CLINTON
Upper Silver Creek Watershed Plan
(1) Source: Illinois Integrated Water Quality Report and Section 303(d) List, 2014; Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Bureau of Water
Water Quality Existing Pollutant Estimates Legend
Methodology - Estimating Pollutant Loads
¬ « 138
¬ « 138
Nitrogen load estimates (lb/year) 0 - 20000 20001 - 45000
121231 lb/year
45001 - 70000 70001 - 95000 95001 - 120000
79838 lb/year
Overview: Nutrient and sediment loads for the Upper Silver Creek watershed were calculated using the Spreadsheet Tool for Estimating Pollutant Load (STEPL). STEPL employs simple algorithms developed though scientific research to calculate nutrient and sediment loads from different land uses.
120001 - 145000 54548 lb/year
11897 lb/year
¦ ¨ §
89669 lb/year
55
88080 lb/year
STEPL computes watershed surface runoff, nitrogen and phosphorus loads, and sediment delivery based on various land uses and management practices.
¬ « 140
¬ « 140
75843 lb/year
¬ «
61667 lb/year
65444 lb/year
¬ « 4
159
Data sources: The most recent National Land Cover Database (2011) was used as the source for land use data. Animal (livestock) data was obtained from the 2012 county level agricultural census database. Runoff volumes were based on longterm precipitation records from the Southern Illinois University weather station at Belleville. The remaining user input parameters were obtained from the STEPL On-line Data Access System ( http://it.tetratech-ffx.com/steplweb/steplweb.html)
¬ « 157
¬ « 143
¬ «
54941 lb/year
143
¬ « 159
39368 lb/year
¬ « 157
¬ «
52013 lb/year
34797 lb/year
34691 lb/year
143
¦ ¨ § 70
¦ ¨ §
¬ «
270
160
20957 lb/year 24665 lb/year
¬ « 162
Sediment calculations: The annual sediment load (sheet and rill erosion only) is calculated based on the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) and the sediment delivery ratio. Gully and streambank erosion are based on streambank stability assessments that are currently ongoing and will be added to the calculations upon completion.
£ [
24596 lb/year
40
68674 lb/year
29181 lb/year
23614 lb/year
0 0.75 1.5
3 Miles
Nitrogen Loads Legend Sediment load estimates (t/year)
Note: The estimated pollutant loads are based on a model, and do not necessarily reflect individual parcel/site conditions. The model will be used to help evaluate best management practices (BMPs). Legend
¬ « 138
¬ «
¬ « 138
¬ «
138
138
Phosphorus load estimates (lb/year)
401 - 800
5001 - 10000
801 - 1200
10001 - 15000
1794 t/year
1201 - 1600
15001 - 20000
1601 - 2000
20001 - 25000
2001 - 24000
25001 - 30000
1210 t/year
Note: Sediment load estimates does not include gully and streambank estimates at this time. Gully and streambank estimates are still being calculated and will be included in the Existing Conditions Report this fall.
17922 lb/year
786 t/year
1434 t/year
¦ ¨ §
28039 lb/year
¦ ¨ §
1291 t/year
55
1610 t/year
12406 lb/year
21898 lb/year
20628 lb/year
55
20374 lb/year
¬ «
¬ «
140
140
¬ «
¬ «
140
140
1203 t/year
1409 t/year
1102 t/year
¬ «
17730 lb/year
¬ « 4
¬ «
159
13956 lb/year
15198 lb/year
¬ « 4
159
¬ «
¬ «
157
¬ «
157
¬ «
143
143
¬ «
1404 t/year
143
¬ «
¬ «
13302 lb/year
143
¬ «
159
159
959 t/year
¬ « 157
814 t/year
829 t/year
¦ ¨ §
1306 t/year
¬ « 143
¬ « 157
¦ ¨ § 70
270
70
160
¬ « 162
¬ « 157
671 t/year
143
¬ «
597 t/year 580 t/year
¬ «
¦ ¨ §
270
160
162
12372 lb/year
7578 lb/year
7845 lb/year
¦ ¨ §
¬ « ¬ «
9072 lb/year
5136 lb/year 5086 lb/year
£ [
5647 lb/year
40
¬ «
£ [ 40
157
1742 t/year
1348 t/year
0 0.75 1.5
3 Miles
Sediment Loads
Upper Silver Creek Watershed Plan
16603 lb/year
5486 lb/year
693 t/year
5681 lb/year
0 0.75 1.5
3 Miles
Phosphorus Loads
Water Quality Overview Water Quality Benefits Ensuring clean water in the Upper Silver Creek Watershed has numerous benefits including: clean, safe supplies of drinking water; stream, ponds, and lakes suitable for recreation; navigable shipping channels further downstream; and healthy habitats that supports a wide variety of plant and animal life.
Water Quality Benefits: Helping to keep shipping channels open downstream. Water Quality Benefits: Ensuring clean supplies of drinking water for communities. Photo Source: Bond-Madison County Water Website
Sources of Non-Point Pollution
Water Quality Benefits: Ensuring lakes, ponds, and streams are suitable for recreation. Photos: Heritage Park in Marine
There are two types of water pollution: “point source” pollution and “non-point source” pollution. Point source pollution is discharged through a pipe or some other discrete source.
Photo Source: Flickr and Foursquare
Non-point source pollution is the result of many sources, when combined, can create impaired streams, lakes, and water bodies. Examples of non-point source pollution are metals, chlorides, oils, trash, fertilizers (nutrients), pesticides, and pet waste (E. coli). Water Quality Benefits: A healthy watershed that supports a wide variety of plant and animal life.
The graphics above and left illustrate common sources of non-point source pollution. Sources: Top graphic - Environmental Protection Agency; middle - University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Department of Landscape Architecture; left - NC Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Upper Silver Creek Watershed Plan
Flooding Existing Floodplain ¬ «
Eagarville
4
Legend
Dorchester
Mount Benld Clare
¬ «
Project Area
138
Lake Ka-Ho
Sawyerville
Wilsonville
Highways & state routes Waterbodies
White City
Walshville
Streams in Project Area Mount Olive
Bunker Hill
100-year Flood Zone in Project Area
MACOUPIN MONTGOMERY
County Boundaries Communities
0
1
2
4 Miles
Staunton
MACOUPIN MADISON
Williamson
MONTGOMERY MADISON
New Douglas
Livingston
MADISON BOND
Worden
Holiday Shores
§ ¦ ¨ 55
Bethalto
East Alton
MONTGOMERY BOND
¬ « 140
Hamel
Rosewood Heights
Alhambra
¬ « 140
Wood River
¬ « 111
¬ «
¬ «
4
159
Roxana South Roxana
¬ « 157
¬ « 143
¬ « 143
Hartford
Grantfork
Edwardsville
¬ « 159
Marine
¬ « 111
¬ « 157
Glen Carbon
¬ « 143
Highland Mitchell
Pierron
§ ¦ ¨ 70
§ ¦ ¨
¬ « 111
270
¬ « 160
Maryville Pontoon Beach
Troy
¬ « 162
St. Jacob
£ [ 40
Collinsville
¬ « 111
§ ¦ ¨ 255
¬ « 157
MADISON ST. CLAIR
Fairmont City
ST. CLAIR CLINTON
Caseyville O'Fallon
MADISON CLINTON
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
This map produced by HeartLands Conservancy (2014) w ith base data provided by USGS (2014), ESRI (2014), Madison County (2014), and HeartLands Conservancy (2014). w ww .HeartLandsConservancy.org 618-566-4451
Upper Silver Creek Watershed Plan
Flooding Overview A Long-Term Approach Addressing Flooding Issues Solving all flooding problems will not happen overnight. Long term strategies will be needed to reduce flooding impacts in the watershed. This plan will be an important step in the process, especially with a mailed and online survey in the fall of 2014 that will help identify areas of flooding that occur outside of designated floodplains. Additional study and analysis will likely be a key outcome of this process. This plan will be a key component of the Madison County Stormwater Plan.
Help Us Identify Existing Areas of Flooding Tonight there are detailed maps that the planning team is using to assist in identifying locations of existing flooding. Spend a few minutes discussing existing areas of flooding such as: t Locations of roads that are frequently over topped by flood events. t Locations of homes, businesses, or structures that are impacted by flooding. t Areas of erosion or other damage caused by flooding or stormwater.
Photos courtesy of Marine, IL
Upper Silver Creek Watershed Plan
Benefits of Watershed Planning Recent Articles About Watershed Planning Watershed plans are a great way for multiple partners (local leaders, stakeholders, agencies, landowners, etc) to develop goals and objectives for the watershed. A plan will then help prioritize future actions and projects, and identify sources of funding and partners that can assist in implementation. Recent articles in FarmWeek have highlighted the benefits of watershed plans and opportunities for sources of funding such as the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) and EPA 319 grants.
Upper Silver Creek Watershed Plan
Thanks for Coming! Next Steps What are the Next Steps? Thank you for attending the open house to learn more about the Upper Silver Creek Watershed Plan and to provide your input and comments! Tonight’s meeting is one part of the overall watershed plan. Upcoming next steps include: t Existing Conditions Report (Watershed Resource Inventory) - November, 2014 t Results of Community Flooding Survey - November, 2014 t Draft recommended best management practices and areas of focus - Winter, 2014/2015 t Draft Watershed Based Plan - Spring, 2015 t Follow-up meetings with stakeholders and Open House #2 - Spring, 2015 t Revisions to Watershed Based Plan - Summer, 2015 t Final Watershed Based Plan - October, 2015
Stay Involved! Be sure to sign up for our mailing list.
Process to Date The partners involved with the process thus far (Madison County, HeartLands Conservancy, National Great Rivers Research and Education Center, Madison County Soil and Water Conservation District and Midwest Streams) have been working on the plan since last winter. Some of the work thus far has included: t Aerial analysis of Silver Creek and streams to identify areas of erosion and stream issues. t Technical analysis for the existing conditions report. t Meetings with communities, landowners, and other stakeholders. t Field checks along Silver Creek and tributaries. The pictures to the right show some of the work to date.
Meeting with landowners this summer.
Field check of Silver Creek to review erosion.
Measuring streambank heights along Silver Creek.
Meeting with landowners this summer.
Upper Silver Creek Watershed Plan